2017: the year we become ungovernable

#41

You are not obligated to complete the task, but neither are you free to desist from it

Avot 2:21

1 Like
#42

I question the use of “democratic” here since:

a) the majority of the voting demos didn’t vote for her

b) only 55% of the population voted at all

I can reject the non-existent mandate of the “leader” that 1/4 of the country elected.

7 Likes
#43

The more this stuff goes on, the more I think this is our best option:

So, we just split the country and give them the damned Confederacy like they wanted. The blue goes to the Democrats, and the red to the Republicans. The yellow, we return to the natives, and Alaska, Hawaii, and the greater New Orleans area get carved off and can stay independent or align with whoever they want.

Then we sell Florida wholesale to Walt Disney to pay for the administrative costs of doing so.

Honestly, I’m half serious. The borders there are mostly based on Colin Woodward’s book, and follow the actual cultural lines, rather than state borders. Each of those areas would be a largely homogeneous culture, at least to the extent of compatible politics.

5 Likes
#44

I live in California and am from Seattle. I’m not sure, if we’re entertaining balkanization notions, why I’d want New England and much of the East Coast (let alone any of the Dakotas). I’d be happy with the West Coast going its own way.

1 Like
#45

All the people of Hispanic descent living there might have a different feeling about that, BTW.

4 Likes
#46

Technically, aren’t they native North Americans?

#47

Technically, aren’t I then? I was born here and two branches of my family arrived in the 1630’s.

Last I checked, Hispanics folks originated in Spain as much as anywhere else.

1 Like
#48

I don’t see abandoning the African-American population of the South to the rule of the neo-Confederates as an acceptable option.

13 Likes
#49

I’m pretty sure that ethnically, the people we consider “Hispanic” are indigenous to the Americas. It’s the language they got from Spain, not so much of the blood. Even the culture they adopted (at swordpoint) was less “Spanish” than “Catholic”.

There was actually a bit of a thing a few years ago where Hispanic people were checking “Native American” as their ethnic group on official forms.

5 Likes
#50

They’re a mix of Spanish and native folks, actually, some much more so than others, given how Mexicans often look down on fully native people in Mexico.

11 Likes
#51

Freedom - I won’t.
http://www.abelard.org/e-f-russell.php

1 Like
#52

I don’t see abandoning the African-American population of the South to the rule of the neo-Confederates as an acceptable option.

I don’t see allowing the Confederacy to have a say in my government as an acceptable option.

For that matter, they don’t believe that public education, environmental protection, women’s rights, or tolerance are acceptable options.

Seriously, I think this shit has hit the “irreconcilable differences” point.

7 Likes
#53

Ethnically it’s extremely mixed. It ranges from those whose ancestors are almost exclusively native, most of whom tend to live in poor communities, to those with a large proportion (>50%) of Spanish ancestors. There is, i believe, a correlation between economic class and percent of non-native ancestry.

8 Likes
#54

A consideration which is often lost here is whether we are classifying these people by European or American economic models. Many - even non-Europeans - apply European economic models to indigenous groups who may not be at all interested in measuring or distributing wealth in those same ways.

2 Likes
#55

Exactly. When their reason for throwing tantrums is that the President wanted to improve healthcare and prevent discrimination, I’m not too inclined to be sympathetic when their goal is to remove my healthcare and my legal protections.

15 Likes
#56

They all live in a market economy now.

#57

I question if you know where the blue parts of the United States even are…

1 Like
#58

“You’ve got that eternal idiotic idea that if anarchy came it would come from the poor. Why should it? The poor have been rebels, but they have never been anarchists; they have more interest than anyone else in there being some decent government. The poor man really has a stake in the country. The rich man hasn’t; he can go away to New Guinea in a yacht. The poor have sometimes objected to being governed badly; the rich have always objected to being governed at all. Aristocrats were always anarchists” --G.K. Chesterton

Don’t burn the flag, fly it high, because it represents the Constitution and the ideals of a government for all citizens. Trump and his oligarchs are the ones being unpatriotic, they don’t care about the USA, they care about their profit margins.

10 Likes
#59

I hate to be the one to say this, but we are not, as far as I can tell, living in Germany in 1933. Or China in 1948. You are still frightening yourselves with an image of Republicans that was invented to scare you to vote for Clinton. It is no different than the teabaggers who were convinced that President Obama is a secret Muslim who was planning to put all the Xstians into FEMA camps. It is almost certain that Trump is going to make vulgar or poorly thought out remarks. And you will get to mock him for that.
You don’t need to start a resistance. you need to present a viable candidate to run against him in four years. If Trump is as bad as everyone expects him to be, that should not be a problem. We may have set ourselves up for situation where both main parties have damaged themselves enough for a third party candidate to have a decent chance.

4 Likes
#60

I was referring to the populations at large of hispanic Latin American countries. Most of my experiential “data” comes from Mexico specifically.