Should the US split into two countries?
Yes
34.3% (36)
34.3% (36)
No
64.8% (68)
64.8% (68)
Want to vote? Register now or Sign Up with Facebook
Poll: Lets Split the USA into two!

 Pages 1 2 NEXT
 

I think most of us can come to the conclusion now that politics has frozen America. The Left and Right argue with each other like children and its slowing everything to a halt. So lets fix this problem. What if I told you if you could choose between socialistic capitalism and free market capitalism? What if told you Marijuana,gay marriage, abortion, etc, etc can be legal or illegal? So if you say yes, I say we split the united states into two separate countries with out invoking a violent civil war.

On the left you will have a social democratic utopia, your taxes will be higher but your standard of living and life quality will be increased. Funding will go to schools, universities, science, health care, and alternative energy.

On the right you will have a smaller government with a lack of social programs and a lower standard of life, but there will be no regulation, you will have more money, most likely a bigger defense budget,and no regulation on fire arms.

Now lets say this can all happen without bloodshed, revolution, or political upheaval.

Would you support it?

For those who don't live in the US, how would you react if the United States split into two separate countries?

and please, no political arguments

(Scratches head)

It would be extremely impractical for one. Country A would be the Northeast and the West Coast, the other would have everything else splitting Country A into two parts separated by a few thousand miles. Country B would have the southeast, Midwest, and Alaska (which is most of the natural resources I believe). But they have no way of getting naval vessels to Alaska other than by the Panama Canal.

Sounds like a logistical nightmare.

What if I were from the northeast, but living in a state like Texas? Would I have to return to my homeland?

Not necessarily complaining, lol.

Ryotknife:
(Scratches head)

It would be extremely impractical for one. Country A would be the Northeast and the West Coast, the other would have everything else splitting Country A into two parts separated by a few thousand miles. Country B would have the southeast, Midwest, and Alaska (which is most of the natural resources I believe). But they have no way of getting naval vessels to Alaska other than by the Panama Canal.

Sounds like a logistical nightmare.

Pretty much this. There's just no practical way you could split the country in two in a way that wouldn't result in arguments of such a scale as to inevitably start a war between the two over the division of natural resources alone. Not to mention that even by splitting by general ideological differences from state to state, it would still result in the displacement of millions who would then have to move to the country opposite of the one they suddenly find themselves in or continue living in an area that now has pretty much no chance of ever moving closer to their own political ideology.

How about instead, we just make it easier for new political parties to be established by repealing all the laws Repubs and Dems worked together to put into place that make it pretty much impossible for any other party to compete with them on a national level? In other words, how about instead of just cutting the baby in half because two children posing as parents can't agree on how best to raise it, we add more parents to the mix so that more compromises can be reached thanks to more political parties with more in common with each other are working together rather than just having two polar opposites?

No political arguments? Erm...

Anyway, wouldn't work. There's no neat division between "the left" and "the right". People might lean towards one camp or another in general, but argue over the individual points.

For example, gay marriage is usually seen as a progressive thing, and so is allowing women to have abortions.

What if I'm a gay man that wants to get married, but I'm also misogynistic and wants to take rights away from women?

What if I'm a woman that wants to be able to decide what she should do with her body, but is deathly afraid of men kissing?

What if I want individuals to enjoy a high-degree of freedom, both in terms of their personal lives, and their business lives? What if I both support gay marriage and abortion, as well as a less regulated economy and not having a nanny-state/political correctness in the law? Your idea sounds quite horrible, from my perspective. Also, the United States already split into two countries once before, and considering how it went down I don't think that many would be too warm with the idea.

TKretts3:
Also, the United States already split into two countries once before, and considering how it went down I don't think that many would be too warm with the idea.

You over-estimate people. Remember the calls for succession when Obama got back in?

thaluikhain:

TKretts3:
Also, the United States already split into two countries once before, and considering how it went down I don't think that many would be too warm with the idea.

You over-estimate people. Remember the calls for succession when Obama got back in?

A bunch of 'signatures' on what amounts to little more than an internet poll doesn't count. After all, EA was voted the worst company in america on an internet poll, and I think just about every rational person would beg to differ.

We tried that once. About half a million people died and about a third of the country is still upset about it.

You could just argue for more states' rights. We essentially already have this, just perhaps watered down from what you're suggesting.

The USA is already split into 50. The problem is that the federal government is trying to increase its power. The result is that we have two sides trying to force their own agenda on the entire country. And no one is happy.

I'm not sure I can agree with some of the ideas here. Sure, federal encroachment can be an issue. But it's not like big government intrusion on the state level is necessarily any better. The Supreme Court just repealed that voting thingy for a number of southern states and what happened? Immediately they jump to try and restrict voting rights of legal citizens. Or think of the many state-specific laws and regulations put in place specifically to get rid of abortion by skirting Roe v. Wade. I don't see how giving states more rights, specifically the rights to oppress its people (or at least minorities therein), is acceptable, either. This should be about individual liberties and rights, not states' rights to oppress. And, frankly, sometimes the federal government's intervention is necessary to achieve that.

As for splitting the USA in two? Wouldn't really solve anything, either, although I'll admit it would be an interesting - if extremely unethical - social experiment. Since you know what my general views on things are, you can probably imagine what I think would most likely happen to the two sides, but that's not even the point. The extreme focus on two sides is a big part of the problem in the first place.

I agree with Zeconte: Getting rid of the two party system, first-past-the-post and the way campaigns are financed should be your goals. Isn't it funny that despite the enormous divide between left and right, one of the few things both can agree on is that Washington DC is corrupt and politicians don't work for the common man but for their donors and special interest groups? Well, maybe fixing that should be the main priority. And if third parties were actually relevant because of, say, proportional representation, then I would predict a lot of people would start voting for them because it would no longer be a "wasted vote".

Of course, changing all of this just like that is about as realistic as the USA splitting in two, so...

Didn't you chaps already try this? And I seem to remember it...did not go well, to say the least. If it were up to me, I'd say the US (and the UK! Fucking AV referendum...) needs proportional representation to help encourage smaller parties.

No thanks. I don't feel like uprooting my entire life to move to Blue country when we have the democratic process. It seems like just splitting the country in two is just saying "We give up." Not that such a thing would stop political bickering anyway, you'd just see fighting between different factions of conservative or liberal next.

I'm not American, but in my opinion it wouldn't work. Most people have political values that's a mix between traditional left and right wing values, so you can't just drive a wedge down between the population - Most people would have to sacrifice some of their values to end up in either "left wing" and "right wing" America.
Further on, after you've split the population in two, you wouldn't end up with two political homogeneous groups. There would still be issues where the population is split, which would create a "new" left and right wing. For instance, current center of politics in USA would be considered right-leaning on an objective scale, while the current center of politics in Denmark would be considered left-leaning. Merely shifting the subjective scale a bit doesn't really do anything to stop the political bickering going on.

Didn't they try that already? Some bald guy that may or may not have been president got some alien crystals to make a new continent or something?

Getting the federal government out of matters that should in all reality be matters of states' rights would be the more ideal option. So many things that the federal government has it's hand into they have no business touching. Get the federal government hands removed from where they don't belong and let the states more freely govern themselves.

Who gets to keep the 5000 or so nukes and the most advanced military on the face of the planet?
Because leaving the world's 2nd largest nuclear arsenal in the hand of a bunch of guys that believe in the fire and brimstone version of the 2nd coming might not be a good idea :)

Uh, how exactly would you split it? There are no clear geopolitical lines to draw. In every blue state there is indeed a large population of Republican voters, and the reverse is true as well. You will be asking these people to either uproot themselves and leave everything behind, or remain stuck in a newly formed country that is even further out of whack with their political views.

Although, on the other hand, it would be an interesting experiment, divide the country, and keep track of the effects of each parties management writ large. Could potentially use it to see exactly where it is a good idea to compromise. Too bad we can't load a quicksave once we have our results.

I think that that would probably be a bad idea. Sure, eventually the US might be forced to split up. I'm not a separatist or anything, but I'd be fine with the Pacific Northwest (Washington, and Oregon perhaps British Columbia would go with us) become its on country. The theoretical Cascadia would almost certainly be able to run a strong economy (At least two major ports with shipping lanes into some of the fastest growing economies in the world, lots of hydro, geothermal, wind, and tidal power potential). This would likely not be true for all areas. There are a large number states or collections of states that wouldn't be able to sustain their populations without help from other states, and if they were to try to go it alone, they would fail spectacularly.

what you need is a better voting system, to "get the money out of politics" and a "new republic" (France is on its 6th i think) and to stop worshipping people from hundreds of years ago as near demigods.

there is no reason the US should split bar differing politics at local level...something that the system should be fully able to accommodate.

tbth imo the 21st century the US should be looking to expand rather than contract. "the middle" of the country is virtually empty and imho you also be looking south to collect more people and more states even as far as the isthmus of Panama...but there is no vision any more and the politics of fear is so rife and embedded that that idea probably sounds like utter madness rather than any potential future history for "the great experiment".

Super Not Cosmo:
Getting the federal government out of matters that should in all reality be matters of states' rights would be the more ideal option. So many things that the federal government has it's hand into they have no business touching. Get the federal government hands removed from where they don't belong and let the states more freely govern themselves.

What are some of the issues you think should be handled at the state level. Knowing you, I'm gonna guess Minority Rights, Women's Rights, and Religious Rights are high on that list?

Verbatim:
Who gets to keep the 5000 or so nukes and the most advanced military on the face of the planet?
Because leaving the world's 2nd largest nuclear arsenal in the hand of a bunch of guys that believe in the fire and brimstone version of the 2nd coming might not be a good idea :)

A political analyst predicted what would happen if for one term, the entire government was Democrat and one term the entire government was Republican.

Under the Democrats, the country was bankrupt, under the Republicans, everyone was dead.

NameIsRobertPaulson:
What are some of the issues you think should be handled at the state level. Knowing you, I'm gonna guess Minority Rights, Women's Rights, and Religious Rights are high on that list?

Well it's probably easier to just lay out what the federal government SHOULD have it's hands in and seeing as the founding fathers were nice enough to lay those matters out in article 1 section 8 of The Constitution (aka The Enumerated Powers) it's not hard to start to see what their duties should entail. Then after you peruse those just keep combing through The Constitution and you will have a nice tidy list of the federal governments responsibilities. By virtue of the 10th Amendment "the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people". So if a given matter isn't mentioned in The Constitution then the federal government shouldn't be arsing with it as it should be left to the individual states.

Super Not Cosmo:

NameIsRobertPaulson:
What are some of the issues you think should be handled at the state level. Knowing you, I'm gonna guess Minority Rights, Women's Rights, and Religious Rights are high on that list?

Well it's probably easier to just lay out what the federal government SHOULD have it's hands in and seeing as the founding fathers were nice enough to lay those matters out in article 1 section 8 of The Constitution (aka The Enumerated Powers) it's not hard to start to see what their duties should entail. Then after you peruse those just keep combing through The Constitution and you will have a nice tidy list of the federal governments responsibilities. By virtue of the 10th Amendment "the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people". So if a given matter isn't mentioned in The Constitution then the federal government shouldn't be arsing with it as it should be left to the individual states.

Alright. So, do you believe the amendments overstep congressional power?

And do you believe that things like the three mentioned above (Minority, Women's and Religious rights) should be delegated on a state-by-state basis?

NameIsRobertPaulson:
And do you believe that things like the three mentioned above (Minority, Women's and Religious rights) should be delegated on a state-by-state basis?

Suffice to say we vary greatly on what is and isn't a "Right". If you would like to be more specific I could answer your question. I neither have the time nor desire to answer vague and slanted questions.

Skeleon:
I'm not sure I can agree with some of the ideas here. Sure, federal encroachment can be an issue. But it's not like big government intrusion on the state level is necessarily any better. The Supreme Court just repealed that voting thingy for a number of southern states and what happened? Immediately they jump to try and restrict voting rights of legal citizens. Or think of the many state-specific laws and regulations put in place specifically to get rid of abortion by skirting Roe v. Wade. I don't see how giving states more rights, specifically the rights to oppress its people (or at least minorities therein), is acceptable, either. This should be about individual liberties and rights, not states' rights to oppress. And, frankly, sometimes the federal government's intervention is necessary to achieve that.

Which provisions do you disagree with specifically of the those states in question? Bear in mind that Voter ID (simply asking for photo ID while voting) while polling in the mid 80%s nationwide is attacked in the court system as cracking down on minorities.

What should happen is that people residing in existing states should be allowed to divide the make anew states alongside like minded people. There are provisions for this already in place within the U.S. Constitution specifically, Article IV, Section 3, clause 2. The Constitution should be what binds us together instead of a host of federal laws that people find abhorrent so much so that run the risk of being nullified by the mutinous juries (Wisconsin and their disagreements with the fugitive slave act).

Skeleon:

I agree with Zeconte: Getting rid of the two party system, first-past-the-post and the way campaigns are financed should be your goals. Isn't it funny that despite the enormous divide between left and right, one of the few things both can agree on is that Washington DC is corrupt and politicians don't work for the common man but for their donors and special interest groups? Well, maybe fixing that should be the main priority. And if third parties were actually relevant because of, say, proportional representation, then I would predict a lot of people would start voting for them because it would no longer be a "wasted vote".

Ironically George Washington in his farewell address advocated against a two party system.

Super Not Cosmo:

NameIsRobertPaulson:
And do you believe that things like the three mentioned above (Minority, Women's and Religious rights) should be delegated on a state-by-state basis?

Suffice to say we vary greatly on what is and isn't a "Right". If you would like to be more specific I could answer your question. I neither have the time nor desire to answer vague and slanted questions.

Super Not Cosmo:

NameIsRobertPaulson:
And do you believe that things like the three mentioned above (Minority, Women's and Religious rights) should be delegated on a state-by-state basis?

Suffice to say we vary greatly on what is and isn't a "Right". If you would like to be more specific I could answer your question. I neither have the time nor desire to answer vague and slanted questions.

Let me ask it in a different way:

Should federal marriage incur any rights, benefits, or privileges to either same-sex or opposite-sex couples?

and

Should the issue of who gets to vote be delegated on a state-by-state basis? For instance, if Iowa passed a law saying Asians could not vote, should that be overturned by the federal government, or would that be infringing on state's rights?

NameIsRobertPaulson:
Should federal marriage incur any rights, benefits, or privileges to either same-sex or opposite-sex couples?

and

Should the issue of who gets to vote be delegated on a state-by-state basis? For instance, if Iowa passed a law saying Asians could not vote, should that be overturned by the federal government, or would that be infringing on state's rights?

Marriage is and should remain a states's rights issue. As for your second question that's a 14th Amendment issue and doesn't pass equal protection under the law. However, if you are trying to get in a roundabout way to voter ID, then, one, you should just ask that and not dance around it and, two, voter ID IS a states' right issue.

Super Not Cosmo:

NameIsRobertPaulson:
Should federal marriage incur any rights, benefits, or privileges to either same-sex or opposite-sex couples?

and

Should the issue of who gets to vote be delegated on a state-by-state basis? For instance, if Iowa passed a law saying Asians could not vote, should that be overturned by the federal government, or would that be infringing on state's rights?

Marriage is and should remain a states's rights issue. As for your second question that's a 14th Amendment issue and doesn't pass equal protection under the law. However, if you are trying to get in a roundabout way to voter ID, then, one, you should just ask that and not dance around it and, two, voter ID IS a states' right issue.

By this logic, marriage should apply only to the state you are married in, and you should be forced to remarry if moving, or even visiting another state, in order for your marriage to be recognized in that state. At the same time, you are arguing that voting, a process that elects both state and federal representatives, should be a states' right issue. Both of these issues have national, not state, implications. If I marry in the U.S., you're damned right I should be recognized as married by the U.S. The states are not separate entities from each other, they are all part of the same nation, and it's absurd to suggest that marriage should be subject to different laws within the same nation. Same with voting for representatives of the national government. The voting process should be the same and subject to the same laws and standards throughout the nation in which the elections are held. These are two terrible, terrible issues to say should be subject to change from state to state.

Or I could just move to Canada. I think that would be the easier option at this point.

aelreth:
Which provisions do you disagree with specifically of the those states in question? Bear in mind that Voter ID (simply asking for photo ID while voting) while polling in the mid 80%s nationwide is attacked in the court system as cracking down on minorities.

Plenty. Things like cutting the time that people have for voting, extra days like the sunday that many church-groups and other communities used to use (voting on a tuesday, no wonder so few people vote), providing way too little access, guaranteeing the formation of hours-long lines... just look at Florida last time around.
Basically, anything that ensures legitimate voters have a harder time of voting. It's known that the less people vote, the better for the Republicans, so it's no surprise they put so many hurdles up.
As for voter ID, they also made sure a lot of photo IDs do not function here (like university IDs - again hitting typically Democratic voters). The thing about valid photo ID is simply that it's not something everybody has in the USA, especially not younger, older voters and people from large cities. If it were like in Germany where having photo ID is a basic requirement for everybody regardless of status or stature, I wouldn't mind implementing it. In fact, I show my photo ID every time I vote. It's perfectly fine.
I don't trust these scum. They talk about voter fraud (despite the statistics showing how little in-person voter fraud actually occurs) while actually ensuring that less and less legitimate voters get to cast their due. They know exactly what they're doing. It's just an excuse to try and tilt the scales in their favour because they're scared of the changing demographics. They are the ones committing fraud, if you ask me.

Dan Steele:
-snip-

The problem with this is, even if we split the country up by general political ideologies (in other words, the north and the south), most of the Southern states would quickly fall. About the only state in the South that successfully supports itself without money from the federal government is Texas. Otherwise, pretty much every other state is very reliant upon the fed. They take way more money than the fed than they ever give back, and rely upon the fed to fund their most basic needs. So if we do what the people who are pro-secession say they want and keep the current federal government for the "north," then whatever fed the south develops will simply not have enough income or buying power to sustain it, unless Texas takes up the burden of funding and keeping the other states afloat. Alaska could also help them with this, but if this were to really play out I think the fed would rather engage in another civil war before giving up the oil in Alaska.

And even then there's a matter of federal army bases, personnel, and miscellaneous weapons being in Texas. Since the military is a federal institution, that would automatically stay with the fed, and so they'd have to deal with all the bases and army shit that's suddenly in foreign territories.

So basically, it won't happen. Even if most people wanted it (which I don't think they do, on either side) the logistics would be too much of a clusterfuck to be worth the hassle. And as others have pointed out, while there are regions that generally favor one side or another, there are many "swing states" which have a pretty even split of both. And then there's the matter of people not wanting to belong to another country suddenly having their citizenship changed against their will, which is almost a form of kidnapping or occupation when you think about it.

Super Not Cosmo:
Marriage is and should remain a states's rights issue.

Though the fed will always have some stake in marriage because, as demonstrated with DOMA, when the fed and states can't agree on what marriage is, it causes problems.

Super Not Cosmo:

NameIsRobertPaulson:
What are some of the issues you think should be handled at the state level. Knowing you, I'm gonna guess Minority Rights, Women's Rights, and Religious Rights are high on that list?

Well it's probably easier to just lay out what the federal government SHOULD have it's hands in and seeing as the founding fathers were nice enough to lay those matters out in article 1 section 8 of The Constitution (aka The Enumerated Powers) it's not hard to start to see what their duties should entail. Then after you peruse those just keep combing through The Constitution and you will have a nice tidy list of the federal governments responsibilities. By virtue of the 10th Amendment "the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people". So if a given matter isn't mentioned in The Constitution then the federal government shouldn't be arsing with it as it should be left to the individual states.

I know that's the common right-wing interpretation of the 10th amendment, but you're ignoring the last four words. According to these people who most Americans seem to hold in such high regard (and I can see why, after all they were paragons of virtue; sexist, racist, homophobic, oligarchic virtue) "the people" have just as much right to those powers as the states. Which means, if they want to, they can give those powers to whoever they want. Which they have done.

DJjaffacake:
I know that's the common right-wing interpretation of the 10th amendment, but you're ignoring the last four words. According to these people who most Americans seem to hold in such high regard (and I can see why, after all they were paragons of virtue; sexist, racist, homophobic, oligarchic virtue) "the people" have just as much right to those powers as the states. Which means, if they want to, they can give those powers to whoever they want. Which they have done.

There is a way in which the people can give those rights to the federal government and that way is through amendments to The Constitution. That is the only way in which new authority is or should be given to the federal government. The federal government should only have the powers delegated to it that are specifically listed in The Constitution. The 10th Amendment is crystal clear. The federal government should hold no sway over matters not specifically given to it within The Constitution.

Even if we should say that "The People" do hold power over certain issues the federal government would still by letter of the law be powerless when it comes to those issues. The populace can not simply will new powers to the federal government. Any new power given to the federal government must be given in the form of an amendment to The Constitution.

Skeleon:

Plenty. Things like cutting the time that people have for voting, extra days like the sunday that many church-groups and other communities used to use (voting on a tuesday, no wonder so few people vote), providing way too little access, guaranteeing the formation of hours-long lines... just look at Florida last time around.

Then Florida residents should start canning their county clerks if they were unable to transform every Public School Gymnasium and Library into a voting place. Denser areas should have more assets available for this type of use.

Same day voter registration and early voting are easily exploited.

Skeleon:

Basically, anything that ensures legitimate voters have a harder time of voting. It's known that the less people vote, the better for the Republicans, so it's no surprise they put so many hurdles up.

As for voter ID, they also made sure a lot of photo IDs do not function here (like university IDs - again hitting typically Democratic voters). The thing about valid photo ID is simply that it's not something everybody has in the USA, especially not younger, older voters and people from large cities. If it were like in Germany where having photo ID is a basic requirement for everybody regardless of status or stature, I wouldn't mind implementing it. In fact, I show my photo ID every time I vote. It's perfectly fine.

Free State IDs are available to those above. People are even given free transportation to receive those state IDs. However regarding University IDs, just because you have a University ID doesn't mean you meet the requirements to vote. Also students that are out of state should have either changed residence or they should have voted absentee to vote. Students should also know at the beginning of the semester which state they would be in and should have made the proper legal changes to their status then. If not vote absentee.

Skeleon:

I don't trust these scum. They talk about voter fraud (despite the statistics showing how little in-person voter fraud actually occurs) while actually ensuring that less and less legitimate voters get to cast their due.

I'm fully aware of how ACORN (Democrat organization) conducted it's voter fraud across the nation regarding non in-person fraud. Regarding In person, how on earth are we able to detect in person voter fraud if we can't ask for a photo ID?

Skeleon:

They know exactly what they're doing. It's just an excuse to try and tilt the scales in their favour because they're scared of the changing demographics. They are the ones committing fraud, if you ask me.

All the American people want is free honest elections. Why the democrats oppose voter ID is likely that the leadership wants it that way despite their constituency being polled as approving of it.

Could it be that the democrat leaderships know they gain power through voter fraud, I think so.

 Pages 1 2 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked