Splitting the US? Many Americans say yes

[RVonse]

Even at very local levels, having every decision decided by the general population on a day to day basis is unworkable. It would result in paralysis of the government. Which I think is the point.

But that is not the point I made either. The general population does not need to make every decision but they do need to be represented. And right now they are not.

 

[RVonse]

Of the ten States with budgets most dependent upon federal funds, nine of them are dead red.
If red States seceded, they would quickly descent into third world squalor without the financial support of the blue States.

This is absolutely 100% correct. Then to add on: the red states themselves would also fail without the liberal cities within their midst paying the bills. Liberal cities like Atlanta, San Antonio, Nashville, New Orleans, and etc. carry their states.

This is something that conservative secessionists seem unable to grasp. Their culture is unsustainable without subsidies from liberals. A few years back, somebody pointed out that different states get far different shares of federal dollars back from federal tax payments made. Mississippi was getting back about $1.20 per tax dollar paid. Massachusetts was getting back about $.80 per tax dollar.

If Red states want to secede, the first thing to talk about is how they're going to pay their share of the federal debt? Then, how are they going to do without Social Security or highway funds? Perhaps then we'll get to issues like tariffs on imported goods like fossil fuels. Concentrate blue populations and our energy policies will be hugely different from the current norm.

Etc. Etc.

But maybe it will be like Brexit, where politicians lie and lie until they get what they want. Then start backpedaling madly when people realize what they actually got.

Tom

You are right but in the final analysis it is quite the opposite. It is not so much who has the money but who has the industry. If the red states were to go into civil war with the blue states, the red states would easily win. Because what little manufacturing is left is mostly in the red states and almost all the military industrial complex industry is done in red states. The only thing that is really done in blue states is software, Hollywood, and financial products. So I believe a civil war would be no contest, the red states would win.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

The national government is now a Leviathan, trying to regulate every aspect of people's lives. Shrink government, return sovereignty to the states, and we'll be alright.

Evidence: {}

That parties freak out that the opposing party may get to tilt the Supreme Court this way or that. The Supreme Court was never meant to be as powerful as it is. If we returned to a national government focused on interstate trade and mutual defense, leaving states to decide the rest, we'd be much happier.

When we look at the train wrecks that are GOP run states like Alabama, a nation of train wreck states would soon become a third style world shithole. In many such states as is, outside of the cities, rural areas are becoming unlivable and and young people are fleeing them as is. What do all these goobers who want a new Red nation think that a pack of right wing politicians can do to turn around a situation that is the results of decades of GOP moron politicians running these states? More right winger idiocy?

 

[TomC]

This is something that conservative secessionists seem unable to grasp. Their culture is unsustainable without subsidies from liberals. A few years back, somebody pointed out that different states get far different shares of federal dollars back from federal tax payments made. Mississippi was getting back about $1.20 per tax dollar paid. Massachusetts was getting back about $.80 per tax dollar.

If Red states want to secede, the first thing to talk about is how they're going to pay their share of the federal debt? Then, how are they going to do without Social Security or highway funds? Perhaps then we'll get to issues like tariffs on imported goods like fossil fuels. Concentrate blue populations and our energy policies will be hugely different from the current norm.

Etc. Etc.

But maybe it will be like Brexit, where politicians lie and lie until they get what they want. Then start backpedaling madly when people realize what they actually got.

Tom

You are right but in the final analysis it is quite the opposite. It is not so much who has the money but who has the industry. If the red states were to go into civil war with the blue states, the red states would easily win. Because what little manufacturing is left is mostly in the red states and almost all the military industrial complex industry is done in red states. The only thing that is really done in blue states is software, Hollywood, and financial products. So I believe a civil war would be no contest, the red states would win.

Key term here, "What little manufacturing..."

Most of our manufacturing is done in China and Mexico. Those places conservatives love to hate. Manufacturing isn't the big deal it was in the mid 19th century. Cut Texans off from government entitlement programs and see how long that lasts.
Tom

 

[TV and credit cards]

Of the ten States with budgets most dependent upon federal funds, nine of them are dead red.
If red States seceded, they would quickly descent into third world squalor without the financial support of the blue States.

This is absolutely 100% correct. Then to add on: the red states themselves would also fail without the liberal cities within their midst paying the bills. Liberal cities like Atlanta, San Antonio, Nashville, New Orleans, and etc. carry their states.

To be fair, how should a liberal city be defined, by who works there or who lives there? It might change the outcome a bit.

 

[Elixir]

Cut Texans off from government entitlement programs and see how long that lasts.
Tom

Hell, they couldn't make it through last winter, even with federal help.
This fantasy that red states could prevail in an armed conflict is just silly. Let's recall - that's what they thought last time.
But I'm sure that if push came to shove, Russia would extend the reds a nice line of credit to keep them in the game.

To be fair, how should a liberal city be defined, by who works there or who lives there? It might change the outcome a bit.

Yeh, - "liberal cities" is almost a redundancy.

 

[jonatha]

You are right but in the final analysis it is quite the opposite. It is not so much who has the money but who has the industry. If the red states were to go into civil war with the blue states, the red states would easily win. Because what little manufacturing is left is mostly in the red states and almost all the military industrial complex industry is done in red states.

https://www.nam.org/state-manufacturing-data/ says you're wrong. Blue states manufacturing GDP in 2020 was $1281.55 billion, red states was $1052.6 billion.

I suspect you're wrong about the MIC split too. I would expect it in general to be concentrated in states with the highest manufacturing GDP. Six of the top 10 and eight of the top 12 are blue...

 

[Harry Bosch]

Of the ten States with budgets most dependent upon federal funds, nine of them are dead red.
If red States seceded, they would quickly descent into third world squalor without the financial support of the blue States.

This is absolutely 100% correct. Then to add on: the red states themselves would also fail without the liberal cities within their midst paying the bills. Liberal cities like Atlanta, San Antonio, Nashville, New Orleans, and etc. carry their states.

To be fair, how should a liberal city be defined, by who works there or who lives there? It might change the outcome a bit.

In this context, I'd define a liberal city as one that mostly votes democratic. And Atlanta and the other cities listed above mostly voted for Biden in terms of percentage. And this is why the Trumpsters tried to invalidate the some of votes in the cities of some states including Atlanta.

 

[Toni]

Even at very local levels, having every decision decided by the general population on a day to day basis is unworkable. It would result in paralysis of the government. Which I think is the point.

But that is not the point I made either. The general population does not need to make every decision but they do need to be represented. And right now they are not.

I disagree.

In my state, politics is particularly local. Without trying to at all, I actually know my state senator and state representative and a fair number of people on the school board, city council, and county commissioners and some other local governing board. I've met and talked to the last 3 governors of my state, albeit at small local gatherings.

At the national level, I very much like my senators-which arguably are less representative of me, personally than are the members of congress who, for the most part, I dislike somewhat to intensely.

Even the government officials I know and like (I dislike some of them) do not agree with me on every issue. The ones I dislike tend to disagree with me very strongly. That doesn't mean that they don't represent me, even if they are not advocating directly for what I want them to advocate for.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The national government is now a Leviathan, trying to regulate every aspect of people's lives. Shrink government, return sovereignty to the states, and we'll be alright.

Evidence: {}

That parties freak out that the opposing party may get to tilt the Supreme Court this way or that. The Supreme Court was never meant to be as powerful as it is. If we returned to a national government focused on interstate trade and mutual defense, leaving states to decide the rest, we'd be much happier.

It was meant as a check on the actions of the legislature/executive. Unfortunately, it has now been suborned by the QOP as witnessed by the lack of action against the insanity called SB8.

 

[RVonse]

Even at very local levels, having every decision decided by the general population on a day to day basis is unworkable. It would result in paralysis of the government. Which I think is the point.

But that is not the point I made either. The general population does not need to make every decision but they do need to be represented. And right now they are not.

I disagree.

In my state, politics is particularly local. Without trying to at all, I actually know my state senator and state representative and a fair number of people on the school board, city council, and county commissioners and some other local governing board. I've met and talked to the last 3 governors of my state, albeit at small local gatherings.

At the national level, I very much like my senators-which arguably are less representative of me, personally than are the members of congress who, for the most part, I dislike somewhat to intensely.

Even the government officials I know and like (I dislike some of them) do not agree with me on every issue. The ones I dislike tend to disagree with me very strongly. That doesn't mean that they don't represent me, even if they are not advocating directly for what I want them to advocate for.

Then you are the obvious exception to the rule in the US. You represent the person who jumped off a 40 story building and just happened to survive.

Because the US (or UK) have not seen this kind of political upheaval in 80+ years. It is the kind of political upheaval seen when a majority of the population feel disillusionment and not being represented. The kind of political upheaval that formed the tea party, got Trump elected and UK to vote Brexit.

 

[ZiprHead]

IIRC, Texas is the only state that included a clause that they could leave anytime in the future if they decided to when they became a state in the union. I think it would be an interesting experiment to see what happens by letting them do so. Give them and the US a two year time span to complete the separation. Let people and corporations move freely during that time span. Allow the old and new Texas nationals to continue to receive their SS benefits they're entitled to but the new nation of Texas can handle everything else.

Thoughts?

 

[marc]

Here is my plan.

We let Alabama and Mississippi, maybe Tennessee secede. They are together, and we won't be loosing anything important like Disney World, New Orleans, or the stuff in Texas.

This means immediately there will be 4 less republican senators, improving conditions there greatly. Also a lot of True Conservative Patriots (tm) might start flocking to the new confederacy... or southern union, or whatever they want to call themselves. This could reduce republican votes in other swing states enough for them to turn blue as well. If the dems got enough power they might be able to pass voting reform and undo gerrymandering, resulting in republicans loosing even more power. Now we will have to deal with relocating all the people fleeing the new south, and setting up border security, but we will have the new reality show of watching the confederacy struggle to have a government without any taxes, and devolve into their own civil war over who are the 'true christians'. An object lesson for the world on what not to do.

 

[Elixir]

IIRC, Texas is the only state that included a clause that they could leave anytime in the future if they decided to when they became a state in the union. I think it would be an interesting experiment to see what happens by letting them do so. Give them and the US a two year time span to complete the separation. Let people and corporations move freely during that time span. Allow the old and new Texas nationals to continue to receive their SS benefits they're entitled to but the new nation of Texas can handle everything else.

Thoughts?

“TEXIT”
I like it.

Of course we will have to arrange to take care of possibly millions of women who will appear at the Tx/US border seeking asylum…

 

[Tigers!]

Here is my plan.

We let Alabama and Mississippi, maybe Tennessee secede. They are together, and we won't be loosing anything important like Disney World, New Orleans, or the stuff in Texas.

This means immediately there will be 4 less republican senators, improving conditions there greatly. Also a lot of True Conservative Patriots (tm) might start flocking to the new confederacy... or southern union, or whatever they want to call themselves. This could reduce republican votes in other swing states enough for them to turn blue as well. If the dems got enough power they might be able to pass voting reform and undo gerrymandering, resulting in republicans loosing even more power. Now we will have to deal with relocating all the people fleeing the new south, and setting up border security, but we will have the new reality show of watching the confederacy struggle to have a government without any taxes, and devolve into their own civil war over who are the 'true christians'. An object lesson for the world on what not to do.

Democrats don't do any gerrymandering at all, anywhere?

 

[RVonse]

IIRC, Texas is the only state that included a clause that they could leave anytime in the future if they decided to when they became a state in the union. I think it would be an interesting experiment to see what happens by letting them do so. Give them and the US a two year time span to complete the separation. Let people and corporations move freely during that time span. Allow the old and new Texas nationals to continue to receive their SS benefits they're entitled to but the new nation of Texas can handle everything else.

Thoughts?

It is my understanding that at present (unlike most other countries) if a US citizen takes up residence in another country, they are still liable to the US government for federal income tax. That is on top of the income tax they will be paying in the other country. And the only way out of that is to voluntarily give up US citizenship.

If Texas were to leave the US union, do you change that law too? Or do the Texans still have to pay US federal income tax?

 

[RVonse]

Here is my plan.

We let Alabama and Mississippi, maybe Tennessee secede. They are together, and we won't be loosing anything important like Disney World, New Orleans, or the stuff in Texas.

This means immediately there will be 4 less republican senators, improving conditions there greatly. Also a lot of True Conservative Patriots (tm) might start flocking to the new confederacy... or southern union, or whatever they want to call themselves. This could reduce republican votes in other swing states enough for them to turn blue as well. If the dems got enough power they might be able to pass voting reform and undo gerrymandering, resulting in republicans loosing even more power. Now we will have to deal with relocating all the people fleeing the new south, and setting up border security, but we will have the new reality show of watching the confederacy struggle to have a government without any taxes, and devolve into their own civil war over who are the 'true christians'. An object lesson for the world on what not to do.

Democrats don't do any gerrymandering at all, anywhere?

Marc does.

 

[RVonse]

• STUDY: Americans Want To Split Country By Party Lines - YouTube
• SHOCK POLL: Majority of Trump Voters Now in Favor of Seceding from the Union
• Majority of Trump Voters in Favor of Seceding from the Union
• New Initiative Explores Deep, Persistent Divides Between Biden and Trump Voters – Sabato's Crystal Ball

From SCB,

— On one hand, roughly 80% of Trump and Biden voters view democracy as preferable to any non-democratic kind of government.

— On the other hand, more than 6 in 10 Trump and Biden voters see America as less a representative democracy and more a system that is run by and rigged for the benefit of the wealthy.

— Overall, more than two-thirds support — and one-third strongly — emboldening and empowering strong leaders and taking the law into their own hands when it comes to dealing with people or groups they view as dangerous.

— And their willingness to consider violating democratic tendencies and norms extends beyond the hypothetical and to a dangerous and alarming finding: Roughly 2 in 10 Trump and Biden voters — or more than 31 million Americans — strongly agree it would be better if a “President could take needed actions without being constrained by Congress or courts” (as extrapolated from the results of this survey). Roughly 4 in 10 (41%) of Biden and half (52%) of Trump voters at least somewhat agree that it’s time to split the country, favoring blue/red states seceding from the union.

But doing the split would be difficult, since the populations are closely intertwined -- Democratic cities and Republican countrysides, with plenty of Republicans in cities and Democrats in countrysides.

Our financialized and fed driven artificial economy is what I believe the biggest factor causing great strife between red and blue contrysides. There are non producers on the coasts who appear to be making great wealth in fiat currency at expense to real producers in the middle who are losing to inflation and currency manipulation. Those closest to the financial spigots (bankers, stock traders) make easy money but those furthest from the fed printing (blue collar worker) lose when inflation reaches their wages only after all the other prices have risen so everyone else is ahead at their expense.

So its not so much a geography or party issue, it is an intrinsically unfair economy caused by our federal government and our highly financialized economy. Unfortunately, there is probably no way to fix it at this point even if it was desired. There are many including other countries who believe our US fed driven fiat dollar economy is going to break under its own weight pretty soon. And if/when that happens it will be a great initial shock at first but long term should enable most of us to get along much better in the future.

People can be poor and they can be rich and it is no problem to a society. It is only when the poor believe the rich are only rich because of unfairness that there becomes a big problem. The civil war kind of problem.

 

[scombrid]

Of the ten States with budgets most dependent upon federal funds, nine of them are dead red.
If red States seceded, they would quickly descent into third world squalor without the financial support of the blue States.

I am pretty sure that is the desired future condition for the multinational corporate oligarchs. They could have complete control over such states.

 

[TV and credit cards]

Of the ten States with budgets most dependent upon federal funds, nine of them are dead red.
If red States seceded, they would quickly descent into third world squalor without the financial support of the blue States.

I am pretty sure that is the desired future condition for the multinational corporate oligarchs. They could have complete control over such states.

The new south.

They sent a single artificial flower to her funeral.