Yeah and all shits and giggles now and makes for fun parlor games.

But the truth is, red and blue states are very different and the difference is growing fast.
The rate of societal and cultural change in the Blue states is astronomical. Just think back to 2000, 18 years ago.

Bush and Gore disagreed mainly over the type of prescription drug coverage. It was a no nothing election remarkable only for its closeness.

Think back just 30 years ago...Bush Sr. won California! Clinton won several southern states and Montana in 1992.

THe point is that there is real visceral hatred out there currently and red and blue states may as well be from another country. California and Texas gave nothing in common whatsoever.

I wouldn’t put it outside of the realm of possibility in the decades to come to have some day of reckoning with regards to the state of the union and America as we know it.

It isn't a red vs. blue issue. It is a rural vs. urban issue.
Democrats are concentrated in cities. Republicans aren't.
The more time goes on, the less Republicans there will be.
White people aren't making babies like they used to.

texdravid wrote:

Yeah and all shits and giggles now and makes for fun parlor games.

But the truth is, red and blue states are very different and the difference is growing fast.
The rate of societal and cultural change in the Blue states is astronomical. Just think back to 2000, 18 years ago.

Bush and Gore disagreed mainly over the type of prescription drug coverage. It was a no nothing election remarkable only for its closeness.

Think back just 30 years ago...Bush Sr. won California! Clinton won several southern states and Montana in 1992.

THe point is that there is real visceral hatred out there currently and red and blue states may as well be from another country. California and Texas gave nothing in common whatsoever.

I wouldn’t put it outside of the realm of possibility in the decades to come to have some day of reckoning with regards to the state of the union and America as we know it.

That's a pretty extreme viewpoint there.

Have you ever been to Austin or driven through the Central Valley in California? Lots of liberals and conservatives in those areas.

What about Memphis and Nashville in Tennessee? All democrats.

Pretty much anywhere outside New York City...very red. Same with western Mass.

We're way more united than we are divided where it counts.

KICT wrote:

It isn't a red vs. blue issue. It is a rural vs. urban issue.
Democrats are concentrated in cities. Republicans aren't.
The more time goes on, the less Republicans there will be.
White people aren't making babies like they used to.

I'll bet the flower children were saying the same thing in 1968. This generation is different, MAN! We're enlightened!

Its been happening for millennium.

Also, I'm generalizing here but if the Republicans get their act together and change course in a generation they could have the immigrant vote. Lots of religious and conservative people from Latin America would support that platform.

CCGPV wrote:

That's a pretty extreme viewpoint there.
Have you ever been to Austin or driven through the Central Valley in California? Lots of liberals and conservatives in those areas.
What about Memphis and Nashville in Tennessee? All democrats.
Pretty much anywhere outside New York City...very red. Same with western Mass.
We're way more united than we are divided where it counts.

The division texdravid speaks of is there, but you are correct it doesn't follow state lines perfectly. Austin is an outlier in Texas (so I hear) and most of the Central Valley would feel more comfortable if they were a part of Mississippi. But that doesn't change how bitterly divided the nation is - IMO.

That is why I gave you such pushback a week or so ago when you wanted to make light of the idea of civil insurrection here in the US. This is a serious issue and we all should cool it a bit - IMO.

salttee wrote:

CCGPV wrote:

That's a pretty extreme viewpoint there.
Have you ever been to Austin or driven through the Central Valley in California? Lots of liberals and conservatives in those areas.
What about Memphis and Nashville in Tennessee? All democrats.
Pretty much anywhere outside New York City...very red. Same with western Mass.
We're way more united than we are divided where it counts.

The division texdravid speaks of is there, but you are correct it doesn't follow state lines perfectly. Austin is an outlier in Texas (so I hear) and most of the Central Valley would feel more comfortable if they were a part of Mississippi. But that doesn't change how bitterly divided the nation is - IMO.

That is why I gave you such pushback a week or so ago when you wanted to make light of the idea of civil insurrection here in the US. This is a serious issue and we all should cool it a bit - IMO.

I get what you mean but I really don't think its that bad. There's lots of yelling on TV and in tiny tiny locations in a few cities but on the whole I think we're all pretty united on what really counts.

When was the last time you saw someone physically fight or actually scream over politics in a non-rally/political environment? I don't think I ever have.

Politics are charged right now but deep down we are all on the same team and generally believe along similar lines. Everyone is still going to work, being polite in the streets and going about their business. There's no real actual civil upset outside of a few charged events.

Sure, things might change but to say we're so charged up socially that we might break out into civil war or break up the nation...I think that's a big, big stretch.

CCGPV wrote:

I think we're all pretty united on what really counts........

When was the last time you saw someone physically fight or actually scream over politics in a non-rally/political environment? I don't think I ever have.............

Sure, things might change but to say we're so charged up socially that we might break out into civil war or break up the nation...I think that's a big, big stretch.

I think you're wrong.

salttee wrote:

CCGPV wrote:

I think we're all pretty united on what really counts........

When was the last time you saw someone physically fight or actually scream over politics in a non-rally/political environment? I don't think I ever have.............

Sure, things might change but to say we're so charged up socially that we might break out into civil war or break up the nation...I think that's a big, big stretch.

I think you're wrong.

Fair enough.

What do you think the timeline for your prediction is? Like a decade or less?

Is there any realistic way of stopping it?

CCGPV wrote:

salttee wrote:

CCGPV wrote:

I think we're all pretty united on what really counts........

When was the last time you saw someone physically fight or actually scream over politics in a non-rally/political environment? I don't think I ever have.............

Sure, things might change but to say we're so charged up socially that we might break out into civil war or break up the nation...I think that's a big, big stretch.

I think you're wrong.

Fair enough.

What do you think the timeline for your prediction is? Like a decade or less?

Is there any realistic way of stopping it?

I don't have any timeline. But I am aware that it is more that just the generals who visualize the last war for their future planning. There will be no Jefferson Davis, that's not how things will go off the rails. More like Cliven Bundy squared IMO.

CCGPV wrote:

Lots of religious and conservative people from Latin America would support that platform.

Which is the only reason they have any Hispanics in their ranks. However, family plays a big role in this and Hispanics tend to support each other over their religious beliefs any day, which is why when Republicans speak negatively about Hispanics, they don't buy what they sell. That doesn't mean there aren't cracks in the coalition. You'll find that Mexicans tend to resent Cubans due to the preferential treatment the latter get in terms of immigration; then again, Cubans can swing an election in Florida, the biggest swing state so of course they'll get the VIP treatment.

I've always wondered how would Puerto Rico behave as a state. Despite it having more Democrats than Republicans, the majority of voters are unaffiliated, economically liberal, and socially conservative. I wonder which party would establish itself as the dominant one.

CCGPV wrote:

Also, I'm generalizing here but if the Republicans get their act together and change course in a generation they could have the immigrant vote. Lots of religious and conservative people from Latin America would support that platform.

It looks like the Republican Party has been changing course, but it certainly hasn't been more pro immigrant.

JJJ wrote:

And that BMW factory would last a good 10 minutes after tariffs between SC and the USA were enacted.

Hardly so, the would probably have to lay off some workers and shorten some shifts, but they produce mostly for Export.

The US however would lose it biggest car exporter by value.

best regards
Thomas

tommy1808 wrote:

JJJ wrote:

And that BMW factory would last a good 10 minutes after tariffs between SC and the USA were enacted.

Hardly so, the would probably have to lay off some workers and shorten some shifts, but they produce mostly for Export.

The US however would lose it biggest car exporter by value.

best regards
Thomas

A lone country without any kind of trade agreement with third countries, trading under WTO rules?

10 minutes is too generous.

JJJ wrote:

A lone country without any kind of trade agreement with third countries, trading under WTO rules?

10 minutes is too generous.

They would have an agreement with the EU in no time, at least for cars. Besides, the max tariff for cars iirc is 22% into the EU. Not that much worse than the 10% BWM SC already has to pay.
Average duty on cars is 4.1%, so if SC doesn´t care about exporting light trucks into the EU, they may even get a better deal than they have today.

best regards
Thomas

Anyone seriously considering secession ought to take a look at Brexit. It is far, far less exciting than most posters seem to think it would be.

It is very hard to do, and in Brexit’s case, we’re talking about a sovereign country leaving a club of sovereign countries. Imagine part of a country seceding.

The British economy hasn’t collapsed or taken off like a rocket, and serious economists believe it will do neither. British companies haven’t left the Isles like rats a sinking ship because this concept called Global Trade means you can do business across borders. The British government isn’t and won’t be awash in endless cash it will no longer send to Brussels, because it will be eaten up by new expenses. The UK may have more of a say on its internal affairs, but loses all influence outside its borders.

One thing is sure, it will be very expensive in the short to mid term. A seceding state has to duplicate all sorts of government functions and services that the federal government is providing: A SCAA to replace the FAA, the Federal Reserve of California, the IRS, etc. with at best limited experience and no waiting talent pool to hire from. Where do South Carolina Republicans think they will find enough experienced civil servants to run their new Republic, if not among supposedly highly-paid Federal employees?

And while spending much coin and effort, the seceding state will have to hope and pray the Federal government is on the ball too. Just ask the UK’s Dept for International Trade how concerned they are at France’s lack of haste in ramping up customs capabilities on its side of their future border. It doesn’t matter what the UK does or negotiate. If France doesn’t have enough customs inspectors ready on time, the UK is not exporting anything across the Chunnel!

But, let us all believe in the fantasy that is the easy, pain-free, economically-wondrous secession of South Carolina, or California. The only thing that is seceding is, yet again, reason!