@TheMiddleWay I'm increasingly of the opinion that both sides should do it. I've all but given up on the idea of a UNITED States of America. I think we should split, but Americans are so accustomed to the idea of a UNITED States of America that they don't realize they've been infiltrated by traitors. It's hard to blame them, it wasn't overnight. There was no invading army. The USA was conquered from within.

The preferable solution to the dilemma is to work out an amicable separation. Otherwise, there will be a very messy war that will make Syria look like a kindergarten tantrum. The USSR had the advantage of ethnically-homogenous republics and a superpower intently concerned about a peaceful transition (especially of the nukes). Chaotic dissolution of the USA, on the other hand, would involve domestic (e.g., Left, Right, and everything in between) and international actors (e.g., Mexico, Europe, the Anglosphere, Russia, and China), all vying for a piece of what's left of the American sphere of influence.

Imagine the world's most powerful military arsenal turned on itself. It would be WWIII, with many nuclear-armed countries in competition. The world would be lucky if it made it out with half its pre-dissolution population.

A third alternative is to let the Leftists win. The Right capitulates and fades from power. The American superpower fades with it. The USA becomes a wealthier version of Mexico. The Americas become a backwater as the Chinese century dawns.

@TheMiddleWay *An American split is unfeasible

It's arguably no less feasible than the Russian Revolution, the German Revolution, the Chinese Civil War, or the Balkan War. Peace only exists when there is a power strong enough to impose it. How much longer can the US remain strong enough to impose unity?

*I'm a believer in survival of the fittest

On a long enough timeline, given adequate conditions to grow and mature, I would agree. However, there's no natural law that demands the fittest is also the "best".

The ancients Greeks experimented with democracy. The Romans had Republic. Both succumbed to centralized, autocratic rule. Does that mean centralized, autocratic rule is the fittest?

Germany had an empire, then a democracy, then a fascist State, then a democracy again. Does that make democracy the fittest or is it just a placeholder until history installs a new form of government?

I believe ideologies changes as conditions change, but some natural laws are immutable. Leftist ideology almost always succeeds Rightist social and economic policies and always collapses back into them. It's the eternal cycle - hard times create strong men, strong men create good times, good times create weak men, weak men create hard times.

Leftist policies are only sustainable by cannibalizing the fruits of the previous Rightist regime. Once exhausted, the society reverts back to autocracy and reactionary policy.

*There are many leftist countries in Europe that survive just fine by themselves

Which countries are these?

And he should be. In what alternate universe is it acceptable for a sitting president to incite insurrection and oppose a fair and legal election?

@CaptainAcid "fair and legal"... that's funny

John Sullivan ( BLM leftist extremist) was released of all charges. [greeknewsondemand.com]

@TheMiddleWay If you say so..[townhall.com]

@TheMiddleWay "supports" is literally an association

@TheMiddleWay ...you sure about that? If they were there to support Trump they were dramatically unsuccessful.
Those who do support him, are associated with Donald Trump as a "supporter".
Those who don't support him, are associated with Donald Trump as a "nonsupporter".

@TheMiddleWay oh I see what you're saying. But association with an ad hoc group is a little different than directly interacting with a person.

If this Sullivan guy says he supports BLM, the next question is "what do you mean by that?"
If you mean the group that defines itself by a common set of shared values, then you literally become a "member" of that group by simply espousing those same values; i.e., declaring your support.
...and membership is an association.
If you mean the well-funded organization that is being weaponized into pursuing a long-established agenda, then I guess there is some small distinction between whether he's participating in that pursuit or simply condoning it.
But effectively there is still no distinction. Explicitly condoning something is an action... tantamount to participation; words can have just as much impact as a brick through a window.
...and participant is an association.

Remember: there was only a very tiny percentage of Nazis actually pushing Jews into gas chambers. The support of the Aryan people, whether tacit or active, was the force in the real world that enabled their actions by sustaining the illusions of urgency, imperative, and consensus. It provided them cover and fed the rationalizations that served as "justification".
"Provided" and "fed" are actions, whether you intended them to be or not.

Remember the immortal words of Neil Peart: "If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice."

Also: "All it takes for evil to flourish is for good men to do nothing." -Somebody

Just like zero is a perfectly valid number that can dramatically alter equations, nothing can be an action with dire consequences in the real world.
"Doing nothing" is an action, when it's the conscious choice among more than one alternative; in which case it is quite sufficient to establish association.

@TheMiddleWay LOL,. yeah organising on behalf of a ideological movement is NOT association, LOL.
[townhall.com]

@TheMiddleWay Christ man, you really are a piece of work, read the article I just cited.

@TheMiddleWay No, he doesn't 'associate', 'affiliate' or 'identify' with BLM at all, yawn.
Denial is a terrible thing.

@TheMiddleWay No it doesn't, but you're not H'tagging in earnest, why would he 'give a shout out' to #BLM AND #BlackLives Matter if he doesn't identify with them?
I can't be bothered with you dude, you're intellectually dishonest to the core.