What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

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

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
:goodposting:

The notion that we're all polarized is absurd. The vast majority of us are moderate. We (the majority of moderates) would much rather you not try to paint us all as extremist.

 
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".
I don't disagree that Maryland is a "Blue State". If it was practical, I'd move.
 
I'd be curious to see how the South fares without us. I assume we get NY, LA, DC, and Chicago, right?

 
I don't think our political views in this country are all that polarized. Vote no to secession.

 
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.
Fair enough. Set Mississippi on fire.

Louisiana would make out like bandits if they left the federal scheme, though.

 
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 Michigan can do it, then why can't "Red US" and "Blue US"?

 
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.
Fair enough. Set Mississippi on fire.

Louisiana would make out like bandits if they left the federal scheme, though.
As a country La would be third world. Poor, undereducated and exploited by a few wealthy people to get their resources. I mean think if all federal controls were removed and those people running it right now could do anything they wanted. It would go straight into the 3rd world scrap heap. We'd have to take them back in less than a year.

 
I'd be curious to see how the South fares without us. I assume we get NY, LA, DC, and Chicago, right?
I'd think feeding people and producing enough energy to power major cities would be tough without the Republican states.

 
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.
Fair enough. Set Mississippi on fire.

Louisiana would make out like bandits if they left the federal scheme, though.
As a country La would be third world. Poor, undereducated and exploited by a few wealthy people to get their resources. I mean think if all federal controls were removed and those people running it right now could do anything they wanted. It would go straight into the 3rd world scrap heap. We'd have to take them back in less than a year.
As a country, Louisiana would be one of the strongest in the world in terms of energy production, capable of producing all of its own food, including produce, and still a tourism capital of North America. People running Louisiana already do virtually anything they want.

But yes, it would be an oppressive fundamentalist Christian theocracy.

 
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 :gang2: :gang1:
Also even "blue" states like California have large swaths of counties that vote red, and even "red" states have large cities that vote blue.

 
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.
Fair enough. Set Mississippi on fire.

Louisiana would make out like bandits if they left the federal scheme, though.
As a country La would be third world. Poor, undereducated and exploited by a few wealthy people to get their resources. I mean think if all federal controls were removed and those people running it right now could do anything they wanted. It would go straight into the 3rd world scrap heap. We'd have to take them back in less than a year.
As a country, Louisiana would be one of the strongest in the world in terms of energy production, capable of producing all of its own food, including produce, and still a tourism capital of North America. People running Louisiana already do virtually anything they want.

But yes, it would be an oppressive fundamentalist Christian theocracy.
It isn't even one of the strongest currently in the US with no tariffs placed on it for exporting to the rest of the US. It is 24th on the GDP list. It is in 48th place for K-12 achievement. It currently has the 3rd highest poverty rate in the US. I mean sure there are plenty of 3rd world countries that would love to suck only this much but that isn't a very high bar.

 
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.
Fair enough. Set Mississippi on fire.

Louisiana would make out like bandits if they left the federal scheme, though.
As a country La would be third world. Poor, undereducated and exploited by a few wealthy people to get their resources. I mean think if all federal controls were removed and those people running it right now could do anything they wanted. It would go straight into the 3rd world scrap heap. We'd have to take them back in less than a year.
As a country, Louisiana would be one of the strongest in the world in terms of energy production, capable of producing all of its own food, including produce, and still a tourism capital of North America. People running Louisiana already do virtually anything they want.

But yes, it would be an oppressive fundamentalist Christian theocracy.
It isn't even one of the strongest currently in the US with no tariffs placed on it for exporting to the rest of the US. It is 24th on the GDP list. It is in 48th place for K-12 achievement. It currently has the 3rd highest poverty rate in the US. I mean sure there are plenty of 3rd world countries that would love to suck only this much but that isn't a very high bar.
That's because offshore lease revenues are federally owned, not state owned. That's actually my point.

 
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.
Fair enough. Set Mississippi on fire.Louisiana would make out like bandits if they left the federal scheme, though.
As a country La would be third world. Poor, undereducated and exploited by a few wealthy people to get their resources. I mean think if all federal controls were removed and those people running it right now could do anything they wanted. It would go straight into the 3rd world scrap heap. We'd have to take them back in less than a year.
As a country, Louisiana would be one of the strongest in the world in terms of energy production, capable of producing all of its own food, including produce, and still a tourism capital of North America. People running Louisiana already do virtually anything they want. But yes, it would be an oppressive fundamentalist Christian theocracy.
It isn't even one of the strongest currently in the US with no tariffs placed on it for exporting to the rest of the US. It is 24th on the GDP list. It is in 48th place for K-12 achievement. It currently has the 3rd highest poverty rate in the US. I mean sure there are plenty of 3rd world countries that would love to suck only this much but that isn't a very high bar.
That's because offshore lease revenues are federally owned, not state owned. That's actually my point.
Meh...all a moot point. LA should be mostly underwater in a few years anyway

What's up with the white square near the Texas panhandle?
 
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.
Fair enough. Set Mississippi on fire.

Louisiana would make out like bandits if they left the federal scheme, though.
As a country La would be third world. Poor, undereducated and exploited by a few wealthy people to get their resources. I mean think if all federal controls were removed and those people running it right now could do anything they wanted. It would go straight into the 3rd world scrap heap. We'd have to take them back in less than a year.
As a country, Louisiana would be one of the strongest in the world in terms of energy production, capable of producing all of its own food, including produce, and still a tourism capital of North America. People running Louisiana already do virtually anything they want.

But yes, it would be an oppressive fundamentalist Christian theocracy.
So basically it would be a tiny Saudi Arabia. Awesome.

 
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.
Fair enough. Set Mississippi on fire.

Louisiana would make out like bandits if they left the federal scheme, though.
As a country La would be third world. Poor, undereducated and exploited by a few wealthy people to get their resources. I mean think if all federal controls were removed and those people running it right now could do anything they wanted. It would go straight into the 3rd world scrap heap. We'd have to take them back in less than a year.
As a country, Louisiana would be one of the strongest in the world in terms of energy production, capable of producing all of its own food, including produce, and still a tourism capital of North America. People running Louisiana already do virtually anything they want.

But yes, it would be an oppressive fundamentalist Christian theocracy.
So basically it would be a tiny Saudi Arabia. Awesome.
Technically as an fyi New Orleans is an island that potentially can detach and float off into the Caribbean. The casino boats work the same way.

 
Big government will never allow secession. "We" tried that 150 years ago. I think when the economy finally collapses, you'll see a collapse of the entire government. When those social security and welfare checks start bouncing, we may be looking at a revolution. Yes I do think it MIGHT happen in my lifetime. All you gun haters are going to be so screwed if that happens. lol

 
California could survive, and be well off, without the rest of of any of you ####ers.
Heard this before. It could be true, something about how CA provides more revenue than what it takes in from the other 49.

We could avoid all this by going to this portion of the old Art. I, Sec. 1 of the USC:

And we could also revert 1-2 of the Senate seats to being appointed by the States themselves.

I would also argue that a balanced budget amendment that requires that all spending have a funding source would also be a good idea.

It would alleviate a lot of these concerns, I don't know why MA must do what LA does or why LA must do what CA does or why CA must do what MT does. Etc.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
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
:goodposting:

The notion that we're all polarized is absurd. The vast majority of us are moderate. We (the majority of moderates) would much rather you not try to paint us all as extremist.
Yup. I was going to post something along these lines.

The idea that we are polarized is magnified by the media that gives an equal voice to fringe groups and individuals. On the right you have Fox news, and on the left you have Huffington post. I sneak a peek at both for amusement more than anything else.

As for secession, didn't we settle that issue in 1865? And as long as the government has the best weapons it will never happen.

 
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 are losing me with the bolded. I am only aware of Republicans publicly advocating secession (Cruz, Palin and every fringe group in Texas), can you provide some examples of "leftist" politicians publicly advocating for secession?

 
California could survive, and be well off, without the rest of of any of you ####ers.
California can't get out of their own way lol. Almost every stupid extreme liberal thing this country has to endure (trying to force down the throats of the rest of the country) originates from that damn state.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
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
:goodposting:

The notion that we're all polarized is absurd. The vast majority of us are moderate. We (the majority of moderates) would much rather you not try to paint us all as extremist.
Yup. I was going to post something along these lines.

The idea that we are polarized is magnified by the media that gives an equal voice to fringe groups and individuals. On the right you have Fox news, and on the left you have Huffington post. I sneak a peek at both for amusement more than anything else.

As for secession, didn't we settle that issue in 1865? And as long as the government has the best weapons it will never happen.
It is magnified by the media to pretend there is significant difference between the policies enacted by both parties and that you have a real choice. There isn't and you don't.

 
What's up with the white square near the Texas panhandle?
King County, TX, is the most anti-Obama county in the country.

Read more.
286 people. I love some of those Texas "counties"
250 Romney - 5 Obama.

That is potentially a suburban precinct.

There are likely urban precincts in many cities with the same tallies for Obama.

Philadelphia County PA went 85% Obama.

That would be 217 votes in King County, only a difference of 33 votes.

However in Philadelphia County PA the difference was 557,024-91,840, a near half-million vote bump for Obama.

Man, that King County sure is biased.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
California could survive, and be well off, without the rest of of any of you ####ers.
Heard this before. It could be true, something about how CA provides more revenue than what it takes in from the other 49.

We could avoid all this by going to this portion of the old Art. I, Sec. 1 of the USC:

And we could also revert 1-2 of the Senate seats to being appointed by the States themselves.

I would also argue that a balanced budget amendment that requires that all spending have a funding source would also be a good idea.

It would alleviate a lot of these concerns, I don't know why MA must do what LA does or why LA must do what CA does or why CA must do what MT does. Etc.
Is California

California could survive, and be well off, without the rest of of any of you ####ers.
Good luck getting any water.
Don't believe the doomsayers, getting water will not be a problem: http://www.mercurynews.com/science/ci_25859513/nations-largest-ocean-desalination-plant-goes-up-near
Is California really doing so great? I've always heard that CA was financially in trouble under the Terminator.... But recently they were doing much better under their new gov. That being said there are some issues...

http://www.forbes.com/sites/thomasdelbeccaro/2014/01/21/the-divided-and-troubled-state-of-california/

 
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.
States Bush won, red. States Kerry won, blue.
I think the present seems a lot more appropriate
None are the present.
Presenter. Let's talk on election night 2016. The electoral map will look the same if not worse for the reds.

 
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 have, in fact, heard of the Civil War, right? Guessing the reasons haven't changed much since then.

 
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.
States Bush won, red. States Kerry won, blue.
I think the present seems a lot more appropriate
None are the present.
Presenter. Let's talk on election night 2016. The electoral map will look the same if not worse for the reds.
Actually the "map" itself looks ok for the reds.

Take a look at Ohio 2012.

http://www.cnn.com/election/2012/results/state/OH#president

That's a whole lot'a red.

The problem for the goppers is the massive imbalances inside the blue counties.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
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 are losing me with the bolded. I am only aware of Republicans publicly advocating secession (Cruz, Palin and every fringe group in Texas), can you provide some examples of "leftist" politicians publicly advocating for secession?
Vermont is one that comes to mind.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Vermont_Republic

Btw Texas is a bit of an exception - they actually think (without regard to politics) that they have a right in the original union papers to secede, or divide into separate states, and have their own navy, that kind of thing.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
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.
States Bush won, red. States Kerry won, blue.
I think the present seems a lot more appropriate
None are the present.
Presenter. Let's talk on election night 2016. The electoral map will look the same if not worse for the reds.
Actually the "map" itself looks ok for the reds.

Take a look at Ohio 2012.

http://www.cnn.com/election/2012/results/state/OH#president

That's a whole lot'a red.

The problem for the goppers is the massive imbalances inside the blue counties.
Huh, they lost Ohio.

 
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.
States Bush won, red. States Kerry won, blue.
I think the present seems a lot more appropriate
None are the present.
Presenter. Let's talk on election night 2016. The electoral map will look the same if not worse for the reds.
Actually the "map" itself looks ok for the reds.

Take a look at Ohio 2012.

http://www.cnn.com/election/2012/results/state/OH#president

That's a whole lot'a red.

The problem for the goppers is the massive imbalances inside the blue counties.
Huh, they lost Ohio.
Yeah, exactly, that's my point. There's nothing wrong with the map, it's mostly red, yet they lost.

Here's PA - also a sea of red. And a loss.

http://www.cnn.com/election/2012/results/state/PA#president

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top