The Big Split

South Carolina did fire the first shots at Fort Sumter.  They were also the proponents of a movement that states didn't have to obey federal laws that they disagree with. Nullification, that's what it was called.  It was in the news a lot a few years ago, but not so much anymore, maybe because the long nightmare of Obama's Muslim Socialist Republic, excuse me, Democracy, is almost over. 

I was thinking The Big Split, (how is that for a name for it?) would occur with nobody having to move.  I agree every four years you would have to declare yourself a dem or a rep, and then for the next four years you would pay your taxes to, and vote in the election of, your party.  At the end of the four years, after each party had selected its president, sort of like a primary, you could jump ship, if you didn't like your side so much anymore or maybe you liked their president better.  This would give the sides some motivation to attract new people and to keep the old.  One wonders if they would both gravitate towards the wish washy center or become more extreme.

I guess the big difference would be big vs little government.  We dems would pay more in taxes but we would get more services.  We would be paying more welfare, so I am sure we would get most of the poor.  Some of the poor are conservative but my guess is they would go with the side that gave them more money.  This could be a problem, but maybe our liberal programs would make productive citizens out of them.  Still would cost a lot of money.

So as a dem I propose that the reps could take on the support of the army.  You guys are generally happy to pay your taxes if you know it is going to the armed forces.  I guess that would make our foreign policy more hawkish, your current crop of candidates never met a bomb they don't want to drop.  But the current target of hawkishness is the middle east which is a black hole and maybe after losing a pile of money and men, you guys would find a way to bug out with honor.

Still I hate to see you guys with all those tanks and battleships, and all we have is an army of poor people collecting their first paychecks due to our enlightened policies.  Well I guess we can trust you guys, can't we?

I guess we would have our own senators and reps.  I'm not so sure about supreme courts, I think we are better off sharing one.  Probably we would have our own governors, but maybe we would have to share like mayors.  For that we would have general elections, whichever side had the most people would probably win, but there would be some cross over.

Gun control and abortion would be interesting situations.  We would be able to get abortions pretty much on demand, and likely you would never be able to get them no matter what.  But mostly anti-abortion people aren't satisfied with not getting them themselves, they want to make sure that nobody else gets them.  We dems don't care for guns and won't mind not having them, but we have to look at you guys who will be walking down the street doing that spin with the finger in the trigger thing and that will make us nervous.

Why the switch from Cruz?  Has the Donald gotten to you?  He is now casting aspersions on Rubio's eligibility.  No real reason, just something someone tweeted him, he hasn't had time to study the issue, just passing ti around.  I can't imagine any of the rep candidates in the white house, but I guess Marco would be the lesser of the evils.  The fact that he is a bit of flip flopper and an opportunist is to me better than being a true believer like Cruz.  He is a big hawk, but maybe that is bluster too.  Maybe when the generals show him the map which shows that everybody is fighting everybody else and there is no easy spot to insert our troops he might have second thoughts.