Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Just Tony wrote:

 thekingofkings wrote:

IMO its not if, its when they "coup" in favor of pence. Trump has a lot of flaws, many of them exaggerated by lies and bias, but if you are truly supportive of any liberal cause you should hope to God almighty that he stays and pence never touches power, ever.

This is true for everyone who isn't Pence's brand of rabid born again jeebus freak, not just liberals.

Indiana seemed quite fine with him, they are not all rabid by any means. he wont attack the center, likely ever. but he will likely go after "sinners"

The problem is the LGBTQAI (I apologize if I missed any of the letters recently added, I believe I got them all) community can't see past the erroneous "Queers can't buy pizza ever" shpiel to all the positive things the man has done with Indiana. Even the positives get talked down by the liberal crowd, it happend in this thread earlier when I mentioned the budget surplus.

Maybe it got shocked out of them before they could think to ask

 Ustrello wrote:

 Just Tony wrote:

 thekingofkings wrote:

IMO its not if, its when they "coup" in favor of pence. Trump has a lot of flaws, many of them exaggerated by lies and bias, but if you are truly supportive of any liberal cause you should hope to God almighty that he stays and pence never touches power, ever.

This is true for everyone who isn't Pence's brand of rabid born again jeebus freak, not just liberals.

Indiana seemed quite fine with him, they are not all rabid by any means. he wont attack the center, likely ever. but he will likely go after "sinners"

The problem is the LGBTQAI (I apologize if I missed any of the letters recently added, I believe I got them all) community can't see past the erroneous "Queers can't buy pizza ever" shpiel to all the positive things the man has done with Indiana. Even the positives get talked down by the liberal crowd, it happend in this thread earlier when I mentioned the budget surplus.

Maybe it got shocked out of them before they could think to ask

Indiana is a fairly conservative state to begin with, I could not imagine it has near the same LGBTQ crowd as here in Colorado, but from living in both, red Indiana treats them a hell of a lot better than blue Colorado.

 thekingofkings wrote:
red Indiana treats them a hell of a lot better than blue Colorado.

As someone who knows gay activists in Indiana and has worked with them I'm willing to bet that isn't an accurate statement.

 Ahtman wrote:

 thekingofkings wrote:
red Indiana treats them a hell of a lot better than blue Colorado.

As someone who knows gay activists in Indiana and has worked with them I'm willing to bet that isn't an accurate statement.[/quo

meet some in Colorado, you will change your tune fast. And this is supposed to be the second best state to be gay in. This is from personal experience not rhetoric.

 thekingofkings wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:

 thekingofkings wrote:
red Indiana treats them a hell of a lot better than blue Colorado.

As someone who knows gay activists in Indiana and has worked with them I'm willing to bet that isn't an accurate statement.

meet some in Colorado, you will change your tune fast. And this is supposed to be the second best state to be gay in.

Ustrello-Look at all of that anecdotal evidence, surely that will prove the durn libs wrong

 thekingofkings wrote:
meet some in Colorado, you will change your tune fast.

Again still doubtful. You are saying that A is better than B but I'm not saying B is better than A. What I am saying is that the premise and assumption are flawed to begin with.

 Ahtman wrote:

 thekingofkings wrote:
meet some in Colorado, you will change your tune fast.

Again still doubtful. You are saying that A is better than B but I'm not saying B is better than A. What I am saying is that the premise and assumption are flawed to begin with.

no be honest, you are saying that exactly.

 thekingofkings wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:

 thekingofkings wrote:
meet some in Colorado, you will change your tune fast.

Again still doubtful. You are saying that A is better than B but I'm not saying B is better than A. What I am saying is that the premise and assumption are flawed to begin with.

no be honest, you are saying that exactly.

Well I explicitly said that I don't agree so yes, I am saying 'exactly' that I don't agree. I even specifically said what I don't agree with.

 Peregrine wrote:

 whembly wrote:

GayPatriot ‏@GayPatriot 19h19 hours ago
More
Trump Administration, Day 7: Still not in a gay concentration camp or electrocuted by Mike Pence.
#LGBT #thankyoutrump

So, more straw man arguments and cheap laughs instead of addressing the substance of any issues...

So... a gay man on twittah mocking the idea that Trumpesto will be this anti-gay President... a... straw man?

I think this is going to be what Obama was regarding gun control...

 Just Tony wrote:

 thekingofkings wrote:

IMO its not if, its when they "coup" in favor of pence. Trump has a lot of flaws, many of them exaggerated by lies and bias, but if you are truly supportive of any liberal cause you should hope to God almighty that he stays and pence never touches power, ever.

This is true for everyone who isn't Pence's brand of rabid born again jeebus freak, not just liberals.

Indiana seemed quite fine with him, they are not all rabid by any means. he wont attack the center, likely ever. but he will likely go after "sinners"

The problem is the LGBTQAI (I apologize if I missed any of the letters recently added, I believe I got them all) community can't see past the erroneous "Queers can't buy pizza ever" shpiel to all the positive things the man has done with Indiana. Even the positives get talked down by the liberal crowd, it happend in this thread earlier when I mentioned the budget surplus.

See, right there Just Tony, in your intro you apologized which wasn't really an apology at all, if it were, why say something in the intro that would need an apology? That is just being a just ass, not a Just Tony. The rest of what you said is ignored because of how you framed the debate.--which is too bad because you might have said something intelligent. Say what you have to say, and defend it if asked or challenged about it. Don't start with an apology because you know you are doing something stupid. Twitter comment made, Twitter comment ignored. Also, calling people "sheeple" is a bit out of date by five years, which is twelve Internet years. Or thirty seven dog internet years. Learn how to Internet.

 whembly wrote:
So... a gay man on twittah mocking the idea that Trumpesto will be this anti-gay President... a... straw man?

No, "we aren't in concentration camps and electrocuted" is a straw man. It is possible to have an anti-gay president (and, more accurately, an anti-gay vice president, Pence is a much bigger concern than Trump) without things getting to the level of rounding up all the gay people and throwing them in prison. The fact that Trump hasn't immediately done that isn't a counter to concerns over anti-LGBT policies, at all.

 whembly wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 whembly wrote:

GayPatriot ‏@GayPatriot 19h19 hours ago
More
Trump Administration, Day 7: Still not in a gay concentration camp or electrocuted by Mike Pence.
#LGBT #thankyoutrump

So, more straw man arguments and cheap laughs instead of addressing the substance of any issues...

So... a gay man on twittah mocking the idea that Trumpesto will be this anti-gay President... a... straw man?

I think this is going to be what Obama was regarding gun control...

On the whole thing, anti-gay thing:

Trump does not seem to be vehemently anti-gay. He's not pro-gay either, however, and has said some less than nice things about gay people. He has shown that he basically repeats and does anything his people tell him too, so that's not a great start. Add to that the fact that Pence in anti-gay, and the Republican constabulary as a whole also lean that way, and it's not a great sign. Any laws they pass will get shot down by SCOTUS at this point, but should one of the five (Kennedy, Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, Kagan) die/retire, considering that anti-gay marriage has been a bit of a theme for the potential Trump picks, that is not a good sign. Plus the gak like bathroom bills and alike. It's definitely an issue, and pretending it isn't is just ignoring reality. Until you, and the other non-anti-gay republican, get the point across that laws that infringe apon people's rights, no matter what rights and who is effected, are not to be tolerated.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:

 whembly wrote:
So... a gay man on twittah mocking the idea that Trumpesto will be this anti-gay President... a... straw man?

No, "we aren't in concentration camps and electrocuted" is a straw man. It is possible to have an anti-gay president (and, more accurately, an anti-gay vice president, Pence is a much bigger concern than Trump) without things getting to the level of rounding up all the gay people and throwing them in prison. The fact that Trump hasn't immediately done that isn't a counter to concerns over anti-LGBT policies, at all.

Also, Jesus Christ, it's been a week. Congress hasn't had time to pass anything. Any of Trump's polices can't really go into full effect yet. Saying gak like "he hasn't done it yet" is the stupidest thing you can do at this point. You can't credit (or blame) really anything on him at this point, as he hasn't had enough time to put much policy into action. The only things that have really been effect are very short term things.

Okay, President Trump is carrying things a little too far with these executive orders.

So Yahoo has just flashed up a story about California setting in motion to secede

https://uk.yahoo.com/news/calexit-californians-start-campaigning-secede-092352268.html

Yes I know about reputable news sources, but could this be the shape of the future US?

Andrew

 Breotan wrote:
Okay, President Trump is carrying things a little too far with these executive orders.

The heck are you talking about? the Jedi are more content smoking their Force bongs and meditating, rather than doing anything productive, not to mention trying to kill the Chancellor on trumped-up charges of treason!

Getting on-topic...

I think the next Justice to leave will be Ginsburg. Once she goes, it'll leave Trump and Congress a window to swing the Supreme Court to 5-4 Republican's favor for all party-aligned cases.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AndrewC wrote:
So Yahoo has just flashed up a story about California setting in motion to secede

https://uk.yahoo.com/news/calexit-californians-start-campaigning-secede-092352268.html

Yes I know about reputable news sources, but could this be the shape of the future US?

Andrew

Oh, sure, secede from the US, the only reason why you aren't up to your eyeballs in debt, and be easy prey for the Cartels.

As a Californian, this ticks me off. If anyone had an inkling of knowledge about their surroundings, they'd realize that this is a terrible, terrible idea.

 AndrewC wrote:
So Yahoo has just flashed up a story about California setting in motion to secede

https://uk.yahoo.com/news/calexit-californians-start-campaigning-secede-092352268.html

Yes I know about reputable news sources, but could this be the shape of the future US?

Andrew

I don't really doubt the reputability. It's not easy to get something on ballot in CA, but it's also not very hard. It's possible such a measure could end up on vote in 2018, but I'm highly skeptical it would ever pass. I'm skeptical it'll even gather the necessary signatures to get on the ballot in the first place. Measures like this go up in CA all the time but only a handful end up on ballot.

It's people blowing hot air, nothing more, it's certainly not on mainstream radar in CA.

 Dr. Temujin wrote:


Oh, sure, secede from the US, the only reason why you aren't up to your eyeballs in debt, and be easy prey for the Cartels.

California is one of the few states that pays more to the US Federal Government than it receives from the US Federal Government (it's actually the second largest net contributor to the US government, second only to Illinois). The frank reality is that the US needs CA financially more than CA needs the US. By some kind of irony, all those red states constantly complaining about government hand outs are the largest beneficiaries of the Federal Government, while those blue lazy liberal states are the keeping the rest of the country economically afloat

I also doubt CA would be prey for Cartels cause those hippies in San Fran ad LA would probably legalizes most drugs and the Cartels would find themselves with a legal market to compete with. CA would open new routes to get drugs into the US however, but it's hard to argue that corruption would rise when it's probably already present in that regard.

Once again, may we all place praise upon the Great Uniter who prioritizes his own ego and the punishment of his perceived enemies over any sense of tact or decorum And of course this will almost certainly amount to nothing. Even if it manages to go to ballot it'll be voted down so fast it'll be done. At least until it goes up to vote again because like I said it's not that monumentally hard to get something on ballot in CA. They're one of the most referendum active states.

 AndrewC wrote:
Yes I know about reputable news sources, but could this be the shape of the future US?

No. Fringe groups putting up secession proposals is just business as usual. It's probably never going to go beyond fringe groups saying stupid stuff, and the federal government is certainly not going to allow it to happen even if it does.

 AndrewC wrote:
So Yahoo has just flashed up a story about California setting in motion to secede

https://uk.yahoo.com/news/calexit-californians-start-campaigning-secede-092352268.html

Yes I know about reputable news sources, but could this be the shape of the future US?

Andrew

No.

They, could however, split into smaller states... I think their constitution allows that. (ie, so does Texas).

I just got the feeling that this was coming from a more central bloc rather than the fringe groups, and no offence, but the EU rather thought that the UK wasn't going to leave either.

Whether or not it may happen (probably not) could it happen?

 AndrewC wrote:
I just got the feeling that this was coming from a more central bloc rather than the fringe groups, and no offence, but the EU rather thought that the UK wasn't going to leave either.

Whether or not it may happen (probably not) could it happen?

No, it can't happen. The difference between California and the UK is that the UK had a mechanism to leave the EU if they wanted, if a member state votes "leave" the EU has no power to keep them. California, on the other hand, has no ability to leave without fighting a civil war (which they would inevitably lose). They can vote all they like, but we already settled the question of "can states vote to leave the US".

It can happen. It can't happen in 2018. Something like that isn't going to suddenly get going from its puny support base in 2 years. However we are in a shifting political environment that has become increasingly vindicitive and increasingly delusional about reality. Those conditions concerning slavery gave rise to the American Civil War. That's not to say it will happen, but it's not that farfetched that in my lifetime, if politics continue as they are, we could see a sectional divide in the US that sparks strong secession movements.

 LordofHats wrote:
It can happen. It can't happen in 2018. Something like that isn't going to suddenly get going from its puny support base in 2 years. However we are in a shifting political environment that has become increasingly vindicitive and increasingly delusional about reality. Those conditions concerning slavery gave rise to the American Civil War. That's not to say it will happen, but it's not that farfetched that in my lifetime, if politics continue as they are, we could see a sectional divide in the US that sparks strong secession movements.

I think the main thing standing in the way of that happening is that the current divisions are more urban vs. rural than regional. The civil war happened because the secessionist groups were all concentrated in the south, and could say "this is the border of our new nation". Now there just isn't that geographical unity. Everything is all mixed up, with pockets of high-density left-wing areas evenly distributed across vast areas of low-density right-wing areas. So where do you draw a border around the seceding nation?

 Peregrine wrote:

 AndrewC wrote:
I just got the feeling that this was coming from a more central bloc rather than the fringe groups, and no offence, but the EU rather thought that the UK wasn't going to leave either.

Whether or not it may happen (probably not) could it happen?

No, it can't happen. The difference between California and the UK is that the UK had a mechanism to leave the EU if they wanted, if a member state votes "leave" the EU has no power to keep them. California, on the other hand, has no ability to leave without fighting a civil war (which they would inevitably lose). They can vote all they like, but we already settled the question of "can states vote to leave the US".

I assume that you're talking Texas V White? As I understand what I can find out about it that only addresses unilateral declaration of independence, but doesn't address a formal request and diplomatic negotiation of a retraction of membership.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:
It can happen. It can't happen in 2018. Something like that isn't going to suddenly get going from its puny support base in 2 years. However we are in a shifting political environment that has become increasingly vindicitive and increasingly delusional about reality. Those conditions concerning slavery gave rise to the American Civil War. That's not to say it will happen, but it's not that farfetched that in my lifetime, if politics continue as they are, we could see a sectional divide in the US that sparks strong secession movements.

I think the main thing standing in the way of that happening is that the current divisions are more urban vs. rural than regional. The civil war happened because the secessionist groups were all concentrated in the south, and could say "this is the border of our new nation". Now there just isn't that geographical unity. Everything is all mixed up, with pockets of high-density left-wing areas evenly distributed across vast areas of low-density right-wing areas. So where do you draw a border around the seceding nation?

Which is a very good question. You may note my home nation is going through such a heart searching moment as well. How do the independence movement and the unionist movement reconcile over the removal of Citizenship. (Though this may be better in the UK thread, so I'll drop it now)

Andrew

 Peregrine wrote:


I think the main thing standing in the way of that happening is that the current divisions are more urban vs. rural than regional.

This is true, but that was a divide in the North and South in the 1850s as well. Rural PA didn't even get behind supporting the Union until after Gettysburg, and that's because the rural folk of PA didn't see any dog in the fight for them.

To be clear there's always been urban and rural divides. Right now they're in a state of escalation, but they're not new. Like the rural Pennsylvanians who saw little reason to support the effort of reunification, there were rural Mississippians who saw little reason to support a war for the preservation of the wealth and power of slave owners (they had a film about them recently... it kind of sucked...). As you can see in CA politics, the large cities are able to dictate terms to the rest of the state. It's not inconceivable to see such an eventuality, just as it's not inconceivable that should such an eventuality occur we could find ourselves with a North California/South California play ala Virginia

However I doubt any one state will succeed alone, and that's the bigger issue. There's a urban - rural divide, but we don't have much hard regionalism outside the American South and Northeast.

 AndrewC wrote:
I assume that you're talking Texas V White?

I'm talking about the civil war where it was rather thoroughly established that states are not permitted to leave.

 AndrewC wrote:


I assume that you're talking Texas V White? As I understand what I can find out about it that only addresses unilateral declaration of independence, but doesn't address a formal request and diplomatic negotiation of a retraction of membership.

This is accurate. The case was specifically about an issue concerning bonds, and the court ruled that legally there existed no right to secede from the Union and that legally Texas was always part of the United States of America, no matter what the state thought during its "rebellion."

I don't think anyone has ever addressed whether or not Congress has the power to negotiate an exit from the Union. The Founders never thought such a thing would happen, so they built nothing to that effect in.

Ok, so if a state can't leave on its own, is there any mechanism whereby we can just kick them out? I mean their BBQ is good and all, but really, their hats are just making us all look bad. Plus, they really are a drain on the economy.

 Gordon Shumway wrote:
Ok, so if a state can't leave on its own, is there any mechanism whereby we can just kick them out?

Nothing in the Constitution speaks of any means by which a state may leave. Congress could always pass a law for such provision but a law to "kick someone out" would be... Well things would be pretty fethed if we actually did that. Negotiating an exit maybe, but the Court might have to rule on whether or not that is legal. It's something that could end up requiring an Amendment legally, but then again we have ignoring certain aspects of the Constitution for the sake of pragmatism throughout our history.