Trump

[Haibane]

Secession didn't work too well last time due to the southern states basically having no economic strength and I really don't think the N-S imbalance has altered at all in that respect in the last 160 years so, meh.

[TheVillain]

Oh, last time the South did have sizable economic strength - just that it was all wrapped up in agricultural pre-industrial methods that had exploitable weaknesses.

Now they have no economic strength to speak of.

[TheHangedOne]

Secession didn't work too well last time due to the southern states basically having no economic strength and I really don't think the N-S imbalance has altered at all in that respect in the last 160 years so, meh.

Admittedly, if we split up the US reasonably, it'd probably wind up in three chunks. New England (with Pennsylvania and New York); The West Coast; and then, The Heartland. 

[Haibane]

This is starting to sound like a post-apocalyptic Fallout style video game premise. I really don't think any split is remotely likely because it happened before and failed very bloodily.

[Haibane]

Oh, sorry to TheHangedMan, I wasn't being critical of what you wrote, I just wanted to get my brain straight on how utterly stupid such a split would be. China and Russia would be happy about if of course and that's another reason why any weakening of the USA into smaller bodies is a complete no-no.

[TheHangedOne]

No worries, I didn't take offense.  you have your opinion, and it comes from the outside. The view on the inside is different. I'm not going to say either view is correct, because it's not that simple; it's just different, you know?

You're right, that we need the US to be strong, because our country has taken this big responsibility in the world. I just think that trying to keep it unified is going to be not only impossible, but would weaken us worse than dividing. Of course, I have no practical experience in any subject that would give me insight into whether it's a good idea or a bad one.

[Kitteredge]

There are strong regional differences in the United States, but the real political splits are revealing themselves as urban/rural, with suburbs dependent on various factors.

But you can't simply say, "yeah, Georgia will go with the GOP side," when Atlanta is a very heavily blue city. In fact, very few significant metropolitan centers are Republican in any way. Vast rural areas are struggling economically, while cities are the pumphouses of GDP, etc., and often those rural areas suffer even more when their talented youth escape for education and jobs.

Basically, it's nearly impossible for a North/South style Civil War to happen. There are the Houstons and Memphises and such in the South; there are large red swaths in the North.

[TheGlyphstone]

There are strong regional differences in the United States, but the real political splits are revealing themselves as urban/rural, with suburbs dependent on various factors.

But you can't simply say, "yeah, Georgia will go with the GOP side," when Atlanta is a very heavily blue city. In fact, very few significant metropolitan centers are Republican in any way. Vast rural areas are struggling economically, while cities are the pumphouses of GDP, etc., and often those rural areas suffer even more when their talented youth escape for education and jobs.

Basically, it's nearly impossible for a North/South style Civil War to happen. There are the Houstons and Memphises and such in the South; there are large red swaths in the North.

That's what I was thinking; the division is no longer geographic,  but demographic. The urban-rural divide defines politics more than North-South, which makes it all but impossible to split up beyond some fantastically large forced relocation program.

[ReijiTabibito]

There are strong regional differences in the United States, but the real political splits are revealing themselves as urban/rural, with suburbs dependent on various factors.

Suburbia will vote for whoever they think will let them keep on suburbia'ing.  Being a place where you need the economic engines that have become the cities in order to have big fancy houses and the latest gadgets, while at the same time being perpetually terrified of folks from 'the downtown' showing up to sully their neighborhoods with whatever non-HOA approved paint scheme they've got in their heads will do that.

In agreement with both you and Glyph on this one - where you live, in terms of city-suburb-rural, has become the dominant factor in deciding how you vote.  More than any other.  This election saw the GOP gain percentages shares of minority communities and the Dems take back a percentage of those guys, the white men.  Florida and Ohio, long the deciding states in terms of who was going to sit in the White House, have ended up being totally irrelevant to this election.

[Haibane]

Getting back to the days immediately ahead, is the most recent slap-down of the Texas lawsuit the end of this charade? Can the Republicans drum up anything else? At all? Other than telling the militias to assault the legislature buildings "at fault", that is.

[TheVillain]

126 GOP members of congress signed on with the Texas lawsuit. There's debate going on whether or not that means they need to be hit with Amendment 14 and as such can't take their seats anymore.

[Regina Minx]

126 GOP members of congress signed on with the Texas lawsuit. There's debate going on whether or not that means they need to be hit with Amendment 14 and as such can't take their seats anymore.

Not among anyone serious.

[TheVillain]

There are legal experts hashing it out, it is serious. But the common consensus does seem to be “there does need to be consequences for what they’ve done but that might be too extreme”.

[Regina Minx]

There are legal experts hashing it out, it is serious. But the common consensus does seem to be “there does need to be consequences for what they’ve done but that might be too extreme”.

"Yes, to protect the integrity of our elections, we have to refuse to seat elected members of congress who sign bad amicus briefs."

[Haibane]

Can someone please explain to an outsider what this means. What is the effect of the 14th Amendment in respect to what just happened? What exactly DID just happen? Was the Texas lawsuit seen as treasonous? A link to a legal blog would suffice.

[Regina Minx]

Can someone please explain to an outsider what this means. What is the effect of the 14th Amendment in respect to what just happened? What exactly DID just happen? Was the Texas lawsuit seen as treasonous? A link to a legal blog would suffice.

The 14th Amendment to the Constitution was passed after the Civil War. Section 3 reads:

Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

It was mostly used in the 19th century to prohibit former members of the Confederacy from holding political office with the Federal Government, although it did see some limited use in the 20th century against members of the Socialist Party of America convicted of espionage.

To make a long story short, conflating 'signing on in bad faith to a terrible lawsuit' is a long stretch from engaging in insurrection or rebellion, and it's an idiotic publicity stunt by a single member of the House which will never fly.

[Beguile's Mistress]

I would say it would behoove those in power in the House of Representatives to public censure those members who signed on to the lawsuit should such lawsuit prove to be unconstitutional.  However, such a move could create backlash that would damage the ability of Congress to do it's job.

[TheVillain]

Hence why Amendment 14 is being talked about but most people agree it’s a tad extreme for the situation.

[gaggedLouise]

The 14th Amendment to the Constitution was passed after the Civil War. Section 3 reads:

It was mostly used in the 19th century to prohibit former members of the Confederacy from holding political office with the Federal Government, although it did see some limited use in the 20th century against members of the Socialist Party of America convicted of espionage.

To make a long story short, conflating 'signing on in bad faith to a terrible lawsuit' is a long stretch from engaging in insurrection or rebellion, and it's an idiotic publicity stunt by a single member of the House which will never fly.

The game changes after January 20, or perhaps even earlier: after the electoral college has voted Biden to be the next president. Trump is clearly not planning ever to concede that Biden would be the legit president in little more than a month's time, still less that Biden and Harris won by honest means. Now, if Trump continues to claim that "I ought to remain president past that point and this is obvious" and his followers support him - and that is exactly what's likely to happen - then within a few weeks he *will* be acting as an Enemy of the Republic, he will be engaging in sedition. And those who openly support him - who file lawsuits on his behalf, who keep his claims going, who denounce Biden as illegal simply because he's entered office - those persons or militias could well be said to "give aid or comfort to the enemies thereof", of the constitution and the US as a republic.

I think this is a perfectly possible argument. Trump's attempt to discredit and disqualify the very mechanisms of the election began months before the autumn campaign and he has continued for a month after, and will keep continuing to try to shoot the messenger (the election result). He's also mobilizing people to reject the election and the entire system of succession in office on his behalf, armed with lies. Already two years ago, before the Midterms, he was saying that "this election is really a test of my popularity" (he wasn't even running) and warning that if the outcome became too positive for the Dems, there might be violence in the streets or an economic crisis. This is sedition, and a fair number of his hardcore followers are perfectly willing to trash the constitutional system, even in action, because Trump matters more to them than ordered governance.

It would be a really difficult test politically, of course, to go ahead and try some of these people, including Trump himself and some of his associates, but faced with this unique situation - a US president elected by democratic means who tries to demolish people's respect for the same democratic system when he is unable to score a win for himself and stay in office - the US does need to draw some red lines and show that this kind of activity really isn't okay, at least not from elected politicians or when the aim is to penetrate the sphere of government and lawmaking.

[TheGlyphstone]

...they serve to organize faction, to give it an artificial and extraordinary force; to put, in the place of the delegated will of the nation the will of a party, often a small but artful and enterprising minority of the community; and, according to the alternate triumphs of different parties, to make the public administration the mirror of the ill-concerted and incongruous projects of faction, rather than the organ of consistent and wholesome plans digested by common counsels and modified by mutual interests.

However combinations or associations of the above description may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely, in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion.

Are we sure George wasn't a time traveller?

[Missy]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MUAq7q83Xew

[gaggedLouise]

That guy who's chairman of the Texas republicans, he actually called for people who see themselves as good "real" Americans and who care about the constitution to secede and form a new union of states (if the present union doesn't bend to their wishes). How is that not seditious? (the weirdest thing about it is, he's a black man).

For the record, in the early days of the Trump presidency many Dems were certainly angry or worried about Trump - but I don't recall anyone there saying that he had committed treason simply by taking office, or that the transition itself was a crime against the USA. Many people put question marks at his methods in the 2016 campaign, but not at the formal legality of the win itself.

[Haibane]

Are we sure George wasn't a time traveller?

Wow. That is uncanny. What a prescient man. This was before any popular revolts or even nationalism became a thing. This was prior to the French Revolution.

[Bibliophilia]

There are certain Texans who will grasp onto any reason to call for a secession from the 'Union'.  Seriously, it's annoying and stupid as fuck.  Hell, sometimes there doesn't need to be a reason.  Some of us out here legit think that Texas can survive as its own country.  -rolls eyes.-  Intelligent people do not take these morons seriously.

[Oniya]

The 'secession' talk is getting a lot of derision.  Most of the people talking in favor of it are in states that are dependent on a lot of federal aid - that they'd lose if they seceded from the Union.  There's also the amusing aspect that poor spelling leads a lot of them to be making posts in favor of 'succession' - which has a glorious irony to it.