If this were to ever happen, we could discuss quality of life when your socialistic utopia turns into Venezuela. Have fun funding all the free stuff when a large majority of the people who work for a living and who pay taxes are on the other side.
It's really an urban vs rural thing - I am skeptical it is genetic. I use to be a Republican when I younger for instance and moved to the left over time. Why is it moronic. We have a government that is dysfunctional because the focus is more about getting power and going at it with the other side with the country split into a paralysing divide. Creating an EU style framework would resolve many of these problems because in various regions one side would come out on top. In the south the right would prevail and be able to move forward. In the NE the left would prevail political and progress could happen. Instead of attacking one another the regions could be allies and work together. We'd still share a common culture and work together on international effort - but domestically we'd be able to have our own laws that align more with our values.
I think that the Blues should put the Reds into "reservations" where they can get re-educated (educated for some). Majority rule rules.
I don't think this was a joke but it is contrary to actual numbers. You may not have known but the states that take the most in Federal assistance are red states. The states that pay the most into the govt. are blue states.
I think the Parliament system is better. Just having 2 parties makes politics limiting. Maybe some states care about healthcare but not guns, or low taxes, but not abortions.
Lol the lazy ass red states would become African nations. But this isn't about punishing anybody but freeing up both sides. Ending a bad marriage so to speak. I have family in conservative strongholds, I'd still want to be able to visit them but more like someone in France visiting someone in Poland
It was mostly tongue in cheek, but it's based on the fact that if there was a split it would cause an almost immediate war between the sides much like the first time around. The bulk of the military might would be on one side and that side would crush the other and instead of burning Georgia, it would probably be burning California or NY. There's no realistic scenario where states could secede without being attacked and crushed.
Careful with your choice of words. If you believe making the old South a separate country would create marital bliss within its borders, think again.
I've heard this suggested by both liberal and conservative people. I suppose it says something about our polarization that it is a subject now when it wouldn't have been suggested 20 years ago. I'd say put your big boy pants on. We might think the other side is a bunch of assholes, but that's no good reason for a country to shoot itself in the foot, or maybe it's in the face given the severity of the action. It'd be 100 times dumber than Brexit. If we can find a way to maintain the Union through the eras of slavery and its abolition, we can get through this.
Hmm... the tea party was advocating for civil war in 2010-2012. But those were right wingnuts back then. The biggest issue is that the right wing tilt going on now is equally if not more divisive as 2010-2012. But its inevitable that the pendulum will swing back again...
My response wasn't the least bit emotional, SL 4 2. That's an assumption on your part that is little different than the fake responses from Trader_ J, bigtexxx, or tallanvor. When they get a response to one of their posts that makes them look foolish, and/or one they can't honestly answer without being blatantly dishonest, they accuse the member who made that post of being "emotional." It's an attempt to dismiss the post they feel unable to respond to. It's the same tactic used by some of the members of the GOP during the Kavanaugh hearing when attacking Dr. Ford. Don't fall into the same trap. It isn't a good look, in my humble opinion. I have a question for you. What happens in your fantasy to the major cities of Texas? A majority in Houston, Dallas, San Antonio, Austin, and El Paso, to name a few, voted Democratic in the last presidential election. All of the major cities of Texas, except for Fort Worth, voted Democratic. What happens to them? Are those of us living there supposed to move? Leave the state? Throw up our hands in despair and run? Protections we have from the federal level, the United States Constitution, the document you may have forgotten, that prevents the current far-right "majority" in the legislature from running completely roughshod over the rights of those they disagree with? What happens to those rights? You haven't begun to think this through, just as those on the far-right here who fantasize about a "country" that "fits" their ethnicity, their particular religion, their own ideas of the rights of American citizens haven't thought it through. It's science fiction, and it's far from a new "idea." Work to fix what is broken in our country. Don't work to destroy that country. Therein lies chaos and collapse, in my humble opinion. How's that for an answer? The above are the results of the 2016 election by county. When you look specifically at the results of the cities themselves, the Democratic majority vote is even more obvious.
Our system of government is fine. Unfortunately we have given all the power of the election process to the RNC and DNC when it should belong to the respected local governance. I am a big fan of States Rights, however I am not a 10th amendment purist. There are flaws in the 10th Amendment that would make our country unmanageable if we viewed it from a purist view. I am a very strong supporter of Constitutional amendments and I am against the partisan 'legislation from the bench' in which the SCOTUS has become. Voter rights is absolutely something that should be in the constitution (or regulated by the Federal Gov). This effects everyone and the rules are constantly being redrawn for parties to remain in power (Both DNC and RNC). Instead we are squabbling over social issues and letting the Fed Gov overstep its boundaries.
It is a good idea, but it would not happen anywhere, it would be an interesting discussion for having a fun.
Interesting map of the urban political divide. https://www.citylab.com/equity/2016/12/mapping-how-americas-metro-areas-voted/508313/ Shows how urban counties voted in 2016, with Trump taking more of them outside the megaliths NY/LA/SF/Chicago. Probably, it's the suburban voter driving that.
I wrote your post was emotional because you opened it with "what an absurd idea" which sounded like a emotional response (and these are emotional times). You know I respect you as a poster - we've had our back and forth for well over a decade so I presume we speak with mutual respect and that is understood in our exchanges. In later posts I revised the topic to say splitting the us into multiple regions not just two. Texas would be its own country. The idea isn't to separate liberals and conservatives, it's to find a better political system. America isn't going to last forever. Nothing does. What I am proposing isn't to have a civil war, it's to avoid one. No one has to move and life would continue on as is. We just wouldn't have a SCOTUS that imposed partisan decisions based on which party happened to be lucky when a vacancy arises. Texas could elect a president that at least represented Texas, have it's own supreme court as the supreme law of the land, and it's congress. It would also be in a trade & defense pact with the rest of the American Union. People in Texas could fly to NYC just like they normally would. We could even have a shared space program. But instead of the current federal income tax each new nation would have it's own taxation system and then contribute to the American Union for things such as defense, internet, and other services that made more sense to be handled as a group. Liberals would still live in Texas, and vote and such. If we really think that states like Alabama and Mississippi would pass laws that are ethnocentric, the other nations could put pressure or sanctions against them to discourage such efforts. The idea of nations haven't been around that long, and I don't think they will be around that long into the future. We're moving to a world where nations mean less and less as multi-national corporations, money, and freedom of movement eviscerate these ideas. Nations were borne out of the end of colonialism, and as the last victims of colonialism recover from that era (Africa, the Middle East and Latin America), there will be less incentive for people to immigrate to the US which is ironically one of the biggest threats to continued economic success (just look at Japan). The smart move is to think beyond nations - learn from what the EU is doing as a collective set of nations bound by commonality. And I stress, I just think it's an interesting idea to explore. Maybe it's not the best solution, but maybe it could be. Why not discuss it. We'd still have elements of a common nation. We just would be separate politically.
