No way. A trump presidency No way. A trump presidency will probably be very bad for our country. But an electoral mutiny could easily be the end of the United States. Not “the end of the U.S. as we know it.” The end of the U.S. as a country.
spdrun
December 12, 2016 @
3:11 PM
Would that necessarily be a Would that necessarily be a bad thing if the US dissolved into a number of regions? California would likely do very well on its own. In fact better, since they’d be forced to consider water and energy issues and work around the NIMBYs to build new nuke and desal plants.
If the coasts enacted strict environmental regulations without Federal court interference, the market for Midwestern oil would be diminished, forcing places like OK and the Dakotas into the modern era.
zk
December 12, 2016 @
3:12 PM
spdrun wrote:Would that [quote=spdrun]Would that necessarily be a bad thing if the US dissolved into a number of regions? California would likely do very well on its own. In fact better, since they’d be forced to consider water and energy issues and work around the NIMBYs to build new nuke and desal plants.
If the coasts enacted strict environmental regulations without Federal court interference, the market for Midwestern oil would be diminished, forcing places like OK and the Dakotas into the modern era.[/quote]
A number of regions? You mean different countries?
spdrun
December 12, 2016 @
3:16 PM
Yes. Ideally with some Yes. Ideally with some reciprocity as far as trade and free movement of people, like CARICOM or the European Economic Community pre-EU. Or maybe a Canadian type system where the Federal gov is looser in some respects and provinces have more autonomy. i.e. California could adopt Spanish and Chinese as multiple official languages and give preference to migrants who know those languages. (As Quebec does for Francophones.)
zk
December 12, 2016 @
3:22 PM
spdrun wrote:Yes. Ideally [quote=spdrun]Yes. Ideally with some reciprocity as far as trade and free movement of people, like CARICOM or the European Economic Community pre-EU. Or maybe a Canadian type system where the Federal gov is looser in some respects and provinces have more autonomy. i.e. California could adopt Spanish and Chinese as multiple official languages and give preference to migrants who know those languages. (As Quebec does for Francophones.)[/quote]
If such a thing could be agreed upon under the best of circumstances (extremely unlikely), it seems to me the costs would outweigh the benefits.
But in the event of an electoral mutiny, there most likely wouldn’t be a peaceful agreement on much of anything, and especially not whether or how to split up the country. It would be chaos.
ucodegen
December 12, 2016 @
3:14 PM
spdrun wrote:Would that [quote=spdrun]Would that necessarily be a bad thing if the US split into a number of regions? California would likely do very well on its own. In fact better, since they’d be forced to consider water and energy issues and work around the NIMBYs to build new nuke and desal plants.[/quote]
Figure out where California gets it water and power – and Uranium ore… all of these are currently imported. Desal is also very power intensive – oddly about 3x what it takes to go toilet to tap.
spdrun
December 12, 2016 @
3:20 PM
Figure out where California
Figure out where California gets it water and power – and Uranium ore… all of these are currently imported. Desal is also very power intensive – oddly about 3x what it takes to go toilet to tap.
Desal being power-intensive is less of a problem if you can quiet the NIMBYs and have an abundance of nuclear and solar energy.
California can buy U ore from Africa, and also reprocess like the French and Japanese (safely) do. Without Federal non-proliferation regs, reprocessing would become a lot easier.
FlyerInHi
December 13, 2016 @
10:39 AM
A breakup of the USA would A breakup of the USA would defang the military.
What would China and Russia do?
Anonymous
December 12, 2016 @
3:46 PM
zk wrote:No way. A trump [quote=zk]No way. A trump presidency will probably be very bad for our country. But an electoral mutiny could easily be the end of the United States. Not “the end of the U.S. as we know it.” The end of the U.S. as a country.[/quote]
Real Americans would have no choice but to revolt against the electoral college decision in order to enforce the outcome defined by the Constitution.
This article would be pretty damn funny if it wasn’t so painfully true.
zk
December 20, 2016 @
9:04 AM
harvey wrote:zk wrote:No way. [quote=harvey][quote=zk]No way. A trump presidency will probably be very bad for our country. But an electoral mutiny could easily be the end of the United States. Not “the end of the U.S. as we know it.” The end of the U.S. as a country.[/quote]
Real Americans would have no choice but to revolt against the electoral college decision in order to enforce the outcome defined by the Constitution.
My point had nothing to do with the constitution. It had to do with civil war.
mixxalot
December 20, 2016 @
8:06 AM
will see. still waiting for will see. still waiting for live coverage of the smackdown between zika and bg!
njtosd
December 13, 2016 @
3:11 PM
I hate it when people start I hate it when people start challenging the rules after the fact. Everyone agreed to play by the rules until they didn’t like the outcome. Plus I think the electors like being in the spotlight.
Anonymous
December 13, 2016 @
4:01 PM
The electoral college could The electoral college could elect Vermin Supreme without violating any rules.
scaredyclassic
December 13, 2016 @
7:45 PM
harvey wrote:The electoral [quote=harvey]The electoral college could elect Vermin Supreme without violating any rules.[/quote]
yes, in fact, vermin is lobbying hard for that.
poorgradstudent
December 14, 2016 @
3:36 PM
At this point I’m willing to At this point I’m willing to let the House Republicans replace Trump with anyone of their choosing. Even Ted Cruz. God that hurts.
scaredyclassic
December 14, 2016 @
5:27 PM
poorgradstudent wrote:At this [quote=poorgradstudent]At this point I’m willing to let the House Republicans replace Trump with anyone of their choosing. Even Ted Cruz. God that hurts.[/quote]
ill take ted cruz, happily, and i hate that fucker.
Anonymous
December 14, 2016 @
6:47 PM
scaredyclassic [quote=scaredyclassic][quote=poorgradstudent]At this point I’m willing to let the House Republicans replace Trump with anyone of their choosing. Even Ted Cruz. God that hurts.[/quote]
ill take ted cruz, happily, and i hate that fucker.[/quote]
I’m pretty sure Ted has actually read the Constitution.
The bar is now that low.
spdrun
December 14, 2016 @
8:35 PM
Nah, Cruz is worse than Trump Nah, Cruz is worse than Trump — he’s basically a Christian Wahhabe.
December 12, 2016 @ 3:03 PM
No way. A trump presidency
No way. A trump presidency will probably be very bad for our country. But an electoral mutiny could easily be the end of the United States. Not “the end of the U.S. as we know it.” The end of the U.S. as a country.
December 12, 2016 @ 3:11 PM
Would that necessarily be a
Would that necessarily be a bad thing if the US dissolved into a number of regions? California would likely do very well on its own. In fact better, since they’d be forced to consider water and energy issues and work around the NIMBYs to build new nuke and desal plants.
If the coasts enacted strict environmental regulations without Federal court interference, the market for Midwestern oil would be diminished, forcing places like OK and the Dakotas into the modern era.
December 12, 2016 @ 3:12 PM
spdrun wrote:Would that
[quote=spdrun]Would that necessarily be a bad thing if the US dissolved into a number of regions? California would likely do very well on its own. In fact better, since they’d be forced to consider water and energy issues and work around the NIMBYs to build new nuke and desal plants.
If the coasts enacted strict environmental regulations without Federal court interference, the market for Midwestern oil would be diminished, forcing places like OK and the Dakotas into the modern era.[/quote]
A number of regions? You mean different countries?
December 12, 2016 @ 3:16 PM
Yes. Ideally with some
Yes. Ideally with some reciprocity as far as trade and free movement of people, like CARICOM or the European Economic Community pre-EU. Or maybe a Canadian type system where the Federal gov is looser in some respects and provinces have more autonomy. i.e. California could adopt Spanish and Chinese as multiple official languages and give preference to migrants who know those languages. (As Quebec does for Francophones.)
December 12, 2016 @ 3:22 PM
spdrun wrote:Yes. Ideally
[quote=spdrun]Yes. Ideally with some reciprocity as far as trade and free movement of people, like CARICOM or the European Economic Community pre-EU. Or maybe a Canadian type system where the Federal gov is looser in some respects and provinces have more autonomy. i.e. California could adopt Spanish and Chinese as multiple official languages and give preference to migrants who know those languages. (As Quebec does for Francophones.)[/quote]
If such a thing could be agreed upon under the best of circumstances (extremely unlikely), it seems to me the costs would outweigh the benefits.
But in the event of an electoral mutiny, there most likely wouldn’t be a peaceful agreement on much of anything, and especially not whether or how to split up the country. It would be chaos.
December 12, 2016 @ 3:14 PM
spdrun wrote:Would that
[quote=spdrun]Would that necessarily be a bad thing if the US split into a number of regions? California would likely do very well on its own. In fact better, since they’d be forced to consider water and energy issues and work around the NIMBYs to build new nuke and desal plants.[/quote]
Figure out where California gets it water and power – and Uranium ore… all of these are currently imported. Desal is also very power intensive – oddly about 3x what it takes to go toilet to tap.
December 12, 2016 @ 3:20 PM
Figure out where California
Desal being power-intensive is less of a problem if you can quiet the NIMBYs and have an abundance of nuclear and solar energy.
California can buy U ore from Africa, and also reprocess like the French and Japanese (safely) do. Without Federal non-proliferation regs, reprocessing would become a lot easier.
December 13, 2016 @ 10:39 AM
A breakup of the USA would
A breakup of the USA would defang the military.
What would China and Russia do?
December 12, 2016 @ 3:46 PM
zk wrote:No way. A trump
[quote=zk]No way. A trump presidency will probably be very bad for our country. But an electoral mutiny could easily be the end of the United States. Not “the end of the U.S. as we know it.” The end of the U.S. as a country.[/quote]
Real Americans would have no choice but to revolt against the electoral college decision in order to enforce the outcome defined by the Constitution.
This guy has never been more relevant:
http://www.theonion.com/article/area-man-passionate-defender-of-what-he-imagines-c-2849
December 13, 2016 @ 2:21 PM
harvey wrote:This guy has
[quote=harvey]This guy has never been more relevant:
http://www.theonion.com/article/area-man-passionate-defender-of-what-he-imagines-c-2849%5B/quote%5D
This article would be pretty damn funny if it wasn’t so painfully true.
December 20, 2016 @ 9:04 AM
harvey wrote:zk wrote:No way.
[quote=harvey][quote=zk]No way. A trump presidency will probably be very bad for our country. But an electoral mutiny could easily be the end of the United States. Not “the end of the U.S. as we know it.” The end of the U.S. as a country.[/quote]
Real Americans would have no choice but to revolt against the electoral college decision in order to enforce the outcome defined by the Constitution.
This guy has never been more relevant:
http://www.theonion.com/article/area-man-passionate-defender-of-what-he-imagines-c-2849%5B/quote%5D
My point had nothing to do with the constitution. It had to do with civil war.
December 20, 2016 @ 8:06 AM
will see. still waiting for
will see. still waiting for live coverage of the smackdown between zika and bg!
December 13, 2016 @ 3:11 PM
I hate it when people start
I hate it when people start challenging the rules after the fact. Everyone agreed to play by the rules until they didn’t like the outcome. Plus I think the electors like being in the spotlight.
December 13, 2016 @ 4:01 PM
The electoral college could
The electoral college could elect Vermin Supreme without violating any rules.
December 13, 2016 @ 7:45 PM
harvey wrote:The electoral
[quote=harvey]The electoral college could elect Vermin Supreme without violating any rules.[/quote]
yes, in fact, vermin is lobbying hard for that.
December 14, 2016 @ 3:36 PM
At this point I’m willing to
At this point I’m willing to let the House Republicans replace Trump with anyone of their choosing. Even Ted Cruz. God that hurts.
December 14, 2016 @ 5:27 PM
poorgradstudent wrote:At this
[quote=poorgradstudent]At this point I’m willing to let the House Republicans replace Trump with anyone of their choosing. Even Ted Cruz. God that hurts.[/quote]
ill take ted cruz, happily, and i hate that fucker.
December 14, 2016 @ 6:47 PM
scaredyclassic
[quote=scaredyclassic][quote=poorgradstudent]At this point I’m willing to let the House Republicans replace Trump with anyone of their choosing. Even Ted Cruz. God that hurts.[/quote]
ill take ted cruz, happily, and i hate that fucker.[/quote]
I’m pretty sure Ted has actually read the Constitution.
The bar is now that low.
December 14, 2016 @ 8:35 PM
Nah, Cruz is worse than Trump
Nah, Cruz is worse than Trump — he’s basically a Christian Wahhabe.