[krapp]

These states and many of their citizens have been murmuring about a "cold civil war" and "peaceable secession" for decades, and a few have been flirting with secession since the actual civil war ended. They don't want to be a part of the US - or more accurately they consider only themselves to be the US, proper, and reject the authority of the Federal government as illegitimate, oppressive, and run according to cultural values which they despise.

So yeah, maybe it's better to let them go than suffer having them dragging the rest of the country down with them.

[kcplate]

…or maybe they can just vote for the change they would like at the federal level like they just did.

Funny how that works in a republic like ours. If their direction doesn’t pan out, you have opportunities in 2026 and 2028 to right the ship. Of course that would mean that the democrats will actually have to provide a leader to two that can effectively communicate, motivate, and lead.

[krapp]

A republic doesn't work when half of the people simply vote to burn it down every four years to spite the other half. You can't just "right the ship" to correct policies this destructive. This isn't simple politics as usual.

[kcplate]

You are making an assumption that only half the country votes to “burn it down” and that whatever side you are on is the correct one that should be preserved.

It’s possible that both sides seek to destroy the policies of the other and maybe, just maybe, neither side truly has a monopoly on what is right and correct.

All I hear as an independent political thinker is two sides whining that the other is dogmatic.

[krapp]

You're making the common "centrist" assumption that all sides are equal and all opinions derive from dogmatism and hypocrisy, yet somehow your own comments here tend only to criticize one side while justifying the other. I don't think you're as independent as you claim.

[kcplate]

Interesting…I literally criticized both sides equally in the comment to which you just replied.

And for what it’s worth, I am pragmatic, not a centrist, which means that sometimes I might have an unbalanced view according to folks that believe “if you are not always A you must be B”

[krapp]

You didn't actually criticize either, you just implied both sides had the same motives, goals and methods, and that both sides were whining dogmatists. There is a difference between the two.

Also no one has claimed "if you are not always A you must be B," here. Again, you're just resorting to platitudes and stereotypes, no actual criticism or analysis. You haven't actually refuted any arguments with anything but blithe dismissals.