Perhaps it is time to let the Union divide.

No.

This country needs to be brought together.

Both extremes sound terrifying... I'd have no idea where to live...

originally posted by: abe froman
This country needs to be brought together.

I would be very interested if you have any suggestions on how that might happen.

originally posted by: Puppylove
Both extremes sound terrifying... I'd have no idea where to live...

Could you elaborate on why? I don't see a lot of middle ground between the two sides of every issue. If you feel stuck, is it in the middle on some ideas or that you agree with varying extremes of both sides?

a reply to: Puppylove

That's because we have allowed two private organizations to control our country with no oversight.

That's right, the Democratic and Republican parties are both private organizations.

a reply to: Wolf321

Stage a false flag event.

originally posted by: Sublimecraft

Oooh! I want one!

I’m an Okie, but born in North Texas. Throw in Arkansas, Kansas, Missouri, and Nebraska and those 6 states will make up the new America. Fort Worth can be the new Capital. We will have all the water we need in the aquifer, millions of acres of agriculture, diverse technological industries, livestock, manufacturing, and all the wildlife and nature you could ever want.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
The division is born on twitter, and it should be left there.

It's been around longer than twitter.
And it isn't going anywhere anytime soon.
Too much money to be made in advertising on 24 hour cable "news" networks of all two flavors. Book deals, donations to one of two flavors,
The flavors taste the same, but it's all about the marketing...
Multi billion dollar industry getting people to argue amongst themselves.

originally posted by: lambs to lions
I’m an Okie, but born in North Texas. Throw in Arkansas, Kansas, Missouri, and Nebraska and those 6 states will make up the new America. Fort Worth can be the new Capital. We will have all the water we need in the aquifer, millions of acres of agriculture, diverse technological industries, livestock, manufacturing, and all the wildlife and nature you could ever want.

And when tornado season hits in a few months, those states will be suckling at the government teat for funding. Just imagine if the new Madrid fault decided to be naughty again. Or widespread flooding like in '93...

Cows and corn can't pay billions in losses...

originally posted by: Khaleesi

originally posted by: Ghostsinthefog
a reply to: Edumakated

Austin is liberal? As a non American i thougjt tje entire Texas state was raging republicans wanting to be the top executer every year

Big cities, even in the reddest of red states are still usually very liberal.

This I believe is the reason why this is true...

Large urban cities are populated with a higher percentage of college educated voters then is the rural south the heartland of the Republican Party. College educated voters tend to overwhelmingly vote for the Democrat candidates.

Why do the large urban cities always vote democratic?

In short, it appears as though educational levels are the critical factor in predicting shifts in the vote between 2012 and 2016.

Education, Not Income, Predicted Who Would Vote For Trump

...rural Americans are more likely to be white and less likely to have college degrees than people in urban areas, and both whiteness and lower levels of college education are characteristics connected to voting for Trump. Earlier this year we wrote about how a phenomenon that one researcher calls "rural resentment" was driving voters to Trump. That may well have helped him win this year.

"There's this sense that people in those communities are not getting their fair share compared to people in the cities," as Katherine Cramer, a political science professor at the University of Wisconsin, told NPR in August. "They feel like their communities are dying, and they perceive that all that stuff — the young people, the money, the livelihood — is going somewhere, and it's going to the cities," she said.

Rural Voters Helped Trump Win The Election. Here's How

The vote laid bare a sharp divide on education. Ms. Clinton fared better among the more highly educated, winning among college graduates and holding a substantial lead among those who had done postgraduate study. Those with high school or less, as well as those with some college, preferred Mr. Trump by healthy margins.

The data behind Trump's win

a reply to: the owlbear

NM...smh

a reply to: Wolf321 Easy, dodge ball

originally posted by: the owlbear

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
The division is born on twitter, and it should be left there.

It's been around longer than twitter.
And it isn't going anywhere anytime soon.
Too much money to be made in advertising on 24 hour cable "news" networks of all two flavors. Book deals, donations to one of two flavors,
The flavors taste the same, but it's all about the marketing...
Multi billion dollar industry getting people to argue amongst themselves.

Every ounce of division these days can be reduced to a social media feud. The polarization is restricted to politicians, activists, media elites, and their twitter followers. It’s not an accurate sample of the country at large.

a reply to: Murgatroid
How do you have over 7,000 thread posts and zero flags???

I don't see how this could ever happen peacefully as there would be major disputes over land and resources. I would recon/guess that the majority of right leaning people own the vast majority of land in this country that is in private/personal ownership and they also own a fair amount in the cities. I would guess that it is almost inverse with the left where they own more in the cities with only a fair amount outside. It would be an interesting surbvey to take. I'd like to see a breakdown of the property ownership in value, acres, property type, building type, etc between dem, republican, independet, etc as well as one done with businesses. That would be VERY interesting to see the results!

a reply to: Wolf321

we are no more divided now then we have ever been.... and we have ALWAYS been powerfully divided. all of those liberal principles you talk-down are hard boiled into the constitution, if you care to look.

if you split this country apart, idealogically, you would destroy what makes it so powerful.

.... sounds like somebody needs a history lesson.

How do you conquer a nation. Divide it.

Those people who should represent our needs and concerns
Are bought and paid for shills for the most part, yet they are
So short sighted, that even they cannot see the destruction
And desolation that will envelope us all because of their
Greed and ignorance.

Whom do you think will fall first? The shanty’s in the
Rural areas or the castles behind the walled communities?

Our leaders are fools who live on dreams that do not exist.

They weaken our nation day by day. It sickens my heart to
Watch what they do to a nation bought by the blood and perseverance
Of so many great generations.

May God bless and keep us.

a reply to: tgidkp

The only liberal principle, as you call it, that I did talk-down only in allusion is the desire to restrict gun rights. I am well versed in the constitution and have not seen anywhere in it or in the concepts of those who wrote it, suggesting the people should be less armed than the government or have their arms restricted.

I do believe that the variations in ideas and beliefs are a benefit to the nation. However, there are some fundamental principles that there should be little variation on in belief. The core freedoms outlined in the bill of rights should be one of them. The liberal left seems hell bent on wanting to change these to fit their ideal of control. You can have free speech, but lets ban "hate" speech. You can have guns, but only for the national guard or only if its a handgun or a revolver or a musket. Freedom can be a dangerous thing. I would personally rather live dangerously free, than comfortably a slave.

Never gona happen. The 14th amendment makes revolution against the Federal government illegal.

Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned.But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.