civil war is inevitable

martin said:
Well, we don't know what will happen. But I think we do know our "reason to exist" as the constitutional nation state we are. It isn't and never was to stave off a foreign "existential enemy", rather to prevent one from arising from within, just what faces us now as nearly half the country is under the spell of a would be dictator.
Click to expand...

Not exactly, but we can make educated predictions.

Example; if one child drops out of HS to work at a gas station and other continues to and graduates from college; all data suggests that the college-bound person will be more successful in the long run. Sure, the college grad may end up in prison as a coke-addicted hedge fund manager and the dropout owning the gas station he's worked at for 20 years, but the odds are against it.

Disagreed on your statement about our "reason to exist"(as a nation) since it's clearly spelled out in the Preamble to the Constitution:

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

"Common defense", as in Federal oaths of office, means "against all enemies, foreign and domestic".
 
Micawber said:
Here's an experiment, the country agrees on paper to divide into red land and blue land.
Everyone is given 2 years to get their affairs in order and make a selection.
Everything west of the Mississippi river will be blue, east- Red. Citizenship would apply
the second the 2 years expires and you had to stay on your side of a giant Trumpy type wall.
Red can build and create whatever govt they want and blue theirs.

What would people do?
Click to expand...

The Mississippi obviously wouldn't be the dividing line, Except for the Southeast, both coasts would be blue.
The Great Lakes States would be split.
There would be no walls. We don't have one with Canada and only trumpanzees wanted one with Mexico.
The partition would be nothing like the premise.
 
NiftyNiblick said:
The Mississippi obviously wouldn't be the dividing line, Except for the Southeast, both coasts would be blue.
The Great Lakes States would be split.
There would be no walls. We don't have one with Canada and only trumpanzees wanted one with Mexico.
The partition would be nothing like the premise.
Click to expand...

I agree I did not consider anything about politics or the census.

You are fighting my hypo and therefore the purpose. I want to know if people would be even willing to move
as a result of a peaceful dissolution to align their circumstances with their govt. desires, much less bear arms against her in order to
bring about such change with blood. My question is a rhetorical comment. Nobody is lifting a damn finger
to secede. The OP is idiotic. A perverse pipe dream of wackjob right aggrandizement.
 
Dutch Uncle said:
Not exactly, but we can make educated predictions.

Example; if one child drops out of HS to work at a gas station and other continues to and graduates from college; all data suggests that the college-bound person will be more successful in the long run. Sure, the college grad may end up in prison as a coke-addicted hedge fund manager and the dropout owning the gas station he's worked at for 20 years, but the odds are against it.

Disagreed on your statement about our "reason to exist"(as a nation) since it's clearly spelled out in the Preamble to the Constitution:

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

"Common defense", as in Federal oaths of office, means "against all enemies, foreign and domestic".
Click to expand...

No. Every nation will provide for defending itself. What was unique in The Constitution is "secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity" (emphasized with capital letters). SmarterthanNoOne had it exactly backward. The United States exists in the democratic form it does not to guard against an existential threat from without - it would have done that as an autocratic nation too, but to guard against the loss of the "Blessings of Liberty".
 
martin said:
No. Every nation will provide for defending itself. What was unique in The Constitution is "secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity" (emphasized with capital letters). SmarterthanNoOne had it exactly backward. The United States exists in the democratic form it does not to guard against an existential threat from without - it would have done that as an autocratic nation too, but to guard against the loss of the "Blessings of Liberty".
Click to expand...

I think Dutch's and your comments logically coexist.
 
martin said:
No. Every nation will provide for defending itself. What was unique in The Constitution is "secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity" (emphasized with capital letters). SmarterthanNoOne had it exactly backward. The United States exists in the democratic form it does not to guard against an existential threat from without - it would have done that as an autocratic nation too, but to guard against the loss of the "Blessings of Liberty".
Click to expand...
Guarding against all enemies, foreign and domestic, is a responsibility of the Federal government per the Constitution.

However, as note in the preamble, it's not the only responsibility.

I fail to see why anyone would disagree that part of the reason we have a Federal government is to protect the nation from enemies including "existential threats".
 
Dutch Uncle said:
Guarding against all enemies, foreign and domestic, is a responsibility of the Federal government per the Constitution.

However, as note in the preamble, it's not the only responsibility.

I fail to see why anyone would disagree that part of the reason we have a Federal government is to protect the nation from enemies including "existential threats".
Click to expand...

Don't disagree, but until the Revolutionary War there was already that protection from the colonial governments and Great Britain. The reason for a new national government and constitution was the freedom of self government and personal liberties the colonists did not have.
 
martin said:
Don't disagree, but until the Revolutionary War there was already that protection from the colonial governments and Great Britain. The reason for a new national government and constitution was the freedom of self government and personal liberties the colonists did not have.
Click to expand...

The external threat being both the French and the Indians. Remember this?:

https://www.history.com/topics/native-american-history/french-and-indian-war
The Seven Years’ War (called the French and Indian War in the colonies) lasted from 1756 to 1763, forming a chapter in the imperial struggle between Britain and France called the Second Hundred Years’ War.

In the early 1750s, France’s expansion into the Ohio River valley repeatedly brought it into conflict with the claims of the British colonies, especially Virginia. In 1754, the French built Fort Duquesne where the Allegheny and Monongahela Rivers joined to form the Ohio River (in today’s Pittsburgh), making it a strategically important stronghold that the British repeatedly attacked.

During 1754 and 1755, the French won a string of victories, defeating in quick succession the young George Washington, Gen. Edward Braddock and Braddock’s successor, Governor William Shirley of Massachusetts.
Click to expand...
 
There is no way to separate. American states are all mixed into Dems and haters. the entire concept is preposterous. 62 pages of utter stupidity.
 
martin said:
So? The reason for a new Constitutional government wasn't to wipe out the Indians or deal with the French. That's all I'm saying. You won't find that in Patrick Henry or Thomas Paine or any other inspired Revolutionary.
Click to expand...

Then what was it for? I think the Preamble is clear on the subject.

Not sure what you mean about Henry or Paine.
 
Nordberg said:
There is no way to separate. American states are all mixed into Dems and haters. the entire concept is preposterous. 62 pages of utter stupidity.
Click to expand...

Agreed but the fantasy side of this "debate" refuses to believe they won't eventually live out their fantasy an an all-white America just like on "Leave it to Beaver".
 
Dutch Uncle said:
Then what was it for? I think the Preamble is clear on the subject.

Not sure what you mean about Henry or Paine.
Click to expand...

I think I said what it is for: freedom. What I mean about the agitators like Henry and Paine is the impetus for forging a new nation they extolled - the desire to be free, free of England and the right to live as free citizens.
 
martin said:
I think I said what it is for: freedom. What I mean about the agitators like Henry and Paine is the impetus for forging a new nation they extolled - the desire to be free, free of England and the right to live as free citizens.
Click to expand...

The initial freedom was to be treated like a full British citizen, not a second class citizen. When the King refused, then more people thought about breaking from England. That's well known.

We're talking about the nation. Why not just 13 colonies? Each, IIRC, already had their own charters, constitutions, etc. So why the need for the Articles of Confederation? Why a Constitution?....which wasn't ratified until 11 years after the Declaration of Independence.

Because they knew that the best way to preserve their freedom was by standing together.

I submit that the reason is in the Preamble itself. The collective defense and to resolve. The moral of Aesop's Fables about the bulls and the quarreling brothers wrapped up in legalese.

Three Bullocks & a lion http://read.gov/aesop/101.html

The Bundle of Sticks http://read.gov/aesop/040.html

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
 
martin said:
"Since the demise of the USSR, the “American Empire” no longer had an existential enemy and therefore no reason to exist."

This is the premise of the argument for our looming demise. I assume it's been answered elsewhere in the 50 plus pages of this thread. Was worry about their existential enemy the reason for The Constitution? Not unless the Founders forgot they had just gotten rid of their existential enemy.
Click to expand...

There are many enemies of the United States...not the least is Democrats. They discard the Constitution.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top