Hypothetical - secession or war?

[fskimospy]

Because most of that money goes to entitlements for the poor, disabled, and retired. Conservatives would prefer to have lower taxes, even if that means less money being doled out to their state.

Sure they would.

 

[dali71]

Sure they would.

Since you're a flaming liberal, you wouldn't have the slightest fucking clue what true conservatives want.

 

[JSt0rm]

Since you're a flaming liberal, you wouldn't have the slightest fucking clue what true conservatives want.

We had 8 years of it.

 

[fskimospy]

Since you're a flaming liberal, you wouldn't have the slightest fucking clue what true conservatives want.

Of course I wouldn't. I can only judge our good nation's True Conservatives by their actions, and I do happen to notice that as a state's Cook PVI index goes more Republican, its share federal welfare ratio also gets generally worse. I'm sure it's just stealth liberals in those states drowning out the True Conservatives.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I would say Article 6 sections 1 and 2, and then historical and Supreme Court precedent.

Some might disagree, although they would also disagree with my belief that Lincoln was a devout constitutionalist.

I'd go with Amendment X-

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

Lincoln and others may have warred to prevent secession, but it seems to me that using the Constitution as a justification is on shaky ground. Besides our nation was formed by those who broke away from their government. It's somewhat ironic that the replacement authority would seek to kill those who sought the same thing.

 

[dali71]

We had 8 years of it.

If you think that was true conservatism, then you're much dumber than I previously assumed.

 

[DominionSeraph]

What you assume is that the separation of the north and south would present difficulties for just the South. The South would reform with a different government and oil to finance it. A great deal of their energy needs would be domestically produced. The North would be faced with an energy crisis never seen before. In that scenario your tables are worthless. The slate is wiped clean.

It would probably provide the impetus for the North to go nuclear/electric, finally freeing us from foreign oil. The South would probably still have to import, given that Alaska and the Gulf would still belong to the North. (the South's fleet of fishing vessels wouldn't fare well against a carrier battle group)

And the tables are not worthless unless you think Southerners' expectations would be wiped clean. In their current world they get ~$2 for every $1 they pay. Why would they all of a sudden be fine with getting half that?

 

[JSt0rm]

If you think that was true conservatism, then you're much dumber than I previously assumed.

No I dont think it was but I do think thats what conservatives have to offer. No thanks.

 

[cwjerome]

I'd go with Amendment X-
Lincoln and others may have warred to prevent secession, but it seems to me that using the Constitution as a justification is on shaky ground. Besides our nation was formed by those who broke away from their government. It's somewhat ironic that the replacement authority would seek to kill those who sought the same thing.

I don't think its very ironic, the Founding Fathers were fighting for liberty and that's exactly what Lincoln did. If anything, he honored the ideals of the revolution.

 

[Nebor]

We had 8 years of it.

More like 11.