What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

The next "civil war" - A Liberal backlash against the conservative backlash? (1 Viewer)

Koya

Footballguy
This election was the culmination of the conservative backlash to progress made on any number of issues that offended their sensibilities while simultaneously overlooking legitimate concerns of the declining (white and non-urban) middle class.

That said, the popular vote was clearly in favor of the electoral loser. 

At the state level, you have near 50-50 purple states dominated by Red legislatures. 

Both of these results, especially the latter, demonstrate a disconnect with the majority will of the populace and the makeup of the governmental bodies that represent them.

Finally, both of the above results are a clear result of a very successful strategy to deny Dem blocks from voting... be it gerrymandering or prohibitively discriminatory voter ID regulations (called out by the courts, but too late to remedy before the last election).

The Supreme Court seems as partisan as ever, as does much of an overly polorized and politicised DC, even by the swamps illustrious standards.

Finally the Republicans lack of caring for anything but their own selfish interests coupled with the Dems utter malfeasance has led to Gorsuch now being names to the Court. It's quite possible 2 and possibly three even more conservative (and beholden to one party) judges are named in the coming years... all the while all demographics show the nation moving somewhat left on many issues... including the very issues that are at risk of going anachronistically backward in terms of progress through policy.  Finally, we may soon have a court that has as much disregard for the individual including their right to vote so long as it serves a political purpose. 

ALL these factors could coalesce to move the nation's legislation and government even further to the right while the nation's likely moves somewhat left at least on many social issues.  

SO... what happens in the perfect Conservative storm? What happens if/when more actions are taken to disenfranchise minorities, the poor and those on the left and very left of the spectrum? When corporations continue to obliterate the rights of the individuals, the environment etc? 

For a decade we've heard the cries of the south, the soft rural middle and other bastions of conservative thinking threaten to secede, how the country no longer represents their views. It was hollow rhetoric but strong nonetheless.

So now those voices hold control and may very well expand that grip on power expansively in the coming decade. All the while representing an even smaller majority of Americans than they Do today. 

Anti-city and pro rural fights will be slanted all the more to the latter not only within 50-50 states like NC but perhaps the nation.

At what point does the entire North East corridor and West Coast, with huge urban centrers that provide a vast majority of productivity and economic activity as compared with their rural brethren, say #### this ####.  It's bad enough NY for example sends multitudes on taxes more to the Fed govt than it receives back. Now you may have a fed govt that forces MORE restrictions on these liberal areas that are the absolute key economic base and powerhouse of our nation, all the moreso with a world economy more and more based on the knowledge worker and high skilled manufacturing?

Could we see 20 years down the road NY, CA and other states just say #### this ####... we are no longer going to financially support a nation that not only doesn't support us but takes continual active measures to infringe on our local governance while simultaneously harming economic competitiveness?

LETS PLAY THIS OUT:

The Northeast and west coast states band together and withhold all payments to the Feds. Totally cut the Feds off. Don't declare a secession but just say we won't support those who in turn use those resources to not only not tend to our needs but actively harm the local preferred way of living and even moreso perhaps, urban economies?

Do you think the Feds will send in the guards? Literally... what would the end game be. What if residents on these states had just too much and were willing to fight and die to protect their FREEDOM (it's how our nation was founded , let's not pretend it could never happen again)?

Seriously.. if the ruling class is more and more conservative while the nation progresses along expected trends with millennials and more diverse populations, when does that divide become so stark a step to force action by states to protect their residents, way of life, and economy?

maybe this sounds ridiculous, but a true some point enough could be enough. Why not just hand together and withhold funds and let the "states rights" crowd look to what... invade? 

Seriously could there be at least an economic civil war and how might that look and what might the reprucussions be for the nation as a whole?

I'll take some callers on the subject...

 
Hope that's not too lengthy to promote discussion. I'm dead serious on how this "could" play out of there are not intervening factors. Not that I except this result but it's hard to discount it either as we have a ruling party that could further entrench its power contrary to the actual democratic will of the people. 

 
Honestly, think that overtime demographics are going to hurt the Republicans. This election could be the wake up call for portions of society that have not voted/cared and with demographic changes I am not sure how many more elections end up the way the last one did.  

 
Honestly, think that overtime demographics are going to hurt the Republicans. This election could be the wake up call for portions of society that have not voted/cared and with demographic changes I am not sure how many more elections end up the way the last one did.  
I agree ... but we may have 20 years of hardened conservative policies whereby the voice of that growing majority is utterly unrepresented in our federal govt. 

at what point does the strong majority (either nationally or moreso much stronger regional majorities) revolt and wha does that revolt look like? 

I contend it MAY be economc sanctions against / economic secession from the fedsthe Feds

 
Hope that's not too lengthy to promote discussion. I'm dead serious on how this "could" play out of there are not intervening factors. Not that I except this result but it's hard to discount it either as we have a ruling party that could further entrench its power contrary to the actual democratic will of the people. 
The Right is wrong, the Left dont have a clue and the media that causes so many to chatter is actually keeping those who'd be out on the streets indoors. Loss of face and faith will be most of what happens for the next few years. The next shoe to drop is when tomfoolery sneaks one past our present stasis and people actually lose a right/freedom they've come to count on. If the people dont rise in force then, one can probably count on dunderhead populism to lapse into fascism. If they do rise, fascism will be the shark counter. So, I'm hopeful............yay us!

 
We lost an election because our candidate couldn't be bothered to communicate with a large part of her base.  It's time for anarchy!  Civil war!

 
I think the Left is pretty comfortable being less conservative than the country's leadership but it's now heading into a period where it's not actually outnumbered within the voting population. We can use things like civil disobedience and boycotts with great effectiveness with our greater numbers and overcome even the worst of the sort of natural way that geographical districting works against us. We won't need armed resistance; we'll just wear them down with demographics and disobedience. 

 
I agree ... but we may have 20 years of hardened conservative policies whereby the voice of that growing majority is utterly unrepresented in our federal govt. 

at what point does the strong majority (either nationally or moreso much stronger regional majorities) revolt and wha does that revolt look like? 

I contend it MAY be economc sanctions against / economic secession from the fedsthe Feds
I don't think it will be 20 years of these policies.  I think the future will be here much sooner then you think.  I sense a much greater desire/enthusiasm given the results of the election and demographics are already bad for republicans and Trump makes them worse given his policies.  

 
Honestly, think that overtime demographics are going to hurt the Republicans. This election could be the wake up call for portions of society that have not voted/cared and with demographic changes I am not sure how many more elections end up the way the last one did.  
Not if the Republicans flip the rust belt.  We might see this happen a few more times.

Perhaps if you at least pretended to give a #### about those people they might come back around.  

 
I think the Left is pretty comfortable being less conservative than the country's leadership but it's now heading into a period where it's not actually outnumbered within the voting population. We can use things like civil disobedience and boycotts with great effectiveness with our greater numbers and overcome even the worst of the sort of natural way that geographical districting works against us. We won't need armed resistance; we'll just wear them down with demographics and disobedience. 
And that we run all the best restaurants. Bring on the Porkbelly Rebellion!!

 
Honestly, the responses here only make my concerns that much more, well, concerning. 

My point is we have an ever more ingrained power structure to serve a Conservative agenda that is at odds with both social and economic well being of blue states.  If we move more blue as a nation, but the laws get more red, especially as/when it hits the economics, why not have NY or Cali just stop sending payments to the feds?

That's not armed conflict, either. Would only escalate to that if the Feds sent in troops to "get" the money (however the #### that might happen).

And ludicrous as this sounds, have nation's not turned away from their populations before, resulting in uprisings at the best, and all out war at the worst? I tend to think it would be more the former, and then economic retribution, but from there I really don't know how it plays out. 

 
Honestly, the responses here only make my concerns that much more, well, concerning. 

My point is we have an ever more ingrained power structure to serve a Conservative agenda that is at odds with both social and economic well being of blue states.  If we move more blue as a nation, but the laws get more red, especially as/when it hits the economics, why not have NY or Cali just stop sending payments to the feds?

That's not armed conflict, either. Would only escalate to that if the Feds sent in troops to "get" the money (however the #### that might happen).

And ludicrous as this sounds, have nation's not turned away from their populations before, resulting in uprisings at the best, and all out war at the worst? I tend to think it would be more the former, and then economic retribution, but from there I really don't know how it plays out. 
Ronald Reagan had a large majority of the electorate ready to carve out space on Rushmore for his mug. The current crop in power doesn't have a mandate anything like that and, worse for them, they have clearly demonstrated that they have neither wish nor ability to manage the nation's affairs. They'll have to perform ever greater miracles of gerrymandering to hang onto Congress and the White House after a mostly leftish electorate has gotten a good look at their "work" for a couple of years.

 
Honestly, the responses here only make my concerns that much more, well, concerning. 

My point is we have an ever more ingrained power structure to serve a Conservative agenda that is at odds with both social and economic well being of blue states.  If we move more blue as a nation, but the laws get more red, especially as/when it hits the economics, why not have NY or Cali just stop sending payments to the feds?

That's not armed conflict, either. Would only escalate to that if the Feds sent in troops to "get" the money (however the #### that might happen).

And ludicrous as this sounds, have nation's not turned away from their populations before, resulting in uprisings at the best, and all out war at the worst? I tend to think it would be more the former, and then economic retribution, but from there I really don't know how it plays out. 
i can't speak to NY, but in CA there is a vast Conservative population....they just don't reside in Marin/SF/OAK/Silicon Valley and Los Angeles County, and are currently represented as a minority in the State Legislature. 

 
Not if the Republicans flip the rust belt.  We might see this happen a few more times.

Perhaps if you at least pretended to give a #### about those people they might come back around.  
Do the republicans give a #### about them?  Policies don't seem to.  

 
Last edited by a moderator:
i recall January of 81, sitting in seventh grade social studies class on the day of Reagan's inauguration ... our 'teacher' was a relic hippie broad, who was always a tad eccentric, but on this day she showed us unhinged - launching into vitriolic fervor about how John Anderson was a C.I.A. plant who was inserted into the race to steal votes from Carter, and prevented the incumbent from winning.  

she always had her hair up in a bun, but on this day she let it down (never much of a looker, think Leatherface in his clown/makeup mask) and, man, was it ratty ... it was then that she attacked the chalkboard, and wrote 'INSANE ANGLO WARLORD: about a dozen times (anagram of Ronald Wilson Reagan) - practically in tears telling us that him and Falwell were in cahoots to bring the 'End of Days' through total nuclear obliteration. 

our only hope, she declared, was severe social insurrection, or else 'we will never see a liberal/Democrat ever elected again, and our country will devolve into a hard right religious prison'  - not exactly verbatim here, but pretty damn close ... will never forget all the hand wringin' and looney toon #### that swirled about ol' Ronnie's presidency. 

how we  doin'?

 
i can't speak to NY, but in CA there is a vast Conservative population....they just don't reside in Marin/SF/OAK/Silicon Valley and Los Angeles County, and are currently represented as a minority in the State Legislature. 
They don't hold the economic capability of following through on such a threat, do it's an idle one, at best.  They also benefit in many ways from the economic generation of the urban centers.  In the case I posit (which is an extreme one, granted, just looking to spur some convo here), NY does not gain nearly so much from KY or WV as the other way around. 

 
And that we run all the best restaurants. Bring on the Porkbelly Rebellion!!
Sorta along those lines, there's also Hollywood and the mainstream media pounding regularly away at themes of injustice and unfairness (could they do a better job at this? of course, but that will always be the case). But, again, a big edge the Left has is that it's a lot more comfortable being disobedient to authority in a way that the other side never has been. We keep pushing the envelope all the time and it's really hard for the right side of the spectrum to take strong action against that -- it's a little like how the tide turned in favor of gay rights -- everybody knows gay people. 

 
i recall January of 81, sitting in seventh grade social studies class on the day of Reagan's inauguration ... our 'teacher' was a relic hippie broad, who was always a tad eccentric, but on this day she showed us unhinged - launching into vitriolic fervor about how John Anderson was a C.I.A. plant who was inserted into the race to steal votes from Carter, and prevented the incumbent from winning.  

she always had her hair up in a bun, but on this day she let it down (never much of a looker, think Leatherface in his clown/makeup mask) and, man, was it ratty ... it was then that she attacked the chalkboard, and wrote 'INSANE ANGLO WARLORD: about a dozen times (anagram of Ronald Wilson Reagan) - practically in tears telling us that him and Falwell were in cahoots to bring the 'End of Days' through total nuclear obliteration. 

our only hope, she declared, was severe social insurrection, or else 'we will never see a liberal/Democrat ever elected again, and our country will devolve into a hard right religious prison'  - not exactly verbatim here, but pretty damn close ... will never forget all the hand wringin' and looney toon #### that swirled about ol' Ronnie's presidency. 

how we  doin'?
I hear you... but I see specific efforts - VERY successful ones mind you - on the part of the Republicans and Conservatives to tilt the vote in their favor, all the while the underlying sentiment is seeping slowly away from them.

They've loaded the guns in their favor to win elections through gerrymandering and voter ID.  Now, they may put themselves in a position where the final check on such offronts to democracy is eliminated by a Partisan court.  I'm just playing out the most extreme - but feasible - case, where you have a court that rubber stamps legislation written and voted through by folks who no longer represent a majority of their constituents. 

You think that trend go on forever without the people's upheaval? And, because of the efforts listed above, the actual viability of a democratic process and vote could be rendered muted, if not mute.... we may have "10%" MORE democrats than today, but because of more screws being put to tilt elections toward the Republicans, with a court that would look the other way, it may not matter. 

I suppose my question is when would the tipping point occur of a government that is so out of touch with the populace, at least in very important states economically that "could" survive without federal assistance? And if that tipping point were to occur (as it has in countless ways throughout history, be it a small village or an empire), how might it play out. 

 
i can't speak to NY, but in CA there is a vast Conservative population....they just don't reside in Marin/SF/OAK/Silicon Valley and Los Angeles County, and are currently represented as a minority in the State Legislature. 
Also, NY's rural areas are in line with the voting composition of KY or WV... VERY conservative, VERY rural. 

They'd yell and scream how great it would be to "Separate" themselves from the liberal southern tier... and then would go bankrupt nearly instantly, as what talent and economic might they had would mostly flee for the "New New York" urban centers anyway. 

 
Ronald Reagan had a large majority of the electorate ready to carve out space on Rushmore for his mug. The current crop in power doesn't have a mandate anything like that and, worse for them, they have clearly demonstrated that they have neither wish nor ability to manage the nation's affairs. They'll have to perform ever greater miracles of gerrymandering to hang onto Congress and the White House after a mostly leftish electorate has gotten a good look at their "work" for a couple of years.
Have you seen NC? Its legislature is what, 85% red... the state is near 50-50 and just voted in a dem gov. 

 
Can we get a working definition of conservative first? I have no idea what the term means anymore. For instance, there are tons of what I used to identify as conservatives who post here who have little to do with the folks that voted Trump in.

 
WP cited Rome. We see the Syrian Civil War images now. The first American civil war killed 2% of the population. To risk utter anarchy because of the current issues that separate Americans would be the dumbest idea ever.

 
Also, NY's rural areas are in line with the voting composition of KY or WV... VERY conservative, VERY rural. 

They'd yell and scream how great it would be to "Separate" themselves from the liberal southern tier... and then would go bankrupt nearly instantly, as what talent and economic might they had would mostly flee for the "New New York" urban centers anyway. 
while the the Conservative contingent in CA my have similar voting compositions to KY and WV, there one big difference: they reside in a place that supplies about 25% of the food for the United States. 

not saying that they don't need the Liberals in the urban centers and what they provide; however,  they'd have a much smaller chance of facing an instant bankruptcy unless the water gets turned off.

but then nose, face, spite, something something. 

 
Sorta along those lines, there's also Hollywood and the mainstream media pounding regularly away at themes of injustice and unfairness (could they do a better job at this? of course, but that will always be the case). But, again, a big edge the Left has is that it's a lot more comfortable being disobedient to authority in a way that the other side never has been. We keep pushing the envelope all the time and it's really hard for the right side of the spectrum to take strong action against that -- it's a little like how the tide turned in favor of gay rights -- everybody knows gay people. 
If Petersburg has a supply line, we can bomb it to Kingdom Come without effect. Big Money learned a vested interest in stasis and is just flat loving this and has most of the chickencoops guarded by foxes already.

The political spectrum of America was 20-60-20 for most of the 20thC. It's 20-50-30, maaaaybe 20-45-35 now. That means we outnumber the Jacobins still by 2-to-1, so we can still make them trump (no pun intended) Democracy. But hurling poop over fences as a matter of identity is not politics, Wokies are as pathetic as Nazis and clickbait ain't change. Politics is local - develop a consensus of sense at least half as strong as their nonsense, give porkbelly to manbuns and shedogs in exchange for time-money-service and start throwing your own bums out from the bottom to the top of the chain. If you do it before Donald J Yeltsin locks up what George W Gorbachev set free, you got a 50/50 shot. You can see why i'm not hopeful and out of analogies.....

 
If liberals showed up to vote the way that conservatives do they'd win every national election, hands down, period. But they don't. The Obama coalition was made up of young people and minorities and they simply don't show up, especially in off year elections. They march, they protest, they gather, but they're not there when it counts. Young people in particular. That's why Bernie couldn't beat Hillary (one reason). 

Will this change in reaction to Trump and the conservatives? Maybe. But it's hard for me to believe it until it happens. 

 
If liberals showed up to vote the way that conservatives do they'd win every national election, hands down, period. But they don't. The Obama coalition was made up of young people and minorities and they simply don't show up, especially in off year elections. They march, they protest, they gather, but they're not there when it counts. Young people in particular. That's why Bernie couldn't beat Hillary (one reason). 

Will this change in reaction to Trump and the conservatives? Maybe. But it's hard for me to believe it until it happens. 
So young people get older and vote R?

 
WP cited Rome. We see the Syrian Civil War images now. The first American civil war killed 2% of the population. To risk utter anarchy because of the current issues that separate Americans would be the dumbest idea ever.
Who is risking utter anarchy.. a state withholding payments to the feds because they are getting screwed out of both their fair share and being imposed upon by the greedy feds taking that unfair share, or... well... again, my question is what happens to call that "bluff" or action if undertaken. 

 
while the the Conservative contingent in CA my have similar voting compositions to KY and WV, there one big difference: they reside in a place that supplies about 25% of the food for the United States. 

not saying that they don't need the Liberals in the urban centers and what they provide; however,  they'd have a much smaller chance of facing an instant bankruptcy unless the water gets turned off.

but then nose, face, spite, something something. 
Oh, there would be a lot of spiting going on in any scenario that would come CLOSE to what I suggest "could" result... but it's an extreme hypothetical for purposes of discussion (something that a few of our slower posters obviously have a hard time understanding)

 
Who is risking utter anarchy.. a state withholding payments to the feds because they are getting screwed out of both their fair share and being imposed upon by the greedy feds taking that unfair share, or... well... again, my question is what happens to call that "bluff" or action if undertaken. 
That state would be declaring independence and the federal government would almost certainly march into the state capital and disassemble the government.

No state is dumb enough to do that.

 
Can we get a working definition of conservative first? I have no idea what the term means anymore. For instance, there are tons of what I used to identify as conservatives who post here who have little to do with the folks that voted Trump in.
That is part of the problem. We seem to now be beholden to a strongly partisan very ideological sect of what had been a much more broad conservative movement.  Hell, I just repeated to my parents two nights ago how I should have been voting mostly republican for the last 10-12 years, but the party has just run away from me on so many fronts.

 
Who is risking utter anarchy.. a state withholding payments to the feds because they are getting screwed out of both their fair share and being imposed upon by the greedy feds taking that unfair share, or... well... again, my question is what happens to call that "bluff" or action if undertaken. 
You are. This question was settled in '65 and should remain settled. Political action by civilians is much different than state sponsored disobedience. Much like happened on Little Rock, the national guard would have to be called out to force the state to comply.

 
That state would be declaring independence and the federal government would almost certainly march into the state capital and disassemble the government.

No state is dumb enough to do that.
I contend that it would not be so simple.  You REALLY think if CA, OR, WA, NY, CT, MA all did this at the same time the feds would send in armed troops?  What if there were then hundreds of thousands of protesters on the steps of those state capitals...

This is my point, I think there'd be a ton more power in such a coalition IF it ever came to it.  I don't believe it will. I certainly hope to god it doesn't... but again, we are working on an extreme hypothetical.  My contention is IF it somehow got that bad, I'm not sure sure the Feds would send in the troops, and Im not so sure that, if they did, the states wouldn't have huddled masses if not "troops" of their own. 

Honestly, it seems a bit of a waste to put out this conjecture here, I should just be writing the script for a movie already. 

 
You are. This question was settled in '65 and should remain settled. Political action by civilians is much different than state sponsored disobedience. Much like happened on Little Rock, the national guard would have to be called out to force the state to comply.
Oh, well if it were settled in '65 I guess nothing could possibly ever change. (I contend it probably wouldn't... but it definitely "could" )

 
Oh, well if it were settled in '65 I guess nothing could possibly ever change. (I contend it probably wouldn't... but it definitely "could" )
I'm not saying it won't, I'm saying it shouldn't. Suggesting disloyalty to the union because of the relatively minor differences is utter garbage. America is greatest through compromise, not obstinacy 

 
while the the Conservative contingent in CA my have similar voting compositions to KY and WV, there one big difference: they reside in a place that supplies about 25% of the food for the United States. 

not saying that they don't need the Liberals in the urban centers and what they provide; however,  they'd have a much smaller chance of facing an instant bankruptcy unless the water gets turned off.

but then nose, face, spite, something something. 
That's a good point.  Most all of the dams are in heavy conservative areas.  California would probably have to get the national guard out there to try and protect all of them.  Those dams go and the urban centers are completely screwed.

 
I contend that it would not be so simple.  You REALLY think if CA, OR, WA, NY, CT, MA all did this at the same time the feds would send in armed troops?  What if there were then hundreds of thousands of protesters on the steps of those state capitals...

This is my point, I think there'd be a ton more power in such a coalition IF it ever came to it.  I don't believe it will. I certainly hope to god it doesn't... but again, we are working on an extreme hypothetical.  My contention is IF it somehow got that bad, I'm not sure sure the Feds would send in the troops, and Im not so sure that, if they did, the states wouldn't have huddled masses if not "troops" of their own. 

Honestly, it seems a bit of a waste to put out this conjecture here, I should just be writing the script for a movie already. 
Without a doubt.  This is all predicated on a conservative federal government right?  Otherwise, there would be no need to revolt.

 
Without a doubt.  This is all predicated on a conservative federal government right?  Otherwise, there would be no need to revolt.
Agreed. The government can turn a blind eye to pot. Can tolerate sanctuary, but withholding funds is too big a pill

 
Without a doubt.  This is all predicated on a conservative federal government right?  Otherwise, there would be no need to revolt.
Far more than just a conservative federal government.  An overarching every more conservative federal govt that, in this case, would trample on the rights of minorities, immigrants, LGBTQ, voting rights in general for Democratic cohorts in addition to policies that did more harm to urban areas in favor of rural (we already have a hugely disproportionate part of our national budget get redirected from the urban centers which make the money to rural centers than use it up and give little back, economically). Say it's all that, plus the Feds start cracking down on issues like sanctuary cities, maybe it gets so far as public schools, if they still exist, promote Christianity to a point where without passing a class in it, you don't gradutate.. im talking the extreme wet dream of many hard conservatives in putting the screws to those liberal hell hole urban centers (again, the ones from which our nation gets a majority of its economic might).

At that point you are indirectly AND DIRECTLY doing harm both economically and in terms of really forcing people to live in a manner inconsistent with their sense of freedom and individual choice.  

Maybe the Feds then block money for any public transit, any school that doesnt do the aforementioned, any funding to any city that crosses the conservative line... I could see a NY or Cali saying fine, don't give us money... because it's ours anyway, and we simply won't deliver those funds to the government anymore. 

That "type" of scenario is the only one in which something like this could feasibly occur... but its' "feasible" if all those extreme elements lined up. Again, feasible because these are economies that COULD self sustain, whereas no matter how much KY or WV might have whined about Obama, they'd stand no chance without living off the gov't teet, fed by the wealth of urban centers that KY and WV abhor.

 
That's a good point.  Most all of the dams are in heavy conservative areas.  California would probably have to get the national guard out there to try and protect all of them.  Those dams go and the urban centers are completely screwed.
WAR... WHAT IS IT GOOD FOR?

So, maybe the red minority that contributes far less to the economic well being of our nation should get their greedy selfish hands off those blue cities that are the reason we all have our freedom today.  And, FWIW, those blue centers are often way more Liberal than am I (see Chicago, or NYC... god, I can't STAND De Blasio)

 
Agreed. The government can turn a blind eye to pot. Can tolerate sanctuary, but withholding funds is too big a pill
Pot, sanctuary cities, etc. all have a process and some grey area that the courts deal with.  If you decide to punt the authority of every branch of the federal government and the constitution in one fell swoop you are declaring independence.  

The government I suspect would move to protect their institutions and assets in the state and reassert federal authority.  I would expect the same response from a liberal government if a conservative state did the same thing.

Whats the alternative?  Dissolve the federal government and the constitution and start from scratch?  No federal government, liberal or conservative, is going to do that.

 
WAR... WHAT IS IT GOOD FOR?

So, maybe the red minority that contributes far less to the economic well being of our nation should get their greedy selfish hands off those blue cities that are the reason we all have our freedom today.  And, FWIW, those blue centers are often way more Liberal than am I (see Chicago, or NYC... god, I can't STAND De Blasio)
Exactly.  A civil war would be very bad for everybody.

 
If the dems were smart they would not enforce immigration laws, have 10-20 million illegal immigrants come into the country and than get them the right to vote...

 
Exactly.  A civil war would be very bad for everybody.
But, at some point every nation that has entered into one had a group of people that felt so threatened/disenfranchised, the war progressed anyway.

Are we to be so foolish as to think we are immune?

BTW, if indeed the states I mentioned all banded together to not pay into the fed coffers, my guess is it would trigger a constitutional crisis and that would be worked out through governmental and political channels to avoid an actual war. 

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top