NationStates Jolt Archive

What do you think? The US is becoming more and more polarized on many different issues. Is dividing into 2 (or more) nations a viable option? Is it a good idea? What would some of the consequences be?

I've added a poll.

Which side gets the nukes?

Both?

"It's the eeeeend of the woooorld as we know it, it's the eeeeend of the woooorld as we know it, it's the eeeeend of the wooorld as we know it, and I feel fiiiiiiine" :D

Really a dumb idea. Also the US is not as divided as the media may want you to believe. Besides most of the private guns are held by conservatives. Doubt they would let the "Liberals" do anything really dumb. So far you still have freedom of speech. So be happy. :D

Really a dumb idea. Also the US is not as divided as the media may want you to believe. Besides most of the private guns are held by conservatives. Doubt they would let the "Liberals" do anything really dumb. So far you still have freedom of speech. So be happy. :D

Well, that's debatable...

I think it would result in greater attention by the smaller parts on internal affairs

, and so a better, more moral, standard of living, rather than the internationalism.

Most likely it would break down the nationalism which I personally peerciieve as irrational.

and Marrakech II DID create that really pan american thread not long ago ...

Well, that's debatable...


Well maybe for you. But all i need to do is pick up a NY times or Washington post. Turn on CNN and realise that the dems still have freedom of speech. But again thats my view.

Well, that's debatable...

If it's debatable you have it.

Well maybe for you. But all i need to do is pick up a NY times or Washington post. Turn on CNN and realise that the dems still have freedom of speech. But again thats my view.

In honesty, from what I have read of US new such as this, from my personal perspective, it appears to border on propaganda, in how much it's slanted certain ways, but that's just from my perspective, and it is most likely that my perception is erroneous.

What do you think? The US is becoming more and more polarized on many different issues. Is dividing into 2 (or more) nations a viable option? Is it a good idea? What would some of the consequences be?

http://www.splittree.org/images/fool.gif


You have better chances of seeing Michael Moore and Rush Limbaugh switching parties than that every happening.

Now turn off the pundits on TV and go outside.

Which side gets the nukes?
The answer is quite obvious. Would you trust a bunch of anti-muslim cowboys with them?

i think it is a good idea, but not likely

The answer is quite obvious. Would you trust a bunch of anti-muslim cowboys with them?
apparently a lot of americans do

What do you think? The US is becoming more and more polarized on many different issues. Is dividing into 2 (or more) nations a viable option? Is it a good idea? What would some of the consequences be?
Secession is not an option. This question was settled for all time by the Civil War.

Sucession was tried once... didnt work out too well.

Thanks for the input, everybody. I haven't lived in the states for the last eleven years. During the last election I found the political-type ideas of the half-dozen other Americans living in the same town as me to be a bit shocking.....I've been trying to figure out what's going on with US politics ever since.

Opinions I've found in web searches tend to be strongly in favor of one or the other, red or blue....I guess I'm just trying to find out what's going on in my homeland and what's America becoming.

Inspiration for this thread (I'm sure you've all seen it....this pic at least tries to be nice to everyone)
http://www.counterpunch.org/BlueStateSecession.gif

Damn, foo, I dont want to be Canadian!

er....so I take it that now that the electon is over, the totally different mindsets between Blue (whether states or just cities) and Red is seen to be just old news now?

The answer is quite obvious. Would you trust a bunch of anti-muslim cowboys with them?

More than I would trust a bunch of anti Christian literati.

http://www.bordbuch.net/archives/united-states-of-canada.jpg

er....so I take it that now that the electon is over, the totally different mindsets between Blue (whether states or just cities) and Red is seen to be just old news now?
:confused:
What do you mean? People hold political opinions year round...

No. A country run completely by the left? Unbearable. At least only half is run by the right... right now.

http://www.bordbuch.net/archives/united-states-of-canada.jpg

Haha, I remember seeing something on Saturday Night Live where Santa was only giving presents to the blue states and passing over the red states. He pulled out a map, and the blue states were labeled "U.S.A." and the red states were labeled "Dumbf*ckistan"

Secession is not an option. This question was settled for all time by the Civil War.

that's a bit presumptuous

Hail Quebecan secession!

Secession is a pretty retarded idea.

For starters, you'd have to realize that the divide isn't so much red-state blue-state, but person to person. There's redstaters who live in blue states and vice versa.

Beyond that, you'd have to utterly dehumanize the other side. I have friends who voted for Bush, and friends who voted for Kerry. That doesn't get in the way of our friendships.

Beyond that, the question of secession was settled 140 years ago, against.

that's a bit presumptuous
No actually it isn't. The blood of 250,000 federal troops ensured that secession is unconstitutional, untenable and idiotic.

I'm tired of this red state vs. blue state crap. The differences between them are hardly enough to warrant a splitting of the Union. It would take something that screwed one side in favor of the other, or something to that effect.

er....so I take it that now that the electon is over, the totally different mindsets between Blue (whether states or just cities) and Red is seen to be just old news now?
Or maybe it doesn't exist at all. The difference is not so big as the media would have you believe.

Or maybe it doesn't exist at all. The difference is not so big as the media would have you believe.
You mean the conservatives don't actually want to bring back slavery, and the liberals don't want to kill all babies and jail all Christians?
Damn. Now what can I protest against?
:(

Beyond that, you'd have to utterly dehumanize the other side.

why? being part of seperate political entities doesn't make me think of canadians as less human than myself.

Beyond that, the question of secession was settled 140 years ago, against.

no, it wasn't. and certainly not for all time and under all circumstances.

You mean the conservatives don't actually want to bring back slavery, and the liberals don't want to kill all babies and jail all Christians?
Damn. Now what can I protest against?
:(
Shocking, ain't it?

why? being part of seperate political entities doesn't make me think of canadians as less human than myself.
To initiate secession would require such a situation.



no, it wasn't. and certainly not for all time and under all circumstances.
Yes, it was. For all times, and all circumstances. Do you want a repeat? 'Cause I sure as hell don't.

The United states needs California, if they want to retain their power in the world.

California doesnt need the union. It produced plenty enough food, and it can trade for what it doesnt have. It has a GDP greater than most nations in the world, seperatly, and only has 35m people. It would obviously have initial problems without the US, but increased trade would eventually lower this.

However, I'm happy with federal laws at this point. I think there should be less power to individual states. I would be happy with succession, but fine with staying. I would support my state in a war for seperation, however.

Haha, I remember seeing something on Saturday Night Live where Santa was only giving presents to the blue states and passing over the red states. He pulled out a map, and the blue states were labeled "U.S.A." and the red states were labeled "Dumbf*ckistan"
haha, I must have missed that one.

You mean the conservatives don't actually want to bring back slavery, and the liberals don't want to kill all babies and jail all Christians?
Damn. Now what can I protest against?
:(

Environmentalists. PLEASE.

secession is unconstitutional

maybe, but so what? the constitution would cease to apply to a region that freely disassociated itself from it.

untenable

there isn't exactly any law of nature that dictates the existence of a nation-state the size of the united states.

and idiotic.

no worse than staying in a union where power is concentrated in the hands of a distant elite that is largely unresponsive and unaccountable.

To initiate secession would require such a situation.

why?

free association, my friend. no coerced relationships. it's the wave of the future.

why?

free association, my friend. no coerced relationships. it's the wave of the future.

"We must have Soviet-Friendly nations to our east and south!"

That sure worked well for the U.S.S.R., didnt it?

maybe, but so what? the constitution would cease to apply to a region that freely disassociated itself from it.
Then the states that would maintain the Constitution would be legally bound to protect and defend it. That would mean forcing the seceding states back into the Union, by whatever means necessary. Including the ones that were used 140 years ago.



there isn't exactly any law of nature that dictates the existence of a nation-state the size of the united states.
Untenable meaning that a civil war would occur. I don't know who would win, I don't know if anyone would win, but I do know that it would be bloody, loads of people would die, and doubtless nuclear weapons would be used. Untenable.



no worse than staying in a union where power is concentrated in the hands of a distant elite that is largely unresponsive and unaccountable.
So, initiate violence because you don't agree with the philosophy of those in power at the time?

why?

free association, my friend. no coerced relationships. it's the wave of the future.
You have tacitly agreed to the US Constitution. If you break this agreement, well, there are consequences.

Then the states that would maintain the Constitution would be legally bound to protect and defend it. That would mean forcing the seceding states back into the Union, by whatever means necessary. Including the ones that were used 140 years ago.

in other words, your idea of a proper understanding of a political entity is as an inescapable empire of doom. fuck that. why bother with the shooting? if somebody doesn't want to play with you, why force them to?

So, initiate violence because you don't agree with the philosophy of those in power at the time?


no. just withdraw - no violence necessary.

Then the states that would maintain the Constitution would be legally bound to protect and defend it. That would mean forcing the seceding states back into the Union, by whatever means necessary. Including the ones that were used 140 years ago.




Untenable meaning that a civil war would occur. I don't know who would win, I don't know if anyone would win, but I do know that it would be bloody, loads of people would die, and doubtless nuclear weapons would be used. Untenable.




So, initiate violence because you don't agree with the philosophy of those in power at the time?

It would be MAD. Last I checked, there are 160 nuclear tomahawks in california. Assuming we took control of those, and a large number of the navy around here quickly enough, we would have enough nuclear weapon to destroy every major city east of us(Texas, arizona, possibly the old north-west, not sure of the range of tomahawks). The Union wouldnt want to risk nuclear war, it wouldnt be worth it.

"We must have Soviet-Friendly nations to our east and south!"

That sure worked well for the U.S.S.R., didnt it?

um, ok. what the hell are you talking about exactly?

Haha, I remember seeing something on Saturday Night Live where Santa was only giving presents to the blue states and passing over the red states. He pulled out a map, and the blue states were labeled "U.S.A." and the red states were labeled "Dumbf*ckistan"That's not funny. Then again SNL is rarely funny anyways.

um, ok. what the hell are you talking about exactly?

How the USSR forced eastern european nations to be allies of Russia. I'm agreeing with your point.

How the USSR forced eastern european nations to be allies of Russia. I'm agreeing with your point.

ah, ok then, i get it now.

Then the states that would maintain the Constitution would be legally bound to protect and defend it. That would mean forcing the seceding states back into the Union, by whatever means necessary. Including the ones that were used 140 years ago.

Probable. I wouldn't be surprised to see some states side with those leaving, and others refusing to have anything to do with the whole affair. The national guard units of those states, on the other hand, are pretty much bound to do whatever CinC says, but any troops that are stuck with cleanup in their home states means that many less go to the front.

Of course, the government becomes much more likely to fail upon <insert draft here>, thanks to the mentality of most people these days, but I digress.

Untenable meaning that a civil war would occur. I don't know who would win, I don't know if anyone would win, but I do know that it would be bloody, loads of people would die, and doubtless nuclear weapons would be used. Untenable.

WOW you're blind. "Oh yes, they're being uppity, let's break out the landbreakers." No one would, since if you have any real expectation of USING a patch of land, you don't nuke it. Since there's all fun sorts of things like fallout associated with a nuke that would ruin that land, most of the surrounding territory, and even a fair chunk of your own.

As for the 'loads of people would die' bit, what, do you think, are the odds that an American is going to have no trouble firing on someone that they still consider a fellow American? Yes, someone will shoot first, but shooting matches will not come nearly so quickly or so easily as they did during the civil war, simply because the mutual animosity just -isn't there anymore-.

That being said, any state trying to break away these days needs a support network of its own, preferably other states, preferably up to the next natural defense line; a decent reason for fighting; and probably something that could do a number on the particular tools of the trade that the US employs.

So, initiate violence because you don't agree with the philosophy of those in power at the time?

Questions to be answered here.
-Which philosophy is more ethical? If it's not yours, you have no moral right, let alone legal.
-Is that philosophy perpetuated in national law, guaranteed to persist regardless of who gets into power (if someone of differing thought patterns even could)? Wait until it is, or it blows over, if it isn't.

Once those have been answered, one should be looking for international support as well. (And don't give me the noninterference in the internal affairs of a nation line from the UN charter; very few nations actually adhere to that.)

You mean the conservatives don't actually want to bring back slavery, and the liberals don't want to kill all babies and jail all Christians?
Damn. Now what can I protest against?
:(

Strange...I'm reading about this in American History right now, kind of.

The democrats from what I'm getting, were pro-slavery during the civil war era. In fact, the Republican Party was formed to combat slavery. The Whigs were split up because they refused to take a stance on slavery, so the pro slavery whigs became democrats, and the anti slavery Whigs became republicans. From what I see on this board, the Democrats are all about rights, and the Republicans are all about suppressing them. Apparently back then it was considered a "right" to own slaves, and the democrats wanted to uphold the right, and the Republicans wanted to suppress it. Abraham Lincoln, a Republican, was morally against slavery, but not politically. His goal was to preserve the Union. During the Lincoln election, there were two democratic candidates, one being Stephen A. Douglas, and another guy nominated by southern democrats. Had there only been one democrat, assuming he collected all the democratic votes, Lincoln would have been defeated, the pro-slavery party would have been in power, the Civil War may never have happened, and slavery may have continued for more years, although there were probably numerous more factors.

California does need the Union, I think. They don't have that much fresh water out thurr in Cali do they?(correct me if I'm wrong)

The discussion so far has missed three important elements that would make secession along blue/red lines impossible.

1) Geography
The very fact that the blue states are separated by a sea of red makes it impossible for them to become a single "blue nation", the logistics of having to go through "red nation" airspace or territory is just too much to sustain them as a unified nation.

2) Demographics
Just because there are states that are red and blue does not mean there aren't blue citizens in the red states or red citizens in blue states. Simple really, just because California went for Kerry doesn't mean a large number of people didn't vote for Bush, and vice versa for...say Oklahoma. You're talking about stranding millions of red people in "blue nation" and millions of blue people in "red nation". It's just not going to happen.

3) Civil War
The nuke question is ridiculous. Honestly. The units in the civil war in the 19th century were largely state based, meaning the soldiers fought in companies and militias that were comprised of citizens from that state. This parallels the national guard, in fact, the national guard derives itself from this system. However, the regular army units are a patchwork of men and women from all parts of the country. Those nukes are controlled by the regular army...and both the regular army and the national guard are sworn to uphold and defend the constitution, not some ridiculous political schism.

We've had Presidential elections more hotly debated and contested in our history, and we're peaceably transferred national power for almost two and a half centuries without interruption...quite the feat, most nations have forced overthrows in that period of time. We don't agree on everything, and don't agree on how to get places, but we all agree on a vision of a prosperous United States, and in the end that's all that matters. We're Americans...red/blue, even green...and as long as there is a system of government that allows for the free and open discussion, and agrument, of our idealogies there will be an America...because America isn't meant for one party, one idea, one idealogy. It's the disagreements and the fact that in the end democracy prevails and we don't have to worry about a military coup, a dictatorship, or other takeover that makes our nation unique and great...it's what makes America America.

You have tacitly agreed to the US Constitution. If you break this agreement, well, there are consequences.

and so you'll open fire on anyone who no longer wishes to be associated with it?

crazy authoritarians

The blue states are never going to secede. At least not until there is another major economic divide between them and the rest again. Social issues like abortion and gay marriage are not important enough to fragment the republic.

The answer is quite obvious. Would you trust a bunch of anti-muslim cowboys with them?
Well, most of the nuclear missiles are located in red states like Wyoming and Colorado.

Opinions I've found in web searches tend to be strongly in favor of one or the other, red or blue....I guess I'm just trying to find out what's going on in my homeland and what's America becoming.

Inspiration for this thread (I'm sure you've all seen it....this pic at least tries to be nice to everyone)
http://www.counterpunch.org/BlueStateSecession.gif
Seriously, do you think that the US would ever give up the entire Pacific coast and the Northeast without a fight?

Why would California but not Hawaii join Mexico?

Strange...I'm reading about this in American History right now, kind of.

The democrats from what I'm getting, were pro-slavery during the civil war era. In fact, the Republican Party was formed to combat slavery. The Whigs were split up because they refused to take a stance on slavery, so the pro slavery whigs became democrats, and the anti slavery Whigs became republicans. From what I see on this board, the Democrats are all about rights, and the Republicans are all about suppressing them. Apparently back then it was considered a "right" to own slaves, and the democrats wanted to uphold the right, and the Republicans wanted to suppress it. Abraham Lincoln, a Republican, was morally against slavery, but not politically. His goal was to preserve the Union. During the Lincoln election, there were two democratic candidates, one being Stephen A. Douglas, and another guy nominated by southern democrats. Had there only been one democrat, assuming he collected all the democratic votes, Lincoln would have been defeated, the pro-slavery party would have been in power, the Civil War may never have happened, and slavery may have continued for more years, although there were probably numerous more factors.

California does need the Union, I think. They don't have that much fresh water out thurr in Cali do they?(correct me if I'm wrong)


It's more of a liberal/conservative thing in history. The Democrats were conservative, meaning for the status quo (slavery), and the Republicans were liberal (anti-slavery)...liberalness and conservativeness is determined by the events of the time period in question.

California does need the Union, I think. They don't have that much fresh water out thurr in Cali do they?(correct me if I'm wrong)

not in southern cali. that's where oregon and washington (and british columbia) come in.

We've had Presidential elections more hotly debated and contested in our history, and we're peaceably transferred national power for almost two and a half centuries without interruption...quite the feat, most nations have forced overthrows in that period of time. We don't agree on everything, and don't agree on how to get places, but we all agree on a vision of a prosperous United States, and in the end that's all that matters. We're Americans...red/blue, even green...and as long as there is a system of government that allows for the free and open discussion, and agrument, of our idealogies there will be an America...because America isn't meant for one party, one idea, one idealogy. It's the disagreements and the fact that in the end democracy prevails and we don't have to worry about a military coup, a dictatorship, or other takeover that makes our nation unique and great...it's what makes America America.

Holla back. I think if people went outside more and gave sandwiches to homeless people instead of debating politics, we'd have less people obese and less people starving. I think that's a good diet plan. Give your lunch to a homeless guy. First you have to make your lunch. Then you have to go out and find a homeless guy. Then you have to give him a lunch, and go home. Maybe you'll see some guys playing basketball and ask to join in.[/offtopic]

Good points on the rest of your post.

Strange...I'm reading about this in American History right now, kind of.

The democrats from what I'm getting, were pro-slavery during the civil war era. In fact, the Republican Party was formed to combat slavery.

Maybe you should pay closer attention to your American History class, because the Republicans at the time of the Civil War were actually very liberal--today's democrats. All the conservative southerners, the ones that seceeded from the Union, voted Democrat. Near the turn of the century, more conservatives became Republicans and liberals became Democrats.

Grizz, your comments on the history are spot on...

California does need the Union, I think. They don't have that much fresh water out thurr in Cali do they?(correct me if I'm wrong)

True, California does import a sizable chunk of its water.

But this water is from other Western states or from Canada, not like Texas or Alabama or something.

Western states, while 'red' in terms of the 2004 election, tend to be very independent-minded. That's the frontier meme being expressed: independence is, always has been, and without massive social change will continue to be big near and west of the Rockies.

In event of secession, they're most likely to side with the group that lets them on the longer leash, if not forego it entirely and make the new bunching of states an association rather than a union.

This has two upshots for California: 1, the water keeps flowing, and 2, the new front line is at a natural defense, namely the Rocky Mountains, with two others behind (the Great Basin and the Eureka/Cascade mountain system). Natural fortresses are a bitch to deal with, and there's plenty of opportunities for antiair and restriction of troop movements. It may not last in perpetuity, but it should hold long enough for the US to paralyze itself in the throes of political conflict (it would have to be very unstable indeed to end up in a war with itself anyway) and/or the international community to have its way with the situation.

Holla back. I think if people went outside more and gave sandwiches to homeless people instead of debating politics, we'd have less people obese and less people starving. I think that's a good diet plan. Give your lunch to a homeless guy. First you have to make your lunch. Then you have to go out and find a homeless guy. Then you have to give him a lunch, and go home. Maybe you'll see some guys playing basketball and ask to join in.[/offtopic]

Good points on the rest of your post.

HAHA...that's a pretty good idea. Or if you don't need to be on a diet just make an extra one to give away.

And thanks. I think a lot of times people get online and start a discussion that turns into a semi-unreasonable, irrational shouting match because, well...it's easy to yell stupid things (i.e. Liberals suck! or I hate Bush!) on the internet where you don't have to see the person and they don't have to actually know who you are so you're not really held accountable for what comes out of your mouth...er fingers...whatever, you get the idea.

More than I would trust a bunch of anti Christian literati.
Do you really think that liberals are anti-Christian? What would they do, nuke the Vatican? :rolleyes:

What are literati?

Environmentalists. PLEASE.
Wow. I didn't think anyone really wanted to live in an ugly earth with toxic fumes for air.

dear non-existent sky monkey, can't you people think of secession in any terms other than who can kick who's ass?

of course, the hang up on states is also rather bizarre too. what's so good about a set of arbitrary borders mainly created as artifacts of colonialism or slavery?

The blue states are never going to secede. At least not until there is another major economic divide between them and the rest again. Social issues like abortion and gay marriage are not important enough to fragment the republic.

This is true. The industrial corridor and New England have no real means of defense, and the Pacific would still wait to be attacked by Washington, or be clearly and presently threatened with attack by a foreign power because of Washington's idiocy, before doing anything (what would cause this, I have no idea, but as long as Japan and China are in the way, North Korea doesn't count.)

Well, most of the nuclear missiles are located in red states like Wyoming and Colorado.

Red/Blue is not important. Likelyhood of retention is. Both states are independent-minded; they won't stick around if they have a good enough reason to believe they can get away (though they'd have to be potentially rendered border states for this to happen).

Seriously, do you think that the US would ever give up the entire Pacific coast and the Northeast without a fight?

I don't think anyone's saying that... but yeah, that map is stupid.

Why would California but not Hawaii join Mexico?

California would sooner be its own country, and Hawai'i sooner coopted by Japan.

Social issues like abortion and gay marriage are not important enough to fragment the republic.

though they are apparently good enough to serve as a wedge that allows a party whose positions (except for those few token ones) are largely disapproved of by a vast majority of the population to come to power.

Strange...I'm reading about this in American History right now, kind of.

The democrats from what I'm getting, were pro-slavery during the civil war era. In fact, the Republican Party was formed to combat slavery. The Whigs were split up because they refused to take a stance on slavery, so the pro slavery whigs became democrats, and the anti slavery Whigs became republicans. From what I see on this board, the Democrats are all about rights, and the Republicans are all about suppressing them. Apparently back then it was considered a "right" to own slaves, and the democrats wanted to uphold the right, and the Republicans wanted to suppress it. Abraham Lincoln, a Republican, was morally against slavery, but not politically. His goal was to preserve the Union. During the Lincoln election, there were two democratic candidates, one being Stephen A. Douglas, and another guy nominated by southern democrats. Had there only been one democrat, assuming he collected all the democratic votes, Lincoln would have been defeated, the pro-slavery party would have been in power, the Civil War may never have happened, and slavery may have continued for more years, although there were probably numerous more factors.

California does need the Union, I think. They don't have that much fresh water out thurr in Cali do they?(correct me if I'm wrong)

The Democratic and Republican Party of 1856 have very little to do with the Democratic and Republican Party of 2004, other than the name. The biggest reason for the current alignment of the party structure has to do with two things, firstly the industrialization of America in the 1870's-90's, and the second was the civil rights movement in the 1960's.

Basically, the Republicans during the Reconstruction era had a monopoly on political power, and to maintain that (or perhaps because they had a monopoly on power), they became tied in with the rise of industrialism. Democrats, by contrast, became more and more associated with the working class and burgeoning labor movement that worked in those factories, as well as their bastion in the South.

That bastion, however, evaporated in the 1960's when Northern and liberal Southern Dems united with Republicans against Dixiecrat Dems over the issue of civil rights. Those Dixiecrats broke with the Democratic Party. . .and went right over to the Republicans. It's no coincidence that the same people who were fighting civil rights legislation like Jesse Helms, Strom Thurmond, and Trent Lott, are or in the last decade were all among the most powerful members of the Republican Party.

That bastion, however, evaporated in the 1960's when Northern and liberal Southern Dems united with Republicans against Dixiecrat Dems over the issue of civil rights. Those Dixiecrats broke with the Democratic Party. . .and went right over to the Republicans. It's no coincidence that the same people who were fighting civil rights legislation like Jesse Helms, Strom Thurmond, and Trent Lott, are or in the last decade were all among the most powerful members of the Republican Party.
Like Al Gore Sr., Robert Byrd, or Fritz Hollings?

If the west coast(California, oregon, washington) seceeded, there would be no war. The first objective of the seceeders would be to grab the nuclear tomahawks here, and prepare them for retaliatory strikes. The rest of the Union wouldn't dare invade the west, when the major cities of the union could be obliterated(MAD theory). Secession isnt a declaration of war, and so the union would be the ones starting the war if they tried to force the west coast back into the union.

I think it's a good idea. You see, blue states live better than red states. And yes, I know I just put out a big hunk of flame bait.

Anyways. The blue states should secceed and join Canada. And we'll let you reds do whatever you want....like the war on iraq!

I think it's a good idea. You see, blue states live better than red states. And yes, I know I just put out a big hunk of flame bait.

Anyways. The blue states should secceed and join Canada. And we'll let you reds do whatever you want....like the war on iraq!


Go ahead and try to leave! Since most in the blue states are against gun ownership anyways we will just shoot those who want to go and keep the rest!

Then the states that would maintain the Constitution would be legally bound to protect and defend it. That would mean forcing the seceding states back into the Union, by whatever means necessary. Including the ones that were used 140 years ago.

Untenable meaning that a civil war would occur. I don't know who would win, I don't know if anyone would win, but I do know that it would be bloody, loads of people would die, and doubtless nuclear weapons would be used. Untenable.

So, initiate violence because you don't agree with the philosophy of those in power at the time?

Actually it's those in power at the time who really initiate the violence, I mean, the state is not killing anyone by simply seceding it would be the response that is violent.

Secondly, while at first the government may be able to hold together the falling parts by force, simply by the fact that they may have managed to become seperate if only for a short time, would show to them that it is feasible, binding them back in place when a desire for seperation exists is most likely to create even greater discontent and resistance, not to mention.

The simple fact is that due to the size of the US, the country is polarizing, and will continue to do so, originally it was less so, of course as a result of colonisation, people from areas with some distance between them will be somewhat different in time.

What effect will this have, perhaps secessionist sentiments, or perhaps people will remain content living under one country, in which case a certain degree of decentralisation may be required to maintain this.

Which one is most beneficial: well considering the far more peace orientated demeanour of today's world, I would judge that smaller political divisions would be more beneficial for those living under them.

Of course any power hungry nationalist who sees reason in having an large imaginary division, which appears to be purely for the sake of ostentation, being only superficial, with no significant benefits, and may as well just be virtual reality. Because in truth, while I may reside in a large country, I barely leave my city, and so for all I know, the barders of my country could potentially just be the borders of my city.

In honesty, from what I have read of US new such as this, from my personal perspective, it appears to border on propaganda, in how much it's slanted certain ways, but that's just from my perspective, and it is most likely that my perception is erroneous.

Your view is correct. Of course its slanted. Im just curious when are the American people going to figure out that some of the media is controlled by foreign interests.

Go ahead and try to leave! Since most in the blue states are against gun ownership anyways we will just shoot those who want to go and keep the rest!

and here i was thinking that the cities are filled with weapons - so much so that they are considered dangerous to walk around in.

Go ahead and try to leave! Since most in the blue states are against gun ownership anyways we will just shoot those who want to go and keep the rest!
Sigh, people need to stop making the old argument about Southern states being militarily superior simply because a bunch of middle-aged, middle-class, middle-income families like to go plinkin' with their six-shooters on weekends.

Go ahead and try to leave! Since most in the blue states are against gun ownership anyways we will just shoot those who want to go and keep the rest!

And then nuclear tomahawks reign down on Austin, Houston, and any other big city in our range.

What the HELL IS WITH YOU PEOPLE AND THE NUKES?

*huff* Get a hold of yourself Jeff... breathe in, out... *whew* Better.

Now the lot of you get it through your skulls that your average person doesn't know how to launch a nuclear warhead, let alone have any desire to, and that any government wouldn't think of doing it in this day and age. Think about how much it costs, alone. Several million dollars a year to maintain the thing, yes*, -or- smack something with it, that's about fifty billion dollars in real estate and anywhere between a quarter-million and twenty million lives gone, and that of nearly everyone on the planet made worse. Now tell me using a missile on your own soil isn't the stupidest fucking idea you've ever heard. Go on. I dare you.

There will not be radioactives flying across the continent in a secession bid. Deal with it.

*I still think the US should dismantle all but a few hundred of its missiles, leaving the rest single- or dual-warhead, and funnel the resources into energy generation - four hundred warheads will still off the whole planet, and cutting back from ten thousand will drive other nations to cut back severely as well... but that's neither here nor there.

Strange...I'm reading about this in American History right now, kind of.

The democrats from what I'm getting, were pro-slavery during the civil war era. In fact, the Republican Party was formed to combat slavery. The Whigs were split up because they refused to take a stance on slavery, so the pro slavery whigs became democrats, and the anti slavery Whigs became republicans. From what I see on this board, the Democrats are all about rights, and the Republicans are all about suppressing them. Apparently back then it was considered a "right" to own slaves, and the democrats wanted to uphold the right, and the Republicans wanted to suppress it. Abraham Lincoln, a Republican, was morally against slavery, but not politically. His goal was to preserve the Union. During the Lincoln election, there were two democratic candidates, one being Stephen A. Douglas, and another guy nominated by southern democrats. Had there only been one democrat, assuming he collected all the democratic votes, Lincoln would have been defeated, the pro-slavery party would have been in power, the Civil War may never have happened, and slavery may have continued for more years, although there were probably numerous more factors.

California does need the Union, I think. They don't have that much fresh water out thurr in Cali do they?(correct me if I'm wrong)
Around the turn of the century, the two parties switched their views. The democrats suddenly took more liberal views and the republicans slowly shifted to being more (and more and more and more and more) conservative. If Lincoln were around today, his views would correspond more with the views of the democrat party instead of today's republican party.

Yep.

It'd be interesting to see my home state of Oregon secede with CA and WA.

Actually, now that I think about it, my home state is MI. I just live here. Oh well, it's all blue.

Y'know, aren't they thinking of making Palestine a divided (physically) country? What with the West Bank, then a few (tens, hundreds?) miles of Israel, then the Gaza Strip. It would work for the U.S. maybe. (Probably not, but if canada were to offer an alliance, then we could spend a few months making railways to connect the stuff thru Canada and then we would all be happy.)

maybe.

If Lincoln were around today, his views would correspond more with the views of the democrat party instead of today's republican party.
Why? It's almost impossible to make an accurate statement about that sort of stuff, anyway, but it would be interesting to hear.

What the HELL IS WITH YOU PEOPLE AND THE NUKES?

i refer to it as the nuclear madness. it's why having any of them around is far too many.

*rolls eyes*

this whole argument is inane

Goddessness']*rolls eyes*

this whole argument is inane

which, secession based on the outcomes of a presidential election, or secession in general?

Look, folks, this blue-state/red-state thing is essentially a media fiction, created to gin up grist for the pundits.

Consider the 2004 election. Pennsylvania, a supposed blue state, only went to Kerry by about 150,000 votes. Ohio went to Bush by about 130,000 votes. Very small margins for the population.

The real divisions are between rural and metropolitan areas. If it were not for the city of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania would be a red state.

New York State is also heavily blue mainly due to the intense Democratic presence in NY City.

In Texas, in my home city of Houston, the city itself is predominantly Democratic (although not to the same degree as, say, NY or LA or Chicago). Austin has been called the liberal capital of the South. Yet, because there are many more rural areas to balance out the metro areas, the state itself is heavily Republican.

Even California, once you get off the coast, has a sizable Republican/conservative contingent. How do you separate out such intertwined demographics?

I say yes. Get the terrorist-loving anti-American hippies out of our nation.

More importantly, could blue states win a war of secession? Not against red states.

More importantly, could blue states win a war of secession? Not against red states.

what war? what the fuck are you people on about with this whole war thing?

secession ≠ war

Texas is the only state legally able to secede from the Union, as it was originally an independent country. AND WHEN IT SECEDES, IT WILL BECOME MINE. ALL MINE.

Texas is the only state legally able to secede from the Union, as it was originally an independent country.

so were the 13 colonies once they declared independence. and before they wrote the constitution, they were operating as basically independent countries working together on a few specific things under the articles of confederation.

I read recently on th web that some state in America, some state called North Carolina, or it might have been South Carolina, Im not sure, is planning to go fundementalist right wing Christian by the year 2014, and indeed suceed from the states in that very same year.
Apparently Christians are being called apon to congregate in this state even now to get the sucession ready, apparently they believe that the US is beyond help and has turned into an abomination and self parody of itself and is indeed beyond help, Im inclined to partly agree with this, as it is indeed a country of many contradictions.

Kirk: Bones... what's up with... this thread?

McCoy: (holding flashy thing (TM)) It's braindead, Jim. Lots of people who have no clue what their talking about prattling on and on.

Kirk: Sounds like... punditry?

Spock: (looking at tricorder) Negative Captain. Most of these people are at best parroting pundits, and some don't even live in the United States. My conclusion is that they are either in a delusional state, or are the reason why the Electoral College exists.

Kirk (flicks radio): Scotty... three to beam up. There's no intelligent... discussion in this thread.

Kirk: Bones... what's up with... this thread?

McCoy: (holding flashy thing (TM)) It's braindead, Jim. Lots of people who have no clue what their talking about prattling on and on.

Kirk: Sounds like... punditry?

Spock: (looking at tricorder) Negative Captain. Most of these people are at best parroting pundits, and some don't even live in the United States. My conclusion is that they are either in a delusional state, or are the reason why the Electoral College exists.

Kirk (flicks radio): Scotty... three to beam up. There's no intelligent... discussion in this thread.
Super-power: No! Wait - take me with you!

Super-power: No! Wait - take me with you!

Kirk: Sorry... that... would be against... the... prime directive.

(disappears)

More importantly, could blue states win a war of secession? Not against red states.

More importantly, could the red states survive after nuclear strikes by the blue states? possibly. Would they want to? No.

Texas is the only state legally able to secede from the Union, as it was originally an independent country. AND WHEN IT SECEDES, IT WILL BECOME MINE. ALL MINE.

No it isn't. It was the test case. Texas vs. White. As in the SUPREME COURT.

Texas does have the option to split into four states at whim, however; I don't know how well that fares under states' sovereignty dictum in the Constitution, however.

More importantly, could the red states survive after nuclear strikes by the blue states? possibly. Would they want to? No.

*breaks out the giant "STFU N00B" stamp* I -warned- you about this one...

maybe, but so what? the constitution would cease to apply to a region that freely disassociated itself from it.



there isn't exactly any law of nature that dictates the existence of a nation-state the size of the united states.



no worse than staying in a union where power is concentrated in the hands of a distant elite that is largely unresponsive and unaccountable.

You do realize the south was democrat last time around?
It changed to republican after losing so badly.
And strangely the north went from Republican to democrat afte winning?

So your staying no worse than staying in a union where power in concentrated in the hands of Neo-cobservative elites that largely unresponsive and unaccountable..wow I agree.

So let me see if the North seceeded from south this time because north is democrat: we get everything above virginia, California, Utah (I'll not give them up), Alaska, and Hawaii.

Southerns this time you have republicans, but I daresay we will win lol. We got Vermont, the northern gun users, and Dean on our side (a gun user).

You do realize the south was democrat last time around?
It changed to republican after losing so badly.
And strangely the north went from Republican to democrat afte winning?

overlooking the super-compression of the timeline, who cares? what does general party affiliation have to do with anything i said?

http://www.thedenverchannel.com/family/3403144/detail.html

Sorry, it was South Carolina where the Fundementalist right wing Christians want the sucession to take place.

Texas is the only state legally able to secede from the Union, as it was originally an independent country. AND WHEN IT SECEDES, IT WILL BECOME MINE. ALL MINE.
As I recently discovered, that is a myth. Yes, Texas was once its own country, but it has no more right to secede than any other state. It can, however, subdivide itself into up to 4 new states if it so chooses. I grew up in Houston and thought that myth was true up until a few months ago when I actually bothered to research it.

*breaks out the giant "STFU N00B" stamp* I -warned- you about this one...

*Bows down to 247 post man*

The point is, the red states couldnt invade the blue. This would provoke war, nuclear war at that(because the blue states couldnt win otherwise). All the blue states would have to do is threaten the red with it, and the red couldnt do crap.

What do you think? The US is becoming more and more polarized on many different issues. Is dividing into 2 (or more) nations a viable option? Is it a good idea? What would some of the consequences be?
look at a map of blue states and red states then color in Canada blue. your in for a great suprise!

Thanks again, everybody. This has been really helpful.

No. A country run completely by the left?

Well, there's Europe.

The discussion so far has missed three important elements that would make secession along blue/red lines impossible.

1) Geography
The very fact that the blue states are separated by a sea of red makes it impossible for them to become a single "blue nation", the logistics of having to go through "red nation" airspace or territory is just too much to sustain them as a unified nation.

Well Alaska and Hawaii are already seperated. The British Empire had territory allover the world. Planes of all nationalities are going through our air space everyday, they even stop and fuel in our cities. How else do you think you get from Montreal to Mexico City?



2) Demographics
Just because there are states that are red and blue does not mean there aren't blue citizens in the red states or red citizens in blue states. Simple really, just because California went for Kerry doesn't mean a large number of people didn't vote for Bush, and vice versa for...say Oklahoma. You're talking about stranding millions of red people in "blue nation" and millions of blue people in "red nation". It's just not going to happen.

Just because you are a "red" person in California, that doesn't mean that you would not want succession. In fact most Californian Republicans probably voted that way because they are fiscally conservative rather than culturally conservative (i.e. they are very rich and dont want to share their money, but are still quite progressive). Since the wealth of California is holding up many of the poorer states, there is no reason why Californian Republicans would want to continue paying taxes to support poor Alabamans. In fact it is the Republicans that are most likely to want succession from the Union.


3) Civil War
The nuke question is ridiculous. Honestly. The units in the civil war in the 19th century were largely state based, meaning the soldiers fought in companies and militias that were comprised of citizens from that state. This parallels the national guard, in fact, the national guard derives itself from this system. However, the regular army units are a patchwork of men and women from all parts of the country. Those nukes are controlled by the regular army...and both the regular army and the national guard are sworn to uphold and defend the constitution, not some ridiculous political schism.

Yeah, do you really think that anyone in the Army is going to agree to Nuke their own country? In fact if the President of the Union ordered the Nuking of any American state or former state, there would definately be a mutiny.

We've had Presidential elections more hotly debated and contested in our history, and we're peaceably transferred national power for almost two and a half centuries without interruption...quite the feat, most nations have forced overthrows in that period of time. We don't agree on everything, and don't agree on how to get places, but we all agree on a vision of a prosperous United States, and in the end that's all that matters. We're Americans...red/blue, even green...and as long as there is a system of government that allows for the free and open discussion, and agrument, of our idealogies there will be an America...because America isn't meant for one party, one idea, one idealogy. It's the disagreements and the fact that in the end democracy prevails and we don't have to worry about a military coup, a dictatorship, or other takeover that makes our nation unique and great...it's what makes America America.

Now you are just spitting a bunch of political idealogy, trust me, look at history. Every state society has had similar rhetoric, Pax Romana, God save the King, Workers of the world Unite, etc.

None has lasted forever.

Kirk: Bones... what's up with... this thread?

McCoy: (holding flashy thing (TM)) It's braindead, Jim. Lots of people who have no clue what their talking about prattling on and on.

Kirk: Sounds like... punditry?

Spock: (looking at tricorder) Negative Captain. Most of these people are at best parroting pundits, and some don't even live in the United States. My conclusion is that they are either in a delusional state, or are the reason why the Electoral College exists.

Kirk (flicks radio): Scotty... three to beam up. There's no intelligent... discussion in this thread.

Best. Post. Inthethread.

Beams away.

*Bows down to 247 post man*

The point is, the red states couldnt invade the blue. This would provoke war, nuclear war at that(because the blue states couldnt win otherwise). All the blue states would have to do is threaten the red with it, and the red couldnt do crap.
Bullshit, the Blue States, includes the industrial north east and mid west and the hi-tech areas of California, Seattle and Oregon. We have always been stronger then the agrarian south or the empty underpopulated plains states.

I am all for a war if any good old boys want to try to lead the South to "rise again". This time we should permanently abolish the southern states' legislatures and keep them under military occupation indefinitely.

Bullshit, the Blue States, includes the industrial north east and mid west and the hi-tech areas of California, Seattle and Oregon. We have always been stronger then the agrarian south or the empty underpopulated plains states.

I am all for a war if any good old boys want to try to lead the South to "rise again". This time we should permanently abolish the southern states' legislatures and keep them under military occupation indefinitely.

If you're so adamant about it, then bring it on, bitches. Guess where all the ball-frozen factory workers and office drones are emigrating from and immigrating too. Guess where the highest population growth is going on. Guess where both a large portion of America's food and a good portion of America's business and service industries are situated. It sure as hell ain't Rich Yankee Elitist Bastards, Connecticut.

Bullshit, the Blue States, includes the industrial north east and mid west and the hi-tech areas of California, Seattle and Oregon. We have always been stronger then the agrarian south or the empty underpopulated plains states.

I am all for a war if any good old boys want to try to lead the South to "rise again". This time we should permanently abolish the southern states' legislatures and keep them under military occupation indefinitely.

Bullshit what? You quoted me, then went off on a tangent.

Guess where both a large portion of America's food and a good portion of America's business and service industries are situated. It sure as hell ain't Rich Yankee Elitist Bastards, Connecticut.

You're right. Its California, where enough food grows to feed itself ten times over.

If you're so adamant about it, then bring it on, bitches. Guess where all the ball-frozen factory workers and office drones are emigrating from and immigrating too. Guess where the highest population growth is going on. Guess where both a large portion of America's food and a good portion of America's business and service industries are situated. It sure as hell ain't Rich Yankee Elitist Bastards, Connecticut.

Easy, homeslice. This Connecticut Yankee doesn't take kindly to being called Rich, nor Elitist.

BTW: If you look at the CT voting, Bush carried just about every town. Kerry won in the cities. Most of those Rich Elitist Bastards your talking about voted AGAINST Kerry.

Which side gets the nukes?

Both?

"It's the eeeeend of the woooorld as we know it, it's the eeeeend of the woooorld as we know it, it's the eeeeend of the wooorld as we know it, and I feel fiiiiiiine" :D
big ups for quoting one of my fav REM lyrics. frankly, i dont give a damn, i just wish that someone other than the Republican or Democratic parties (and hopefully have more sense) would get in for a change..... hang on, any one with more sense than these to knows better than to go into american politrix
oh yeah....

JESSIE VENTURA FOR PRESIDENT IN 2008!

Bullshit, the Blue States, includes the industrial north east and mid west and the hi-tech areas of California, Seattle and Oregon. We have always been stronger then the agrarian south or the empty underpopulated plains states.

I am all for a war if any good old boys want to try to lead the South to "rise again". This time we should permanently abolish the southern states' legislatures and keep them under military occupation indefinitely.

Amusing, as the F-22 in made in Georgia, most warships are made in Mississippi, F-16s and F-18s come from Texas, as do many of our tanks. You may not realize this, but people have been building new factories since 1865, in all sorts of places. Especialy arms plants in the South during WW2, to take advantage of the workforce freed up by mechanization of agriculture. F-22s are made in a plant built to make B-29s, for example, and F-16s in an old P-51 plant.

But really, all this is nonsense. It won't happen. The pundits are making mountains out of molehills to boost ratings, that's all. The odds of the blue states secceding are somewhat on the level of angry yorkshire terriers seizing the British throne.

You're right. Its California, where enough food grows to feed itself ten times over.

I was referring to the entire Sun Belt, since California, Texas, and Florida are major food produces. Plus, a large amount of agricultural products like soybeans, peanuts, and cotton are produced in the US South.

EDIT: To the Connecticut poster: I visited Wallingford, CT and I found it to be a very elitist place. Not to mention that some of the richest towns in America like New Canaan are in CT. Considering that these richies want to keep their taxes low, they were probably willing to sacrifice some social liberalism to keep their money.

Thanks for the input, everybody. I haven't lived in the states for the last eleven years. During the last election I found the political-type ideas of the half-dozen other Americans living in the same town as me to be a bit shocking.....I've been trying to figure out what's going on with US politics ever since.

Opinions I've found in web searches tend to be strongly in favor of one or the other, red or blue....I guess I'm just trying to find out what's going on in my homeland and what's America becoming.

Inspiration for this thread (I'm sure you've all seen it....this pic at least tries to be nice to everyone)
http://www.counterpunch.org/BlueStateSecession.gif
According to that map, I've lived in 3 countries in 3 years!

I was referring to the entire Sun Belt, since California, Texas, and Florida are major food produces. Plus, a large amount of agricultural products like soybeans, peanuts, and cotton are produced in the US South.

EDIT: To the Connecticut poster: I visited Wallingford, CT and I found it to be a very elitist place. Not to mention that some of the richest towns in America like New Canaan are in CT. Considering that these richies want to keep their taxes low, they were probably willing to sacrifice some social liberalism to keep their money.

Wallingford?!? I have no idea what you mean. Wallingford is hardly in a place to be elitist... I've been in EVERY CT town, barring a few in the far northwest corner (past UConn). I'm sorry you had that experience, but come down to New Haven or go up to Storrs or out to Danbury. You'll have a good time.

As for "richies": Their taxes are low BECAUSE they live in Darien or New Canaan or Greenwich. Those tows don't have social services or slums, etc. Their property values never go down. So why on earth would they vote for Kerry? Answer: They didn't...
http://www.ci.darien.ct.us/services/registrars_of_voters/election_results/2004_results/

As long as we restrict the secession to the blue counties, rather than the states.

This would prevent the largely blue urban areas from dragging out suburban and rural folks who would rather not be blue.

We would end up with a pattern rather like the one posited in "Escape From New York". In fact, we could put up a perimeter wall and guards around the blue urban centers.

Sucession was tried once... didnt work out too well.

Obviously conservatives are bad at it; let us have a go at it!

Obviously conservatives are bad at it; let us have a go at it!
It would probably be difficult. The only really blue areas if you look county by county are large urban areas.

No ability to grow food. Huge welfare dependent populations. And the highest crime areas in the nation - there seems to be a direct correlation between violent crime and blue.

Oh, and due to the gun laws, most of the legal gun owners don't live in solid blue counties. So if you're planning on starting a revolution you can:

a) not count on military defections, as they are 70 percent Republican or more
b) not count on too many legal gun owners in those gun restricted areas like New York City
c) count on being ruled by the people in those areas who do own guns - the violent felons on the streets there

eh, well i sure as hell would NOT try to seceed from the US as a blue state as long as there is a "red" president.

having a president would mean that the US (not the seceeding states, which ill call the blue) would just use the army to get control of the blue again.

also, if worst came to worst, how many nukes would the blue have vs the US? eh? eh?

:sniper:

Huge welfare dependent populations. Only if you go by inner-city areas. Most people seem to see blue sucession as a statewide thing and blue states tend to be giver states- that is, they give more to the government than they give back. Compare that to most southern states, who recieve more than they give.

And the highest crime areas in the nation - there seems to be a direct correlation between violent crime and blue. Again, it is region vs statewide. I was under the impression that the South once again had the most overall problem with violent crime, but I don't have any data onhand at the moment so this could be heresay.

What makes a Blue State a blue state is the metropolitan areas. If you look at a county map, you will see that most Blue States are overwhelmingly constituted of Red Counties. So, it's the producers in the red areas that are making the Blue States look good.

What makes a Blue State a blue state is the metropolitan areas. If you look at a county map, you will see that most Blue States are overwhelmingly constituted of Red Counties. So, it's the producers in the red areas that are making the Blue States look good.

producers?

Absolutely not. A division on politics is silly to fight about to the point of separation.

producers?
You know. People that contribute to society, not drain from it. Most red areas are like that. Most blue areas aren't. That's why the population trends are out of blue areas into red areas.

You know. People that contribute to society, not drain from it. Most red areas are like that. Most blue areas aren't. That's why the population trends are out of blue areas into red areas.

Silly little notion seeing as the "blue states" are more affluent than "red states" and account for a much greater amount of production in US economy.

Silly little notion seeing as the "blue states" are more affluent than "red states" and account for a much greater amount of production in US economy.
I hate repeating myself, but if you look at a Blue State...look back about four posts.

You know. People that contribute to society, not drain from it. Most red areas are like that. Most blue areas aren't. That's why the population trends are out of blue areas into red areas.

um, what? your statement has just about no relation at all to either economics or demographics. the 'red areas' that are experiencing significant population growth are either part of the newest wave of urban sprawl and are intimately economically linked to the urban centers, or are becoming new urban centers in their own right. in either case, this spells doom for ye olde bastions of cultural conservativism.

most 'red areas' are flat fucking broke. you ever been to idaho?

eh, well i sure as hell would NOT try to seceed from the US as a blue state as long as there is a "red" president.

having a president would mean that the US (not the seceeding states, which ill call the blue) would just use the army to get control of the blue again.

also, if worst came to worst, how many nukes would the blue have vs the US? eh? eh?

:sniper:

160 Nuclear Tomahawks, in a blue county in california. Not to mention washington, etc, which I'm pretty sure have some of their own.

Plenty enough to obliterate anything important in range.

160 Nuclear Tomahawks, in a blue county in california. Not to mention washington, etc, which I'm pretty sure have some of their own.

Plenty enough to obliterate anything important in range.

North Dakota has most of the Minutemen missiles.

Kings Bay, Georgia has most of the Trident missiles.

Most of the "enduring stockpile" and all of the B-61 air dropped bombs are in Texas, as are the pits from all the other nukes that were put into the stockpile for future use.

um, what? your statement has just about no relation at all to either economics or demographics. the 'red areas' that are experiencing significant population growth are either part of the newest wave of urban sprawl and are intimately economically linked to the urban centers, or are becoming new urban centers in their own right. in either case, this spells doom for ye olde bastions of cultural conservativism.

And, by the way, I love Idaho, Montana, the Dakotas, and Washington.

most 'red areas' are flat fucking broke. you ever been to idaho?
How quick the dull forget things. This (http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/vote2004/countymap.htm) is a map of red vs blue counties in the 2004 Presidential race. I don't see any blue counties in areas that are especially well-to-do. As I said, the red areas within blue states make the blue states look affluent. The blue areas are almost exclusively in metropolitan regions and I would expect them to be net consumers of wealth, rather than producers.

How quick the dull forget things. This (http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/vote2004/countymap.htm) is a map of red vs blue counties in the 2004 Presidential race. I don't see any blue counties in areas that are especially well-to-do. As I said, the red areas within blue states make the blue states look affluent. The blue areas are almost exclusively in metropolitan regions and I would expect them to be net consumers of wealth, rather than producers.

But don't you know Myrmidonisia, only people in big cities contribute to the wealth of the nation. All those hicks in outlying areas just inbreed with their cousins and chew straw all day. It is those smart people in New York and LA who save us inbreds from ourselves. ;)

But don't you know Myrmidonisia, only people in big cities contribute to the wealth of the nation. All those hicks in outlying areas just inbreed with their cousins and chew straw all day. It is those smart people in New York and LA who save us inbreds from ourselves. ;)
Hey, I resemble that remark...Well not the cousin part:).

I realize that financial centers like New York and Boston will show up as "producers", but I suspect the folks that do the producing live in a red suburb.

Hey, I resemble that remark...Well not the cousin part:).

I realize that financial centers like New York and Boston will show up as "producers", but I suspect the folks that do the producing live in a red suburb.

shhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!! Never give an inch of ground, not one.

2) Demographics
Just because there are states that are red and blue does not mean there aren't blue citizens in the red states or red citizens in blue states. Simple really, just because California went for Kerry doesn't mean a large number of people didn't vote for Bush, and vice versa for...say Oklahoma. You're talking about stranding millions of red people in "blue nation" and millions of blue people in "red nation". It's just not going to happen.


Supposedly, there is a decreasing trend to this. The increasing polarization causes many to move to states where their political stance is represented more strongly.

"Polarization" does not mean an increase of difference. It means that the existing differences are perceived and emphasized more strongly. Like in a stock market, the significance of issues depends on what people think of the issues to a far greater extent than how important they actually are.

has turned into an abomination and self parody of itself

The department of redundancy department commends you for your commendable use of redundant redundancies. :p

---

*Bows down to 247 post man*

The point is, the red states couldnt invade the blue. This would provoke war, nuclear war at that(because the blue states couldnt win otherwise). All the blue states would have to do is threaten the red with it, and the red couldnt do crap.

That, or call bluff. Threats are one thing, but I don't think that at the critical time anyone, Red or Blue, would fire a nuke on their own soil as Kelleda said.

Then again, wars have their way of making people do insane things. A scary thought.

How quick the dull forget things. This (http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/vote2004/countymap.htm) is a map of red vs blue counties in the 2004 Presidential race. I don't see any blue counties in areas that are especially well-to-do. As I said, the red areas within blue states make the blue states look affluent. The blue areas are almost exclusively in metropolitan regions and I would expect them to be net consumers of wealth, rather than producers.

wrong map to look at. that one misrepresents the facts. use this one:

http://www-personal.umich.edu/~mejn/election/countymaplinearlarge.png

in any case, are you seriously holding that the real wealth of the country isn't being produced in the big financial centers, but rather in the panhandle of texas? and that cities are actually a negative as far as economics goes?

wrong map to look at. that one misrepresents the facts. use this one:

http://www-personal.umich.edu/~mejn/election/countymaplinearlarge.png

in any case, are you seriously holding that the real wealth of the country isn't being produced in the big financial centers, but rather in the panhandle of texas? and that cities are actually a negative as far as economics goes?
Shading the map for marginal results only clouds the issue. I do hold that the people that produce the wealth reside in mostly red areas. The fact that the wealth is produced in blue areas is just a historical artifact.

You know. People that contribute to society, not drain from it. Most red areas are like that. Most blue areas aren't. That's why the population trends are out of blue areas into red areas.

What imaginary world do you live in? Fortunately for me I did a little analysis of this kind of thing a few months back for another discussion I was involved in and still have the figures.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/taxingspending.html

The following is a breakdown of "Red" (conservative) states and "Blue" (liberal) states. It lists each states total federal expenditures per dollar of federal taxes paid. $1.00 would mean for every dollar the state contributes to the federal government in taxes it receives $1.00 in federal spending. A number lower than a dollar means the state pays more to the federal government than it receives back, in other words helping to prop up the rest of the country. A number greater than $1.00 means a state is taking more from the government that it is contributing... in other words it is a big fat leach.

I will also average the totals...

Red states:

STATE Expenditure (2003)

Alabama $1.69
Alaska $1.89
Arizona $1.23
Arkansas $1.47
Colorado $0.80
Georgia $0.95
Idaho $1.32
Indiana $0.96
Kansas $1.13
Kentucky $1.52
Louisiana $1.47
Mississippi $1.83
Missouri $1.31
Montana $1.60
Nebraska $1.06
Nevada $0.70
North Carolina $1.09
North Dakota $1.75
Oklahoma $1.48
South Carolina $1.36
South Dakota $1.49
Tennessee $1.29
Texas $0.98
Utah $1.19
Virginia $1.58
West Virginia $1.82
Wyoming $1.13

Average expenditures for a Red state = $1.3367

So, the average "Red" state consumes over 33% MORE federal funds than they contribute. They're feeding at the trough. They're on federal life support. Looks like we have a whole different reason to call them red states doesn't it?

Blue States

STATE Expenditure (2003)

California $0.78
Connecticut $0.65
Delaware $0.82
Hawaii $1.58
Illinois $0.73
Maine $1.36
Maryland $1.34
Massachusetts $0.78
New Jersey $0.57
New York $0.80
Rhode Island $1.06
Vermont $1.14
Washington $0.90

Average expenditure for a Blue state (State1 expenditures) + (State2 expenditures) + etc... /13 = $0.9623

So, the average "Blue" state consumes almost 4% LESS federal funds than they contribute. They're filling the Red states trough. They're turning the hand crank on the Red States life support machine. And let's keep in mind that that 4.5% of their total contributions is rather large in relation to the Red states since it is a percentage of a gross dollar value which is so much larger. The Federal taxes California alone pays could cover those from a dozen of the smaller Red states. 4.5% of California's federal taxes is quite likely equal to if not significantly greater than North Dakota's TOTAL federal taxes for example.

Shading the map for marginal results only clouds the issue.

only in some strange bizarro world where a party having a 2% lead in a particular presidential election means complete and absolute dominance for the craziest aspects of that party in every aspect of social life in a given county.

i'd like to see the federal government give more control to the states.

Wallingford?!? I have no idea what you mean. Wallingford is hardly in a place to be elitist... I've been in EVERY CT town, barring a few in the far northwest corner (past UConn). I'm sorry you had that experience, but come down to New Haven or go up to Storrs or out to Danbury. You'll have a good time.

As for "richies": Their taxes are low BECAUSE they live in Darien or New Canaan or Greenwich. Those tows don't have social services or slums, etc. Their property values never go down. So why on earth would they vote for Kerry? Answer: They didn't...
http://www.ci.darien.ct.us/services/registrars_of_voters/election_results/2004_results/

Well, I was touring the boarding school in Wallingford so that probably affected my perception of the area.

Also, I never said that they voted for Kerry. In fact, I was hinting to the opposite.

What imaginary world do you live in? Fortunately for me I did a little analysis of this kind of thing a few months back for another discussion I was involved in and still have the figures.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/taxingspending.html


Another impressive bit of misdirection. What we've seen is that blue areas are concentrated. Major metropolitan areas are largely blue. Washington DC is a blue area that is a good example.

If we go to the Tax Foundation's page, we find that

Though not comparable as a state, the District of Columbia is by far the biggest beneficiary of federal spending: In 2003 it received $6.59 in federal outlays for every dollar its taxpayers sent to the U.S. Treasury.

This sheds some light on why the Blue Staters really want to be Blue Staters and not just the Blues. If we could find information like this on New York, Los Angeles, San Francisco, and other Blue areas, I think we'd find the Blue States are productive in spite of the Blue areas in the states. Pretty strong recommendation for the Reds in those states.

There are some other arguments that cast doubt on the correlation between Red States and the dollars per tax dollar ratio.

First, the cost of living is higher in the cities than it is in rural areas, taxpayers with nominally higher incomes naturally pay more taxes. Most federal programs, however, are paid out based more on the basis of population statistics, regardless of income levels, leading to an outflow of revenues from high-income states to low income states.

Second, there is an argument that the cost of delivering services is lower in urban areas. It's a lot easier to deliver mail in urban areas than in the countryside. Also, consider that farm subsidies aren't being paid to city dwellers.

Last, it's possible that the redistributionists in government have to "buy off" support from Red Staters in order to achieve their income transfer payments.

Well, I was touring the boarding school in Wallingford so that probably affected my perception of the area.

Also, I never said that they voted for Kerry. In fact, I was hinting to the opposite.

I'd have to say so!! ;)

Sorry, that's how I read your posts.

Another impressive bit of misdirection. What we've seen is that blue areas are concentrated. Major metropolitan areas are largely blue. Washington DC is a blue area that is a good example.

No, it is not a good example, it's the seat of freaking government for the entire country for christ's sake. You think it's representative of the average state of affairs in the rest of the country?

There are some other arguments that cast doubt on the correlation between Red States and the dollars per tax dollar ratio.

First, the cost of living is higher in the cities than it is in rural areas, taxpayers with nominally higher incomes naturally pay more taxes. Most federal programs, however, are paid out based more on the basis of population statistics, regardless of income levels, leading to an outflow of revenues from high-income states to low income states.

Ummmm... no kidding?

Second, there is an argument that the cost of delivering services is lower in urban areas. It's a lot easier to deliver mail in urban areas than in the countryside. Also, consider that farm subsidies aren't being paid to city dwellers.

Last, it's possible that the redistributionists in government have to "buy off" support from Red Staters in order to achieve their income transfer payments.

So let me get this straight... your big argument against the red states being a greater drain and a less significant contributor than the blue states is..... to make excuses for why they're a bigger drain and contribute less?

You did realize that that doesn't change the fact that they DO contribute less and consume more federal funds per capita?

I wonder what exactly goes on in that head of yours... it might be fascinating to take a peek and find out just how you come up with this stuff.

No, it is not a good example, it's the seat of freaking government for the entire country for christ's sake. You think it's representative of the average state of affairs in the rest of the country?

So tell me that NYC is a bargain for the federal government.
Or LA

So let me get this straight... your big argument against the red states being a greater drain and a less significant contributor than the blue states is..... to make excuses for why they're a bigger drain and contribute less?

If there are legitimate reasons why the red states get more than they pay, I think it's a reasonable point for discussion. Show me why they aren't. That, and learn some manners.

How quick the dull forget things. This (http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/vote2004/countymap.htm) is a map of red vs blue counties in the 2004 Presidential race. I don't see any blue counties in areas that are especially well-to-do. As I said, the red areas within blue states make the blue states look affluent. The blue areas are almost exclusively in metropolitan regions and I would expect them to be net consumers of wealth, rather than producers.
If it's only red areas that produce wealth, why is it that the south and midwest, the reddest areas of all, have consistently failed to produce as much wealth as blue states?

So tell me that NYC is a bargain for the federal government. Or LA

With the amount of sheer wealth they generate why wouldn't they be?

So let me get this straight... your big argument against the red states being a greater drain and a less significant contributor than the blue states is..... to make excuses for why they're a bigger drain and contribute less?


If there are legitimate reasons why the red states get more than they pay, I think it's a reasonable point for discussion. Show me why they aren't. That, and learn some manners.

Does this ring a bell at all? I'll bold for emphasis.

You know. People that contribute to society, not drain from it. Most red areas are like that. Most blue areas aren't

I mean, you did just post it a few hours ago. You remember making this claim don't you? You have at least some vague recollection of it?

You were wrong. It's that simple. And making excuses for why red states are leaches of federal funds while blue states are the producers doesn't change that red states ARE leaches of federal funds while blue states ARE producers.

Another impressive bit of misdirection. What we've seen is that blue areas are concentrated. Major metropolitan areas are largely blue. Washington DC is a blue area that is a good example.

If we go to the Tax Foundation's page, we find that

Though not comparable as a state, the District of Columbia is by far the biggest beneficiary of federal spending: In 2003 it received $6.59 in federal outlays for every dollar its taxpayers sent to the U.S. Treasury.

and dc houses every major federal bureaucracy, with all the tax-funded salaries and expenses that entails, as well a number of huge monuments and museums that have to be maintained and managed, with all tax-funded salaries and expenses that entails. that's where the money goes. obviously.

Blue state vrs. Red state= bullshit.

God I hate the media more everyday for creating this crap.

and dc houses every major federal bureaucracy, with all the tax-funded salaries and expenses that entails, as well a number of huge monuments and museums that have to be maintained and managed, with all tax-funded salaries and expenses that entails. that's where the money goes. obviously.
But this is exactly the thing that goes on in Blue states. On a smaller scale, perhaps, but the same model exists. All those highly salaried folks are not living in the blue metropolitan areas. They go home to Red suburbs and pay their taxes. But the residual population is enough in those areas to turn the whole state Blue. That's why the whole Blue states are more productive than Red states argument is a little weak.

Even if we concentrated on your purple map, we'd find that most of the federal income comes from purple areas, not blue areas. But I'm sure the blue areas would still represent the biggest drain on the economy. Tell me again how good a deal NYC, LAX, DET, and MIA are for the federal government?

With the amount of sheer wealth they generate why wouldn't they be?



Does this ring a bell at all? I'll bold for emphasis.


You know. People that contribute to society, not drain from it. Most red areas are like that. Most blue areas aren't



I know this is really hard for you so I'll say it again. I've defined a difference between areas and states. Blue States may produce net wealth, but it's because of the Red Areas within those states. Let's say I work on Wall Street. I don't live there. I ride the train from a nice suburb with people like me that like to keep their money, not let the government distribute it in some helter-skelter manner. I vote red and so do my neighbors.
Now, on the other hand, around the corner in Harlem, there are plenty of people who do make their homes in NYC. They don't produce quite the windfall for the fed that I do. But there are a lot of them and they tend to like the fact that the government gives my money to them. So they vote Blue. There are so many of those voters that my whole state goes Blue, in spite of what my neighbors and I do.
I suppose I could connect the dots and summarize, but I think that exercise should be left to you, the student...

I know this is really hard for you so I'll say it again. I've defined a difference between areas and states. Blue States may produce net wealth, but it's because of the Red Areas within those states.

If that were true we would expect the really red states that don't have those giant blue areas at all to be REALLY producing.

Instead we find that states that have those big blue areas in them are producing, and states that are pretty much pure red are leaching.

And your theory goes *splat*.

The answer is quite obvious. Would you trust a bunch of anti-muslim cowboys with them?

lol

he who has the guns has the nukes as well...

If that were true we would expect the really red states that don't have those giant blue areas at all to be REALLY producing.

Instead we find that states that have those big blue areas in them are producing, and states that are pretty much pure red are leaching.

And your theory goes *splat*.


...no it doesn't. Red states, one would think, would suffer fewer regulations/lower taxes on business... which of course would make things easier for businesses to flourish.

do you also think that democrats are smarter than republicans on average?

if so, interesting...

for every lawyer democrat there's probably at least one republican MBA/banker/entrepreneur/stockbroker.

for every republican who lives in a trailer (no offense intended) there's a democrat in the inner city who dropped out of school when he was 14 (ditto) or one who lives in a trailer (think Alabama and Lynyrd Skynyrd) down South.

...no it doesn't. Red states, one would think, would suffer fewer regulations/lower taxes on business... which of course would make things easier for businesses to flourish.

Think what you like, these are the facts:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8811380&postcount=134

Blue states on average contribute more federal funds than they consume. Red states on average consume far more than they contribute.

Blue states are the producers. Red states are on federal life support.

...no it doesn't. Red states, one would think, would suffer fewer regulations/lower taxes on business... which of course would make things easier for businesses to flourish.

one might think that. but then one might, i don't know, take a look at reality. and once you do that, you realize that, for example, über-red idaho is dirt fucking poor (except for the rich people who are only here because they wanted to own their own mountain) and its businesses aren't really anything to brag about. and the places that are experiencing rapid population and economic growth within it also happen to be the ones most likely to vote democrat. for instance, boise, with 45% population growth in the last 10 years (well on it's way towards being a full fledged urban center), has taken up voting for democratic.

pretty much any so-called red area that isn't directly associated with a populous 'blue' urban center is typically quite poor. them's just the breaks. and when the economic growth occurs, it does so in the context of urbanization. and with urbanization comes a whole host of issues that tend to lead people away from reactionary "traditional values"-type positions - or at least decreases their importance. republicans from the chicago suburbs don't have very much in common with the ones from down state - let alone the ones from deep red states.

But this is exactly the thing that goes on in Blue states. On a smaller scale, perhaps, but the same model exists.

no. you ever been to dc?

All those highly salaried folks are not living in the blue metropolitan areas. They go home to Red suburbs and pay their taxes.

those 'red' suburbs are purple in terms of recent presidential elections. they also have a solid mix of r's and d's in local, state, and federal legislative elections.

and at least in chicago (which i know best) the really rich live in the city.

State in point: The blue state Delaware

Countries (Median income):
New Castle (Dark Blue): $52,419
Kent County (Dark Red): $40,950
Sussox County (Dark Red) : $39,208

It would kick ass, but Ohio an pennsylvania ( especially Ohio) are still in swing, we must see where they will land In the future.
We shal see the rednecks beg for us!!!

...no it doesn't. Red states, one would think, would suffer fewer regulations/lower taxes on business... which of course would make things easier for businesses to flourish.
There are a couple things I didn't consider because they are so screwed up.

First, the businesses that are headquartered in the blue metropolitan areas are probably the main source of wealth for that area, not individuals. Businesses don't really pay taxes, but the government accounting practices make it look like they do.

Second, there might really be enough millionaires on the upper West Side of NYC to make it look like a producing area. The fact that our tax codes drain money from higher income individuals at a much greater rate makes this worth considering. The fact that 49% of all wage earners shoulder nearly all the tax burden might just be a factor in this whole mess. I don't think it's significant, enough.

Corporate taxes probably are significant, though. What are major corporations doing? They're moving their headquarters offshore, of course. Especially if you are selling multinationally, why should you pay tax twice on profits you make outside the U.S.? ... No one else knows either, thus the migration.

So, the 2003 figures show correctly that states with large metropolitan Blue areas are net contributors to the economy. But if the coporate taxes are the significant portion of this tax revenue, it is precarious. Unless tax laws change to make it favorable to stay in the U.S., I expect the federal out/in ratio for dollars expended will be very different as time progresses.

It would be interesting to see a similar set of figures that has been normalized to show only individual income tax revenue. I think it might be quite a bit different. Maybe one of the debaters would like to search for those figures.

The nation isn't nearly as polarized as you think. Most people really don't care one way or the other. Don't let Nancy Pelosi fool you.

That's not funny. Then again SNL is rarely funny anyways.
They were back when they weren't so obssesed with defending the liberal platform.

Hense why mom and I now tend to watch MAD TV.
And why Comedy Central kicked that crap off thier airwaves.

do you also think that democrats are smarter than republicans on average?

if so, interesting...

for every lawyer democrat there's probably at least one republican MBA/banker/entrepreneur/stockbroker.

for every republican who lives in a trailer (no offense intended) there's a democrat in the inner city who dropped out of school when he was 14 (ditto) or one who lives in a trailer (think Alabama and Lynyrd Skynyrd) down South.
That's why it's all stupid to accuse and point fingurs.

The ration of rich/poor applies both ways equaly. Just as yourself are you more familiar with a ghetto or a trailor park?

Worried about guys in sheets burning your house?
Or guys in bandannas shooting at your house?

There are always going to be some areas that are more conservative or liberal than others. Some areas are really really liberal and some areas are really really conservative. I believe that most Americans are somewhere in the middle. That being said, we only have somewhere around 50% of the population, in a good year, voting.

The media is out of control. We know this. They seem to think that some stories, like runaway brides and sports and laci peterson are more important than what is really happening at the political level, and skew stories this way, which distracts people from knowing what really is important.

Politics, to alot of people is very confusing. Has anybody ever read through a House Of Representatives Budget Proposal? I know I haven't. Why? Because the language is really really hard to understand. And it is a gigantic thing. Even if we did read it, then what can we do about it, besides protest, which doesn't seem to have the same impact it did 30 years ago, or replace the people in power that came up with some of the more outlandish proposals found in a House Budget Proposal. This is difficult, because nobody really knows who their representatives are and what they stand for. They vote down perceived party lines.

Before we start another civil war, I think we need to repeal laws that make it difficult for parties besides Republicans and Democrats to have a representational voice in Government. The problem with this is that neither party wants to give up power and make it harder for them to hold on to that power.

Another thing that I think we really need is a television channel which teaches people things they need to know in order to make informed decisions about important issues. Lectures about how our political system works, with study guides you can d/l from the internet, taught by college professors that really know what they are talking about and can talk to people in a language that most people can understand.

OK. I guess that's all for now.

SpOrez

The same college proffesors who brainwashed students to pie and cause riots on campus against conservatives?

The same college proffesors who teach abstinance as the only form of birth control in schools and suspend liberal class atendees?

I think I'll pass on that one Jimbo.

no, just smart people that know what they are talking about. unlike say, nancy grace?