“Texas v. White. Texas v. White, (1869), U.S. Supreme Court case in which it was held that the United States is “an indestructible union” from which no state can secede.”
So you’re saying we have to kill them all instead. Okay.
(yes, I’m just kidding)
My suggestion — partition is not feasible, compromise might be possible on some issues, but other issues are clearly moral choices of right or wrong. Just stick to the current plan, pray a lot, and hope that the President and others can clearly articulate the choices and the differences. If you lose California, at this point, it’s more of a symbolic than structural blow, and you know they will end up in a loose confederation with Mexico. I don’t get why anyone would toss being part of the greatest country on earth to be closer to Mexico. Ironic that millions seem to be desperate to get out of those countries then they want your country to join them. All they gain by doing that over the long run is that they see worse soccer on TV.
““Texas v. White. Texas v. White, (1869), U.S. Supreme Court case in which it was held that the United States is “an indestructible union” from which no state can secede.”
So you’re saying we have to kill them all instead. Okay.”
The same Lincoln appointed judge knew there was no justification for said edict in the 11 page federal constitution nor was any such power possible given that the right being proclaimed ‘inalienable’ in 1776 was central to the very existence of the nation in the first place. So if you he left out possibility that a ‘revolution’ was possible while simply refusing to recognize the Texas deceleration as a ‘legitimate revolution’ like King George did in 1776.
In other worse he knew dam well he was wrong legally speaking, he just played with words and deliberately overlooked facts to get the only politically acceptable answer otherwise face the wrath of the people who just fought the bloodiest war in american history to rule the whole country without the very consent of the governed upon which it was founded.
Thus if we want to appease the opinion of a dictator in black robes we can simply publicly call it a ‘revolution’, they will ‘disagree’ as king George did unless we find away to make them recognize doing so would be catastrophic.
thus if it does come down to a fight. We only need secure control of a couple of nuclear weapons and let them choose. Grant us our freedom and Independence or watch 5 densely populated lefty cities go up in a nuclear fireball.
Its hard to imagine them not letting us go our separate way in peace because frankly there is no way for them to win. Its very grim logic but they lose regardless of military victory. The millions killed in a nuclear exchange(or any WMD) will primary kill lefties who live in the only cost effective targets,(nuke the countryside and you will hardly kill anyone) while driving the rest of them out of the cities(thus making them less anti-freedom over time).
Letting us go, allows them to govern their country with the super majority they always wanted to do whatever they want. This will of course make Veniswela out of them but if they were concerned about the economic reality of socialism they would not be socialist.
Thus we secure control of a handful of nukes and the war can end without a shot fired. The government will ‘recognize our revolution’.
Short of that, depending on how much they piss off the right, the insinuation is almost as grim for the left regardless of nukes(or other WMD) because cities today hopelessly depended upon modern infrastructure to sustain their population densities.
A relatively small number of people with knowledge of that infrastructure could take it offline and keep it down or intermittent for decades. The net effect of which would be to force people to abandon said cities, again leading to long term political collapse as well.
From their perspective the only way to win if we are well armed and able to put up a fight is to allow the separation. It would take a great deal of political strength and determination to refuse it over the decades long gurrela conflict for freedom.
Its not impossible but it seems unlikely and undesirable. Particularly in light of the fact that they are not concerned with the nation as their forefathers were and without us to vote against them they will run unopposed, able to do whatever they wish without checks or balances.
War would be an ego trip for their political leaders, and otherwise makes no sense for them.
I thus think if we go into the fight with a strong set of military options victory is likely bloodless.
That said it all depends on who’s president at the time it starts, I assume their guy is president, and that half or most of our political ‘friends’ are loyalist.
Otherwise your not going to have a fight at all, the left will simply be smashed.(they can’t rebel against the power they depend upon ideologically and military)