Interesting question posed to me over the weekend: Should the USA consciously uncouple for the good of the people?
Obviously borrowing the phrase from Gwyneth Paltrow and Chris Martin. A friendly breakup, if you will. Realizing that many of the constituents just want different things from their government, could it be possible for the USA to break into two different countries and allow citizens to choose one or the other? Major resources would have to be shared, and it would require some compromise on both sides. It wouldn't necessarily be Red States go Red and Blue States go Blue, but lines would need to be contiguous. A intentional focus would be made to maintain a fair and peaceful transition. No one wants to fight, but there would be negotiations of course.
Once separate, the two new nations would be sovereign and borders would require passports, etc. Trade would be possible, so Blue could buy from Red, and Red could buy from Blue. Travel is possible.
It has happened in the past with other nations. Could it work for the USA? Especially if things get more divisive? It seems like a better choice than total a democratic breakdown or worse. Why wouldn't this work?
This is probably a good idea, mainly to avoid a future civil war. I do know one of the sides will have all of the Starbucks, theaters, spoken word poetry clubs, effeminate men indistinguishable from women, Targets, electric scooters, and fat overweight tattooed women with purple hair, and the other side will have me and all the other freedom loving citizens. The former side will ultimately collapse because nobody will work and there will be no competent men with real jobs to tax to death, and also because everyone there thinks being gay is cool and hip so nobody will reproduce.
Half of red States would instantly become third world countries. Florida and Texas would not be able to support them. Just the healthcare costs of obesity in the deep South would create an economic crisis. I assume you've seen the scatterplot of BMI and voting preference? It's almost a perfect correlation between voting for Trump and being a fat POS.
This is probably a good idea, mainly to avoid a future civil war. I do know one of the sides will have all of the Starbucks, theaters, spoken word poetry clubs, effeminate men indistinguishable from women, Targets, electric scooters, and fat overweight tattooed women with purple hair, and the other side will have me and all the other freedom loving citizens. The former side will ultimately collapse because nobody will work and there will be no competent men with real jobs to tax to death, and also because everyone there thinks being gay is cool and hip so nobody will reproduce.
Half of red States would instantly become third world countries. Florida and Texas would not be able to support them. Just the healthcare costs of obesity in the deep South would create an economic crisis. I assume you've seen the scatterplot of BMI and voting preference? It's almost a perfect correlation between voting for Trump and being a fat POS.
Have you seen a scatterplot of likeablility and voter preference? There's a 100% correlation between voting Democrat and being an insufferable c*nt.
It's also worth noting that the country in America which most closely resembles a 3rd world country is deep blue California. There's ultra rich people and poor people with no one in the middle just like every other 3rd world country on the planet.
This post was edited 1 minute after it was posted.
Many of the concerns you bring up were brought up and addressed in our nations founding documents and texts like the federalist papers. I'll start with three major issues with succession.
One the federal government will never allow a state to go without massive conflict. This could be overcome by a group banding together to secede but thar seems highly unlikely.
Two if the US did split up you'd likely see two or three confederations of similar strength with different ideals and priorities. War within a short timeframe would be extremely likely.
Three, during the last civil society was extremely segmented on a few specific issues that split on clear geographic lines. That is not how American is divided today. There are deeply conservative enclaves spread across blue state America and vice versa in the other direction. Are you going to carve Austin out of Texas? What about Colorado mostly surrounded by red states? Not going to work.
The last point is we have a solution. It is called Federalism and is the form of government our country was built on. The answer is a smaller federal government that works within the confines of the constitution and focuses on protecting our borders. Then let the states govern themselves. If we agree to this and national politics have lower stakes the temperature would immediately simmer down. It is frustrating when people call for blowing up the system when moving away from the designed system and ignoring the constitution is what has caused the problem we now have.
Only reasonable answer here.
If you allow the states to govern themselves you immediately reduce the role and importance of national elections. Reduce the role of the Fed, reduces national tensions, bring attention closer to home where it belongs.
Interesting question posed to me over the weekend: Should the USA consciously uncouple for the good of the people?
Obviously borrowing the phrase from Gwyneth Paltrow and Chris Martin. A friendly breakup, if you will. Realizing that many of the constituents just want different things from their government, could it be possible for the USA to break into two different countries and allow citizens to choose one or the other? Major resources would have to be shared, and it would require some compromise on both sides. It wouldn't necessarily be Red States go Red and Blue States go Blue, but lines would need to be contiguous. A intentional focus would be made to maintain a fair and peaceful transition. No one wants to fight, but there would be negotiations of course.
Once separate, the two new nations would be sovereign and borders would require passports, etc. Trade would be possible, so Blue could buy from Red, and Red could buy from Blue. Travel is possible.
It has happened in the past with other nations. Could it work for the USA? Especially if things get more divisive? It seems like a better choice than total a democratic breakdown or worse. Why wouldn't this work?
The Kansas experiment was a name given to a controversial and widely noted tax-cutting policy/agenda of Kansas Governor Sam Brownback that began with Brownback signing a bill cutting state taxes (Kansas Senate Bill Substitute...
It's amazing how many trumpy "patriots" want to destroy the United States of America.
The rest of us citizens love our country and want this great republic to continue to succeed and prosper.
But only if you have complete power.
You're anti free speech. You want to expand and pack the court every time you don't get your way. You want to get rid of the electoral college every time you lose an election.
Democrats love their party/religion much much more than they love the country they say was founded by evil genocidal racists.
Interesting question posed to me over the weekend: Should the USA consciously uncouple for the good of the people?
Obviously borrowing the phrase from Gwyneth Paltrow and Chris Martin. A friendly breakup, if you will. Realizing that many of the constituents just want different things from their government, could it be possible for the USA to break into two different countries and allow citizens to choose one or the other? Major resources would have to be shared, and it would require some compromise on both sides. It wouldn't necessarily be Red States go Red and Blue States go Blue, but lines would need to be contiguous. A intentional focus would be made to maintain a fair and peaceful transition. No one wants to fight, but there would be negotiations of course.
Once separate, the two new nations would be sovereign and borders would require passports, etc. Trade would be possible, so Blue could buy from Red, and Red could buy from Blue. Travel is possible.
It has happened in the past with other nations. Could it work for the USA? Especially if things get more divisive? It seems like a better choice than total a democratic breakdown or worse. Why wouldn't this work?
This is probably a good idea, mainly to avoid a future civil war. I do know one of the sides will have all of the Starbucks, theaters, spoken word poetry clubs, effeminate men indistinguishable from women, Targets, electric scooters, and fat overweight tattooed women with purple hair, and the other side will have me and all the other freedom loving citizens. The former side will ultimately collapse because nobody will work and there will be no competent men with real jobs to tax to death, and also because everyone there thinks being gay is cool and hip so nobody will reproduce.
No - the seditionists will be forced out of the country by we the majority. Why should you get to remain here? You don't want to follow the laws, or enforce the laws, unless it applies to anyone who isn't you. So you are free to move to some other country that will have you. Don't let the Constitution hit you on the way out...
It's amazing how many trumpy "patriots" want to destroy the United States of America.
The rest of us citizens love our country and want this great republic to continue to succeed and prosper.
But only if you have complete power.
You're anti free speech. You want to expand and pack the court every time you don't get your way. You want to get rid of the electoral college every time you lose an election.
Democrats love their party/religion much much more than they love the country they say was founded by evil genocidal racists.
When you say "you", I see that you are referring to the strawman you created.
This is probably a good idea, mainly to avoid a future civil war. I do know one of the sides will have all of the Starbucks, theaters, spoken word poetry clubs, effeminate men indistinguishable from women, Targets, electric scooters, and fat overweight tattooed women with purple hair, and the other side will have me and all the other freedom loving citizens. The former side will ultimately collapse because nobody will work and there will be no competent men with real jobs to tax to death, and also because everyone there thinks being gay is cool and hip so nobody will reproduce.
No - the seditionists will be forced out of the country by we the majority. Why should you get to remain here? You don't want to follow the laws, or enforce the laws, unless it applies to anyone who isn't you. So you are free to move to some other country that will have you. Don't let the Constitution hit you on the way out...
First of all, learn how to respond correctly to posts. It makes it seem like I wrote the BS you wrote. Secondly, how exactly are you going to kick anyone out? Slap people in the face?
You're anti free speech. You want to expand and pack the court every time you don't get your way. You want to get rid of the electoral college every time you lose an election.
Democrats love their party/religion much much more than they love the country they say was founded by evil genocidal racists.
When you say "you", I see that you are referring to the strawman you created.
The Biden administration’s Department of Homeland Security created a Disinformation Governance Board to combat “misinformation.” Democrats are anti-free speech.
President Joe Biden announced the formation of a commission last week to study the court's structure, including the number of justices and their length of service.
You're anti free speech. You want to expand and pack the court every time you don't get your way. You want to get rid of the electoral college every time you lose an election.
Democrats love their party/religion much much more than they love the country they say was founded by evil genocidal racists.
When you say "you", I see that you are referring to the strawman you created.
People have been voluntarily doing this for years. Those sick of progressive policy have left liberal places. Those who can't stand conservatives go to liberal places.
We had a doc join our group, moved from Chicago a few years ago(this is AZ). She bought a large home on a large piece of land in a picturesque setting next to a large desert nature preserve. This was her dream home. She's a vocal, strident democrat.
Problem is all of her neighbors were hard core Trumpers. She couldn't handle it. They drove her completely crazy. So did the large number of vocal Trump supporting patients.
After a couple of years she moved back to Chicagoland for the sole reason that she couldn't handle the Trump supporters. She was very open and vocal about this being the only reason for leaving.
Red states depend on federal subsidies to remain functioning. That money comes from blue states. That’s a simple fact. Without California to fund their lifestyles, red state quality of life would crater.
California was the #1 economy in the country LOOOONG before it turned blue you imbecile.
The idea that California is wealthy because of Democrats is absolutely idiotic.
California has been in decline since you idiots took over.
Irrelevant. I'm talking about things as they are now, old man.
The fact of the matter is that red staters very existence depends on handouts from blue states. That is a fact. I accept your thank yous, it's my pleasure to help out you little guys.
This post was edited 10 seconds after it was posted.
Alabama is almost 2:1 republican so naturally “red” would get Alabama.
You are starting to get it!
None of this changes that if you live in a red state, every time you drive on a road or use power and water, or anything else from the state, you need to say “thank you Blue states for funding my lifestyle. I couldn’t live without you”
And you're still too stupid to get it.
If you and 50,000 of your buddies are in a room with Elon Musk the room is "blue" but all of the wealth is still created by the red guy.
Then Mr. Elon lives in a "Blue" state and he can move if he wants. Until then, the taxes he pays help keep 'Red' states afloat and they come from a "Blue" state. My point exactly.
Adultintheroom, I don't know where you live, but if you live in a red state, then:
"You're welcome"
I'm glad to help out the poorer and less productive so they can still attain normal American living standards.
California was the #1 economy in the country LOOOONG before it turned blue you imbecile.
The idea that California is wealthy because of Democrats is absolutely idiotic.
California has been in decline since you idiots took over.
Irrelevant. I'm talking about things as they are now, old man.
The fact of the matter is that red staters very existence depends on handouts from blue states. That is a fact. I accept your thank yous, it's my pleasure to help out you little guys.
Pretending things now have nothing to do with how they started is exactly the sort of stupidity I would expect from an imbecile like yourself.
On this same note the reason the south is poorer than rest of the country today is the fact that it's still recovering from the slave economy Democrats ran in those states.
Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win a LetsRun t-shirt.Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win one of 10 LetsRun t-shirts.
