A National Divorce

[AndreusMaximus]

So, no response to that? Just going to gloss over an inconvenient reality and argue with anyone else to avoid the topic?

What "reality"? If you meant to say that poor folks living in crime-ridden, drug-addled, poverty-stricken portions of blue cities commit a disproportionate amount of crime, you would have said that.

But that's not what you said. You decided to make it about race. I don't think there's many decent folk out there who are going to have any willingness to engage with you once you've gone there. I myself tend to be willing to debate people on just about any subject, but even I can't, for the life of me, see anything productive coming out of engaging in conversation with someone who wants to pin our nations troubles on a group of people based solely on their skin color.

 

[cg21]

What "reality"? If you meant to say that poor folks living in crime-ridden, drug-addled, poverty-stricken portions of blue cities commit a disproportionate amount of crime, you would have said that.

But that's not what you said. You decided to make it about race. I don't think there's many decent folk out there who are going to have any willingness to engage with you once you've gone there. I myself tend to be willing to debate people on just about any subject, but even I can't, for the life of me, see anything productive coming out of engaging in conversation with someone who wants to pin our nations troubles on a group of people based solely on their skin color.

I mean it wouldn’t really be “based” on skin color it is just statistics just numbers….? Yes there are many factors like most of those poverty crime filled cities are democrat controlled…. So one could say democrats commit a disproportionate amount of the crime?

I don’t think acknowledging a statistic makes a person a racist??

Most mechanics are males does that make me a sexist? Most secretaries are females? How about that? Most people aren’t trans. Just statistics if you don’t like the numbers do something to change them or quit being offended but simply stating a statistic doesn’t say anything about me or my beliefs.

 

[AndreusMaximus]

I mean it wouldn’t really be “based” on skin color it is just statistics just numbers….? Yes there are many factors like most of those poverty crime filled cities are democrat controlled…. So one could say democrats commit a disproportionate amount of the crime?

I don’t think acknowledging a statistic makes a person a racist??

I'm willing to admit I may have misunderstood.

Yes, poor, democrat areas in cities tend to have higher crime rates. Minorities tend to be more poor, so they tend to comprise a higher proportion of those communities, but if you take a cross-section of white people living in gang-ridden slums, and compare their crime rate per capita to that of any other racial group, you wont find any difference. If that's all he meant to say, fine, but I really don't see what it has to do with the question of secession.

But it sounded pretty strongly to me like he was saying that those minorities were the source of the problem, by virtue of their race. Maybe I read it wrong, and if so, I'm more than willing to accept a clarification.

 

[cg21]

I'm willing to admit I may have misunderstood.

Yes, poor, democrat areas in cities tend to have higher crime rates. Minorities tend to be more poor, so they tend to comprise a higher proportion of those communities, but if you take a cross-section of white people living in gang-ridden slums, and compare their crime rate per capita to that of any other racial group, you wont find any difference. If that's all he meant to say, fine, but I really don't see what it has to do with the question of secession.

But it sounded pretty strongly to me like he was saying that those minorities were the source of the problem, by virtue of their race. Maybe I read it wrong, and if so, I'm more than willing to accept a clarification.

I am not him. So I don’t know what he meant. But I do know that statistics cannot be swept under the rug when convenient or when uncomfortable to discuss.

 

[JettaKnight]

I am not him. So I don’t know what he meant. But I do know that statistics cannot be swept under the rug when convenient or when uncomfortable to discuss.

There's lies, damned lies, and statistics.

 

[JettaKnight]

I mean it wouldn’t really be “based” on skin color it is just statistics just numbers….? Yes there are many factors like most of those poverty crime filled cities are democrat controlled…. So one could say democrats commit a disproportionate amount of the crime?

Of course democrats commit all the crime, they're the source of all evil!

Rhetoric aside, you average criminal isn't exactly politically active.

 

[jamil]

Utah governor says Taylor Greene's 'national divorce' proposal is 'evil' | Fox News

Utah Republican Governor Spencer Cox denounced Georgia GOP Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene's "national divorce" proposal as "evil" as the congresswoman turns heads with her idea.

www.foxnews.com

View attachment 257227

MTG…Patriot or Traitor?

And if we get a divorce, who gets the house?

It’s not traitorous. Or evil. It’s based on the reality that our differences are unreconcilable. If anything it is defeatist. Giving up on ending the culture war with the nation in tact and still sane.

But I think the Utah governor is in denial at best. I don’t think a national divorce is practical. But I do understand the sentiment. But people who are clueless want to stretch the comment into something’s nefarious.

 

[jamil]

Of the so-called red states and blue states, guess which ones are currently paying support.

States Most Dependent on the Federal Government - 2022 Edition - SmartAsset | SmartAsset

smartasset.com

When everyone has sorted into the available pigeon holes will the biggest tax payers still live in the same states?

 

[cg21]

Of course democrats commit all the crime, they're the source of all evil!

Rhetoric aside, you average criminal isn't exactly politically active.

Agreed just pointing out there are several factors when describing criminals…. And to use an accurate description based on statistics should not be viewed as evil.

 

[jamil]

Just think of the fun of divvying up the national debt and military.

It’s just a sentiment. It’s not practical. People are losing their **** over nothing.

 

[rhamersley]

Interesting tweet thread from a few minutes ago...

Thread by @Doc_0 on Thread Reader App

@Doc_0: As stars above a certain mass collapse into black holes, so every government above a certain size becomes authoritarian in nature, no matter how enlightened and compassionate its masters claim to be. Democrac...…

threadreaderapp.com

 

[VulpesForge]

What "reality"? If you meant to say that poor folks living in crime-ridden, drug-addled, poverty-stricken portions of blue cities commit a disproportionate amount of crime, you would have said that.

But that's not what you said. You decided to make it about race. I don't think there's many decent folk out there who are going to have any willingness to engage with you once you've gone there. I myself tend to be willing to debate people on just about any subject, but even I can't, for the life of me, see anything productive coming out of engaging in conversation with someone who wants to pin our nations troubles on a group of people based solely on their skin color.

Ok, for those of you without reading comprehension:

I said he was not making the point he thought he was making and what he was representing as a dunk was in fact what is known colloquially as a self own. I was implying that the argument 45 had made was in fact more race based than he may previously have intended and was blundering into dangerous territory for the uninitiated.

Most people are unwilling to even conceive of racial differences in the climate today, but I'll discuss literally anything to its logical conclusion provided I have enough background knowledge to muster conversation.

I can argue this point logically from many different perspectives, including race, but that wasn't my aim.

This is going to take all of your reading comprehension skills and your best steel manning of a position. Any idiot can make a parody of this argument and dismiss it as racist, but to actually engage in this you will need your thinking cap. (A straw man argument is a technique often used by intellectually dishonest people as a reframing of a statement to conclude something that wasn't said and then arguing with the reframed argument no one was making. A steel man position is the opposite. Giving your opponents argument the best possible light in order to engage it effectively.

Genetic disposition is much like the heritability of I.Q. It's important to take note of, but not an all deciding factor that can't be mitigated through understanding and diligence. Allow me to extrapolate before you start rage typing.

I have Irish heritage and I come from a long line of alcoholics. I am genetically pre disposed to being bad at alcohol consumption. I know this so I don't drink, with the exception of a glass of wine for special occasions like anniversaries, new years, etc. I understand the factors of my genetics and also try not to overdo sweets, avoid smoking, and maintain a decent cardio level because both sides have a long history of living to 60 because of alcoholism and poor diet. In other words, taking responsibility for oneself will mitigate most problems.

On the heritability of I.Q. there are a few things to be taken into account. First and most importantly, having a high i.q. doesn't automatically make you more intelligent or a better person. It's simply a measure of pattern recognition. In laymen's terms it's how quickly you can learn or pick up a new concept. Someone with an i.q. of 95 that makes a concerted effort to learn and better themselves will be better at whatever they're doing and learning than someone with a 130 that sits in the basement whacking it and playing games all day. The guy with a score of 130 could catch up and pass the guy with a 95 in a matter of months, but the point remains. Having more doesn't inherently make you better.

Here comes the bad part nobody wants to look at. American blacks (specifically American ones, wealthy Jamaicans coming to England for instance often outperform whites in their school) tend to have a lower i.q. by a factor of 2 when compared to average whites. E.g. whites are average 100-105 blacks average somewhere around 80. When you combine this inability to learn with particular genetic markers that are shown to increase hostility and violence (I can dig them out if anyone wants specifics, but I'm working from memory here) it's not hard to see what's happening. These factors present themselves, in America mind you, through all income brackets and education levels. This means that when compared to any other race, blacks have a higher tendency to commit violent acts no matter the level of education or their income. Ghetto dwelling or otherwise and education is not the problem so far as I can tell.

A recent Rasmussen poll (the only one that accurately predicted the trump 2016 victory) asked minorities if they thought it was "ok to be white". The conclusion? 47% didn't know or said that it was not ok to be white. Split just about down the middle with, I believe, 21% saying they weren't sure.

I say all this here in the national divorce thread because it may be in everyone's best interest to be in a homogenous state. If you look at Japan for instance, their crime rates are incredibly low comparatively and most of this is due to cultural and racial homogeneity. They are very similar things, but not the same. Typically neighborhood trust and general positive feelings of society are increased when you're with people of your own race. This is the same for all races. Black people like to live around black people, Asians around Asians etc. This is called in-group preference and White republicans actually have the lowest in group preference without having an outgroup preference. The rest of the world is laughing at our stupidity and over sensitization of race.

It's the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain an idea without accepting it. Being unable to or unwilling to engage with this doesn't make you better, it makes you a pearl clutching Karen.

Just for the record I can argue any of this from the opposite side and I probably have a better understanding of it than you do. If you want me to help you articulate your points, refine them, or just in general need some I am absolutely willing to assist. The deep level debates are where I live and I enjoy the discussion.

 

[Trigger Time]

What did we ever do before a massive centralized federal government and welfare. Oh dear oh dear.

We have been Spoiled and conditioned to be on the govt bboob
The right and necessary thing is usually not the easiest path.
It's pretty clear that lines are being drawn. Time to pick a side for when the play starts.
Who knows what that spark will be. But it's clear the powers that be are spraying the weeds with gasoline and smoking a cigarette doing it.

 

[Trigger Time]

The people far outnumber the govt.

Police both federal and local, military, their numbers don't compare even closely to the governed.
They have a granted authority over the people. We submit to them on the premise that they do not abuse their granted power.
Well the power is and been abused for quite sometime.
How do they now retain and gain power and abuse their sacred authority? By turning the people against one another. By getting neighbor to turn against neighbor. Brother against brother.
Do not ever give into the false hope that government will solved all of your problems or keep you safe. Rely on those around you. Build those relationships and trust now.

Whatever happens in this country with our government, we will go back to relying on our smaller communities and eventually our state to bring us together and survive.
Build relationships with your neighbors (neighborhood watches) so when the rioters or the jackboots come, you have a way to warn and a plan. Have extra food and water and a power source for when that tornado or power outtage comes, you have a plan. This is just common sense.
Armies will always fight, taking and giving up ground.
Whatever comes, a divorce or whatever term it gets called when it eventually happens, because it will happen, be ready to protect and care for those around you. That's what matters the most. Let the sobs that want to die for whatever dying cause they think is important, do what they wish

 

[Shadow01]

A revamp of the electoral college to give a single vote for President to each county will solve this issue during the next election. Along with any future county divisions would result in that original single vote becoming a fraction of a single vote dependent on the number of new counties created from the original.

 

[VulpesForge]

A revamp of the electoral college to give a single vote for President to each county will solve this issue during the next election. Along with any future county divisions would result in that original single vote becoming a fraction of a single vote dependent on the number of new counties created from the original.

State electoral college would do the same with less mess I think. It won't happen because the majority of our land mass is red. This would also be disadvantageous to the coastal cities/states where high densities of population lie. Something fair needs to be created, but what? What we have now obviously isn't working as the honkening will happen again and again unless there's some serious suring of elections.

 

[daddyusmaximus]

Sounds like just some woke twisted words way of calling for a civil war to me...

 

[VulpesForge]

Constitutionally states can assign their electors in anyway they wish as I understand it. Maybe red states should implement this to hold the dems back…

True, and they should. At the point in which we're simply waiting to gain power to do away with the opposition though, wouldn't a national split be more suitable?

 

[gassprint1]

Sounds like just some woke twisted words way of calling for a civil war to me...

Same thing i was thinking. Isn't that how the Civil war began?

 

[asevans]

O no. You can’t say civil war.
OMG. This government is no longer for the people, by the people, of the people.
No taxation without representation! No taxation without representation!