Bunch of yankees thought the same thing 150 years or so ago.
So thanks ever so much for your learned and timely opinion.
If you do. Don’t attack first. Castro was smart enough to not attack Gitmo after the 1959 revolution Attacking fort Sumter and the supply shiip was a dumbass move.
I agree with “when in the course of human events” thing. But don’t tempt fate by attacking first
If you do. Don’t attack first. Castro was smart enough to not attack Gitmo after the 1959 revolution Attacking fort Sumter and the supply shiip was a dumbass move.
I agree with “when in the course of human events” thing. But don’t tempt fate by attacking first
>>>Bunch of yankees thought the same thing 150 years or so ago.<<<
Not only that, but if not for the moral issue of slavery, I doubt the people of the North would have had the political will to sacrifice so much blood and treasure to prevent the Southern states from seceding.
I don’t think most Liberal/Socialists want patriotic, God-fearing, Pro-Life, gun owning, Capitalist, conservatives to have any influence over their lives, any more than we want the reverse.
If we had a better candidate, instead of the flip-flopping, RINO, the establishment nominated, we could have won and the Liberals/Socialists would be talking about splitting up the USA. A split would be in the perceived interest of both sides and the actual, best interest of conservatives.
I think, at some point, an amicable divorce might be worked out.
The geography also works out well. The “Red” states are all contiguous, and if we ceded a narrow strip on the Candadian border, cutting through Montana, North Dakota and a tiny piece of Idaho, and a similar strip through Arizona, on the Mexican border (which would double as a great illegal alien buffer zone), the “Blue” states would all accessible by road, without crossing any “Red” states.
It’s a divorce made in heaven, IMHO.