>>>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.
So how is Texas going to excise Austin?
“I think, at some point, an amicable divorce might be worked out.”
I’m not an advocate of secession. I simply want to hear it seriously debated by people who are probably a lot smarter than myself. It’s something that should be discussed if for no other reason than to summarily dismiss it from the list of alternatives.
But I’m also of the view that the philosophical differences between the makers and the takers are for the most part irreconcilable. It’s also been my observation that irreconcilable differences usually end in divorce.