Didn't expect this take on the subject; I'm curious how you reconcile the detailed claims of an 'organized seditious conspiracy' with the broader notion of democratic accountability for a major politic party. It makes me wonder about the implications for social cohesion and the democratic process when such strong accusations are especialy leveled, and what solutions you envision for bridging these divides in such a polarized context?
The Civil War motives, on the other hand, are nearly identical with the insurrection of today: Power and Money, for Democrats. Power from the slaves in the census up the Civil War gave Democrats about 25% more Congressional seats than they should have had. Power today by including illegals in the census gives Democrats more seats. Money: then because slaves enriched Democrat elites. Money today: by running the money available to Democrats with large illegal populations through laundering operations, billions go to Democrats and their favored clients
Based on last week’s incident in the City Council here in San Antonio, and antics in places like Maine and elsewhere, this is not likely to be contained to Minnesota much longer, unfortunately.
I don't see why a war is necessary here. If the blue states want to be a separate country, let them. The peaceful dissolution of the Union is the logical solution, with self-determination for everyone.
While both sides have bandied secessionist rhetoric about from time to time, thus far the prevailing political consensus in this country is that secession is a non-starter, and has been since the end of the Civil War in 1865.
Economically, the ramifications of splitting the country into two more separate countries would be charitably described as apocalyptic. While several state economies are, on paper, among the world's largest, those state economies only exist within the larger US economy. Pull those economies out and make them stand on their own and every one of them is sure to get a good deal smaller.
Not to mention what would become of the national debt. In a divorce liabilities are divided just as are assets. How much of the national debt would the blue states be willing to take?
No state bent on seceding from the Union would want to take any portion of the national debt when they left. If that were allowed to happen, the debt burden would become proportionally heavier on the rump portion of the United States, simply by virtue of its economy having been summarily shrunk.
In the abstract, a national divorce sounds prudent and reasonable. When you get down to the political and economic hard deck, however, it's a non-starter.
There's no reason that free trade could not be maintained, with suitable border-adjustment taxes to account for implicit subsidies given to production in one side or the other. It's in no one's interests for such economic interdependencies to fail.
As for the national debt, it could simply be divided on a per capita basis as a condition of exit. If all else fails, repudiate it. No one's going to be able to enforce it against America's military might, and if both new governments are left unable to borrow without putting up real collateral, good - that's a nontrivial part of how we got in this situation in the first place.
If there are "suitable border adjustment taxes" there is no free trade. The two are mutually exclusive.
Such taxes would be a cost of exchanging goods and services which does not currently exist between states. They would shrink the economies on both sides from their current sizes.
As for a per capita division of the national debt, while that sounds great in theory,the political reality is not likely to be anywhere near that rational. Just look at the fustercluck of Brexit for an idea of what the dysfunctional separation negotiations would look like.
As for repudiating the national debt, there are few suggestions more economically suicidal for the US than that.
The border adjustment taxes would exist to offset subsidies, explicit or implicit, that one side provides to another. This makes the trade more free in the sense that it aligns true costs to market prices better. For example, if the Dem country instituted a carbon tax and the Rep one did not, a border adjustment tax on energy-intensive goods imported from the Rep country would be efficiency-maximizing because it would avoid artificially making those goods cheaper when they happened to be made in the Rep country and thus skewing the calculus on where they should be made (and undermining the purpose of the carbon tax).
I agree that the negotiations would be a shitshow, but that can hardly get much worse than current politics.
As for repudiation, we may be headed there anyway with where our debt/GDP ratio is headed.
Not directly related, but I wish our government would streamline the immigration process. I know people who have submitted paperwork, they are amazing citizens and families and yet now they're scared of ICE because their paperwork has been "pending" for 5-15y?! I think if the Govt could do something positive like fast-track those who have submitted paperwork or came invited under previous Admins and can be vetted as good hardworking people it would go a long way. Yes I want the criminals out, so do my friends as they're are truly menacing, but in light of our upcoming 250th Celebration we need to remember our strength is being a melting pot - all our families immigrated. Conservatives would do well to remove the hate and negativity towards immigrants. Maybe this way it would be clearer that the protesters are trying to keep criminals on the street? God Help Us All indeed.
Conservatives follow the law. We don’t have problems
woth people who follow the law. If you want to be here, take the offer ans come legally. Get rid of the criminals and all the people who have fraud the taxpayers … anyone who has recieved benefits they should not have. I earned my money and I didn’t work hard so they could get it.
The crazy thing is that if Democrats would propose serious immigration reform, including streamlining the process, they would almost certainly find there's bipartisan support for the idea.
President Trump when he was running back in 2016 championed a "merit-based" immigration system, where emphasis is made on job skills. I suspect a lot of people would support that (although a skills-based system needs to NOT be even tangentially related to the current H1-B system).
Aside from a small but vocal minority within the MAGA Coalition, most Trump supporters are not opposed to LEGAL immigration. Most would probably be open to a discussion about how to improve the immigration system.
There's room for bipartisan consensus on these issues, but Democrats won't even put anything forward because Trump. It all has to be about "orange man bad."
I believe we can still avoid civil war if President Trump acts - firmly, and in the right ways with the right timing. We have the laws on our side. We have the Constitution on our side. The lawyers and courts may need to squabble and clarify, but rulings should ultimately be on the side of the Constitution.
Meanwhile, it is just a few thousand activists - some of the same activists who burned hundreds of buildings here in Minneapolis in 2020 - who are causing trouble. They have Democrat supporters, but I don’t see these soccer moms going to actual war. Most of them have been too indoctrinated in the evils of guns to ever buy one. On the other side, we have millions in MN who have been simmering with resentment for many years now at the whole Woke agenda. THEY would grab a gun, but like you, Peter, only if highly provoked. Most of us just avoid the deranged leftists like the plague, so that we aren’t provoked into criminal assault.
The MN culture has always been one of compassion and tolerance. Many of us now see that our compassion has been weaponized against us, and we’ve been defrauded and taken advantage of by ungrateful swindlers. Thus goes civilization! Ironically, I just read a scholarly 2023 book called, “The Case for Colonialism”, by Dr. Bruce Gilley, a professor of African Studies. It is a factual, documented study that destroys the Left’s assertion that colonialism was horrible. In fact, most individuals living under colonialism had a much better life on virtually all metrics than before colonialism or after. But anyway, the Europeans were guilt-tripped into giving away the store, and now countries like South Africa are hellholes of corruption, injustice, and poverty.
I've said it other places and will repeat it here.
The Civil War clouds understanding and imagination. The Civil War was atypical. Rarely are civil wars conducted between what were essentially two Nation states. It is unlikely that MN, or any other state is going to secede over ICE or any other actions carried out by the federal government.
The West Virginia mine wars are probably a better example of this type of civil war that I believe has already begun.
The miners had quality-of-life issues; the Civil War had differences of opinions on slavery and states’ rights. The sad thing about our new horror is that it will be between people on Bluesky (misinformed, in my opinion, plus those misinformed by corporate media), and those on X and Substack. The Left truly doesn’t seem to grasp that they have been fed propaganda! They insist they have the facts. So, yes, we are in uncharted territory for civil wars.
The civil war that I fear is one similar to the war between traditionalists (Catholic Church, Royals) and Socialists/Communists in 1936-39 Spain. It was a war between unreconcilable ideas. Whole towns tore each other apart, brother killed brother, until hundreds of thousands were dead. Fortunately, we Americans are too pampered (with some exceptions) to become that bloodthirsty. I literally don’t kill flies, much less neighbors! So I’m still hoping this all simmers down, once the activists are distracted by some new outrage.
The American Civil War was, strictly speaking, a separatist conflict rather than a civil war.
Given the national dimension of the political conflicts underpinning events in Minneapolis, we do better to examine the English Civil Wars of the 1640s, the Russian Civil War of 1918-1922, or the Spanish Civil War of 1936-1939.
We have not yet escalated to the level of military on military conflict, but on the current trajectory that is just a matter of time.
Agree with all. The WV mine wars can be instructional as they occurred in this country and demonstrate that U.S. citizens are quite capable of taking up arms against one another.
Peter, this is what has me extremely concerned. Not afraid, fear is what those unprepared for the coming times experience. At my age (north of 60), fear is a useless, paralyzing emotion. Concern is conducive to survival.
I really want both sides to consider the process to and outcome of their ideologically driven desires. Consensus is by far the preferred means and outcome. Ideology can be an addictive, demanding master that serves those in disagreement poorly.
I'd like to avoid the 2 way range if at all possible; personally, I'll be taking all measures to avoid it. What bothers me is collateral damage; what will happen to those I care for? Will they be in harm's way? I promise I'll bring the sharp edge of St. Michael's sword down upon them without mercy or remorse to protect the good and kind.
Didn't expect this take on the subject; I'm curious how you reconcile the detailed claims of an 'organized seditious conspiracy' with the broader notion of democratic accountability for a major politic party. It makes me wonder about the implications for social cohesion and the democratic process when such strong accusations are especialy leveled, and what solutions you envision for bridging these divides in such a polarized context?
The Civil War motives, on the other hand, are nearly identical with the insurrection of today: Power and Money, for Democrats. Power from the slaves in the census up the Civil War gave Democrats about 25% more Congressional seats than they should have had. Power today by including illegals in the census gives Democrats more seats. Money: then because slaves enriched Democrat elites. Money today: by running the money available to Democrats with large illegal populations through laundering operations, billions go to Democrats and their favored clients
Armed, Violent, Organized, Funded: Democrat led/enabled war against the United States.
As long as they keep it in Minneapolis, they can keep playing “insurgent resistance” games. The rest of us normal people aren’t interested.
Based on last week’s incident in the City Council here in San Antonio, and antics in places like Maine and elsewhere, this is not likely to be contained to Minnesota much longer, unfortunately.
I don't see why a war is necessary here. If the blue states want to be a separate country, let them. The peaceful dissolution of the Union is the logical solution, with self-determination for everyone.
While both sides have bandied secessionist rhetoric about from time to time, thus far the prevailing political consensus in this country is that secession is a non-starter, and has been since the end of the Civil War in 1865.
Economically, the ramifications of splitting the country into two more separate countries would be charitably described as apocalyptic. While several state economies are, on paper, among the world's largest, those state economies only exist within the larger US economy. Pull those economies out and make them stand on their own and every one of them is sure to get a good deal smaller.
Not to mention what would become of the national debt. In a divorce liabilities are divided just as are assets. How much of the national debt would the blue states be willing to take?
No state bent on seceding from the Union would want to take any portion of the national debt when they left. If that were allowed to happen, the debt burden would become proportionally heavier on the rump portion of the United States, simply by virtue of its economy having been summarily shrunk.
In the abstract, a national divorce sounds prudent and reasonable. When you get down to the political and economic hard deck, however, it's a non-starter.
There's no reason that free trade could not be maintained, with suitable border-adjustment taxes to account for implicit subsidies given to production in one side or the other. It's in no one's interests for such economic interdependencies to fail.
As for the national debt, it could simply be divided on a per capita basis as a condition of exit. If all else fails, repudiate it. No one's going to be able to enforce it against America's military might, and if both new governments are left unable to borrow without putting up real collateral, good - that's a nontrivial part of how we got in this situation in the first place.
If there are "suitable border adjustment taxes" there is no free trade. The two are mutually exclusive.
Such taxes would be a cost of exchanging goods and services which does not currently exist between states. They would shrink the economies on both sides from their current sizes.
As for a per capita division of the national debt, while that sounds great in theory,the political reality is not likely to be anywhere near that rational. Just look at the fustercluck of Brexit for an idea of what the dysfunctional separation negotiations would look like.
As for repudiating the national debt, there are few suggestions more economically suicidal for the US than that.
The border adjustment taxes would exist to offset subsidies, explicit or implicit, that one side provides to another. This makes the trade more free in the sense that it aligns true costs to market prices better. For example, if the Dem country instituted a carbon tax and the Rep one did not, a border adjustment tax on energy-intensive goods imported from the Rep country would be efficiency-maximizing because it would avoid artificially making those goods cheaper when they happened to be made in the Rep country and thus skewing the calculus on where they should be made (and undermining the purpose of the carbon tax).
I agree that the negotiations would be a shitshow, but that can hardly get much worse than current politics.
As for repudiation, we may be headed there anyway with where our debt/GDP ratio is headed.
Not directly related, but I wish our government would streamline the immigration process. I know people who have submitted paperwork, they are amazing citizens and families and yet now they're scared of ICE because their paperwork has been "pending" for 5-15y?! I think if the Govt could do something positive like fast-track those who have submitted paperwork or came invited under previous Admins and can be vetted as good hardworking people it would go a long way. Yes I want the criminals out, so do my friends as they're are truly menacing, but in light of our upcoming 250th Celebration we need to remember our strength is being a melting pot - all our families immigrated. Conservatives would do well to remove the hate and negativity towards immigrants. Maybe this way it would be clearer that the protesters are trying to keep criminals on the street? God Help Us All indeed.
Conservatives follow the law. We don’t have problems
woth people who follow the law. If you want to be here, take the offer ans come legally. Get rid of the criminals and all the people who have fraud the taxpayers … anyone who has recieved benefits they should not have. I earned my money and I didn’t work hard so they could get it.
The crazy thing is that if Democrats would propose serious immigration reform, including streamlining the process, they would almost certainly find there's bipartisan support for the idea.
President Trump when he was running back in 2016 championed a "merit-based" immigration system, where emphasis is made on job skills. I suspect a lot of people would support that (although a skills-based system needs to NOT be even tangentially related to the current H1-B system).
Aside from a small but vocal minority within the MAGA Coalition, most Trump supporters are not opposed to LEGAL immigration. Most would probably be open to a discussion about how to improve the immigration system.
There's room for bipartisan consensus on these issues, but Democrats won't even put anything forward because Trump. It all has to be about "orange man bad."
Complete madness.
I believe we can still avoid civil war if President Trump acts - firmly, and in the right ways with the right timing. We have the laws on our side. We have the Constitution on our side. The lawyers and courts may need to squabble and clarify, but rulings should ultimately be on the side of the Constitution.
Meanwhile, it is just a few thousand activists - some of the same activists who burned hundreds of buildings here in Minneapolis in 2020 - who are causing trouble. They have Democrat supporters, but I don’t see these soccer moms going to actual war. Most of them have been too indoctrinated in the evils of guns to ever buy one. On the other side, we have millions in MN who have been simmering with resentment for many years now at the whole Woke agenda. THEY would grab a gun, but like you, Peter, only if highly provoked. Most of us just avoid the deranged leftists like the plague, so that we aren’t provoked into criminal assault.
The MN culture has always been one of compassion and tolerance. Many of us now see that our compassion has been weaponized against us, and we’ve been defrauded and taken advantage of by ungrateful swindlers. Thus goes civilization! Ironically, I just read a scholarly 2023 book called, “The Case for Colonialism”, by Dr. Bruce Gilley, a professor of African Studies. It is a factual, documented study that destroys the Left’s assertion that colonialism was horrible. In fact, most individuals living under colonialism had a much better life on virtually all metrics than before colonialism or after. But anyway, the Europeans were guilt-tripped into giving away the store, and now countries like South Africa are hellholes of corruption, injustice, and poverty.
We cannot let this happen to America!
I've said it other places and will repeat it here.
The Civil War clouds understanding and imagination. The Civil War was atypical. Rarely are civil wars conducted between what were essentially two Nation states. It is unlikely that MN, or any other state is going to secede over ICE or any other actions carried out by the federal government.
The West Virginia mine wars are probably a better example of this type of civil war that I believe has already begun.
The miners had quality-of-life issues; the Civil War had differences of opinions on slavery and states’ rights. The sad thing about our new horror is that it will be between people on Bluesky (misinformed, in my opinion, plus those misinformed by corporate media), and those on X and Substack. The Left truly doesn’t seem to grasp that they have been fed propaganda! They insist they have the facts. So, yes, we are in uncharted territory for civil wars.
The civil war that I fear is one similar to the war between traditionalists (Catholic Church, Royals) and Socialists/Communists in 1936-39 Spain. It was a war between unreconcilable ideas. Whole towns tore each other apart, brother killed brother, until hundreds of thousands were dead. Fortunately, we Americans are too pampered (with some exceptions) to become that bloodthirsty. I literally don’t kill flies, much less neighbors! So I’m still hoping this all simmers down, once the activists are distracted by some new outrage.
I guess we’ll see, right?
The American Civil War was, strictly speaking, a separatist conflict rather than a civil war.
Given the national dimension of the political conflicts underpinning events in Minneapolis, we do better to examine the English Civil Wars of the 1640s, the Russian Civil War of 1918-1922, or the Spanish Civil War of 1936-1939.
We have not yet escalated to the level of military on military conflict, but on the current trajectory that is just a matter of time.
Agree with all. The WV mine wars can be instructional as they occurred in this country and demonstrate that U.S. citizens are quite capable of taking up arms against one another.
So sad and true!!! 🙏🙏🙏🙏😫🤯
Peter, this is what has me extremely concerned. Not afraid, fear is what those unprepared for the coming times experience. At my age (north of 60), fear is a useless, paralyzing emotion. Concern is conducive to survival.
I really want both sides to consider the process to and outcome of their ideologically driven desires. Consensus is by far the preferred means and outcome. Ideology can be an addictive, demanding master that serves those in disagreement poorly.
I'd like to avoid the 2 way range if at all possible; personally, I'll be taking all measures to avoid it. What bothers me is collateral damage; what will happen to those I care for? Will they be in harm's way? I promise I'll bring the sharp edge of St. Michael's sword down upon them without mercy or remorse to protect the good and kind.