The first steps are 6: pro-life law on abortion, stand your ground law, ban on sex change (especially for children under 18), no benefits for illegals or criminals, no more no-fault divorces, and a state bank in each state that would force the bank chains to lower interest rates and ends foreclosure abuses. These can get the ball going long before the Divorce if that happens.
Well yes, good list, but I think only conquest could impose such things on interior blue states and not coastal blue states. This is what causes the voluntary migration from interior to coast
If the Second Civil War happens, only the Reds can win. We have the vast majority of guns, the military, and the police. We will take the entire country. The communists will flee to Canada, Mexico, and Europe like cockroaches. Many communists will flee when the war starts. Many communists have already fled.
The writer of this article is overestimating the value of Coos Bay OR as a port. Coos Bay harbor is too small for modern container ships and tankers and has poor road access and no rail access to the interior of the country. Portland is Oregon's only real port.
Coos Bay does have rail access now. Our two main ports in the area would be Portland and Grey's Harbor
No one questions our ability to take the whole country. But I strongly believe that we don't want their influence in their country (through donations of time & money), even if we don't give them a vote. It's not worthwhile in lives or treasure to occupy them permanently like we did Iraq & afghanistan, for the same reason that we don't occupy Canada, Mexico, & Europe. https://redstatesecession.org/how-can-the-right-wing-achieve-a-victory-that-will-last-a-generation
You're not wrong at all I should have been clearer, I don't consider anything south of our southern border North America lol, so I suppose technical it's more North America than Central America
I think the best way is to pick the red states and expel all those into the other states. People will have move on both sides for something like this to work.
A fascinating topic, but it's hard for me to theorize when the biggest issue is the context which is unknown. I find it hard to believe CW2 could end with both polities still in existence, especially since both sides would have nukes and regard the issue as existential.
For a post-CW world instead of asking, "what will the borders be?" I feel like we should be asking, "who run Bartertown?"
=
I think it's much more likely that states will band together with a combined state defense force, play it cool for as long as possible, then increasingly tell the Feds 'no' when the Feds make demands. As the feds fade in power and the state coalition gets stronger, the things which can be said 'no' to will increase until there is de facto secession.
Very similar to how most Latin American countries achieved their freedom from Spain: Napoleon conquered Spain, the colonies declared Nap's figurehead on the throne to be a fake, then when Nap was defeated and the legit Spanish government returned, all those colonies just decided not to rejoin. Even before Napoleon, those colonies often ignored royal pronouncements with something called "we obey, but do not implement." Which was some sketchy logic, declaring they were still loyal subjects of the king and totally obeyed him in all things including the latest laws... they just didn't actually do whatever those laws said.
=
The odds of a state being willing to join that coalition would be an amalgam of these 2 maps:
All of this requires someone with balls to stand up and start it, while not committing suicide or dying of a heart attack under suspicious circumstances. Which seems unlikely, at least so far.
Any nullification of a federal act will cause the feds to escalate rapidly, because impeding federal agents is against federal law and they're like that. I hope states do it. I'm just saying there won't be anything gradual about it.
It's been happening for awhile. Marijuana is illegal at the federal level yet some states legalized it and refused to enforce the federal law, for example. States have always been free to not enforce federal law. Some cities and states have declared themselves to be sanctuary cities for immigrants, and all Trump could do is threaten to withhold federal funds from them.
"Ignoring the feds has already been happening, and if the feds get weaker while red states get stronger, the trend will continue and intensify."
-----
At the moment, though, the red states are sort of synonymous with feds. All of the ICE and other deportation efforts, the legal jujitsu, all state-oriented against federal "overreach." So how to square that circle?
I'm not sure I see the issue. Supporting the deportation of foreigners doesn't make one a full-on supporter of the feds, especially considering the feds were the ones that allowed and encouraged that problem to begin with.
I don't disagree with you, merely noting that with the new administration, we are seeing a more overt relationship between red states and their citizens, and the feds. The deep state is certainly "stateless," insofar as they represent themselves and their globalist power center, but I don't think the line would be as clean as red and blue when many red states have now embraced the feds. Personally I would like to see the feds reduced to the size of a county fair, with the states actually operating as a federation. That wouldn't even require a secession, at least not to start.
😀 Rural NYS can finally rid itself of the burden and influence of NYC!
The first steps are 6: pro-life law on abortion, stand your ground law, ban on sex change (especially for children under 18), no benefits for illegals or criminals, no more no-fault divorces, and a state bank in each state that would force the bank chains to lower interest rates and ends foreclosure abuses. These can get the ball going long before the Divorce if that happens.
Well yes, good list, but I think only conquest could impose such things on interior blue states and not coastal blue states. This is what causes the voluntary migration from interior to coast
The whole thing is for Whites only. Everyone else will be deported, preferably jews first.
If the Second Civil War happens, only the Reds can win. We have the vast majority of guns, the military, and the police. We will take the entire country. The communists will flee to Canada, Mexico, and Europe like cockroaches. Many communists will flee when the war starts. Many communists have already fled.
The writer of this article is overestimating the value of Coos Bay OR as a port. Coos Bay harbor is too small for modern container ships and tankers and has poor road access and no rail access to the interior of the country. Portland is Oregon's only real port.
Coos Bay does have rail access now. Our two main ports in the area would be Portland and Grey's Harbor
No one questions our ability to take the whole country. But I strongly believe that we don't want their influence in their country (through donations of time & money), even if we don't give them a vote. It's not worthwhile in lives or treasure to occupy them permanently like we did Iraq & afghanistan, for the same reason that we don't occupy Canada, Mexico, & Europe. https://redstatesecession.org/how-can-the-right-wing-achieve-a-victory-that-will-last-a-generation
No borders.. We take the entire continent. The way you're thinking about this is fatal. No ground should ever be given.
The population of Mexico is 132M. No one thinks it is worthwhile in lives or treasure to permanently occupy the whole continent like we did Iraq/Afghanistan. We will have borders. The question is where. https://redstatesecession.org/how-can-the-right-wing-achieve-a-victory-that-will-last-a-generation
You're not wrong at all I should have been clearer, I don't consider anything south of our southern border North America lol, so I suppose technical it's more North America than Central America
I think the best way is to pick the red states and expel all those into the other states. People will have move on both sides for something like this to work.
Red
A fascinating topic, but it's hard for me to theorize when the biggest issue is the context which is unknown. I find it hard to believe CW2 could end with both polities still in existence, especially since both sides would have nukes and regard the issue as existential.
For a post-CW world instead of asking, "what will the borders be?" I feel like we should be asking, "who run Bartertown?"
=
I think it's much more likely that states will band together with a combined state defense force, play it cool for as long as possible, then increasingly tell the Feds 'no' when the Feds make demands. As the feds fade in power and the state coalition gets stronger, the things which can be said 'no' to will increase until there is de facto secession.
Very similar to how most Latin American countries achieved their freedom from Spain: Napoleon conquered Spain, the colonies declared Nap's figurehead on the throne to be a fake, then when Nap was defeated and the legit Spanish government returned, all those colonies just decided not to rejoin. Even before Napoleon, those colonies often ignored royal pronouncements with something called "we obey, but do not implement." Which was some sketchy logic, declaring they were still loyal subjects of the king and totally obeyed him in all things including the latest laws... they just didn't actually do whatever those laws said.
=
The odds of a state being willing to join that coalition would be an amalgam of these 2 maps:
https://www.britannica.com/place/current-US-governors-2237270
https://www.zippia.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/map-whitest-names.png
=
All of this requires someone with balls to stand up and start it, while not committing suicide or dying of a heart attack under suspicious circumstances. Which seems unlikely, at least so far.
What is "Bartertown"?
Any nullification of a federal act will cause the feds to escalate rapidly, because impeding federal agents is against federal law and they're like that. I hope states do it. I'm just saying there won't be anything gradual about it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kJ-UZ4DvYBg
It's been happening for awhile. Marijuana is illegal at the federal level yet some states legalized it and refused to enforce the federal law, for example. States have always been free to not enforce federal law. Some cities and states have declared themselves to be sanctuary cities for immigrants, and all Trump could do is threaten to withhold federal funds from them.
https://lawshun.com/article/can-states-ignore-federal-law
Ignoring the feds has already been happening, and if the feds get weaker while red states get stronger, the trend will continue and intensify.
"Ignoring the feds has already been happening, and if the feds get weaker while red states get stronger, the trend will continue and intensify."
-----
At the moment, though, the red states are sort of synonymous with feds. All of the ICE and other deportation efforts, the legal jujitsu, all state-oriented against federal "overreach." So how to square that circle?
I'm not sure I see the issue. Supporting the deportation of foreigners doesn't make one a full-on supporter of the feds, especially considering the feds were the ones that allowed and encouraged that problem to begin with.
I don't disagree with you, merely noting that with the new administration, we are seeing a more overt relationship between red states and their citizens, and the feds. The deep state is certainly "stateless," insofar as they represent themselves and their globalist power center, but I don't think the line would be as clean as red and blue when many red states have now embraced the feds. Personally I would like to see the feds reduced to the size of a county fair, with the states actually operating as a federation. That wouldn't even require a secession, at least not to start.
Article V, Convention of States is a good start to preventing it all. Founders was some smart dudes