Am I the only one who thinks secession is the solution? (1 Viewer)

[Dexter_Morgan]

Blue state / red state secession seems like the only real solution to the ongoing political problems in this country and it should be a more mainstream discussion in my opinion. Why have one country with two extremely polarized views? This is a discussion that I think should and will become more of a focus in the coming decades.

 

[fantasycurse42]

I agree... In and Out states vs Five Guys states

 

[Bucky86]

I agree... In and Out states vs Five Guys states

WESTSIIIIIDDDEEE

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Uh no, horribly insane idea.

I will say that the way that federalism should work is that if different states want to do different things they should be allowed to do that. Hence we have different applications of the Medicare provisions in the ACA, etc.

 

[Greggity]

Blue state / red state secession seems like the only real solution to the ongoing political problems in this country and it should be a more mainstream discussion in my opinion. Why have one country with two extremely polarized views? This is a discussion that I think should and will become more of a focus in the coming decades.

Im all for it....

 

[TPW]

It will never happen. As much as they deride other areas of the country as being inferior, the blue states are far too dependent on the resources of the more rural red states and would wage an all-out war of aggressive subjugation if given the opportunity. They are already use the power of the federal government for effectively the same ends.

 

[17seconds]

And then a civil war 20 years later?

 

[ceo3west]

It will never happen. As much as they deride other areas of the country as being inferior, the blue states are far too dependent on the resources of the more rural red states and would wage an all-out war of aggressive subjugation if given the opportunity. They are already use the power of the federal government for effectively the same ends.

Interesting argument, as red states are heavily dependent on the federal tax dollars coming from the blue states.

 

[Greggity]

And then a civil war 20 years later?

Can we make it a month later?

 

[TPW]

It will never happen. As much as they deride other areas of the country as being inferior, the blue states are far too dependent on the resources of the more rural red states and would wage an all-out war of aggressive subjugation if given the opportunity. They are already use the power of the federal government for effectively the same ends.

Interesting argument, as red states are heavily dependent on the federal tax dollars coming from the blue states.

I'm not going to get into the whole argument of the apportionment of federal funds in various regions and the details such as demographics, percentage of federal lands, and military bases which would accompany it.

If what you say is true though it would seem from a monetary standpoint that it's a good idea for the blue states to simply jettison the others. However, all I ever hear from blue state leftists is that they would fight such a move tooth and nail. It's curious, isn't it? Why would one group of people who dislike another group of people so much insist that they remain under the same unified banner?

 

[bostonfred]

It will never happen. As much as they deride other areas of the country as being inferior, the blue states are far too dependent on the resources of the more rural red states and would wage an all-out war of aggressive subjugation if given the opportunity. They are already use the power of the federal government for effectively the same ends.

 

[Cliff Clavin]

It will never happen. As much as they deride other areas of the country as being inferior, the blue states are far too dependent on the resources of the more rural red states and would wage an all-out war of aggressive subjugation if given the opportunity. They are already use the power of the federal government for effectively the same ends.

Interesting argument, as red states are heavily dependent on the federal tax dollars coming from the blue states.

I'm not going to get into the whole argument of the apportionment of federal funds in various regions and the details such as demographics, percentage of federal lands, and military bases which would accompany it.

If what you say is true though it would seem from a monetary standpoint that it's a good idea for the blue states to simply jettison the others. However, all I ever hear from blue state leftists is that they would fight such a move tooth and nail. It's curious, isn't it? Why would one group of people who dislike another group of people so much insist that they remain under the same unified banner?

Cause every country needs un-skilled labourers.

 

[TPW]

So you admit then that your motives are control related. And here I thought progressives cared about elevating the little guy.

 

[Todd Andrews]

Within a decade there would be no roads, bridges, hospitals or schools in the red states. Almost all of them receive more in taxpayer money than they pay in--for example, Mississippi gets $3 back for every dollar it sends to DC. Without that money, the annual Mississippi state budget would be like $9.27.

 

[Gr00vus]

So you admit then that your motives are control related. And here I thought progressives cared about elevating the little guy.

Not Canadian progressives. They hate the little guy. HATE HIM.

 

[Hagger]

If it could be done peacefully I'd be all for it. Unfortunately there is no way this would happen without a lot of violence. I'm not sure a second civil war would be worth political ideology. Would any of you really be willing to kill and die for this idea? I think it would be extremely difficult to predict what would actually happen to "red states" and "blue states" if we could no longer depend on one another. I think it would leave both sides in absolute shambles and set this country back a century, leaving the U.S. susceptible to attack from other countries who truly hate us and would love nothing more than to swoop in and take advantage of the situation. Good idea in terms of making people happy in the short term, horrible idea if you look at the reality of it.

 

[Arizona Ron]

Define a Red State and a Blue State.

There are a lot of States very close to the 50/50 line. Then what? You make the people within each State pick a side or GTFO?

Hell, even Georgia was 54/45/1 last election

 

[NutterButter]

Within a few years of the initial split into blue and red, the few red states that are actually productive would secede from the red nation leaving the remainder of the red nation as 3rd world. Then we'll have to build a wall around it so they don't attempt to emigrate to the blue and other smaller red nations.

 

[NutterButter]

Define a Red State and a Blue State.

There are a lot of States very close to the 50/50 line. Then what? You make the people within each State pick a side or GTFO?

States Obama won, blue. States Romney won, red.

 

[TobiasFunke]

My biggest problem is how to we draw the map. Indiana and Colorado really muck it up, along with the line of red states bordering the Mississippi that make it impossible for blue America to reach from east to the west coast. Otherwise I'm all for it. Any ideas on how to get around this practical problem?

 

[Arizona Ron]

Actually, I'm having a hard time finding a State that isn't more than 60/40 Blue or Red

 

[Arizona Ron]

Define a Red State and a Blue State.

There are a lot of States very close to the 50/50 line. Then what? You make the people within each State pick a side or GTFO?

States Obama won, blue. States Romney won, red.

Each won States by very slim margins. It's impossible to call a State "Red" because Romney won it 51/49 or vice verse.

It basically says that the majority will be the voice of the people. That's not the American

 

[Freelove]

If what you say is true though it would seem from a monetary standpoint that it's a good idea for the blue states to simply jettison the others. However, all I ever hear from blue state leftists is that they would fight such a move tooth and nail. It's curious, isn't it?

I do not find it at all curious that this is all you ever hear, no.

 

[randall146]

It will never happen. As much as they deride other areas of the country as being inferior, the blue states are far too dependent on the resources of the more rural red states and would wage an all-out war of aggressive subjugation if given the opportunity. They are already use the power of the federal government for effectively the same ends.

Interesting argument, as red states are heavily dependent on the federal tax dollars coming from the blue states.

I'm not going to get into the whole argument of the apportionment of federal funds in various regions and the details such as demographics, percentage of federal lands, and military bases which would accompany it.

If what you say is true though it would seem from a monetary standpoint that it's a good idea for the blue states to simply jettison the others. However, all I ever hear from blue state leftists is that they would fight such a move tooth and nail. It's curious, isn't it? Why would one group of people who dislike another group of people so much insist that they remain under the same unified banner?

You want to claim that the Blue states take from the Red, but you don't want to get into actual numbers?

 

[Greggity]

Actually, I'm having a hard time finding a State that isn't more than 60/40 Blue or Red

Oklahoma is pretty "red", im sure the "blue people" living here we can bounce out on their little tushy quite easily

 

[Gr00vus]

When it's all said and done, I think we have a lot more in common than we have differences. We just focus on the differences to a much, much greater extent. We need to find a way to get the level of discourse to a more civilized place. But civil doesn't sell ads.

 

[dgreen]

My biggest problem is how to we draw the map. Indiana and Colorado really muck it up, along with the line of red states bordering the Mississippi that make it impossible for blue America to reach from east to the west coast. Otherwise I'm all for it. Any ideas on how to get around this practical problem?

Tunnels.

 

[Joe Bryant]

Define a Red State and a Blue State.

There are a lot of States very close to the 50/50 line. Then what? You make the people within each State pick a side or GTFO?

Hell, even Georgia was 54/45/1 last election

There's the point.

This isn't about secession. It's about labeling everything as all or nothing. I'm not sure how we got here as a society. But it feels like our media led us here some. Get the most extreme guy from this end and let's square him off against the most extreme guy from the opposite end and let them battle. Then in between fights, each guy gets to rally his supporters gearing up for the next battle. It feels like WWE.

J

 

[randall146]

My biggest problem is how to we draw the map. Indiana and Colorado really muck it up, along with the line of red states bordering the Mississippi that make it impossible for blue America to reach from east to the west coast. Otherwise I'm all for it. Any ideas on how to get around this practical problem?

If only Blue staters had access to flying machines

 

[NutterButter]

My biggest problem is how to we draw the map. Indiana and Colorado really muck it up, along with the line of red states bordering the Mississippi that make it impossible for blue America to reach from east to the west coast. Otherwise I'm all for it. Any ideas on how to get around this practical problem?

Take over parts of mexico and canada. Build hyperloop along east and west coasts and across newly acquired portions of canada and mexico. I'm not sure what to do about Florida.

 

[Henry Ford]

Within a decade there would be no roads, bridges, hospitals or schools in the red states. Almost all of them receive more in taxpayer money than they pay in--for example, Mississippi gets $3 back for every dollar it sends to DC. Without that money, the annual Mississippi state budget would be like $9.27.

They'd get a significant amount more money charging the United States market rates for oil and gas and collecting reasonable taxes, rather than getting a tiny percentage of tax revenue apportioned by the feds. Gulf states get robbed by the feds, no matter what the balance sheet on taxes says.

 

[TobiasFunke]

My biggest problem is how to we draw the map. Indiana and Colorado really muck it up, along with the line of red states bordering the Mississippi that make it impossible for blue America to reach from east to the west coast. Otherwise I'm all for it. Any ideas on how to get around this practical problem?

If only Blue staters had access to flying machines

That doesn't help with the map-drawing, though. Even the "Lesotho" plan leaves a contiguous South Africa in place. We can't have East New Sodom and West New Sodom bisected by the United States of Jesus.

 

[Freelove]

Define a Red State and a Blue State.

There are a lot of States very close to the 50/50 line. Then what? You make the people within each State pick a side or GTFO?

Hell, even Georgia was 54/45/1 last election

There's the point.

This isn't about secession. It's about labeling everything as all or nothing. I'm not sure how we got here as a society. But it feels like our media led us here some. Get the most extreme guy from this end and let's square him off against the most extreme guy from the opposite end and let them battle. Then in between fights, each guy gets to rally his supporters gearing up for the next battle. It feels like WWE.

J

Sure, they're whipping up irrational anger and hatred toward a sketchily defined "other," but I'm not going to start worrying until one side or the other starts arming their supporters and sending them into public.

 

[TobiasFunke]

My biggest problem is how to we draw the map. Indiana and Colorado really muck it up, along with the line of red states bordering the Mississippi that make it impossible for blue America to reach from east to the west coast. Otherwise I'm all for it. Any ideas on how to get around this practical problem?

Take over parts of mexico and canada. Build hyperloop along east and west coasts and across newly acquired portions of canada and mexico. I'm not sure what to do about Florida.

Call in Bugs Bunny

 

[Arizona Ron]

Actually, I'm having a hard time finding a State that isn't more than 60/40 Blue or Red

Oklahoma is pretty "red", im sure the "blue people" living here we can bounce out on their little tushy quite easily

Oklahoma was actually 66/33. I know you're joking about bouncing them but think about it - 1/3 of Oklahoma disagrees with being called a "Red State".

 

[msommer]

East/West Malaysia down?

Kidding aside, what a horrible idea.

 

[Long Ball Larry]

Actually, I'm having a hard time finding a State that isn't more than 60/40 Blue or Red

Oklahoma is pretty "red", im sure the "blue people" living here we can bounce out on their little tushy quite easily

Oklahoma was actually 66/33. I know you're joking about bouncing them but think about it - 1/3 of Oklahoma disagrees with being called a "Red State".

peens would have to understand what a joke is, first.

 

[Long Ball Larry]

I definitely agree that one of the most important things to do today is to make sure that we limit the interaction of opposing viewpoints. Only bad things can come of it.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

My biggest problem is how to we draw the map. Indiana and Colorado really muck it up, along with the line of red states bordering the Mississippi that make it impossible for blue America to reach from east to the west coast. Otherwise I'm all for it. Any ideas on how to get around this practical problem?

If only Blue staters had access to flying machines

That doesn't help with the map-drawing, though. Even the "Lesotho" plan leaves a contiguous South Africa in place. We can't have East New Sodom and West New Sodom bisected by the United States of Jesus.

If only we had an example of a part of the United States that was completely cut off from the rest of the country with another country in between.

 

[NutterButter]

Within a decade there would be no roads, bridges, hospitals or schools in the red states. Almost all of them receive more in taxpayer money than they pay in--for example, Mississippi gets $3 back for every dollar it sends to DC. Without that money, the annual Mississippi state budget would be like $9.27.

They'd get a significant amount more money charging the United States market rates for oil and gas and collecting reasonable taxes, rather than getting a tiny percentage of tax revenue apportioned by the feds. Gulf states get robbed by the feds, no matter what the balance sheet on taxes says.

Unless this map is wrong, then its just some of the gulf states that this applies to.

 

[joffer]

What about Austin. You're saying I gotta move?

 

[roadkill1292]

Seems like a waste of time since the red states are steadily turning bluer. Guns, God and country doesn't float for the voters who are coming of age, especially after they've been exposed to the freedom and wickedness of their Blue neighbors.

 

[TobiasFunke]

My biggest problem is how to we draw the map. Indiana and Colorado really muck it up, along with the line of red states bordering the Mississippi that make it impossible for blue America to reach from east to the west coast. Otherwise I'm all for it. Any ideas on how to get around this practical problem?

If only Blue staters had access to flying machines

That doesn't help with the map-drawing, though. Even the "Lesotho" plan leaves a contiguous South Africa in place. We can't have East New Sodom and West New Sodom bisected by the United States of Jesus.

If only we had an example of a part of the United States that was completely cut off from the rest of the country with another country in between.

From an aesthetic standpoint that's always really bothered me. I think I have some sort of map-related OCD. Plus that's how we ended up with Sarah Palin.

 

[Baloney Sandwich]

I would divide the country up into several separate states:

Northeast (PA - ME)

Southeast (MD - FL)

Dirty South (AL, AR, MS, LA, TN, KY)

Texas

Midwest (ND, SD, NE, KS, OK, MO, IL, MI, WI, OH, WV, MN)

Southwest (AZ, NM, CO, UT, NV)

California

Pacific Northwest (WA, OR, WY, ID, MO)

Sell off Alaska and Hawaii as well as all the other US territories outside the 48

 

[Chaka]

Yes, you are the only one.

 

[roadkill1292]

I would divide the country up into several separate states:

Northeast (PA - ME)

Southeast (MD - FL)

Dirty South (AL, AR, MS, LA, TN, KY)

Texas

Midwest (ND, SD, NE, KS, OK, MO, IL, MI, WI, OH, WV, MN)

Southwest (AZ, NM, CO, UT, NV)

California

Pacific Northwest (WA, OR, WY, ID, MO)

Sell off Alaska and Hawaii as well as all the other US territories outside the 48

These are always fun for me. I'd make it a caveat that any state/district/precinct bordering on another country could vote to switch countries, as long as the new country agrees to accept them. Make countries compete for people.

 

[jonessed]

It will never happen. As much as they deride other areas of the country as being inferior, the blue states are far too dependent on the resources of the more rural red states and would wage an all-out war of aggressive subjugation if given the opportunity. They are already use the power of the federal government for effectively the same ends.

Interesting argument, as red states are heavily dependent on the federal tax dollars coming from the blue states.

Coal and shale oil production would see a massive boom, there would undoubtedly be welfare cuts, businesses would move based on regulation. It's hard to predict what would happen economically.

 

[timschochet]

California could survive, and be well off, without the rest of of any of you ####ers.

 

[Long Ball Larry]

I would divide the country up into several separate states:

Northeast (PA - ME)

Southeast (MD - FL)

Dirty South (AL, AR, MS, LA, TN, KY)

Texas

Midwest (ND, SD, NE, KS, OK, MO, IL, MI, WI, OH, WV, MN)

Southwest (AZ, NM, CO, UT, NV)

California

Pacific Northwest (WA, OR, WY, ID, MO)

Sell off Alaska and Hawaii as well as all the other US territories outside the 48

I think that this was linked on the board last year, or maybe an update to it, or something: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Nine_Nations_of_North_America

• New England — an expanded version including not only Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Rhode Island, Massachusetts and Connecticut (although omitting the Connecticut suburbs of New York City), but also the Canadian Atlantic provinces of New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, and Newfoundland and Labrador. Capital: Boston.
• The Foundry — the by-then-declining industrial areas of the northeastern United States and Great Lakes region stretching from New York City to Milwaukee, and including Chicago, Indianapolis, Pittsburgh, Cleveland, Toledo, Philadelphia, and Southern Ontario centering on Toronto. Capital: Detroit.
• Dixie — the former Confederate States of America (today the southeastern United States) centered on Atlanta, and including most of eastern Texas. While northern Virginia and Maryland are, culturally, not part of Dixie, the Eastern Shore is. Garreau's "Dixie" also includes Kentucky (which had both a Union and a nominal Confederate government); southern and southeastern portions of Missouri, southern Illinois, and southern Indiana; and the "Little Dixie" region of southeastern Oklahoma. Finally, the region also includes most of Florida, as far south as the cities of Fort Myers and Naples. Capital: Atlanta.
• The Breadbasket — most of the Great Plains states and part of the Prairie provinces: Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, Nebraska, the Dakotas, almost all of Oklahoma, parts of Missouri, western Wisconsin, eastern Colorado, the eastern edge of New Mexico, central Illinois, a portion of Indiana, and North Texas. Also included are some of Northern Ontario and southern Saskatchewan and Manitoba. Capital: Kansas City.
• The Islands — The South Florida metropolitan area, the Everglades and Florida Keys, and the Caribbean. Capital: Miami.
• Mexamerica — the southern and Central Valley portions of California as well as southern Arizona, the portion of Texas bordering on the Rio Grande, most of New Mexico, northern Mexico, and the Baja California peninsula. Capital: Los Angeles.
• Ecotopia — the Pacific Northwest coast west of the Cascade Range and the Coast Mountains, as well as several Alaskan Pacific Coast Ranges, stretching fromAlaska down through coastal British Columbia, Washington state, Oregon, and into California just north of Santa Barbara. Capital: San Francisco.
• The Empty Quarter — most of Alaska, Nevada, Utah, Wyoming, Idaho, Montana and Colorado from Denver west, as well as the eastern portions of Oregon, California, Washington, all of Alberta and Northern Canada(including what is now Nunavut), northern Arizona, parts of New Mexico (mainly the area controlled by the Navajo Nation), and British Columbia east of the Coast Ranges. Capital: Denver.
• Quebec — the primarily French-speaking province of Canada, which held referenda on secession in 1980 and 1995, the latter of which the "separatists" lost narrowly. Capital: Quebec City.

 

[Long Ball Larry]

Maybe this book: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/07/15/1221278/-Book-Review-The-Eleven-Nations-of-North-America