The USA will inevitably break up, how will it look?

This is Jim Kiler wrote:

For the millionth time, the only state that can survive as a country right now is California. If you're one of these saying that CA would fall apart immediately, quit taking all our money.

It is the US that may fall apart as a nation. Whether any state "survives" that is similarly moot.

This is Jim Kiler wrote:

For the millionth time, the only state that can survive as a country right now is California. If you're one of these saying that CA would fall apart immediately, quit taking all our money.

Just because residence of California spend a bit more in taxes than residence of California receive in benefits does not mean California would do well without U.S. You are assuming your costs will remain constant. I believe CA can quickly set up a 100% self funding healthcare system. California would have an issue starting social security from zero dollars. Day one, state of California will be issuing $(1500 to 2500) monthly social security checks to millions of seniors and disabled Californians. California receives app. 15% of your water from Colorado River. That would stop immediately. Immediately, California multimillionaire farmers would cease getting farm subsidies. The reason there are farm subsidies in U.S. is due to the power of U.S. Senators in low populations agriculture states. For example, in North Dakota and Iowa, each multimillionaire farmer has a significantly greater likelihood of getting his or her concerns addressed than California farmers. No way will Californians vote for farm subsidies. California politicians fight to reduce farm subsidies as it is. Lastly, one of the major points I have made on this thread, California will have to quickly create your own highly skilled military. I am doubtful California is capable of quickly developing a good military. U.S.M.C. and Army infantry disproportionately are Midwesterners and Southerners. It was a huge gamble for Japan to attack U.S. in Hawaii, December, 1941. The reason they did, Japan had been sending some of their brightest to California west coast colleges and universities since about 1920. The consensus of Japanese government: California men are soft and feminine, most likely U.S. men in aggregate are soft and feminine. Poster, are California men today less soft and feminine than were California men 100 years ago?

has to be said wrote:

Republican states generally rely on Democrat states for funding. Democrat state could funnel more money into their own needs.

It goes both ways. Liberal states would have ZERO military power to defend their weak, feminine men.

agip wrote:

I just think the regions/states will assert more power.

The Dems will get tired of being ruled by a minority party and the Rs will get sick of being lectured to by elites and racial minorities.

How do you see this playing out?

Simple fix. Just restrict the federal government's responsibilities to national defense, foreign relations, regulation of interstate commerce, and upholding the rights and protections of individual citizens.

Eliminate federal subsidies and equalization funding. Force the states to be self sufficient but, allow them to fully self govern within the confines of the federal constitution. Then, competition amongst the states will determine where people live, where corporations locate, and where wealth is concentrated.

States with a good balance of taxation, pragmatic governance, and smart legislative priorities will do well. States that don't sufficiently fund themselves, fail to maintain infrastructure or schools, and focus on grandstanding and virtue signaling will suffer the consequences.

No need to break up but, the lack of federal bailout money would force a moderation of state and local policies as those politicians will be more accountable to their constituents.

Dog Trainer Elite wrote:

Simple fix. Just restrict the federal government's responsibilities to national defense, foreign relations, regulation of interstate commerce, and upholding the rights and protections of individual citizens.

Eliminate federal subsidies and equalization funding. Force the states to be self sufficient but, allow them to fully self govern within the confines of the federal constitution. Then, competition amongst the states will determine where people live, where corporations locate, and where wealth is concentrated.

States with a good balance of taxation, pragmatic governance, and smart legislative priorities will do well. States that don't sufficiently fund themselves, fail to maintain infrastructure or schools, and focus on grandstanding and virtue signaling will suffer the consequences.

No need to break up but, the lack of federal bailout money would force a moderation of state and local policies as those politicians will be more accountable to their constituents.

Sounds like a libertarian concept that understands the situation the Founding Fathers tried to implement.

The Civil War eroded States Rights. Time to restore them!

Apart from eliminating subsidies, you just described the EU.

I thought Americans were supposed to think of Europe as Socialist?!

Apart from eliminating subsidies, you just described the EU.

I thought Americans were supposed to think of Europe as Socialist?!

Apart from eliminating subsidies, you just described the EU.

I thought Americans were supposed to think of Europe as Socialist?!

Apart from eliminating subsidies, you just described the European Union.

Apart from eliminating subsidies, you just described the European Union.

Apart from eliminating subsidies, you just described the European Union.

scratching each other's backs wrote:

It goes both ways. Liberal states would have ZERO military power to defend their weak, feminine men.

0/10.

You could not possibly be so dumb to think that red states would pick up the entire U.S. military budget and control all military land and ports and personnel living in states that left the U.S.

States would get a proportion of the military based on their economics. So, The military, weapons, and ports in CA stay and are controlled by CA. And the remaining U.S. military shrinks like the tiny nutsacks on fake red alpha males and their tiny dongs.

Dumbasses, this has been Putin's go with his cyber warfare against the United States and his initiatives to interfere with us elections, and his donations to right-wing extremists in the USA.

It's ironic when right wing Republicans ask questions like "Can you feel the Marxism yet? " When it is an original Marxist who is seeking to destroy the United States and you idiots are so brainwashed by Fox News that you want to help.

Milli Terri wrote:

scratching each other's backs wrote:

It goes both ways. Liberal states would have ZERO military power to defend their weak, feminine men.

0/10.

You could not possibly be so dumb to think that red states would pick up the entire U.S. military budget and control all military land and ports and personnel living in states that left the U.S.

States would get a proportion of the military based on their economics. So, The military, weapons, and ports in CA stay and are controlled by CA. And the remaining U.S. military shrinks like the tiny nutsacks on fake red alpha males and their tiny dongs.

If California governor, both U.S. senators in CA, all U.S. Congressmen and CA state elected officials along with the support of California residence decided to secede from U.S., CA WOULD NOT LEGALLY BE ALLOWED to retain once piece of military hardware and CA would not be allowed to retain any U.S. military personnel. When South Carolina seceded from U.S. 1860, South Carolina was not allowed to retain anything legally. What ever advantage South Carolina and other southern stated had in the early years due to stealing U.S. supplies by 1863 was no longer an advantage. Seceding states are allowed one big theft and that is it. California would not be granted proportional anything.

There has been chest pounding on this thread by California residence. California residence believe since CA residence pay a bit more in taxes than CA residence receive in benefits, CA does not need the other 49 states plus 5 or 6 U.S. Territories with significant civilian population. A few points to consider: During U.S. Civil War, Abe Lincoln always had unity on his mind, making the nation whole again. Union states never did a complete trade embargo against southern states. U.S. Grant wanted to crush southern states with a full trade embargo. If California seceded from U.S. under adversarial terms, there would be a full trade embargo against California. The other 49 states and 5 or 6 territories are capable of preventing California from being resupplied of anything and everything. I really hope Californians and idiot professors there in CA stop with idea of CA seceding from U.S. California would be crushed. Don't even think about it.

there is a military factor2 wrote: r, Abe Lincoln always had unity on his mind, making tie nation whole again. Union states never did a complete trade embargo against southern states. U.S. Grant wanted to crush southern states with a full trade embargo. If California seceded from U.S. under adversarial terms, there would be a full trade embargo against California. The other 49 states and 5 or 6 territories are capable of preventing California from being resupplied of anything and everything. I really hope Californians and idiot professors there in CA stop with idea of CA seceding from U.S. California would be crushed. Don't even think about it.

This all assumes that the rest of the country doesn't want CA to secede. But there is a process set forth for a state (or states) to secede by gaining approval of both houses of Congress and then obtaining ratification by three fourths of the nation's legislatures. It may be the case that all of the small red states see CA seceding could work to their advantage politically.

Without CA (and perhaps the entire West Coast, if it decided to throw in it's lot with CA) the balance of power will tip massively and permanently to the Republicans. Currently, CA acts as a counterbalance to keep the parties relatively even. Without CA progressives/liberals would have no chance of ever winning an election or controlling Congress. So in return for CA leaving the union (which most people in red states want) issues like trade and immigration would need to be negotiated to the satisfaction of both parties.

There is no chance that CA will just unilaterally leave the union but they could mutually agree to a divorce.

throw in *its lot with CA

California broken up into three or five states seems like a more likely compromise than CA seceding entirely by the decision of CA solely or by agreement with the rest of U.S. Some Republican Californians would love it. If we look at a Six California map, Jefferson California, Northern California, Central California & South California would likely have majority Republican U.S. Congressmen & Republican governors with only Silicon Valley California & West California as majority Democratic states. Why would Democrats go along with Six California states? A three to five state solution is possible. If three California states, one majority Democrat, one majority Republican and a toss up state. If five California states, two majority Democrat, two majority Republican and one toss up state. California leaving as one huge state, no.