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 PREV 1 2
 

[quote="Skeleon" post="528.826570.20094102"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.[/quote]

Honestly, who doesn't have a photo ID? Poor people? Well you need a photo ID to get things like welfare, food stamps, medicaid, medicare, government housing and so on. You also need a photo ID to get most jobs or rent an apartment or even get into the yearly Democratic Convention oddly enough. Furthermore, if I remember correctly when I was applying to various colleges and financial aid I had to show my photo ID multiple times as well. With all the above in mind what type of person doesn't have a photo ID seeing as you need it to work and if you don't work you need it to get government assistance or for various things involving college as well. I guess the swaths of people who don't work don't get government assistance and don't go to school are really put out by voter ID laws.

Now the other argument I hear is that voting is a right. Well you know what else is a right? Owning a gun and I've had to show my I.D. plenty of times when buying firearms. Hell, I've had to do much much more than simply show an ID in more than a few cases. I've had to submit to extensive background checks? Yet I don't recall the last time I've heard the left work themselves into a big indignant lather over having to jump through all those hoops to exercise that right. Odd that.

Super Not Cosmo:

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.

First of all, citation needed for constitutional amendments being the only way powers can be given to the federal government.
Secondly, the 10th Amendment doesn't ban the federal government from holding powers, it says any power not mentioned in the Constitution defaults to the states or the people. The people can then do what they want with those powers, through the process of voting. They can't do it through the process of amendments to the constitution, because they're not involved in that.

DJjaffacake:
First of all, citation needed for constitutional amendments being the only way powers can be given to the federal government.
Secondly, the 10th Amendment doesn't ban the federal government from holding powers, it says any power not mentioned in the Constitution defaults to the states or the people. The people can then do what they want with those powers, through the process of voting. They can't do it through the process of amendments to the constitution, because they're not involved in that.

Even a rudimentary understanding of the most basic areas of US history and government will make it perfectly clear that the only powers the federal government has are those specifically listed in The Constitution. The only way in which The Constitution can be changed is via constitutional amendments. The 10th Amendment says as much. It's a relatively simple concept.

Speaking of the 10th Amendment it absolutely restricts the powers of the federal government. It does so by spelling out that the only powers the federal government has are those listed in The Constitution. If a certain issue isn't listed the federal government is powerless over it and it is a matter that is left to the state.

When it comes to "the people" the only meaningful power they have is that of their vote. Since federal laws are not voted on in the same manner that some state laws are the only power "the people" have to change anything on a federal level is to vote for their chosen representatives. "The people" as individuals are virtually powerless at the federal level. The people do have some power over local and state laws however and can influence laws and such much more directly the more localized the government.

Super Not Cosmo:

DJjaffacake:
First of all, citation needed for constitutional amendments being the only way powers can be given to the federal government.
Secondly, the 10th Amendment doesn't ban the federal government from holding powers, it says any power not mentioned in the Constitution defaults to the states or the people. The people can then do what they want with those powers, through the process of voting. They can't do it through the process of amendments to the constitution, because they're not involved in that.

Even a rudimentary understanding of the most basic areas of US history and government will make it perfectly clear that the only powers the federal government has are those specifically listed in The Constitution. The only way in which The Constitution can be changed is via constitutional amendments. The 10th Amendment says as much. It's a relatively simple concept.

Speaking of the 10th Amendment it absolutely restricts the powers of the federal government. It does so by spelling out that the only powers the federal government has are those listed in The Constitution. If a certain issue isn't listed the federal government is powerless over it and it is a matter that is left to the state.

When it comes to "the people" the only meaningful power they have is that of their vote. Since federal laws are not voted on in the same manner that some state laws are the only power "the people" have to change anything on a federal level is to vote for their chosen representatives. "The people" as individuals are virtually powerless at the federal level. The people do have some power over local and state laws however and can influence laws and such much more directly the more localized the government.

a)Then it shouldn't be hard to provide evidence.
b)That's not what the 10th Amendment says. That's what 'states' rights advocates' want it to say.
c)That's how representative democracy works, and is also irrelevant to my point.

DJjaffacake:
a)Then it shouldn't be hard to provide evidence.
b)That's not what the 10th Amendment says. That's what 'states' rights advocates' want it to say.
c)That's how representative democracy works, and is also irrelevant to my point.

You see, here's the thing, most people learn this before they get out of elementary school. This isn't some radical or complex idea. I'm sorry you seem to take issue with it. However, if you would like proof I urge you to use "The Google" and kindly go get it yourself if you need it that badly or doubt it. The same way I wouldn't show my work that 2 plus 2 does indeed equal 4 I'm not going to provide a citation for something as simple as this.

Although to be honest I'm probably not going to provide citations for most things. It's been my observation on these forums that even when people do provide links or whatever they are largely ignored anyway so I'm just not going to waste my time. As I said before if people really want proof or whatever they can go use that fancy thing that kids are calling "The Google".

Short Answer: No

Long Answer: HEEEEEELLLLLLL NNNNNNNOOOOOOOOOOOO

Though seriously, thats an awful idea. It would only cause the two countries to go into the deep end of issues on their respective sides of the spectrum. Blue US would be run by idiot liberals and red US would be run by moron conservatives. I'll have to pass on that thank you. I'd like to have my guns and decent public services.

Super Not Cosmo:

DJjaffacake:
a)Then it shouldn't be hard to provide evidence.
b)That's not what the 10th Amendment says. That's what 'states' rights advocates' want it to say.
c)That's how representative democracy works, and is also irrelevant to my point.

You see, here's the thing, most people learn this before they get out of elementary school. This isn't some radical or complex idea. I'm sorry you seem to take issue with it. However, if you would like proof I urge you to use "The Google" and kindly go get it yourself if you need it that badly or doubt it. The same way I wouldn't show my work that 2 plus 2 does indeed equal 4 I'm not going to provide a citation for something as simple as this.

Although to be honest I'm probably not going to provide citations for most things. It's been my observation on these forums that even when people do provide links or whatever they are largely ignored anyway so I'm just not going to waste my time. As I said before if people really want proof or whatever they can go use that fancy thing that kids are calling "The Google".

If you're not going to put forth the effort to show your sources, don't expect people to put forth the effort to debate you.

As a general rule, secession will occur naturally in its own time. Even relatively stable states that have endured as one unit for centuries can fall apart under the strain of geographically differing interests. It is in many ways healthy for parts of countries to seriously consider going their separate way - even preferable for them to do so, when they find the prevailing policies and attitudes of the whole or central power no longer suits their local needs. In return, the remnant they have split off from have a good chance of finding the increased internal cohesion beneficial also.

States rights could be seen as a useful form of decentralisation - however, I might suspect this would actually enhance the chance of breaking up. The more that smaller parts of the country can and do differentiate themselves from the others, the less they have in common, and the less they are likely to see the point of remaining part of the whole.

What perhaps suggests against the USA breaking up is that modern communications and advanced transport mean that it has never been easier for individuals within the same nation (especially a large one) to move around within the country and experience the other parts of it, which can give it enormous cohesion compared to times when distant parts of a large state could have vastly different situations - local cultures and ethnicities, economy and trade interests, defence worries, and so on. Nearly all US states surely retain a large degree of shared interests, for all their red state / blue state differences.

I'd say know, especially after what happened last time... but some people might still try anyway.

BAD idea. The main problem is what is split to which side? Say your a democrat living in the Bible Belt or a Republican in New York and don't want to live in that half of the country. If we are just splitting the "Red" states and the "Blue" states, both are going to lead to massive disparities in economic resources. The majority of food, oil, minerals, and ores are in Red states, but most of the banks, entertainment hubs, business headquarters are in "blue" states. What about the swing states? Do we cut Florida in half? What about those few states that are surrounded by states of opposite colors?

Our power systems are split into three major hubs. East of the Mississippi, West of the Mississippi, and Texas. All our infrastructure is designed for being one giant free movement and free trade zone.

Guys! This is a brilliant idea to separate the nation! We have to do it! I know everyone says it's impractical and they get lost in the details. BUT what they fail to realize is that if we don't divide this nation, we will end up in a civil war. Which do you want? Civil war...or divide it in advance?

Think this is a joke? No way. The people who are opposing a split are those who kind of like things the way they are and don't want to rock the boat. BUT, let me be clear. When a Bush is in office, half the country is furious nearly every day and this causes great anxiety. AND, when an Obama is in office, the other half of the nation is furious! Furious.

The people against a split don't think people on each side are upset enough to go to war. But sadly, that is the ignorance that leads right into that war. I am telling you this now, so you are without excuse later. We somehow think that if we just give it time, people will start to become and think more like us. That is ignorance folks.

Let's pretend you are liberal and I told you that we are going to have a George W in office for the rest of your life. Oh, and conservatives are going to declare abortion illegal, close the border, ban same-sex marriage, stop government handouts, drop environmental protection work, expand fracking, grow big business, ban the minimum wage, require every teacher to carry a gun in class, ban tenure, and require prayer and Bible study in public schools. BECAUSE friends and fellow citizens, this is how most conservatives want to live! If you are liberal, you might think this is shocking and even breath-taking, but it is true! This is the society conservatives want. So, if you are liberal, do you want that society? Are you cool with living there for the rest of your life without ever a chance for a liberal leader?

IF NOT, WE MUST DIVIDE. MARK MY WORDS. Liberals are not going to change conservatives and conservatives are not going to change liberals. And if you deny your fellow citizens the right live the way they want to, where is "freedom" then? They could do the same to you if they get into power. Why can't we have the benefit of living under the government and society we want? Isn't that what "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" is all about??

India split into three nations and sadly it was bloody and ugly. We can learn from their mistakes...and it doesn't have to be so violent. BUT, even if there is some violence in a US split, it is nowhere near what we will see in civil war!

Friends and fellow citizens, now is the time to act to prevent the shedding of blood. Join me in this effort to make two peaceful nations out of the present day USA. It is the ONLY way forward.

WhipleStix:
BUT, let me be clear. When a Bush is in office, half the country is furious nearly every day and this causes great anxiety. AND, when an Obama is in office, the other half of the nation is furious! Furious.

And lots of people are often furious with both of them. Best split the USA back into its constituent states and there might be something for everyone there.

What if I'm pro-choice but anti-gun regulation? Where the fuck am I suppose to go?

*sighs*

Sweeping, simplistic "solutions" inevitably wind up being inconsistent, poorly thought out farces.

BTW, OP, I'm guessing you know diddly-squat about Socialism if you're suggesting the US in any way approaches true Socialism as exists in Europe. Compared to the UK's government, for example, the most Liberal US politicians are radical Far Right Conservatives and from Europeans' perspectives our American Right Wingers border on being the Christian equivalent of the Taliban.

The majority of US Republicans have been shown to be increasingly weary and downright disgusted at the increasing surge to the Right that the GOP has taken. Don't believe me? I live in Alabama which is a solid Red state and most people I know--family, friends, and coworkers (most of whom are Republican) are vocally displeased with the Tea Party and Congress' complete uselessness. A LOT of my elder family members WON'T be voting Republican in the future (for the first time in their lives) partly because the GOP reminds them too much of the Democratic party in the 1980's and partly because the GOP is declaring war on government services they need TO STAY ALIVE!

The idea of splitting the US into two countries composed of Right and Left leaning populations is short sighted for another reason: The gerrymandering of voting districts is the primary source of the GOP's waning strength. The silent majority of Republicans are being alienated (including the elderly--whom the GOP depends on heavily because they're the demographic most likely to vote) while the younger population (those under 30) have been shown by polls to lean towards being Democrats overwhelmingly (over 80% in some polls I've read).

The GOP leaders--such as they are--recognize that they're caught between a rock and a hard place (especially where minorities are concerned) and that they've branded themselves as the pro-big business/anti-environment/anti-science/anti-women's rights/anti minority rights "Party of No".

Lastly, you might want to read up on some US history if you think that our generation has it bad. Hell, there was almost a military coup of the US government last century. Ever hear of that?

And no, don't think for a moment that the modern military would side against the government. While it's certainly true that a large portion of US military personnel come from "Conservative" states they're kinda serious about Oaths of Loyalty and such.

And if you doubt that then you might want to ask some of our Escapist brethren who are in service. And not just the ones from the US. Military men and women ARE NOT civilians and they do think differently than we civilians do. A short chat with my 19 year old nephew who is graduating from Naval Basic this Thursday would veeerrrrrryyyyy quickly eliminate and doubts of where HIS loyalty lies.

Hint...it isn't with big mouthed politicians but to his Commander in Chief.

MERCY but this post got long! Sorry about that, folks. -_-

Shadowstar38:
What if I'm pro-choice but anti-gun regulation? Where the fuck am I suppose to go?

Colorado.

And, yeah, as most people have noted, it's not just a north-south-east-west divide. In many cases, it's a rural-urban divide. Splitting the US is kind of hard to do if you can't make a good line of division.

The Gentleman:

Shadowstar38:
What if I'm pro-choice but anti-gun regulation? Where the fuck am I suppose to go?

Colorado.

And, yeah, as most people have noted, it's not just a north-south-east-west divide. In many cases, it's a rural-urban divide. Splitting the US is kind of hard to do if you can't make a good line of division.

Huh. And I believe they're one of the states with legal medical cannabis. I'm sold.

The Democratic and Republican parties' doctrines are too similar to even properly serve the purpose of political parties. They are certainly not different enough to justify dividing the union.

if we did split up like that the only people on the left would be unintelligent people or people that don't understand anything about the real world so eventually the left side will die out and then the right side probably would concur the left side and make us so really i guess it would make life easier for some people the sad thing is i am 13 and i know more about politics then some americans

@bluegrowlithe
Heh, that's the funny part about different perspectives, eh? Here's what I imagine the "right side" would become if such a split were even possible: A bunch of Mississippis, except even worse, reliant on federal aid, theocratic, badly educated etc.. Even Texas, which is a rather successful state economically at least, is so to a large degree thanks to the amount of federal military spending going on there. But hey, it would be an interesting social experiment. Highly unethical, but interesting.

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 :)

We already tried that, it was called the Reagan, Bush, and Bush 2 years.

California is the worlds 8th largest economy on its own, I am doubtful the rest of the states would let that go without contest.

What the US needs is a major constitutional reform, it is after all over 200 years old, one where the power of the federal government and it procedures are detailed.

O maestre:
California is the worlds 8th largest economy on its own, I am doubtful the rest of the states would let that go without contest.

What the US needs is a major constitutional reform, it is after all over 200 years old, one where the power of the federal government and it procedures are detailed.

It hasn't been the 8th for some time now it's 10-11 these days, Texas would be trailing it only 2 spots behind since it still has an economy bigger than Spain or even Mexico...

Also California is only what about the 15th largest economy in the US per capita? not that Texas is any better, but if you take out California you also take out allot of mouths to feed since while its about 12-13% of the US economy in total, it's also about the same percentage of it's population.
At least as far as the local government goes(sate house and governor) 7 out of the 10 biggest economies in the US are "republican" states... And if we go by per capita then it's what 8-9 out of 10?
I don't think that if you decide to split the US into red and blue states the democrats would be getting the wining hand California or not....

@Verbatim
I think they would, overall. Texas or not, the majority of Red States take in more federal aid than they pay out, whereas for the Blut States it's the reverse, is it not? If Texas were indicative of Red States overall (even ignoring the fact that their economy is quite affected by federal military spending, which would presumably fall away or at least significantly lessen in such a split) you'd have a point, but it's not.

Skeleon:
@Verbatim
I think they would, overall. Texas or not, the majority of Red States take in more federal aid than they pay out, whereas for the Blut States it's the reverse, is it not? If Texas were indicative of Red States overall (even ignoring the fact that their economy is quite affected by federal military spending, which would presumably fall away or at least significantly lessen in such a split) you'd have a point, but it's not.

Depends how you judge Red states, if we'll go by the local government then nope...
Only 19 states actually have a net "contribution" to the federal budget, out of those 19, 10 are red states again by local government not by presidential elections. As for the military thing, why single out Texas? i mean none of the big military contractors seem to originate from are incorporated there, and California by far has the most Army, Airforce and Navy bases of any other state in the US, heck if you cut down on the US military you might as well close San Diego...

Verbatim:
Depends how you judge Red states,...

Hm, I see. Yes, one could do a lot of fudging with the numbers (including where I originally got that factoid from).

Dan Steele:
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.

Simply splitting the US in two would not be feasible. What you might consider is a panarchist state. That is, government is split into two or three basic entities. The first entity deals exclusively with issues confined by space, i.e. roads, national defense, etc. While the other one-two entity(ies) deal with everything else. For example, there is absolutely no reason why a welfare state has to be bounded by space. People who want to give money to the welfare state can be anywhere and they can receive their compensation (within reason) from anywhere. Basically a panarchist state would be a federal system where the states have no boundaries (or perhaps a 3-tiered federal system and that would work a little differently).

Alternatively we can just fix the roadblock. It was not always like this. This bullshit started with Clinton back in the 90s. Basically he decided that because the Dems had almost a supermajority he could ignore the Republicans. Bad move. No matter what, you need bipartisan support and he lost any chance of that happening. When Bush was elected we thought that maybe things would calm down a bit. At first things looked good. Bush passed an education bill with the help of leading Dems. Then during the midterm election Bush and Rove pulled off one hell of a victory. Historically, the president's party almost never maintains a majority after the midterm. Bush and Rove managed it but at the cost of Democratic support. So instead of the partisanship dying down it got ramped up. Now we come to Obama. Obama really had the chance to dial down the tension. Instead he (and his allies) escalated things. More recently, we have his very childish Executive Orders and we have Biden calling Republicans "Neanderthals" over a very legitimate questions over the rights of non-Native American Americans in Native American territory. That is not the way to dial down tensions.

And 50 years later you would have to do the same.

And again.

And again.

And again.

Until there are thousands upon thousands of states. This is a theoretical discussion based on the logic that voter ideologies will never change: I have met liberals from conservative parents and conservatives from liberal parents, Christians from atheist families and vice versa. So this entire idea is based on the faulty logic that the countries, once split, would stagnate. Forever.

No. the last thing we need is splitting more countries. didnt we see enough example of splitting countries turning int ochaos? the last example of epaceful split was slovenia, and that was back in 1987 if i remmeber correctly. and evne then it was pretty much its own state for decades before the official split, electing its own government and whatnot.

What we need is countries to UNITE. we got way too many too small countries that are just being blwon in the worlds win and cant do anything about it. The earth federation is long overdue, but ill take a 10 countries situation over 187 countries.

 Pages PREV 1 2

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked