[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.

[kcplate]

Suggesting that the two sides have the same motive, goal, and methods is a criticism. Suggesting that they are both full of whining dogmatists is a criticism.

Here is your argument, since apparently you didn’t get it from the much more brief sarcasm that started this little chain: “it’s shortsighted and frankly ignorant to suggest that destroying the most powerful country ever to exist via secession is a reasonable idea just because someone is butthurt that their ‘side’ didn’t win an election this time around and we had some hurricanes and fires this year that required significant federal disaster assistance”

By the way, my argument doesn’t change if it’s republicans talking secession or if the democrats are doing it. It’s a stupid idea.