For some reason over just a mere year or two, the Democratic Party presidential candidates in the United States seem to have gone completely crazy, essentially trying to one-up each other in how extreme their goals and agenda are.
While the two major political parties in the country have always been somewhat antagonistic towards each other, I don't think it has been very often that one of the parties has been so incredibly antagonistic towards the voting population of the other party. Normally political candidates would be smart in trying to appeal to as many people as possible, even people from the other side, so as to try to get as many votes as possible. But not anymore. Now it's the complete opposite. It seems that they are trying to antagonize people from the other side as much as possible.
For some reason the social justice ideology makes people become extremely antagonistic. It changes people from trying to appeal to as many other people as possible into becoming extremely narrow in who they accept. For example, the press at large, especially the gaming press, has changed from trying to expand as much as possible into being outright hostile and antagonizing towards their own readers. It appears this is no different in politics. For some reason the social justice ideology makes people think like "I don't even want you as my client/reader/follower/voter if you hold any of these opinions I abhor. Go away!"
The Democrat candidates seem to be trying to one-up each other in how much they piss off and antagonize the Republican voting demographic, and they are going to absolutely ridiculous extremes. Bernie Sanders, for example, has said that if he gets voted president, he will raise taxes for the richest part of the population, up to a ludicrous 98%. He has directly stated is clear intent of getting rid of billionaires in the country. (Yeah, if he does that, he will indeed get rid of billionaires in the country. Too bad that the government, or the other people, won't benefit from it at all, because it will only cause for those billionaires to move to another country. Alongside their businesses and jobs.)
Another candidate has promised a complete and full ban on firearms. Promises of open borders, greatly increased immigration, and full socialism (not just social services, which is unrelated, but full on economic socialism) are common among many candidates.
But just consider what they are saying. "If you vote for me, I will increase taxes, I will take away all your guns by force, I will open the borders and welcome the flood of immigrants, I will enact economic socialism, and I will introduce hate speech laws to put you in jail for your abhorrent opinions." How many conservatives do you think will vote for these candidates?
These were things that Democrat candidates would have never said a mere 10 years ago. Indeed, just a decade ago, even less, even the Democrat candidates (including people like Hillary Clinton) were talking about surprisingly conservative principles, like strengthening border security and upholding people's constitutional rights. In less than a decade almost all of them have made a full 180 and gone to the ridiculous opposite extreme.
If any of these candidates ever gets into power, I think the only hope that the United States has to survive is that he's your typical politician who promises a lot but seldom keeps his promises. In this case an incompetent politician who breaks his promises would actually be a good thing, as ironic as that sounds.
But this got me thinking: What if these crazy Democrat candidates do get eventually in power and actually start enacting all of their policies, in full and to their total extreme? What would happen if they indeed tried to tax the riches people by something absolutely ludicrous like 98%, they banned all firearms and had the police and military forces start raiding homes for guns, opened the borders for the flood of millions of immigrants and so on and so forth?
One possible outcome that I envision, which might sound implausible at first, but perhaps not, if you think about it for long enough, is that the entire country will split into two. Approximately half of the states will secede from the Union, and form their own country. Just like what the Southern states tried to do in the 1860's. Could this perhaps cause a second Civil War? Or could they perhaps be let secede at their own will? (After all, the social justice ideology is of the kind "if you don't think like me, I don't even want you as my follower".)
What would happen if the United States split into two countries?
It's hard to predict without a deep knowledge of economics and sociopolitics, but I think that at least when it comes to the "Democrat" side, we already have a glimpse of what would happen: California. Ironically, the divide between the rich and the poor would get even more drastic than it already is, the amount of poverty and homelessness will increase, everything would become significantly more expensive, drug use would skyrocket, and there will be a sanitary crisis of unseen proportions, with the government being unable to keep up with the amount of trash and feces on the streets. Unlike the socialist utopia that they are envisioning, it will only become a Venezuelan style dystopia will people dying of hunger on the streets, but with the difference that rich companies will be largely unaffected (except if there's a world-wide economic crisis caused by all this, which is actually highly probable).
The "Republican" side might or might not thrive, but I suspect that it will lose much of its power. The new United States v2 would perhaps stop being a superpower, and descend to the level of smaller countries, like Spain, Italy, etc.
Overall this whole situation will probably cause a world-wide economic crisis, which may end up with China coming on top as the supreme economic superpower in the world. And what consequences that will have, I don't dare even guess. Europe will probably be the biggest victim of all this turmoil, being between a rock and a hard place. (This especially so because Europe is currently being ruled by multiculturalists who believe that mass immigration is the solution to all problems, no matter what those problems are, and thus in times of crisis they will just open up the doors even more than they currently are. Surely a few tens of millions of immigrants more will solve the economic crisis this time.)
While the two major political parties in the country have always been somewhat antagonistic towards each other, I don't think it has been very often that one of the parties has been so incredibly antagonistic towards the voting population of the other party. Normally political candidates would be smart in trying to appeal to as many people as possible, even people from the other side, so as to try to get as many votes as possible. But not anymore. Now it's the complete opposite. It seems that they are trying to antagonize people from the other side as much as possible.
For some reason the social justice ideology makes people become extremely antagonistic. It changes people from trying to appeal to as many other people as possible into becoming extremely narrow in who they accept. For example, the press at large, especially the gaming press, has changed from trying to expand as much as possible into being outright hostile and antagonizing towards their own readers. It appears this is no different in politics. For some reason the social justice ideology makes people think like "I don't even want you as my client/reader/follower/voter if you hold any of these opinions I abhor. Go away!"
The Democrat candidates seem to be trying to one-up each other in how much they piss off and antagonize the Republican voting demographic, and they are going to absolutely ridiculous extremes. Bernie Sanders, for example, has said that if he gets voted president, he will raise taxes for the richest part of the population, up to a ludicrous 98%. He has directly stated is clear intent of getting rid of billionaires in the country. (Yeah, if he does that, he will indeed get rid of billionaires in the country. Too bad that the government, or the other people, won't benefit from it at all, because it will only cause for those billionaires to move to another country. Alongside their businesses and jobs.)
Another candidate has promised a complete and full ban on firearms. Promises of open borders, greatly increased immigration, and full socialism (not just social services, which is unrelated, but full on economic socialism) are common among many candidates.
But just consider what they are saying. "If you vote for me, I will increase taxes, I will take away all your guns by force, I will open the borders and welcome the flood of immigrants, I will enact economic socialism, and I will introduce hate speech laws to put you in jail for your abhorrent opinions." How many conservatives do you think will vote for these candidates?
These were things that Democrat candidates would have never said a mere 10 years ago. Indeed, just a decade ago, even less, even the Democrat candidates (including people like Hillary Clinton) were talking about surprisingly conservative principles, like strengthening border security and upholding people's constitutional rights. In less than a decade almost all of them have made a full 180 and gone to the ridiculous opposite extreme.
If any of these candidates ever gets into power, I think the only hope that the United States has to survive is that he's your typical politician who promises a lot but seldom keeps his promises. In this case an incompetent politician who breaks his promises would actually be a good thing, as ironic as that sounds.
But this got me thinking: What if these crazy Democrat candidates do get eventually in power and actually start enacting all of their policies, in full and to their total extreme? What would happen if they indeed tried to tax the riches people by something absolutely ludicrous like 98%, they banned all firearms and had the police and military forces start raiding homes for guns, opened the borders for the flood of millions of immigrants and so on and so forth?
One possible outcome that I envision, which might sound implausible at first, but perhaps not, if you think about it for long enough, is that the entire country will split into two. Approximately half of the states will secede from the Union, and form their own country. Just like what the Southern states tried to do in the 1860's. Could this perhaps cause a second Civil War? Or could they perhaps be let secede at their own will? (After all, the social justice ideology is of the kind "if you don't think like me, I don't even want you as my follower".)
What would happen if the United States split into two countries?
It's hard to predict without a deep knowledge of economics and sociopolitics, but I think that at least when it comes to the "Democrat" side, we already have a glimpse of what would happen: California. Ironically, the divide between the rich and the poor would get even more drastic than it already is, the amount of poverty and homelessness will increase, everything would become significantly more expensive, drug use would skyrocket, and there will be a sanitary crisis of unseen proportions, with the government being unable to keep up with the amount of trash and feces on the streets. Unlike the socialist utopia that they are envisioning, it will only become a Venezuelan style dystopia will people dying of hunger on the streets, but with the difference that rich companies will be largely unaffected (except if there's a world-wide economic crisis caused by all this, which is actually highly probable).
The "Republican" side might or might not thrive, but I suspect that it will lose much of its power. The new United States v2 would perhaps stop being a superpower, and descend to the level of smaller countries, like Spain, Italy, etc.
Overall this whole situation will probably cause a world-wide economic crisis, which may end up with China coming on top as the supreme economic superpower in the world. And what consequences that will have, I don't dare even guess. Europe will probably be the biggest victim of all this turmoil, being between a rock and a hard place. (This especially so because Europe is currently being ruled by multiculturalists who believe that mass immigration is the solution to all problems, no matter what those problems are, and thus in times of crisis they will just open up the doors even more than they currently are. Surely a few tens of millions of immigrants more will solve the economic crisis this time.)
I hate to use a quotation from Mao, but here it is, "and the countryside shall encircle the cities".
ReplyDeleteThe idea of a peaceful split is unrealistic, as was proven in the 1860s.
Excepting California, Republicans are the majority in the breadbasket states and are emerging in post-industrial states.
Knowing this, the states with the big cities could never let them go, or not try to impose their will.
It would be a national fight with one side, Democrat or Republican, the victor.
It would still cripple the country for decades, and end its reign as a superpower, but it would likely continue as one. (Maybe Hawaii, Alaska and Texas might leave, since they have the most "nationalist" outlooks).