3 ms·

"End of the Union" is a catastrophically bad idea and it disturbs me that otherwise intelligent people would take it seriously. I find it stunning how people wh

by jrm4 4y ago

"End of the Union" is a catastrophically bad idea and it disturbs me that otherwise intelligent people would take it seriously. I find it stunning how people who might otherwise decry things like "racism" can be in a mindstate of not understanding how close of an idea this is to "Maybe we should do the Civil War" again.

denton-scratch 4y ago
> Maybe we should do the Civil War again There's a fair argument that it never ended; the South was defeated, but never gave in. Or at least, part of the South didn't. Come on, isn't that the meaning of the Confederate flag? Doesn't it mean "Fuck you, Union"? /me a brit, I don't have a dog in this race. I'd just feel massively more comfortable if the most powerful country in the world knew who it was, what it's policies are, and who it's friends are. If they can't figure that out, and have to break up, that's miles better than the USA being balanced 49% to 51% on every policy and every federal court judgement. I'd prefer it if the USA split, rather than having a schizophrenic USA, with the biggest army in the world, that can't agree who it is, what it's economic policy is, or what it's foreign policy is. Schizo USA is screwing everyone else up.
- jrm4 4y ago
  That's a pretty fair dog actually. I like the goal you're looking at, I just don't think that's a viable path from where we're standing; which is to say in reality a broken US gives you more potential chaos, not less? I've come to believe that "nation" is somewhat of a weird and artificial concept and so that in many ways it almost doesn't make sense to compare e.g. the US and Russia. And so, while "no lopsidedly strong nation" would be optimal, from here I do think that US in its current form is a pretty good hedge against the others, for the most part.
kelseyfrog 4y ago
Reconstruction 2.0 it is then. The Compromise of 1877 was a uniquely bad idea.

by jrm4 4y ago

denton-scratch 4y ago

> Maybe we should do the Civil War again There's a fair argument that it never ended; the South was defeated, but never gave in. Or at least, part of the South didn't. Come on, isn't that the meaning of the Confederate flag? Doesn't it mean "Fuck you, Union"? /me a brit, I don't have a dog in this race. I'd just feel massively more comfortable if the most powerful country in the world knew who it was, what it's policies are, and who it's friends are. If they can't figure that out, and have to break up, that's miles better than the USA being balanced 49% to 51% on every policy and every federal court judgement. I'd prefer it if the USA split, rather than having a schizophrenic USA, with the biggest army in the world, that can't agree who it is, what it's economic policy is, or what it's foreign policy is. Schizo USA is screwing everyone else up.

jrm4 4y ago
That's a pretty fair dog actually. I like the goal you're looking at, I just don't think that's a viable path from where we're standing; which is to say in reality a broken US gives you more potential chaos, not less? I've come to believe that "nation" is somewhat of a weird and artificial concept and so that in many ways it almost doesn't make sense to compare e.g. the US and Russia. And so, while "no lopsidedly strong nation" would be optimal, from here I do think that US in its current form is a pretty good hedge against the others, for the most part.

kelseyfrog 4y ago

Reconstruction 2.0 it is then. The Compromise of 1877 was a uniquely bad idea.