3413
Comments (516)
sorted by:
216
MocksFordComma 216 points ago +221 / -5

We don’t need a stricter Constitution. The one we have is fine ... if we follow it.

57
NullifyAndSecede 57 points ago +73 / -16

It's amazing how much Constitutionalists argue like communists sometimes "it's not the system's fault--human nature is too evil for my glorious system!"

if your system is built for humans, who have a given nature, and cant accommodate for said nature, your system sucks

– Michael Malice

56
RememberKosciuszko 56 points ago +56 / -0

You've got a point here, and in many other cases in general

But I still don't agree on stateless solution

If people would be able to literally barge into DC in tanks if anyone does something shitty, American system would suffice

People need ability to exert substantial force.

Force solves many, many problems - more than people are comfortable to admit

47
Forgotmypass666 47 points ago +48 / -1

Force solves many, many problems - more than people are comfortable to admit

Read starship troopers.

16
Honkahonkaburninluv 16 points ago +16 / -0

Correct me if i'm wrong, but you could only vote if you served?

23
deleted 23 points ago +23 / -0
16
ThunderSizzle 16 points ago +22 / -6

Just go back to landowners (actual land, not condos), with only one landowner per deed (e.g. only the husband or wife can vote for the family, not both).

If you don't want to place your stake in a city/state, then you should have no representation until you do so.

That would also cause apartment prices to plummet in cities if it meant you didn't have a say in local government.

19
LesboPregnancyScare 19 points ago +19 / -0

agreed, or something similar like net tax payers. People who rely on handouts will always vote for more handouts. That is what the (D)s are counting on by importing all these invaders.

13
Saltynips 13 points ago +13 / -0

Except that falls apart when you have people like Bill Gates who owns more land than anyone else.

Also how do you define ownership? Most people who aren't boomers or who aren't wealthy dont own their land outright...most people have mortgages so the bank actually owns the land...

10
deleted 10 points ago +10 / -0
6
Finito 6 points ago +8 / -2

This might be the dumbest thing I’ve ever read. So a 21 year old who lives in an apartment or, god forbid, back at his parents’ house, coming off a three year hitch fighting for our country has no vote, but some fat ass who inherited a fortune and has his name on a deed does? Go fuck yourself with this horse shit. This is the most undemocratic idea. One person, one vote.

3
420praiseit894 3 points ago +3 / -0

Land is just wealth, and can be manipulated and controlled by the wealthy and inherited. Service proves an individual's commitment. Read the first few chapters and read between the lines on the other service obligations. One of the basic precepts of the service obligations was that they must involve risking your own life. How many of the people plaguing our nation would make that commitment?

2
DontArkancideMeBro 2 points ago +2 / -0

Yeah, that would go soooo well now that every MA’AM in the country will be signing up so they get taxpayer funded boobs and bottom surgery.

Hey Xirs, I served! Im an american hero!

2055: Look son, I found grandxirs USMC issued dilators! The camo one is for field service and the brass one is for dress.

3
Forgotmypass666 3 points ago +3 / -0

Not quite. You have to provide some sort of public service, just the most common was military service.

Thats not what I was getting at. Robert Heinlein I think his name was has some very interesting ideas about the use of force and the need for it that was illustrated very well in that book.

3
Phishhed44 3 points ago +3 / -0

I’ve been saying this for decades. Literally.

17
NullifyAndSecede 17 points ago +18 / -1

Force solves many, many problems - more than people are comfortable to admit

Then perhaps a monopoly on it is not such a great idea.

Everyone has the natural right to defend their natural rights and the rights of others from intrusion by force. If a "government" limited itself to the protection of rights it would hardly need to be distinguished as such.

15
RememberKosciuszko 15 points ago +15 / -0

Once again we agree.

People possessing guns does not suffice in modern times of jet fighters and armoured vehicles.

County/state armories with military equipment accessible to people based on civilian vote on given issue ("hey, DC is cooking something shitty, people in favor of show of force scream AYE!") although...

That's an idea that I feed everyone willing to listen in my country, a voluntary civilian militia comprised of people willing to sacrifice their time when push comes to shove and government needs to be reminded who's boss. It probably should be done with rotational service - no more than 3-6 months at a time and with random pool of people, to avoid the emergence of rogue factions.

Thoughts on this?

9
NullifyAndSecede 9 points ago +10 / -1

It's an interesting idea, I think a better idea is to allow the public to organize to buy the means of their defense on a voluntary basis.

There are also solid arguments in favor of significant de-militarization. There exist many countries without a military at all (though you might argue they are freeloading on neighboring countries/allies) but also the lack of an central system of control means that an invading force would have to subjugate every community individually.

There is also a lot of evidence to point to the strength of guerrilla defensive warfare. If the vietcong could fight off the US military it stands to reason that the heavily armed public could fight off any invading force in the world.

For more detailed analysis on this I recommend:

https://mises.org/library/myth-national-defense-essays-theory-and-history-security-production

Also the second half of Michael Huemer's "The Problem of Political Authority" goes into these arguments in depth as well.

12
RememberKosciuszko 12 points ago +12 / -0

People tend to forget Vietnam had enormous support from China and USSR, supplying goddamn anti-aircraft systems and such. Vietcong on their own, without the support of ideological faction hellbent on convincing the world they're superior, would probably be steamrolled.

Stateless society would be, imho, uncomfortably vulnerable. I suspect it would create a risk of people simply saying "you know what, I could gain more if invaders succeed, might actually join them". Outlandish thought? Maybe.

Collectivism vs individualism. In my view, it's a spectrum issue, not of polar irreconcilable extremes. Like a slider in options menu.

Imho we need to find a sweet spot between the both of things. Allow many, many individual freedoms, but keep some minuscule amount of the things up to the "for the good of many" jig. I know it sounds "socialisty", but I'm sure you know what I mean.

7
HOSEQ 7 points ago +7 / -0

""I know it sounds "socialisty", but I'm sure you know what I mean.""

Sounds like you mean to say:: The way the ORIGINAL Republic was set up, and not the garbage Rothschild Centralized Everything System we currently have....

5
HOSEQ 5 points ago +5 / -0

Most of that shit came from the United Nations agreement we made with the USSR so they would Join the UN....

We gave up tons of Sovereign Rights to get the USSR to join, and they only joined IF they could be supplied with OUR latest spy equipment, allowed to overfly any and all states, spy on us, with impunity, and full access to our Patents Office.....

There's more to it than just that, but those are the major points....

1
YouHadMeAtGaming 1 point ago +1 / -0

The government has much higher technology now than it did in Vietnam. And civilians still pretty much have the same tech. The government could launch a missile and have it land directly on you if it wanted to. And we have guns.

-1
Imransgarage -1 points ago +3 / -4

Username checks out.

Typical lib(ertarian) drivel.

4
NullifyAndSecede 4 points ago +4 / -0

To be an anarchist simply means you oppose aggression, and you realize the state necessarily commits aggression. If you are not an anarchist, it means you either condone aggression, or think the state does not necessarily commit aggression. ... Are you in favor of aggression (like socialists and criminals are)? Or, do you think the state does not commit aggression (like children brainwashed by government schools think)?

― Stephan Kinsella

3
Phishhed44 3 points ago +3 / -0

In the age of satellite weaponry and cellphone tracking...adds a new twist to the enemy’s arsenal. If it’s true that nanotech tracking through vaccine administration is also true...whoa.

4
HeavyMetalPatriot 4 points ago +4 / -0

How many people do you know that travel without a cellphone? Or even sleep with their phone more than 5 feet away? We do all the tracking work for the gov't.

3
RabidZoo 3 points ago +3 / -0

Jets and armored vehicles don't win hearts and minds. The crucial part of the whole dilemma is waking people up to the slavery they're being suffocated by. The proof is in Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, and every other country where people stuck to their principles and didn't let an invasion deter their resolve to live and be free in their own way. We don't need these people to tell us how to live. They think they're smarter than everyone but all they do is exercise control over the way people think. We need to be the change. We need to set up parrallel systems and get off of their grid. Violence really isn't the whole answer. We need to undercut the bullshit and support our communities and ourselves. Fuck their taxes. Fuck their "laws". If we don't pay those assholes how are they going to maintain their 'high and mighty' lifestyles? If we give their 'rule' no credence they have no power. Fuck them. And if they don't like it they have to force their fictional control. That won't go over well.

2
deleted 2 points ago +2 / -0
3
LibertyPrimeWasRight 3 points ago +3 / -0

My biggest concern about lack of government is that we are in the age of professional militaries. What’s to stop someone who has a big one—like China—from conquering a nation that is not organized or equipped to defend itself on that level?

3
deleted 3 points ago +3 / -0
1
ikuyas 1 point ago +1 / -0

you're refuting the idea of secession when nobody says on "stateless solution". The secession has nothing to do with it. You can have

2
RememberKosciuszko 2 points ago +2 / -0

No, I'm not refuting the secession idea

This particular user is known for posting many good quotes and generally advocating stateless community, that's all, you can check for yourself

1
Imransgarage 1 point ago +1 / -0

Organizing force usage is the whole point of govt.

1
BillDBlasiosBlackSon 1 point ago +1 / -0

no it's not that's the whole point of the military

they're two different entities, at least they're supposed to be.

1
Imransgarage 1 point ago +1 / -0

They are only the 20% of the equation at most.

14
War_Hamster 14 points ago +14 / -0

Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.

-John Adams

It's not the horse, it's the jockey.

4
NullifyAndSecede 4 points ago +6 / -2

If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary.

― James Madison

9
War_Hamster 9 points ago +9 / -0

You worried 'bout leaving a better planet for our kids How 'bout leaving better kids for our planet?

-Tom MacDonald

2
BillDBlasiosBlackSon 2 points ago +2 / -0

People don't think the world be like it is, but it do.

-Neal Degrasse Tyson

2
HOSEQ 2 points ago +2 / -0

This^^

-2
deleted -2 points ago +2 / -4
1
Friendly_B 1 point ago +1 / -0

The Bible has examples of when angels ruled over ancient governments and it wasn't pretty.

12
DestroyerofCobwebs 12 points ago +12 / -0

When have humans ever been able to design a system of governance that was capable of defeating all possible flaws in human nature?

It's a paradox. As long as we are as we are, the things we build will be built in our likeness, and contain the same failings we do.

The biggest source of corruption in human affairs is the necessity to deal with other people's interests if you need their cooperation. Funny thing, everyone believes the old proverb commonly attributed to Lord Acton "Absolute power corrupts absolutely." The truth is, that's exactly wrong. Absolute power is the one type of power which doesn't corrupt, because it's non-derivative. Absolute power also has never existed in human history. Every ruler and despot in history has required the consent of at least the people close to them, so they don't take a knife in their sleep.

The Art of the Deal, literally is the art of managing corruption.

5
NullifyAndSecede 5 points ago +8 / -3

They haven't

Of all the numerous forms that governments have taken over the centuries, of all the concepts and institutions that have been tried, none has succeeded in keeping the State in check.

― Murray N. Rothbard

We need to recognize that the entire concept of Political Authority is illegitimate and immoral and stop institutionalizing an inherently corrupt concept.

If the natural tendencies of mankind are so bad that it is not safe to permit people to be free, how is it that the tendencies of these organizers are always good? Do not the legislators and their appointed agents also belong to the human race? Or do they believe that they themselves are made of a finer clay than the rest of mankind?

― Frédéric Bastiat

1
HOSEQ 1 point ago +1 / -0

I'm guessing you're making an argument for TERM LIMITS ON LEGISLATORS, in State Legis and Federal Congress......

2
DestroyerofCobwebs 2 points ago +2 / -0

Term limits will neither hurt nor help. Most people who run for higher office are already corrupted; it's their corruption that's causing them to seek out power in the first place.

1
HOSEQ 1 point ago +1 / -0

Interesting point, but I don't believe that there are people who are corrupted before entering into politics, I do believe they get Blackmailed or Bought, afterwards, and term limits would help reduce that.....

9
HOSEQ 9 points ago +9 / -0

The main thing Michael Malice always misses, is that the Constitution IS written to prevent the exact system we currently have....It is NOT the system we are supposed to have.....

And as for Michael Malice himself, I've listened to him speaking about this exact thing, yet, I still haven't heard ANY real factual evidence of him ever having done ANY actual RESEARCH into any of it......

The entire situation leaves we wondering if he has even heard of "The Law of Nations" by Vattel, or at very least "The Law" by Bastiat, or of any other key books or events that have happened in our history, that changed our ORIGINAL Constitutional System.....

It leaves me dubious about the future of our FIFTY NATIONS UNITED and the FEDERATION that they create....

Yeah...that^^, is exactly what I know many failed to learn, and as of present time, still do not know, or will refuse to realize....but 50 creating 1, daily re-created....

4
NullifyAndSecede 4 points ago +4 / -0

He knows that, here are a couple of videos produced by Malice and Tom Woods on exactly that topic:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c5qYTV6B1pY

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GEgdAxA2T1A

[The Constitution] has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case it is unfit to exist.

― Lysander Spooner

3
Phishhed44 3 points ago +3 / -0

I checked-out Woods video link there-great stuff TX Fren!!! Here’s a thought; I believe a CIVICS Class ought to be taught and if a citizen passes it then they can vote ie get a Voter ID? Think about it this way, so many of citizenry vote with their emotions and not from an informed standpoint then the Constitution has become living and therefore whiewashed. (REEeeee!). CIVICS isn’t taught anymore...you can imagine WHY.

4
NullifyAndSecede 4 points ago +4 / -0

I think that would potentially be an improvement, but the same people who would be in charge of such a class are those currently in charge of our education curriculums, they wouldn't teach stuff like what is found in these videos.

2
Phishhed44 2 points ago +2 / -0

A County Civics Coordinator could bypass the schools’ commie infiltration. Keep it out of the schools. “If you wanna Vote, you gotta take this class”. Fukit.

2
HOSEQ 2 points ago +2 / -0

That's a neat idea, but I suggest we return to the Original Voting System that we had with the Founders.... ONLY those who are Invested in LAND can Vote, and the Voting is done Publicly, so everyone sees and knows who, and what you voted for....and later, when the TAXES either go up or down, the Voters have nothing to cry about.....They asked for it, they voted for it, they received it....

1
Dictator_Bob 1 point ago +2 / -1

Tom Woods is rock solid.

1
HOSEQ 1 point ago +1 / -0

Spooner was Wrong, it IS fit, but now we see where it needs upgrades, mainly Term Limits on time served in Congress, and a full BAN on Lobbyists, plus Full 100% OPEN VOTING, or a return to ONLY Land Owners being allowed to Vote....

You didn't know???

4
LesboPregnancyScare 4 points ago +4 / -0

if your system is built for humans, who have a given nature, and cant accommodate for said nature, your system sucks

spicy take on why communism fails everytime.

14
AmannamedRJ 14 points ago +15 / -1

No it's not. Do you have any idea of how many things are easily breakable "Gentleman's agreements?"

2 presidential Terms was a gentleman's agreement. Not stacking SCOTUS? Gentleman's agreement. Amending parts of the constitution that dictate "This part can't be amended" is a weird loop-hole gentleman;s agreement. The list goes on.

There's also a lot of stuff ignored because the problems hadn't occurred yet. Mass centralization of power via technically private government-sized super entities. Govt shell corps. Groups like K-street. etc.

We need a stricter constitution. Shit that flat out says no, and empowers citizens to action more. No more "government shall not" try "No Government, nor large centralized entity." Try enshrining entire segments of a new constitution in a "Cannot be amended without 100% congressional and state vote"

Oh, and something that punishes attempting to loophole legislation around the constitution.

16
NullifyAndSecede 16 points ago +16 / -0

The 9th and 10th amendment are as strict and explicit as you could hope for a constitution for be.

They just get ignored. Paper doesn't restrain power.

3
almond_activator 3 points ago +3 / -0

Agreed. If the first and second men to violate the 9th and 10th were flayed alive, we wouldn't be in this situation. We're here because we The People allowed a century of violations before we even began to object, and violating the Constitution had become a trillion dollar industry.

6
iSignedUpForThis 6 points ago +6 / -0

The situation(s) you describe are concerns because people weren't held accountable once they started to go off track. Yours is reactionary.

We need people willing to sacrifice their lives and their families for the greater good. That means, people that are willing to enforce the laws already on the books.

1
deleted 1 point ago +1 / -0
5
siliconia 5 points ago +7 / -2

The one we haven't isn't fine. The problem with the constitution, and how it's being attacked, is that the constitution makes a lot of unspoken assumptions about the people who use it. It has loopholes that weren't apparent by the founders, because those unspoken assumptions weren't even considerations, they were assumed givens. They are not. We have to make unspoken rules into rules... but also yes, it has to be enforced, which is one of its assumptions.

3
FiresideRant 3 points ago +3 / -0

The unspoken assumptions were assumed givens because in stark contrast to the world we live in today, when the constitution was written people fully understood "the spirit of the law" was just as important as "the letter of the law".

In America today, we see the results of the complete removal of the spirit of the law, and only adherence to the letter of the law.

The two must exist in balance in order for a system like our to fully function.

2
siliconia 2 points ago +2 / -0

It's not even that the spirit of the law isn't understood, it's being purposefully attacked as that's its weakness.

2
FiresideRant 2 points ago +2 / -0

That was what I was trying to get at. Democrats/Commies/Globalists (same people) know that the weakness is the spirit of the law.

The "spirit of the law" is akin to the saying "just because something is legal to do, doesn't mean you should do it."

2
HOSEQ 2 points ago +2 / -0

"Color of Law"....the juice that Lawyers(pronounced LIARS), awalys feed to people who should not only know the Law, but should also defend themselves with it.... All Lawyers and Judges are Conmen...

1
Tardigrade 1 point ago +1 / -0

High IQ post here. There are a few areas that just need patched, not necessarily redone.

1
siliconia 1 point ago +1 / -0

Definitely not redone, that would be exploited.

4
pede8 4 points ago +4 / -0

Exactly, with no exceptions.

2
deleted 2 points ago +2 / -0
62
KABLAMICA 62 points ago +63 / -1

I know a lot of people think California is a hell hole but I have lived in south Orange County for a long time.. it is very pro trump, very clean, and the minorities are not criminal elements.. I really wish we could just get rid of LA and San Francisco.. this state would be amazing

27
pushbackv2 27 points ago +27 / -0

Anaheim pede. Absolutely true.

Nuke Oakland and Berkley while we're at it.

11
winsomelosesome 11 points ago +11 / -0

San Clemente pede. Agreed completely. God bless Orange County.

5
catvideos3 5 points ago +5 / -0

And CoCo county too, just to be sure

11
Barbs 11 points ago +11 / -0

Northern California here, and you’re absolutely right. Especially right now when everything is green still from the winter rain, and the wildflowers are blooming, it’s absolutely awesome

8
deleted 8 points ago +8 / -0
12
Women4Trump2020 12 points ago +12 / -0

Voting and election fraud

6
deleted 6 points ago +6 / -0
5
454evr 5 points ago +5 / -0

Read about Boss Tweed and Tammany Hall. The DNC has been at this for centuries.

4
AlpineSeaHolly 4 points ago +4 / -0

Living in a city means you not only share an apartment with roommates or family, but also with your neighbors because you can hear them through the walls. You learn about each other's sleep schedule, conflicts, work schedule, political opinions, everything, because you share walls, without ever introducing yourself to them and vice versa. In this environment you feel safe because everyone is physically close and predictable and you don't have to fend for yourself too much. All the services you can imagine are easily available to you. Owning a home and taking responsibility for your safety and wellbeing and having guns is not necessary. The diversity of the people feels exciting and life doesn't get boring (unless you do a covid lockdown). They do not share the same concerns as red towns. They are happy and safe under normal conditions. I think Covid changed that because it is difficult to be happy in cities during lockdown and rioting. The rich can flee. But once the city reopens the rich will come back... I think.

3
Finito 3 points ago +4 / -1

I’ve lived in city apartments and couldn’t disagree with this more. You absolutely need to fend for yourself in a city. There is much more danger, in my experience, in a city environment than in more rural areas. It’s much easier to let your guard down once out of the city.

3
AlpineSeaHolly 3 points ago +3 / -0

The danger varies from block to block. The perception that you absolutely need a gun reduces for me at least because in a home invasion I'll be by myself and no one will hear me scream. That doesn't mean I don't need it in the city. I just imagine that owning a home would force me to get a gun on day 1. Minorities will not vote for Republicans simply because they are convinced that they are white supremacists and that they don't want to help with welfare and hate immigrants. So it's a defensive choice. They are sheltered from republicans and don't know who they are. As to city whites, they usually live in the less dangerous blocks, benefit from the fun aspects of being in the city, and enjoy diversity. Both whites and minorities are brainwashed by the media and think republicans are racists. The media is the enemy of the people.

0
Finito 0 points ago +2 / -2

All I can say is I have rented in the city and now am a homeowner many miles from a city. There’s no comparison in my sense of security. I often leave my doors unlocked at night now. I wouldn’t leave my apartment unlocked for a minute to go down the hall to the laundry room. Always had my head up and eyes open walking in the city or using public transportation. Now I usually zone out with headphones on walking around.

And no, I don’t agree that the media is the enemy of the people. For what it’s worth, my parents are immigrants and they only vote Republican. So these great generalizations you’re relying on don’t ring true to me.

1
SaltiTaralli 1 point ago +1 / -0

I'll add, I'm not rural now and regardless where I lived I'd never, never ever leave my doors unlocked almost any time day or night. I'm female and perhaps I've watched too many crime shows but I just don't feel at ease inside with doors unlocked.

1
SaltiTaralli 1 point ago +1 / -0

I agree. I've lived in several large cities in apartments (garden style and hi-rise). There are potential dangers lurking around every corner. When I was younger I felt invincible. Now I feel like people closer are only potential threats closer to me.

2
Phishhed44 2 points ago +5 / -3

It’s called FRAUD. Think Dominion.

6
ThePoisonBullet 6 points ago +6 / -0

LA County can fuck off.

2
TheVanNuys 2 points ago +2 / -0

Garcetti can fuck off because there's actually a few decent people trying to counteract his bullshit. There's pockets of us literally everywhere in LA, it's just too damn left dominant, unfortunately, and now that they're seeing how overrun it's becoming with homelessness and corruption, you'd hope we'd get some better leadership. Also I would've rather been here than in Portland or NYC during the lockdowns and riots, no offense.

4
Imransgarage 4 points ago +4 / -0

OC is one of the best places on earth.

27
bolonaro 27 points ago +28 / -1

The Federalists papers and the constitution give us power to do it. That's because they know something like this could happen. Now we can be cucked into submission or we do make secession. it's about defending the constitution, it's about defending individual liberty, it's about defending the whole world. Second Amendment is the right issue the critical issue to tackle.

19
NullifyAndSecede 19 points ago +19 / -0

The 10th Amendment allows for Secession.

Jefferson Davis, president of the new Confederate States of America, argued that the legal basis for secession could be found in the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution. That amendment had said that any power not delegated to the federal government by the states, and not prohibited to the states by the Constitution, remained a right of the states or the people. The Constitution is silent on the question of secession. And the states never delegated to the federal government any power to suppress secession. Therefore, secession remained a reserved right of the states.

― Tom Woods

14
Zadok 14 points ago +14 / -0

And the declaration of independence specifically says it is our right and duty to throw off any government when it stops working for the people.

2
bolonaro 2 points ago +2 / -0

Ah exactly .. I am saying secession might be the best choice ...

-1
Finito -1 points ago +2 / -3

I’m saying that such secessionist talk is pretty damn unAmerican.

4
bolonaro 4 points ago +4 / -0

Removing Constitutional Rights is even worse.

2
HOSEQ 2 points ago +2 / -0

Exacrly....And that is again, another reason why Jefferson Davis was never tried....He did not ever commit Treason, his Nationality came from his State, not from any Federation or Confederation.....

It is how the old system worked before Lincoln decided to be King of America...

19
deleted 19 points ago +20 / -1
16
deleted 16 points ago +33 / -17
7
NullifyAndSecede 7 points ago +10 / -3

I always support secession, and I think that the founders made a mistake by not having that in the Constitution

― Ron Paul

Once one concedes that a single world government is not necessary, then where does one logically stop at the permissibility of separate states? If Canada and the United States can be separate nations without being denounced as in a state of impermissible ‘anarchy’, why may not the South secede from the United States? New York State from the Union? New York City from the state? Why may not Manhattan secede? Each neighbourhood? Each block? Each house? Each person

― Murray N. Rothbard

We must promote the idea of secession. Or more specifically, we must promote the idea of a world composed of tens of thousands of distinct districts, regions, and cantons, and hundred of thousands of independent free cities such as the present day oddities of Monaco, Andorra, San Marino, Liechtenstein, Hong Kong, and Singapore. Greatly increased opportunities for economically motivated migration would thus result, and the world would be one of small [classically] liberal governments economically integrated through free trade and an international commodity money such as gold.

― Hans-Hermann Hoppe

Our best answers for a free society are probably going to need to be put in secession efforts. Because once people see that as a working example and the world just doesn't blow up, then we can take secession all the way down to the individual.

― Eric July

The principle, on which the war was waged by the North, was simply this: That men may rightfully be compelled to submit to, and support, a government that they do not want; and that resistance, on their part, makes them traitors and criminals.

No principle, that is possible to be named, can be more self-evidently false than this; or more self-evidently fatal to all political freedom. Yet it triumphed in the field, and is now assumed to be established. If it be really established, the number of slaves, instead of having been diminished by the war, has been greatly increased; for a man, thus subjected to a government that he does not want, is a slave.

— Lysander Spooner

3
HKgoneWild 3 points ago +4 / -1

Love the thought. Problem is there will always be those who consider themselves better than their peers, and that they should be in control over those others. And there will always be individuals who follow them due to greed, misguidance, or fear (prime example CCP). Because of this there must be a means of common defense. And a free people must have groups large enough to defend itself from those who would seek their subjugation.

2
NullifyAndSecede 2 points ago +3 / -1

I have no problem with a means of common defense, I oppose violating the rights of those it claims to defend to support it.

2
NotQuiteHuman 2 points ago +2 / -0

Which works great until someone's rights get violated.

And they always do.

1
HOSEQ 1 point ago +1 / -0

Texas, or any other "state", is NOT ALLOWED to secede.....NO, you may not leave the UNION::

  1. You left once, and now have been returned, you are not > lawfully allowed to flip flop on matters of such import....
  2. You are Subjugated Under the Military, namely the U.S. Army with the General Orders 100, compiled and put into Law by Abe Lincoln....
  3. You may NOT leave the UNION with U.S. Property, aka U.S.Citizens, via their 14th Amendment....
15
Barbs 15 points ago +15 / -0

This is the rigged election map.

There’s lots of blue counties on here that aren’t actually blue, they just show where the Democrats cheated.

2
TheTelltaleFly 2 points ago +2 / -0

For real. Is Alaska really that blue? We’re they cheating in Alaska too? Is that why they waited so long to call it?

15
deleted 15 points ago +33 / -18
31
NullifyAndSecede 31 points ago +37 / -6

Secession is a peaceful act. If there is a war it will be because the Feds try to shoot us as we walk away.

42
MuricaQThroatpuncher 42 points ago +42 / -0

War is already upon us. Only one side realizes it.

11
NullifyAndSecede 11 points ago +12 / -1

He that in the state of society would take away the freedom belonging to those of that society or commonwealth [freedom to keep and bear arms in self-defense] must be supposed to design to take away from them everything else, and so be looked on as in a state of war.

— John Locke

1
HOSEQ 1 point ago +1 / -0

Exactly!!

3
spez__ 3 points ago +3 / -0

Yes, but to avoid this war from going from a cold/lukewarm war to a full on hot war, secession is necessary. We cannot live with the modern left anymore. We have nothing unifying us, and so many things dividing us.

3
TRUMPDADDY50 3 points ago +3 / -0

This ?

-6
deleted -6 points ago +6 / -12
23
Frosty468 23 points ago +24 / -1

What victory? We've lost every battle for the past decade. Please name one area where our freedoms have been expanded and not ripped from us by the state.

12
NullifyAndSecede 12 points ago +13 / -1

Women gays and transexuals got the freedom to die in our aggressive wars overseas.

Yay for liberty right?

4
deleted 4 points ago +4 / -0
5
NullifyAndSecede 5 points ago +5 / -0

The government is the means by which migrants and the left destroy what we have made.

2
NotQuiteHuman 2 points ago +3 / -1

You're awfully free with that "we" there, absolute individualist.

5
NullifyAndSecede 5 points ago +5 / -0

We are all individuals. Individualism does not preclude cooperation.

4
NotQuiteHuman 4 points ago +4 / -0

I disagree with you only on the "past decade" statement. We've been fighting a rearguard action for the last six decades at least.

2
HOSEQ 2 points ago +2 / -0

It's not the State that keeps taking our Rights, it is the Fucking Federation, aka The United States In CONGRESS ASSEMBLED, that is the main pile of asshole that keep pushing for Totalitarian Communism, and now they want it under a One World Governing body.....

12
NullifyAndSecede 12 points ago +13 / -1

That is exactly my point. wtf do you think our founders would have done if a state tried to secede.

What do you think the redcoats would do if we told the king to fuck off?

1
deleted 1 point ago +6 / -5
8
NullifyAndSecede 8 points ago +10 / -2

only for it to be taken away again when your counties are crushed by the military.

Just like the biggest military in the world at the time crushed guerrilla fighters in Vietnam?

Just like the biggest military in the world at the time crushed the 13 colonies?

2
Imransgarage 2 points ago +5 / -3

You are a complete retard. CCP already has plans in place to kill us all and give away our land.

They are right in the middle of it in fact.

1
deleted 1 point ago +4 / -3
1
RememberKosciuszko 1 point ago +3 / -2

Yep, that's quite weird. People think that Vietnamese were just a bunch of complete rando asian rednecks sticking it to the man.

Lmao, like, no

As you said - they were battle hardened after fighting off the French, bigly. In quite the exotic terrain as well, not as easy to navigate as North America for the most part or Europe.

And also - they were very strongly supported by China and USSR with training personnel and sophisticated equipment, like anti-aircraft systems etc.

Not a couple of Joe's with AR-15s in Tennessee, but battle hardened maniacs with missiles from the neighboring superpower and educated personnel from their allies.

1
NotQuiteHuman 1 point ago +1 / -0

Vietnam was communist. The colonies had governmental systems.

Both of those are far cries from your every-man-for-himself paradise.

4
NullifyAndSecede 4 points ago +4 / -0

I'm not suggesting that either was an anarchist society (though aside from slavery the colonies were by far the closest society has ever come to such)

I'm simply pointing out that defense is orders of magnitude more achievable than attempts at offensive subjugation.

0
MSG1000 0 points ago +1 / -1

We had the backing of the french. Vietnam had China, USSR and traitorous elements of the US government and media. The stans had a military not fighting win. You are not without merit saying a guerrilla force can beat a Goliath, the opposite really especially on the Goliath’s home soil, but you’re also discounting a lot of help those forces had.

2
HOSEQ 2 points ago +2 / -0

You can thank Lincoln for that....HE started that war, and he used lots of Socialist Tricks to keep the Southers from receiving any real help..... The Results are SUBJUGATED Southern States, but because the Fed Constitution says that ALL States are to be EQUAL, what we have is ALL State Subjugated under the Federal Government, and Justice, is now Criminal....

3
deleted 3 points ago +3 / -0
0
MSG1000 0 points ago +1 / -1

Southern revisionist history. The southern elite had their slave owning way of life threatened by industrialization, because it was cheaper than slavery. Their second hissy fit was tariffs on foreign goods, because they were cheaper than the budding industry of the north which would have been wiped out otherwise. They then duped good men and women into fighting a war on their behalf, which they started by firing on Fort Sumpter.

 

If the south was about state’s rights they wouldn’t have been kidnapping free blacks from the north nor would they have banned states from outlawing slavery upon forming the confederacy.

1
HOSEQ 1 point ago +1 / -0

You either forgot, or don't know that the "UNION" was 100% Voluntary", either the States may Secede, OR if it is a Forced Union, they may not secede..... If it is Voluntary it is a Republic. If it is a Forced Union, it is NOT a Republic, but rather Authoritarian Fascism....

When the Southers Seceded, the Union got smaller, by that number of States and the Congress should have simply made note of it, and removed those members from the roles, had a recount, and be done with it.... The Union still existed in full.....Smaller, but still a 100% full union.....

When Congress claimed they didn't have enough people to close correctly, they LIED, they did in fact have enough people to make the Vote to close correctly, and then they claimed that the Union had been destroyed.....Another LIE....

Lincoln then took it to mean that HE had to "Save the Union"...another LIE..... It still existed in FULL.....smaller, but 100% Full Union....

This is where Lincoln took it upon himself to grab ALL the Power of Congress, along with the Executive Power of the Presidency and the Commander in Chief, and sent elements of the U.S. Army into FOREIGN NATIONS, the Seceded Nations, to Capture, and abscond with the EX-Congressmen from those Sovereign Nations, BEFORE the South attacked Ft Sumpter....

LINCOLN Attacked First..... LINCOLN Forced those Men to take seats at bayonet point in the Fed Capitol... They were kept under Guard 24/7, while sleeping, eating, using the restroom, all day, every day, from the moment they were captured....BEFORE Ft Sumpter was attacked....

So don't give me any of this "that's Southern Revisionist" bullshit.... Oh hell yes! that war was all about Slavery!!! It was intended FOR the subjugation of ALL States, and ALL Americans, it was Intended to place us al into this current Socialist Subjugation....

State cannot be "In the union" and not be Equals....... By Constitutional LAW, they MUST be equals.... IF the Southern States are Conquered, then ALL the States are Conquered.... IF the Southern States are FORCED Members of the Union, then ALL States are forced members of that union.....

For all Americans to be EQUALS, we ALL have to be either FREE or SLAVES.... I hate to have to be the one to point this out, but You don't OWN anything.... You pay RENT for any Land that is in your name, it's called "LAND TAX"... Your Car? Yearly Tax.....Yeah, rent.... Your Body? Individual Income Tax....Socialist Security....etc....

Trump tried to undo some parts of that, but the DS has been working their side of the PLAN, for at least 600 Years, and Maybe Trump was poorly advised on HOW to undo all the Damage that was done by ""Progressives"aka Regressives....

But, besides any and all of this, Slavery in the south was beginning to decline, due to their view of the future, and the rise of technology in the south, so the DS of their time, used Lincoln to strike and begin the destruction of our Republic...

I really wish people lke you would DO some proper research like reading S.A. Steele's book 'The South was Right', maybe you'd actually Learn something, and be able to speak against the DS correctly.....

Lincoln was the direct opposite of Hero, and Angel.... That war, was preplanned in France, at a Wedding by the Rothschilds, one half of the states was to be owned by the Groom and the other half by the Bride..... They were First Cousins.... I'm not making this up, it's in a book called "The World Order" by Eustace Clarence Mullins (Author)

I'd point out more, BUT, the Plan, and the Movie, and etc. etc. etc....

3
HOSEQ 3 points ago +3 / -0

It was ORIGINALLY a VOLUNTARY UNION......What do I think the Founders would have done?? They would have let that state GO.....ALL STATES are considered to be NATIONS, Sovereign Nations......They would then have to work hard to find the way to BE that Sovereign Nation on their own, like Texas can.....

It is all quite simple, but we get Busy Bodies into our legislatures who have some NEED to change things, when changes do not need to be made, and THAT is where we are at right now, too many "GOOD INTENTIONS", made too many changes, and as People Ragazine said.....""WE ARE ALL SOCISLISTS NOW""...

1
almond_activator 1 point ago +1 / -0

ALL STATES are considered to be NATIONS

A "state" is an independent political entity. A "nation" is a people. The very existence of These United States was meant to shatter the European idea of equivalency between a nation and a state. These United States were meant to prove false the notion that only a nation could form a state, and only a single state could unify a nation.

1
HOSEQ 1 point ago +1 / -0

Ok, now explain the European Union vs the American Union vs Mexican Union... Explain how France, Spain, Ireland, Scotland, Israel are all called "Nations" on one day, but then "States" on the next day.... Explain the effect of the The Paris Peace Treaty of September 30, 1783, where each Nation is named Individually, and the Grouping, the Union, is separately named.....

1
almond_activator 1 point ago +1 / -0

The nation is the people, the state is the political entity. In our case, we were meant to be one nation of many states, sovereign but not independent.

0
HOSEQ 0 points ago +1 / -1

That is the Progressive Lincoln view.... The Founders POV is the U.S. is an independent body RULED by the Member Nations, that is the exact reason why it is called a Federation.....

0
deleted 0 points ago +2 / -2
19
DonJr2024 19 points ago +20 / -1

Yeah it's a nice dream. It sure would be funny to see how fast New Venezuela comes crawling back to Magaland.

15
deleted 15 points ago +16 / -1
7
NotQuiteHuman 7 points ago +7 / -0

Abuse victims do think like that, yes. Unfortunately, the decision finally to accept reality and take steps to free oneself is a decision only the victim can make.

Keep reminding everyone, fren. Eventually it'll click together.

2
deleted 2 points ago +4 / -2
6
deleted 6 points ago +7 / -1
-1
deleted -1 points ago +2 / -3
6
Zadok 6 points ago +6 / -0

I disagree. A "convention of the states" is a legal and proper way to force major changes to the existing government. Including wiping it away and starting over.

3
Women4Trump2020 3 points ago +3 / -0

Yes, we need a Convention of States. Sign the petition: https://conventionofstates.com/

1
HOSEQ 1 point ago +1 / -0

No we do not need a Convention of States.... There are a shit ton of Leftists ready to get in there and just screw everything up into one huge word salad that nobody understands..... The Risk is way too high.....

2
deleted 2 points ago +4 / -2
2
MSG1000 2 points ago +2 / -0

No it was not, please see my other comment. https://patriots.win/p/12i3pteJUN/x/c/4DyO8uVpwnL

That whole mess wasn’t slavery or state’s rights, just elites wanting to keep their power and not giving a fuck about the rest of the country.

1
deleted 1 point ago +1 / -0
1
MSG1000 1 point ago +1 / -0

Hmm, I must’ve misread you then. My apologies.

1
deleted 1 point ago +1 / -0
2
Zadok 2 points ago +2 / -0

I need to change the terms I am using. I was talking secession for members of our group who are not constutionally savvy. My form of secession is a Convention of the States. Perfectly legal and allowed under our current framework.

In the Convention of the states we make such changes to the existing government and constitution as deemed necessary to secure our happiness. Nancy, Chuck, and Joe have no power in such a convention.

2
deleted 2 points ago +2 / -0
1
HOSEQ 1 point ago +1 / -0

That's some real Pie in the sky thinking..... The only result would be more Socialism, mainly because there are Leftists pretending to be Constitutionalists, who will inevitably word salad the whole thing...

1
Filetsmignon 1 point ago +1 / -0

You're still assuming the Swamp cares what the law or Constitution says. I'm not sure you've noticed, but they aren't giving two shits about it anymore and just doing whatever they want. We can change the law/Constitution all we want, but they'll just continue to ignore it. We're past the ballot box and "convention of States". Prepare accordingly.

-1
Imransgarage -1 points ago +4 / -5

Mods need electroshock therapy.

This place needs leadership like the Us needs voter ID.

13
keepamericagreat102 13 points ago +16 / -3

we just need to start secession. everything will fall in it's place.

11
K3719er 11 points ago +11 / -0

Fuck that, this is OUR country - make the blue tards leave.

4
PepeTrump2024 4 points ago +4 / -0

WTF difference does it make who "leaves". Don't think about it that way. Think about it like a divorce. Nobody is leaving, they just aren't together anymore.

I'm not pro-secession btw, I'm just saying that if it were to happen the only people leaving would be the people in the wrong color states. Like me.

2
K3719er 2 points ago +2 / -0

It matters because ONE of us will continue to hold the moniker of "USA" - I propose that is us, and the blue tards can call themselves gags fagsville- or w/e

1
PepeTrump2024 1 point ago +1 / -0

The USA moniker is kind of dumb once we split up. You kind of have to be retarded to call yourselves the "united states" once half of them leave... lol. Both sides should get new names,

2
Filetsmignon 2 points ago +2 / -0

This is the way. We are the USA. States still following rule of law and the Constitution need to just ignore the Swamp and self-govern 100%.

0
Imransgarage 0 points ago +3 / -3

Somehow a reject with “libman” username has been able to spam secession posts for weeks.

And now mods are stickying it.

0
deleted 0 points ago +1 / -1
10
Frostyfries 10 points ago +11 / -1

Nah. If we split, who will be strong enough to stand up to china?

8
Balzenburg 8 points ago +8 / -0

Giving up trade ports, assets, military ports, resources, 2 coasts of direct access to trade is insane. Look at countries that don't have deep water ports or access to trade routes. You get cucked.

1
Women4Trump2020 1 point ago +2 / -1

China already owns us under the Biden administration.

0
Imransgarage 0 points ago +6 / -6

Libman is a shill spammer and moron.

3
Frostyfries 3 points ago +3 / -0

Lol ok bro. 2015 meme war vet here.

2
Imransgarage 2 points ago +3 / -1

I wasn’t referring to you - I was agreeing with you and describing the OP.

2
Frostyfries 2 points ago +2 / -0

Here here

-1
deleted -1 points ago +1 / -2
0
almond_activator 0 points ago +2 / -2

We don't need a coalition or an alliance to keep the Reds out. We need a strict policy: "if he's yellow, shoot the fellow." China will fuck off as soon as their population imbalance is corrected, and thank us for the favor.

-2
deleted -2 points ago +1 / -3
2
almond_activator 2 points ago +2 / -0

Chinese occupying troops won't be voting Republican - at least not in any form that will benefit us.

China's only interest in invading the US would be to kill off ten million or so unmarriagable potential revolutionaries. It's much cheaper and easier to simply buy off our politicians and keep us as a vassal state without ever invading.

1
HOSEQ 1 point ago +1 / -0

Maybe this will suit you better... The only good Socialst/Communist is the DEAD Socialist/Communist.....

8
HappyPedeInCA 8 points ago +11 / -3

Fuck that. U S of A. But we need to retake the government.

1
Imransgarage 1 point ago +5 / -4

Yup screw this shill distraction.

1
deleted 1 point ago +3 / -2
7
Free_Speech_Memes 7 points ago +11 / -4

No. No peaceful divorce. No civil war. A broken United States is handing the world to China.

Spread the word.

5
logan34 5 points ago +9 / -4

A broken United States is handing the world to China

What are we now my guy? Communist slow roll takeover of America is handing world to China too. No difference.

-1
Free_Speech_Memes -1 points ago +3 / -4

Where are we now? Fighting over dumbass race issues and floating the idea of secession.

Neither are good places.

2
Ocineaa 2 points ago +5 / -3

These fags who cry for succession and civil war have never been in combat 7+ days with little chance of resupply. It'd be like that for years if not decades. I hate the secessionist movement. As if China wouldnt drop a few million foot soldiers and drones on the coast if it actually happened. Fucking morons.

2
deleted 2 points ago +2 / -0
-1
deleted -1 points ago +2 / -3
2
Free_Speech_Memes 2 points ago +2 / -0

It’s not just President Plank.

It’s Republicans reading Green Eggs and Ham.

It’s making national news about some sex scandals instead of the concentration camps.

It’s focusing on some dumbasses that were in the capital building.

It’s making some dumbass trial about some one in a million situation with a cop.

You think when we can’t even figure those things out, we’re going to be able to come together as a more secure group of nations in time to keep China out? Noooooop!

7
LordHandshake 7 points ago +7 / -0

Fuck it. Let's just build walls around the cities to keep them in.

5
TheOutlawPepeWales 5 points ago +6 / -1

How many times do I have to ask y'all to fix the motherfucking block feature?

1
deleted 1 point ago +3 / -2
0
Imransgarage 0 points ago +5 / -5

How has this lib man not been removed???

So glowie.

5
PB_Mack 5 points ago +7 / -2

We don't need to "Rexit"..we need to stop them cheating. Lot's of conservatives in those blue counties. I'm not ready to give up on them.

0
deleted 0 points ago +2 / -2
5
henri_derelicte 5 points ago +7 / -2

We don’t need secession, leftists will never be content letting us go off and do our own thing. We must force leftists to submit to us, the constitution, and the rule of law.

1
deleted 1 point ago +3 / -2
4
deleted 4 points ago +4 / -0
4
deleted 4 points ago +4 / -0
0
deleted 0 points ago +0 / -0
4
Fundadores 4 points ago +4 / -0

You lost me at "we need a new...Constitution."

Other than that, good idea.

3
Imransgarage 3 points ago +4 / -1

He’s a shill.

No real pede would say that.

4
MSG1000 4 points ago +4 / -0

Stricter?!? OP, shit is the way it is because we aren’t following the damn thing in the first place. Making it stricter is like making murder doubly illegal but failing to get courts to enforce in the first place.

-2
deleted -2 points ago +1 / -3
1
MSG1000 1 point ago +1 / -0

The constitution already does that. “General welfare” had a certain meaning as does regulate. Stuff is already so much in gross violation as is written now that all you’d be doing is making violations doubly illegal without increasing safeguards. The reality is no system can withstand people not actively trying to maintain it.

4
JohnnyThomas 4 points ago +4 / -0

Or red states could just take a stand for states' rights, stop paying the feds and nullify the feds' authority until the feds get back in line.

-1
deleted -1 points ago +1 / -2
4
dasvolk 4 points ago +4 / -0

I noticed Oklahoma is the only place without a lick of cancer anymore.

4
deleted 4 points ago +5 / -1
2
deleted 2 points ago +4 / -2
4
duckduck 4 points ago +4 / -0

Remember, it's not giving away the blue areas, it's taking back the red areas from the enemy's hands.

4
DeepWinter 4 points ago +4 / -0

I wouldn't say "a much stricter Constitution." That would imply the government gives us anything. Remember, the Constitution doesn't GIVE rights, it says what basic freedoms the government can't take away ("inalienable"). What I believe you meant to imply was more adherence to the Constitution and less interpreting of it by unelected parties.

4
Fokkfess 4 points ago +4 / -0

If that map is based on the 2020 election, it is not accurate. There are many more red counties than there are depicted on that map.

2
Imransgarage 2 points ago +4 / -2

He’s just a moron scammer.

Dude has made hundreds of secession posts.

-2
deleted -2 points ago +1 / -3
3
Meddlesom 3 points ago +9 / -6

Secession is surrender. Don't just hand victory over to globalism, take your country back.

0
deleted 0 points ago +3 / -3
3
Stallionstyle 3 points ago +3 / -0

The Constitution is only as strong as our countries moral fabric. By moral, I mean morality in the Bible. When we obfuscate the spirit of the law, criminals in our system can and do get away with literal murder. E.g. OJ Simpson. My Genetics professor was the content expert on the case and DNA proved that only one person could have committed the murder. Justice should be blind, but money talks.

3
454evr 3 points ago +4 / -1

We need to build up a conversation about secession, which is probably the most peaceful, thus preferable means of breaking these low-quality voters' grip on our lives.

3
WhatWouldMountainDew 3 points ago +3 / -0

Oklahoma is beautiful. They're not known for their red dirt for nothing.

3
lordvon 3 points ago +3 / -0

if push comes to shove, we will win. the opposition population are simply brainwashed by the media, and dont have conviction. we are really only fighting against the corrupt, which are much smaller in number.

3
Filetsmignon 3 points ago +3 / -0

If I understand it correctly there is nothing that legally keeps a State from leaving the Union. It only restricts States from forming a compact with other States. I think it's interpreted as a single State could decide to leave, and do so, but not form a compact with other States to all secede together.

2
deleted 2 points ago +3 / -1
3
Staatssicherheit 3 points ago +3 / -0

Battles are won or lost before they start. Beware of people who want to jump into glorious battle before even thinking of preparing.

3
TheRealPizzaPope 3 points ago +3 / -0

WTF is wrong with Alaska

1
deleted 1 point ago +2 / -1
1
TheRealPizzaPope 1 point ago +1 / -0

Oh wow, thanks for the clarification. The dem's are trying to use them, as they always have...

2
deleted 2 points ago +2 / -0
2
IroWide 2 points ago +2 / -0

We would be MUCH better off without that gib me dat welfare belt stretching from NY to LA.

1
deleted 1 point ago +2 / -1
2
Mddet 2 points ago +2 / -0

Beautiful positive wonderful approach! Annnnnnnnnnnnnnd my ass hurts. Lmfao sry om drinkin and is it me or is right after the first beer when we start calling old friends and goddy and shit. Thats me right now.

2
deleted 2 points ago +2 / -0
1
deleted 1 point ago +2 / -1
0
deleted 0 points ago +0 / -0
2
jatergator 2 points ago +7 / -5

This is the stupidest shit I’ve seen. How about we take back our country. Do you want to give away all the coast?

2
Imransgarage 2 points ago +4 / -2

Same, except for the other thousand times he’s posted this trash.

-1
deleted -1 points ago +1 / -2
2
jatergator 2 points ago +2 / -0

Haha, thinking they only cheated by 1 million ballots is laughable. Have you seen any of the raw numbers from election night? Do you live in this country?

2
Miztivin 2 points ago +2 / -0

They can have their autonomous zones!

2
anonymousdonor 2 points ago +4 / -2

Words on paper are meaningless without an ethical, high IQ people. Our issues started with immigration.

2
NotQuiteHuman 2 points ago +2 / -0

I dispute "high IQ". Intelligence is not wisdom, and IQ is meaningless anyway, as it's a scale centered on the average within the population.

Our issues started with allowing people to chip away at our certainty that Christian morality was not merely good, but essential.

2
anonymousdonor 2 points ago +2 / -0

Ok, dispute it all you like.

We have brought in low IQ populations since the founding and that has been our problem.

2
deleted 2 points ago +2 / -0
1
anonymousdonor 1 point ago +1 / -0

Sure thing based asian.

2
deleted 2 points ago +4 / -2
1
NullifyAndSecede 1 point ago +1 / -0

Anyone coming in should swear allegiance to the new constitution,

You mean like we already have all our politicians do? Fat lot of good that did.

-1
deleted -1 points ago +1 / -2
1
deleted 1 point ago +1 / -0
2
Drud14 2 points ago +2 / -0

Better make it soon.

Every year more and more red turns blue. Biden’s open borders and refugee programs only accelerate our demographic replacement.

Better fight back while we still can

2
Juzeza 2 points ago +3 / -1

If trump isn’t starting a new party, secession isn’t happening

-1
deleted -1 points ago +1 / -2
2
MAGASQUAD 2 points ago +2 / -0

I love this idea.

2
MagaChief 2 points ago +2 / -0

At the county level we have much more power!

The New United States.

2
KonyHawk_ProSlaver 2 points ago +2 / -0

God bless Oklahoma. ?

2
RDDPro 2 points ago +2 / -0

The constitution is fine. Let's treat the blue areas like cancer and gangrenous lesions and cut them right out.

-1
deleted -1 points ago +1 / -2
2
MagaHippie88 2 points ago +3 / -1

Jefferson State checking in! <3 MAGA2021

2
booblitchutz 2 points ago +3 / -1

FUCK THAT THIS IS OUR COUNTRY!!

1
deleted 1 point ago +2 / -1
2
geocitiesuser 2 points ago +2 / -0

how does social security work if red states secede

1
klmd 1 point ago +1 / -0

SSA sends checks to American recipients living abroad. Change of address may not be needed i our case.

https://www.aarp.org/retirement/social-security/questions-answers/collecting-social-security-abroad.html

0
deleted 0 points ago +2 / -2
1
HOSEQ 1 point ago +1 / -0

That's the FIRST thing you've said....that actually makes sense..... Who did you copy it from??

1
geocitiesuser 1 point ago +1 / -0

That doesn't really answer the question though. Some of us are getting up there in years, and are going to need every cent we can get as we ride into the sunset.