Why not split the Republic in two?

[endarkenment]

It seems to me that we are two nations, two cultures, two world views, hopelessly locked into a failed marriage. When Governor Palin spoke about the 'pro-america' parts of the country, the regions that support 30 years of Republican Failure and want More, she spoke from her heart. In her world view, her supporters are the 'real americans' and the rest of us are not.

For the last month we have watched as the failed McCain Palin Campaign has toured the country fostering hate and divisiveness, positioning this election as 'us' against 'them', not as a contest of ideas and issues, but of otherness. There are real americans and then there are those others who are voting for the socialist terrorist muslim n* Obama. The campaign has also pre-emptively set the stage for declaring the results fraudulent with their bogus Acorn issue.

How does such a campaign not result in a dysfunctional Republic as an end result? How do the losers of this election, not declare the results null and void?

So why continue with this nonsense? Why not accept that the divisions are real and irreconcilable? Shouldn't we be discussing how the separation would work?

[YOY]

1. First thought: They'd get nukes.

NOT a good idea.

[endarkenment]

6. Nuclear Parity would be a precondition for separation.

That is a very good point.

[YOY]

8. and a nation that feels that "praying for the economy to get better" would work

are not the kind of people you want electing officials who could push buttons.

Point I'm trying to make: REALLY BAD IDEA.

We can fix things for them. If we do it right they will remember who fixed things for them and how bad it was when both the Neocons and the Preacherman were calling it "Pro-America".

[Greyhound]

18. What makes you think it will be different this time?

I mean, we've fixed it at least three times previously and they have yet to even acknowledge that it was broken, let alone, that we saved their asses.

[YOY]

34. We need to cut off some of the misinformation sources. The crux of the problem is there.

We must find a legal and just method of stopping RE dominance of the airwaves in rural areas. More idiots glean their information from Rush as a legitimate new source than should be allowed. When Rush belts that there is some "Liberal Media" idiots listen. It takes only a bit of common sense to realize that the fool never debates anyone and is lying out of his ass and getting paid millions to do it.

We must find a way to improve the education system that actually works and prohibits the continued abuse of the "homeschooling system." This has seemed to have spun out of control in recent years and this method of education that was once considered a viable option for children who live too far away from any school to gain some form of education is TRULY abused by religious fundamentalists. Those other situations where kids whose parents truly feel that their special needs kids are not accommodated (and perhaps they truly are not) need to be offered situation where those needs are met.

Break up of media cartels is a third way. The misinformation spewed by FOX news and the New York Post (as well as several other outlets) are owned by one man. There is some serious information control going on there. A form of "Trust busting" is needed.

Just my two cents. There has to be a just and legal way of doing these things.

[Jed Dilligan]

105. Web access. nt

[trhyne]

52. Yes, but...

We do claim to be the smart side. Isn't it on us?

[Greyhound]

66. As I said, we've done it before. The fact that we are in this mess today

is because of our constant attempts to drag them along. They don't want to go, they want to live in a theocratic state of enforced ignorance and are willing to resort to violence to get/keep it.

[kenny blankenship]

11. But your solution to the problem relies on the 'other side'

being rational about possessing and using them. And I'd bet that you don't think the other side is rational about any of the issues that have caused a persistent rift in the nation's politics.

[endarkenment]

I have the same position with respect to Iran and North Korea.

I do not agree with the theory that we have to mass-murder Iranians in order to prevent insane mullahs from having nukes, we need merely to make it clear to them that we will mass-murder them if they use those nukes. MAD has worked for 60 years and will continue to work.

[kenny blankenship]

48. Your post works better as a joke

Keep it light.

[shadowknows69]

16. Yeah but those morans would still use them on us

They don't believe in MAD thanks to God Emperor Ronnie Raygun. Nukular war is survivable. :eyes:

[pipi_k]

54. No nuclear parity....

Blue states get the nukes

Red states get God and all the holyrollerin' praying and hollering they can stand.

That should make us equal....





:7

[Jackpine Radical]

2. We fucked up big-time

when we didn't just let them go in 1861.

[endarkenment]

9. However there was a Great Moral Issue at stake there.

I do not see the equivalent here. There are obviously details that need to be worked out, the reds in blue areas and vice versa, for example.

[glowing]

3. Is that the America we should have? Or is it our jobs as enlightened fools

to help our fellow man see the light and lead them into love and happiness.. not fear and hate. We just leave them alone too long. We ignored them too long.. and these small towns are the first that hurt when things go bad..

[YOY]

4. DAMN RIGHT!

We CAN win them back. We CAN remind them of the fact the we CAN and DO care a hell of a lot more than the opposition about the plight of Rural America.

Reminds me of Joe's advice in his book "Deer Hunting with Jesus".

[endarkenment]

10. I don't share your optimism.

In my lifetime the divisions have only grown deeper.

[YOY]

21. I wish I could share it.

I'm from suburban Ohio where Kucinich Cleveland meets bumpkin-land. Things are getting bad there. Industry is on the rocks. Decent employment is hard to find. Anyone who thinks that they are living as well as their parents did are pointed out as fools.

If someone can figure out how to rebuild some of the infrastructure, encourage new industries (vital), offer proper medical care, and (perhaps most importantly) actually fix the educational system things will get better. If people are reminded that these are OUR doing things will swing back to where they should be. This will not be an overnight thing though.

The young 'uns are waking up. The truly stupid and inept will always be just that.

The violence inciting screaming McCain/Palin supporters are not the majority there. Just the loudest.

[theblasmo]

23. When Do We Fight?

I asked my wife this question last night: What if Obama loses this? What does that mean? Does it mean the country's too far gone to be corrected, or does it mean that we might finally have to revolt and take the thing back? At this point, I can't see Obama losing unless there's either widespread vote tampering, or the bigots come out in full force. I love this country and its ideas enough to fight for them, but at what point do we do it? I don't think a separate country would work out, although I grant it's a good hypothesis to discuss, esp. in light of the fact that the stupider peoples of the country seem to be breeding faster than the smart ones, and our education system has been so defunded and our radio stations converted into right-wing havens so that we might not be able to fix it in time.

Not to say that everyone with a large family is stupid, but the beginning of Idiocracy seems to be right on course with the future of the country, at this rate.

Let the FSM decide all!

[Tesha]

As long as they have extremist religions telling them how nasty we are, NO, WE CAN'T WIN THEM BACK.

We should arrange an amicable divorce.

[YOY]

89. There are ways to peacefully deal with this situation.

Involving taxing the f*** out of them and stopping them from abusing the "homeschooling system."

[Tesha]

118. Let me know when you see *ANY* progress being made on either of those fronts.

Both require that at least some small portion of the CSA Congresscritters
support these changes, and *NONE* of them will. Neither will LIEberman
nor will a lot of the Democrats.

We could probably divide the country more easily than we could levy
taxes on churches or limit fundamentalist home-schoolers!

Tesha

[YOY]

122. And your solution is...?

n/t

[Tesha]

144. Frankly, I thought I made that clear: let the country fission into America and Dumbfuckistan. (NT)

[YOY]

146. That is not an option.

They are dangerous on their own.

They (Most of them) can change. I think that's really what were getting to here. You are assuming that humans are capable of changing. They can.

I used to be one of them up until I hit 19. Hell, I believed in giving the Republicans a chance with an open mind until I hit 28 when Shrub started. I didn't vote for them but I gave them the benefit of the doubt. They killed that doubt. If we can make people pay a little more attention one way or another then we can convert at least 50-75% of them. THere is a 20% portion of the populace that stands no hope whatsoever.

[muriel_volestrangler]

148. Have you been following the news about the stupid "Real America" remarks by Republicans?

Or has that all just passed you by? Or are you really claiming that you live in The True America, while The Others live in a fetid swamp that is holding you back? Just like certain politicians have been claiming recently - only with different regions in mind?

[Tesha]

160. If we "lost" those parts of the country that reliably vote for "small gummint" Republicans...

...while simultaneously sucking in every Federal tax dollar that they can, I
would be a very happy person. Yes, some folks in Dumbfuckistan can
change, but I see very little evidence to date that even a simple majority
of them can.

Tesha

[muriel_volestrangler]

168. So you're happy to declare yourself the real America,

and that other people are un-American scroungers who are doing you out of the money that is yours by right, based on where you live. Gotcha.

[Greyhound]

174. Wow, that twist is worthy of Limpballs. n/t

[muriel_volestrangler]

185. See reply #175. Not a twist at all, it seems (nt)

[Tesha]

175. If, by "real America", you mean that part of America that still upholds the our Constitution...

and it's principles, *YOU'RE GODDAMN RIGHT THAT
I CONSIDER MYSELF TO LIVE IN THE REAL AMERICA*
and that a lot of the rest of the country is a pretty fake
imitation. And my point about the money is (as I'm sure
you actually understood but ignored) was just to make the
point that these fake parts of America are filled with
people who are stunningly hypocritical: with one hand
they deride government very vocally and in the vilest terms
while with the other hand, they're helping themselves to
the contents of the public treasury by the billions of dollars.

Yes, we'd be a better country without those folks and those
regions!

Tesha

[pipi_k]

57. Some of our fellow man just don't want to be led anywhere

except to what they already think is right.

Seriously....

If the past eight years hasn't done squat to convince people, I figure they're too damned stupid to really understand much of anything no matter how blue in the face we become from trying to teach them. Pretty sad, really...

IMO, it's like trying to teach Quantum Physics to squirrels...all they care about is their own nuts.

[Greyhound]

119. Very aptly put.

:kick::hi:

[Fire1]

204. You CANNOT change these people! Their mind set HAS AND

ALWAYS WILL BE SEGREGATIONIST!! The Civil Rights movement should not have been that difficult to accomplish, IF THESE PEOPLE WERE
TRULY AMERICAN AND BELIEVED IN THE AMERICAN IDEAL. THAT THE CONSTITUTION WAS WRITTEN FOR EVERYBODY IN THIS COUNTRY!!! These people are called 'supremacists'
for a reason. They think America is FOR THEM, ONLY! Everybody else is 'tolerated' or invisible. "Close the borders," "build more
prisons," "red lining," "racial profiling," "cut funding for social programs," and the list goes on.

[geiger]

5. How dare you be a provocative thinker.

Great comments.

[dhpgetsit]

7. I'm not willing to surrender any American soil to fascists.

Not even Alaska.

If they hate democracy (which is a liberal concept at its core) they can try their luck in China or Saudi Arabia.

[Aristus]

15. Saudi Arabia? Oh, they'd LOVE it there! The religious leaders make all the decisions!

They'd never want to come back... B-)

[trhyne]

49. And we don't?

Most of the posts here seem to be very easily translated as "the other side is too stupid to vote". This isn't exactly promoting the ideals of democracy either...

[dhpgetsit]

102. I swear to god!

Their attempts to suppress the vote and concentrate money and power in the hands of the corporate elite is all the proof you need.

The righties do not want democracy!

[fudge stripe cookays]

We?

Yeah...

just joined today, and your first posts criticize us. Enjoy your stay.

And get the hell out of my hometown. You're uglying up the joint.

[Bryn]

142. Nor do I - Not even Florida and the Everglades

[Greyhound]

12. I don't disagree, but those "real Amerkian" places cannot survive without

us, whereas we could get along far better without them.



So, what about a one year preparation period so that everyone that finds themselves on the wrong side of the line can arrange to move under the open migration period and then we can part. Of course, they will continue to be drain on us as we will have to setup and maintain all those refugee camps for the ones that didn't understand that the rhetoric meant them too.

[endarkenment]

24. That's a start.

Probably five years and then a 10 year grace period and a permanent guarantee of immigration rights in either direction. An EU style arrangement should be possible.

[Taverner]

30. Most of "them" live off of "us"

We're the ones with the jobs

They're the ones on welfare

Yet they're the ones who complain about taxes

And we're the ones who pull our own weight

[a la izquierda]

133. My problem is this:

there are people who attend universities, some very, very good ones, on the "other side of the line". What about us? What are we supposed to do? Just leave? What about professors, do you shun them, or do they find themselves jobless? Not every university will accommodate them on the other side...ideas like this screw lots of people.
What about those of us who like where we live, we just unfortunately live in places where right rules the day? I'm sorry, but I can't afford to live in California anymore, and honestly, I don't know if I'd want to.

I know none of these ideas will ever come to pass...but posts like these frustrate me sometimes. I grew up in NJ, moved to CA and now live in OK, a place that I really do like now.

[Greyhound]

139. I'm originally from, and still love, Colorado but I'd just have to miss it.

Maybe you are more desensitized to the idiocy, but I found it intolerable. I understand what you're saying, but if things are allowed to continue as they have, we will have to face a truly horrifying future and it is the prevailing beliefs and attitudes of Jesusland that are the fuel that burned this nation.

[a la izquierda]

147. The truth is...

I'm graduating in 2010. But I can't imagine what my beloved professors would do if they were stuck there. :(

[muriel_volestrangler]

13. Two words: "political cleansing" (nt)

[endarkenment]

19. The details of the separation would have to be worked out.

And those details would have to guarantee that everyone would have a choice and compensation for any dislocation.

[marmar]

14. Just let Michigan join Canada.....

No border issues, similar accents, half the change in our pockets is Canadian anyway....Hell, we even like hockey.


:)

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

22. And, make Washington Baja British Columbia.

Although I imagine that Oregon and California would want to extend it south.

[marmar]

25. "Baja British Columbia"

:)

[Greyhound]

27. Oh sure, just great for the Michiganders, but you'd leave the rest of us to their tender mercies?

You Sir, are a bastard.:P
:rofl:

[KamaAina]

110. Michigan has lost a lot of population in the Reagan/Bush era

you may have heard about the house in Saginaw that sold on eBay -- for $1.75!!

The point being that there's plenty of room in the "Lost Province" for those of us claiming political asylum from "Jesusland".

[marmar]

198. Lost a lot of jobs.....

The state's population actually hasn't dropped that much.

[The2ndWheel]

17. I'd go for more than two

50. 100. 1000 if you want.

[endarkenment]

20. Well that is a bit extreme.

There is a viability issue.

[The2ndWheel]

36. So we have Republic A and Republic B

Say Republic A eventually gets to the point where it has two different views of the world, cultures, etc. Do you then keep that nation together for the sake of viability, or do you allow it to break into two?

I figure if you're going to keep Republic A together for viability sake, why waste the energy in breaking America up into two countries in the first place?

[endarkenment]

39. Well indeed if Republic A reached a terminal state

as I believe we may be in, then it too might have to consider a breakup.

[The2ndWheel]

53. That's why I went a little extreme

Once you start down that road, I'm not sure you can stop, without forcing it. Look at the Democratic party. How many views of the world are represented within it?

All that diversity is inefficient though, which is why everything gets consolidated. That's how we get 50 states, with 300 million+ people, united under the name America.

[Dogmudgeon]

26. Why not just destroy (politically) Neo-Conservatism?

It would be a lot easier, and there are millions of "red state" subjects who would welcome us as liberators.

They'd throw flowers. Preferably Cannabis.

--p!

[harun]

87. Exactly correct. Neo-Conservatism should be treated like Communism during

the cold war.

[Heidi]

28. How about we just get our sh!t together as a nation? (nt)

[endarkenment]

31. How do I compell the terminally stupid to do that?

[demokatgurrl]

29. Good idea but Dumbfuckistan is right in the middle

We'd have to build a bridge over or, or a tunnel under it.

[endarkenment]

32. An EU style arrangement.

[LynneSin]

33. So we just say "FUCK YOU" to all those progressives living in Red States

I think not

[endarkenment]

37. No. That is not what I have in mind.

That would be an unacceptable and simplistic approach. There are other approaches. When India and Pakistan split into two countries there was a period of mass migration. It was messy, and there is still conflict about who got what, but they have managed to survive even with both sides nuked up. We could do something similar. Another idea is to consider a discontiguous and perhaps even territorially overlapping solution where each of us would be citizens of one or the other republic governed by parallel governments.

[LynneSin]

42. And we know how well India & Pakistan get along, with nukes pointed at each other

Here's what happened. 30+ years ago school boards were guarenteed wins for progressive minded people. We took those positions for granted and the fundies got in there and used that as a way to start breeding hate & closed-mindedness at an early stage.

Ok so we might win this election - woohoo. We need to then start focusing on the local elections and rebuilding our base.

[Coyote_Bandit]

46. Sorry

I am a red state liberal.

I have no desire to be a refugee.

And that is exactly what you are asking of me.

[endarkenment]

60. Perhaps and I agree that is a good argument for NO.

But now suppose that after the election they start to get violent. They certainly have sown the seeds for just that eventuality. How far are you willing to go to continue, by force, this unpleasant union?

[Coyote_Bandit]

155. Oh, Please

I suppose it is easy to fear that which is unfamiliar.

The folks who live here are far more concerned about meeting their basic needs for survival than they are with inflicting violence on you in your blue state ivory tower.

Median household income here is among the lowest in the United States.

According to the USDA, this state ranks third in the nation in the number of people per capita who are hungry. We are fifth in the nation in those who are food insecure.

Although the national rate of food insecurity has remained steady over the past ten years, the percentage of the population here which is classified as food insecure has risen from 13.1 percent to 14.6 percent. The percentage of the population defined as hungry has risen from 4.2 percent to 5.3 percent.

One in every five of our children lives in poverty and is at risk of going to bed hungry.

Nearly half of our counties are classified as “food deserts,” meaning that at least 25 percent of the population lives ten miles or more from a supermarket or supercenter. Nearly one third of those counties are “severe food deserts,” meaning that the entire population has limited access to such food outlets.

Of households experiencing hunger, less than 20 percent are classified as unemployed. Forty-six percent have at least one working member.

I challenge you to embrace diversity in all its forms. It is the desire for uniformity that breeds intolerance.

I think you would benefit from living in red state hell for a year or two and getting to know the folks who live here. You just might find that you can contribute to making significant contributions to improve the lives of others. And you just might fnd that you actually like it here.

If you laugh or dismiss the possibility outright then perhaps you should consider why. Bigotry masquerades in many different forms.

Just sayin.......

[Greyhound]

176. So you're saying that the people where you live have so embraced

the mental defect that has taken over the "conservative" label that they are in danger of not being able to feed themselves even though employed, and still vote overwhelmingly in favor of the policies that put them in these dire straights, are simply "diverse"?

I believe that "thinking" is exactly the reason the OP raised the question in the first place.

Do they give out Darwin Awards to whole communities?

[Coyote_Bandit]

190. Ummmm......

Blue staters are not superior to red staters. Truth is that most of the nation is some shade of purple. There are significant numbers of red folks that live in blue states - and vice versa.

Judging somebody because they are from Oklahoma (or Kansas or Texas or Mississippi or Utah or .....)isn't much different from judging and condemning folks just because they are from Nigeria (or Kenya or Columbia or Mexico or Poland or Israel or Jordan or Russia or China or Albania or France or ......). It is place of origin based bigotry. Unfortunately I've found that *some* very progressive folks are unbearable bigots. Seems hypocrisy is not limited to the fundamentalists. It is, after all, impossible to view another as an equal when one considers himself superior. IMHO, such moral defects are more insidious and far more offensive than mental defects. Thoughts can be informed. Bigotry is a larger challenge.

Diversity encompasses different belief systems. An example would be the diversity of religious faiths (atheist, protestant, buddhist, pagan, hindu, muslim, etc.). Diversity also includes different political views. Sorry. Even among blue state Dems there are a wide variety of diverse political viewpoints. Even the bluest of blue states has political diversity.

But, hey, I guess everybody's got to have somebody to look down on. Just don't expect us red staters to be looking back with much respect. Funny how that works. Contempt does breed contempt.

It is easy to fear and judge those we do not know or understand. Have you ever lived in a red state? If not, then you do not know the challenges here. You fear and condemn based on nothing more than your own view, your own perspective, and your own bias. Guess what? You might not be able to see everything we see from your distant blue state perch. Come walk a mile in my shoes. You just might find things are not all red and blue. There are many shades of purple.

My Mama used to tell me that you could catch more flies with honey than you could with vinegar. You might consider the political implications of that. You can stay where you are and pretend your community is pure and largely untainted by anyone who might harbor a red view or you can reach out to help solve challenges - red state problems as well as blue state problems. Talk is cheap. You'll need to get your hands dirty. But, hey, I ain't holding my breath. I've got no expectations. It would seem that bridge building is far messier and far more difficult than stone throwing. And some folks it would seem are only interested in throwing stones.

Your choice.

[Greyhound]

191. Well I guess you've decided that debating the issue is too risky, so

we go for the deflection. If I had judged an individual based on where they come from, you would be right, but that is not the issue, not even close. We are judging the state and the proportion of inhabitants that direct it to work against their interests in the name of some fantasy.

I have lived in very red states, several times, and they are red states because so many of the people that live there are so bigoted, ignorant, fearful, whatever, that they insist on hurting themselves in order to keep hurting others, and you defend this. Imposing your beliefs on others is not diversity it is uniformity enforced through violence or the threat of violence, but then you know that too.

Talk is indeed cheap, it is dragging morons toward a better future that is expensive and hurts everyone. Everyone has an opinion, but it does not follow that all opinions are equal. When your choices damage others, your choice must carry the burden of bearing the consequences of that damage, this is not the case with the red states and what allows them to continue to wallow in their insanity.

[Coyote_Bandit]

195. Whatever.....

Personally, I think blue states - and their occupants - are just as f*cked up as red states and their occupants. I too have had opportunity to live in both. And I have observed ample bigotry, ignorance and fear in both.

You attribute comments to me which I did not make (imposing beliefs on others, defending bigotry). You want to pick a fight. Go right ahead. You win by default. I choose not to be provoked and I will not waste my time arguing with you. I simply have better things to do.

My goal is to save the money and acquire the skills to immigrate to another country and start a small business there. There are better opportunities elsewhere. My priorities and loyalties rest with myself and my family. Everything and everyone else is secondary.

I see no need to stay and get caught in the crossfire between red and blue. And that is exactly where our divisions are headed. Too many red and blue folks have embraced their ideology and completely ignored the fact that the work of government is inherently practical.

I am sick of the division in this country. Yet many Dems seem far more interested in winning, in prevailing, in being dominate and in making those who disagree pay. Sorry, but that won't solve anything. As far as I'm concerned that attitude is part of the problem.

[Greyhound]

199. So we've taken different paths to the same conclusion. We won't agree on

our opinions of the completely impractical alternative of the OP, and yes there is more than enough blame on the part of Democrats and stupid, intolerant, people are one of our most abundant resources.

I didn't mean to assign any comment to you, personally, and I apologize for the misunderstanding.

The Greyhounds are working toward the very same goal as the Bandits, we're outta here. It is too late to save in our opinion too and we will watch the dissolution from a (hopefully) safe distance.
:kick:

[Coyote_Bandit]

200. Sail On

The Bandits wish the Greyhounds safe and speedy travel.

Perhaps one day we shall meet on some distant shore.

We too fear for the union. And I personally hold the idealogues of both parties responsible. All I want is a government that works and yet they insist on jousting at windmills.

[PVnRT]

83. Hear, hear

I just moved from Indiana to Kentucky. I actually kind of like it here.

[Kalyke]

100. But I don't want to live up North.

I want to live where I live.

So did the Palestinians and we saw how well that worked out, too.

[Greyhound]

111. Unlike the Palestinians though, you get to choose. I know that there are some really great things

about the south, but on the whole there is nothing so compelling there that there is no reasonable substitute in the north.

I'd like to live in Bora bora but there you go.

[muriel_volestrangler]

150. 'Messy'? You really are serious, and you call that 'messy'? It was a bloodbath

Violent split

India and Pakistan gained independence when the departing British split the subcontinent in 1947, sparking one of the most violent upheavals of the 20th century.

Some 10 million people moved across the border as the subcontinent was divided into Muslim Pakistan, which celebrated its independence Tuesday with rallies cross the country, and Hindu-majority India. Up to 1 million were killed in the accompanying sectarian violence.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20256671/

[endarkenment]

152. Or we have the Czech Republic and Slovakia

How many millions died in that terrible territorial split?

Oh, zero. Thousands then? None. Hundreds? Zero again. Nobody died.

So clearly there are two models for splitting a nation, one involves lots of people killing each other, and the other doesn't.

[muriel_volestrangler]

157. The clue there was in the name - 2 names shunted together

'Czech' and 'Slovak' were the official languages of Czechoslovakia, which was only created as a country in its own right in 1918. They actually were ethnically separate, and had a history of being separate regions. You, on the other hand, are trying to separate people based on a few years of voting history, with significant minorities in every area who 'belong to the other side'. Even if you just look at the voting in 2006 for the House of Representatives, and declare every district based on that (even though some would be 51%-49% or similar), you get a variegated map:



from http://www-personal.umich.edu/~mejn/election/2006/

Go down to a lower level, like counties, and it will be even more mixed up.

I can't believe I'm even having to argue this with you. Your OP is the stupidest political 'idea' I've heard on DU in years.

[BlooInBloo]

35. Because some of us have hope, unlike yourself.

[endarkenment]

38. I depend on evidence.

Where is the evidence that our differences can be reconciled?

[BlooInBloo]

41. Where's the evidence that they *can't*?

And don't merely give evidence that they *haven't yet*.

[Greyhound]

62. In the last 30 years, that side has not compromised once. When only one side compromises

that is called surrender.

"The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent full of doubt." - Bertrand Russell

[endarkenment]

64. The evidence that they have no intention of doing so was outlined in my OP

[Ezlivin]

40. HOW TO SPLIT THE COUNTRY

Dear Red States:

We've decided we're leaving. We intend to form our own country, and we're taking the other Blue States with us. In case you aren't aware, that includes California, Hawaii, Oregon, Washington, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, Illinois and all of the Northeast. We believe this split will be beneficial to the nation, and especially to the people of the new country of New California.

To sum up briefly but to give you a clear pictures: You get Texas, Oklahoma and all the slave states. We get stem cell research and the best beaches. We get the Statue of Liberty. You get Dollywood. We get Intel and Microsoft. You get WorldCom. We get Harvard. You get Ole' Miss. We get 85 percent of America's venture capital and entrepreneurs.

You get Alabama. We get two-thirds of the tax revenue and you get to make the red states pay their fair share.

Since our aggregate divorce rate is 22 percent lower than the Christian Coalition's, we get a bunch of happy families. You get a bunch of (unfortunately) single moms.

Please be aware that Nuevo California will be pro-choice and anti-war, and we're going to want all our citizens back from Iraq at once. If you need people to fight, ask your evangelicals. They have kids they're apparently willing to send to their deaths for no purpose, and they don't care if you don't show pictures of their children's caskets coming home.

We do wish you success in Iraq, and hope that the WMDs turn up one day, but we're not willing to spend our resources in Bush's Quagmire.

With the Blue States in hand, we will have firm control of 80 percent of the country's fresh water, more than 90 percent of the pineapple and lettuce, 92 percent of the nation's fresh fruit, 95 percent of America's quality wines, 90 percent of all cheese, 90 percent of the high tech industry, most of the U.S. low-sulfur coal, all living redwoods, sequoias and condors, all the Ivy and Seven Sister schools plus Stanford, Cal Tech and MIT.

With the Red States, on the other hand, you will have to cope with 88 percent of all obese Americans (and their projected health care costs), 92 percent of all U.S. mosquitoes, nearly 100 percent of the tornadoes, 90 percent of the hurricanes, 99 percent of all Southern Baptists, virtually 100 percent of all televangelists, Rush Limbaugh, Bob Jones University, Clemson and the University of Georgia.

We get Hollywood and Yosemite, thank you.

Additionally, 38 percent of those in the Red states believe Jonah was actually swallowed by a whale, 62 percent believe life is sacred unless we're discussing the war, the death penalty or gun laws, 44 percent say that evolution is only a theory, 53 percent that Saddam was involved in 9/11 and 61 percent of you crazies believe you are people with higher morals than we lefties.

Finally, we're taking the good pot, too. You can have that dirt weed they grow in Mexico.

Peace.

Over and out,

The Blue States

[Irish Girl]

58. LOL, thanks for the smile

It would be nice to have this country back on track once again.

:toast:

[Bryn]

65. Take Florida!

Get rid of high rise condos on beach, restore beach back to the public to enjoy. Get rid of developers/real estates that come to Florida to grab more and more land as well as corrupted politicians. Bring back Stink, the governor, mentioned in Carl Hiassen books. Restore Florida back to what it is supposed to be. The Everglades is only one in whole world. I do not want to leave it to repukes and sweating evangelists.

Please protect Florida. Alaska, too. These two belongs to us who care for environments and protected wildlife. Keep natural beauty there.

[WhaTHellsgoingonhere]

71. We are headed there, anyway.

In "American Theocracy", Kevin Phillips describes why the South believes it is the New Isreal; why they believe they are the "chosen ones"; why they decry, in a Biblical sense, that "The South Will Rise Again."

Since I joined DU in late 2005, Northern cessation--a topic dear to my heart--makes its way through DU every now and then before the mods lock the thread. I'll just make this observation. In the past, the opposition to this idea has been much louder.

On final point: Yes, we get all of that you listed, but they have all the oil and guns.

[Greyhound]

79. Nah, we get the west coast and Canada, not a huge supply but sufficient,

and we have plenty of guns. Avoiding their use would be just one of many benefits we realize from their absence.

[Kalyke]

104. Uh... venture capital didn't work out so well.

And we get Vanderbilt and pot grows better in Southern climates. Sorry.

[KamaAina]

116. Maybe you could help us re-establish our pineapple industry

more than 90 percent of the pineapple and lettuce,

Hawai'i pineapple has been virtually driven out of the market by cheap imports from Latin America and Southeast Asia. The fact that they're tough, stringy and flavorless doesn't seem to be a problem, 'cause they're cheap. :eyes:

Problems: They get New Orleans. And Austin. And Key West. And Athens. And Chapel Hill. Ouch.

Big, big problem: Nuevo California would be divided like Pakistan was before Bangladesh split off. How safe would you feel on an AeroCal airliner flying over Jesusland airspace? :scared: And forget about trains, etc.

Finally, we're taking the good pot, too. You can have that dirt weed they grow in Mexico.

They could probably survive with the Ozarks :smoke: 'cept that Gawd'd tell 'em it's ee-vull.

[Thothmes]

161. Your scheme gives them

a majority of the wheat fields, corn fields, rice fields and cattle, pork and sheep production areas. Not to mention a large share of oil, natural gas and coal production regions. What do you folks plan to eat or how will you cook it.

[Coyote_Bandit]

43. Ummmm

I live in red state hell.

I know there are a lot of good folks here - good folks that happen to hold some very sincere and very liberal political views.

From my window, your suggestion is a betrayal - and it carries the clear implication that blue state liberals think they can separate themselves from us "inferior" red state liberals.

I have observed that a lot of blue state folks tend to question the very existence of sincere red state liberals. I am tainted by my address. That seems far more bigotted than progrtessive.

Get over it.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

44. Please refer to the map in this thread and then pray! tell us ...

EXACTLY how you would SPLIT the nation....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x7557043

[trhyne]

45. Welcome to the decline of American Democracy

Cute... true... but what the heck?

We're two parties, each convinced the other side is a bunch of idiots...

If you think this is just Republicans, please... We do it, too.

The notion of a "moral compomise" or an ethical norm is almost impossible in America now. Due to Clinton's personal issues and the craaazy overreaction electing Bush with serious political issues, we are now as polarized as we ever can be.

This is a problem, not a solution! The entire point of democracy is that no matter how stupid you are, you get one vote. Not more if you care more... Not more if you think you're smart... Really, thinking you're right is grounds for a dictatorship, not a democracy. Why should I believe what YOU have to say any more than what I do (and vice versa, obviously). Most of America's clout is created by the creativity inherent in the immersion of juxtaposed ideas and perspectives. If you think this would create a "cool" place and a "stupid" place, you're wrong. It would create two inferior places. Not a "dysfunctional Republic" as you say... but TWO dysfunctional republics. And probably more... Truly, everyone who thinks they belong at the "cool" table would think entirely similarly and all agree on everything, right? right? er wait...

We call ourselves the "smart" set, those not blinded by fear into voting against rather than for... Maybe I'm getting on a soapbox here, but isn't it therefore our job to be the adults here? Isn't it our responsibility, therefore, to come up with ideas to FIX rather than segregate?

[Coyote_Bandit]

50. Somewhere along the way

we forgot that government is inherently practical.

The work of government is functional not idealogical.

Personally, I think Dems offer better solutions.

But I have no problem throwing failed agendas to the curb.

[endarkenment]

59. Thanks for the argument by equivocation.

Our candidates are not out and about the republic proclaiming that those opposing them are not real americans. They are and have been pushing their Culture War on us for more than 30 years. They intend to make us submit to their authority while we want to accommodate and reconcile and live in peace.

[wvbygod]

47. Why legitimize AIP?

Isn't the AIP one of our weapons against the palins?

[endarkenment]

95. AIP actually appears to have a plaudible greivance.

I have no idea if it is legitimate, as in based on facts, but they seem to be arguing that there was a procedural problem with the process by which Alaskans voted to become a state that incorrectly left 'not join at all' out as an option.

Oddly, discontiguous Alaska functions just fine as part of 'the lower 48', so why would a separation have to be two discrete territorial units?

[slackmaster]

51. We tried that once, it didn't work out

[endarkenment]

55. We tried to prevent it by force.

As I said upthread, there was a Great Moral Issue at stake in 1861. What is the similar issue here that justifies continuing the union?

[Greyhound]

56. Wasn't that was the result of one side forcing the other to comply?

I'm pretty sure that was a mistake, regardless, we have not tried it before.

[slackmaster]

81. Would you have been OK with the USA allowing the CSA to exist?

Slavery and all?

[Greyhound]

106. We tolerate the existence of Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, etc., etc. so, yes.

OTOH, hand you assume the the CSA would have been able to survive, personally I think they would have hung on for a decade or two and come back having learned they were wrong and therefore be willing to look forward, but who knows?:shrug:

[slackmaster]

130. There's a movie about what might have happened if the CSA had won

I haven't seen it - http://www.csathemovie.com/

[Enthusiast]

61. They would like an excuse

for a civil war.

[endarkenment]

63. Well my point is that they seem to be actively working at that.

And the question I ask here is 'should we stay or should we go'? Why would I want to fight to stay in a union with these loons?

[Ilsa]

67. I'd have to move. Hubby change jobs. Really can't right now. nt

[Lyric]

68. It's pointless. We'd just have to turn around and destroy them again.

Does anyone here REALLY think that those assholes won't re-institute slavery again? Public executions for gays/liberals/communists? Could any of us stand by and watch that happen right next door?

I'm not in favor of Civil War II. There are more worrisome weapons than cannons and minieballs this time around, ya know? Better to just keep them here and try and make them behave.

[endarkenment]

153. Perhaps. But we might have a century of peace first.

But I suspect that we end up in a serious conflict, perhaps a far more serious conflict, if we don't separate. That is my primary motivation for thinking that we should at least be seriously discussing what separation would mean and how it could be done without us slitting each other's throats.

[Nye Bevan]

69. I'm an optimist

I believe that our divisions are not irreconcilable and will be reduced.

Consider the UK in the 1980s. There was an enormous divide between the Labour and the Conservative parties. Labour favored mass renationalisation, unilateral nuclear disarmament, and much higher taxes, all of which appealed to an ever-smaller number of voters. After their disastrous showing in the 1983 and 1987 general elections it became obvious that Labour would never again come to power unless they significantly changed their platform; this led to "New Labour", Tony Blair, and huge electoral success. And this in turn led to the Conservatives moderating *their* policies and becoming closer to Labour. Now there is not much difference between the two parties in many respects, and the UK is probably politically less divided than ever.

If the Republicans are smart 2008 be their nadir. Eight disastrous years of Bush, huge losses in the house and senate, and a humiliating McCain loss in the presidential election should result in a "New Labour" style reconstruction. They need to dump all of the religious right/anti-abortion/homophobic crap from their platform, and become more libertarian and economically conservative. A socially liberal but pro-business, low-tax, pro-free trade platform, along with a return to sanity in foreign policy would move the Republicans closer to the Democrats in many ways, which would make us a less divided country. Of course the religious right neanderthals would not be happy and would fight this but I think they would lose this battle; after all, Huckabee's candidacy did not last very long.

The sense of division right now is part of the natural political cycle. We don't need to respond to every shift in the political wind by dividing our country up. If we did, Minnesota would have seceded in 1984 as the only state that Ronald Reagan lost that year.

[Bake]

70. Thing is, it's not a geographic split like it was in 1861.

What about us progressives who live in red states because we have to work?

What about idiot freepers in upstate New York or California?

Bake

[endarkenment]

154. I agree with that. It is complicated and needs a new model.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

72. ....

[Sinti]

73. Don't buy the duality

We are not two nations. How would you split us up? Split the states? No state is really all red or all blue. Split the communities? This is why finally we're running a 50 state strategy. What would you do with all the democrats that are living in "red" areas? Why do you fall for their prop? They want us divided, to look at each other as either one or the other. There's a big difference in this election versus any one we've seen in probably at least 30-40 years in that for once we're setting the agenda and they're playing catch-up. Instead of being defined by the people on the right, they're trying to mirror us with their spin, and it doesn't seem to be working out all that well for them. If you want to throw away large swaths of the country (and many are aware of this desire), don't be surprised if they don't like you very much afterward. They may need deprogramming, but they are not the enemy you perceive them to be, just as you are not the enemy they perceive you to be.

[PJPhreak]

74. The Repukes should buy their own

State...That way we don't have to split up the country,they have their own place to run their politics and not to bother the rest of us!! Lets sell them Alaska!! At least if they fuck it up they are a few hundred miles away!!

[Sinti]

75. I could live with that

But the Alaskans, particularly the natives, might have other ideas.

[PJPhreak]

77. All kidding aside...

Groups of people have moved due to Political/Religious Reasons thru-out history. The Extremists don't like the "America" that they live in, Why not let them do what other "Persecuted" (LOL) groups have done....let them buy their own state!!!!!

[LanternWaste]

115. There's no viable land left....

"Why not let them do what other "Persecuted" (LOL) groups have done..."


There's no viable land left to move to....

[Bryn]

140. and wolves & polar bears

[Greyhound]

82. This argument reminds me of the desperate pleading of a guy whose girlfriend

has finally realized that she is smarter and really hot and can do much better than him. He's whining, crying, and begging her not to go because he knew all along that she was out of his league, as she walks out the door.

[EmeraldCityGrl]

76. Red States Feed at Federal Trough, Blue States Supply the Feed

http://bigpicture.typepad.com/writing/2004/11/red_states_feed.html

This is from 2004. Bet it hasn't changed much.


"The report shows that of the 32 states (and the District of Columbia) that are "winners" -- receiving more in federal spending than they pay in federal taxes -- 76% are Red States that voted for George Bush in 2000. Indeed, 17 of the 20 (85%) states receiving the most federal spending per dollar of federal taxes paid are Red States. Here are the Top 10 states that feed at the federal trough (with Red States highlighted in bold):
States Receiving Most in Federal Spending Per Dollar of Federal Taxes Paid:
1. D.C. ($6.17)
2. North Dakota ($2.03)
3. New Mexico ($1.89) (flipped Red in 2004)
4. Mississippi ($1.84)
5. Alaska ($1.82)
6. West Virginia ($1.74)
7. Montana ($1.64)
8. Alabama ($1.61)
9. South Dakota ($1.59)
10. Arkansas ($1.53)

In contrast, of the 16 states that are "losers" -- receiving less in federal spending than they pay in federal taxes -- 69% are Blue States that voted for Al Gore in 2000. Indeed, 11 of the 14 (79%) of the states receiving the least federal spending per dollar of federal taxes paid are Blue States. Here are the Top 10 states that supply feed for the federal trough (with Blue States highlighted in bold):

States Receiving Least in Federal Spending Per Dollar of Federal Taxes Paid:
1. New Jersey ($0.62)
2. Connecticut ($0.64)
3. New Hampshire ($0.68) (flipped Blue in 2004)
4. Nevada ($0.73)
5. Illinois ($0.77)
6. Minnesota ($0.77)
7. Colorado ($0.79)
8. Massachusetts ($0.79)
9. California ($0.81)
10. New York ($0.81)

[tjwash]

94. Say it ain't so...proud-small goverment red states sucking off the government tit?

It's only those damn commie-socialist Californians and New-yawkers that do that.

[Thothmes]

162. True, but isnt it an accepted tenent of progressive politics

that those that have, are obligated to aid those that have not.

[EmeraldCityGrl]

167. That's why I'm a Democrat.

even when I'll be more on the giving rather than the getting end.

[Thothmes]

173. That is the way a lot of us work.

[Greyhound]

178. And a separate state would allow us to pursue those progressive ideas

which they block. When you are enslaved and struggling for mere survival, you have no ability to help anyone else.

[NoSheep]

78. I feel it is possible Obama will prove many of them wrong. They're just

use to being treated like children. I'm hoping many will come around after they get used to the idea there's a grown-up in the white house expecting them to behave the same.

[Lars39]

80. Because power hungry Dominionists would use the Great Commission

as an excuse to try to take over the other half.

[screembloodymurder]

84. I'm with you, but how long before they'd attack us?

These people are dangerous and must be purged.

[PVnRT]

85. No

Do people here really expect to hear anything different from these idiots polishing brass on the sinking ship that is McCain-Palin 2008?

Obama is polling, nationally, above 50%. Before an election. Let's think about that, in comparison to how Bush was doing in 2000 and 2004. Compare that to how his White House polls now.

We are talking about swing states being Indiana, North Carolina, Virginia and Colorado instead of the traditional three. Fuck, Obama is starting to do well in Georgia. The dividing lines are crumbling and people are starting to shake off the influence of the religious lunatic fringe that has taken over the Republican leadership.

Of course, you could split the country somehow, but how? Do St. Louis and Kansas City get tossed in with the rest of Missouri? How about downstate Illinois? Northwest Indiana? Look at where I-69 runs through Michigan; in the past, at least, it pretty much divided the state in half, politically. How do you handle that?

I love the comments in this thread about "allowing migration" and "refugees" to cross borders for a period of time. How are you going to handle all that? You got jobs all lined up for everyone fleeing the land of the stupids? Where are they going to live? Will you simply seize, by force, the homes of those who emigrate out of the Promised Land, or what?

Oh, and in case you didn't notice, there's a whole lot of food grown in the flyover states that DUers love to hate. Let me know how you plan on getting domestic food production up in the land available in the enlightened states.

[Greyhound]

90. The cross-over vote is the result of the economic pain, not an epiphany.

They are just as unthinking, greedy, and mean spirited, as they ever were.

They still want to impose their superstitions on everyone else through force of law.

They still want to dominate others based on the melanin content of their skin.

They still believe that over half the population is "naturally inferior" and must submit to the other half due to the location of their reproductive organs.

They still think that there is no problem that cannot be solved with the application of enough violence and death.

Don't kid yourself, once they are no longer in pain, they're going to go right back to their old familiar ways.

Oh, and California alone produces enough food for us to eat.

[PVnRT]

145. "They"

The kind of people you are describing in no way make up a majority.

As for California producing enough food for all of us, I highly doubt it. Arkansas produces more corn and wheat for grain than California: 2002 Agricultural Census

Without having time to figure it out now, I would be willing to bet that the "enlightened" states would not produce enough food for themselves, leaving you with the option of vastly increasing your carbon footprint by importing grain from overseas or trading (at what would now likely be higher prices) with the bad guys.

And, besides, you haven't answered the other questions - where are the dividing lines? Do you force people out who don't agree with you? Take their land by force? Any plan like this virtually guarentees civil war, whether you want to admit it or not.

[Greyhound]

177. You are right, they are not a majority, but they are a huge minority and, as long

as they are not personally hurting, enough of the terminally stupid vote along with them, despite the blatant failures of their simple-minded philosophy, to perpetuate this slow suicide.

The dividing lines are already drawn, but it is simply a matter of choice for the voters in those states. Presumably, the people that do not wish to live within a more equitable model will leave for The Theocratic States of Jesusland, and vice-versa, no force required.

Look at your reports more closely, you're wrong about being able to feed the population, you also might consider that there are far more, better, options than wheat & corn, CA is the world's largest rice producer for example.

However, I think we have bypassed the point, that being that we have achieved a critical mass of ignorance in our population. For how long do we continue to drag this dead weight along into the future that they fear so much that they are willing to kill to prevent it? Are we obligated to simply let them continue to destroy the nation, and the sane part of the population, as they cheer on "the end times"?

[depakid]

99. "a whole lot of food grown in the flyover states"

Which would be the basis for an export economy! ;-)

Provided they could replace the subsidies.

[Book Lover]

86. I have a better idea

Why not open up the process to include the third parties instead? You are trying to divide the nation into us and them; hate to tell you, but just splitting the country ain't going to solve that. Once you start dividing, you will never find a pure "us".

[endarkenment]

103. I am not trying to divide I am acknowledging a division that is real.

I am stating that the division is a given. The question is what to do about it.

[Book Lover]

107. I agree - division is a given

But I think you're not following this through. The divide is greater than just conservative/liberal, and once you start dividing, you are not going to be able to stop. So why bother? Attack the problem (divisiveness and the inability to address issues across a table where there are only two sides) from a different angle. My idea may not be the right one, but it's better than your solution, I think.

Your OP reminds me of that old Emo Phillips joke

I was walking across a bridge one day, and I saw a man standing on the edge, about to jump off. So I ran over and said "Stop! don't do it!"
"Why shouldn't I?" he said.
I said, "Well, there's so much to live for!"
He said, "Like what?"
I said, "Well...are you religious or atheist?"
He said, "Religious."
I said, "Me too! Are you christian or buddhist?"
He said, "Christian."
I said, "Me too! Are you catholic or protestant?"
He said, "Protestant."
I said, "Me too! Are you episcopalian or baptist?"
He said, "Baptist!"
I said,"Wow! Me too! Are you baptist church of god or baptist church of the lord?"
He said, "Baptist church of god!"
I said, "Me too! Are you original baptist church of god, or are you reformed baptist church of god?"
He said,"Reformed Baptist church of god!"
I said, "Me too! Are you reformed baptist church of god, reformation of 1879, or reformed baptist church of god, reformation of 1915?"
He said, "Reformed baptist church of god, reformation of 1915!"
I said, "Die, heretic scum", and pushed him off."

[harun]

88. Because we would have to send aid to the South to keep them from

becoming economically destroyed and it would lead to severe oppression of the minorities in the South. In other words it would probably lead to a war to save the minorities from being genocided from Right Wing fascists running wild with no one to stop them.

[BDW1964]

96. Do you honestly think

That all or even a large majority of Southerners are right wingnuts? The Democratic party is rather strong in all parts of the south. Democratic candidates are elected routinely at the local, county state and even national levels. What is different in the Red/Blue state dichotomy is that it is based upon the presidential breakdown. The presidential breakdown is by the Constitution, based upon the Electoral College, which many would say is an outdated method of electing the president. The Electoral College was established in the Constitution when the concept of the country was "the united States of America are" instead of how it has changed since the Civil War to "The United States of America is". People in antebellum American conceived the country as a plurality of independent, sovereign states, not as a sovereign state itself.

Take for instance my state, Texas. While the Republicans have a large inroad on the presidential and state executive offices, they by no means have a dominant majority in the counties or even the legislature. The true color of America is purple, not Blue versus Red. Nor by any means are the majority of southerners (be they Democrats, Republicans or Independents) racists, right wingnuts with a bent to reinstate slavery, segregation or to attack others. It is instructive to note that many of the right wing nuts that lead the hate chorus on television, radio and in print are from "Blue States", like Ann Counter from New York/Connecticut.

Calling for this kind of simplistic thing, is a willingness to surrender to the planned, orchestrated and manipulated political strategy of the Republicans. As a southerner, I will not leave, I will not go quietly into the night, I will not surrender to the voices of hate from the Republican party and some segments of the Democratic party. When we, as Democrats are willing to paint whole regions or states with an Us versus Them brush, we have adopted the same tactics our opponents have used. We become nothing more than they are, dedicated to power through fear and prejudice instead of through better ideas.

[harun]

136. Purple?

Here is the non-purple Senate issue we are facing:

Alabama          Richard Shelby          Republican Party
Alabama          Jeff Sessions           Republican Party
Georgia          Saxby Chambliss         Republican Party
Georgia          Johnny Isakson          Republican Party
Kansas           Sam Brownback           Republican Party
Kansas           Pat Roberts             Republican Party
Kentucky         Mitch McConnell         Republican Party
Kentucky         Jim Bunning             Republican Party
Mississippi      Thad Cochran            Republican Party
Mississippi      Roger Wicker            Republican Party
Oklahoma         Jim Inhofe              Republican Party
Oklahoma         Tom Coburn              Republican Party
South Carolina   Lindsey Graham          Republican Party
South Carolina   Jim DeMint              Republican Party
Tennessee        Lamar Alexander         Republican Party
Tennessee        Bob Corker              Republican Party
Texas            Kay Bailey Hutchison    Republican Party
Texas            John Cornyn             Republican Party

We need a few of these to go at least purple to get around the
problems we are having in the Senate. Hopefully this election
will change some of that.

[Orsino]

91. It wouldn't be safe to have a huge island of poverty and ignorance...

...sitting between East and West America. They are dragging us down enough as it is.

[Thothmes]

163. And feeding you at the same time.

[Strawman]

92. No clean way to do it, but I'd consider some kind of separate governing networks

If there was a way for people to subscribe to their government, run it like two (or more) separate networks, maybe. Public spaces would belong to one network or another and some indivisible things would have to be governed under common rules perhaps some kind of Democratic corporatist government where power was shared. But they would have to agree to stricter environmental regs since that is an indivisible commons. Or we would at least need control over the environment in blue states.

Although there are plenty of practical problems with that as well. If it could be worked out, I'm for it. My guess is alot of these people in "Real America would be begging to join the blue network without liberals to save them from the full reprecussions of their folly. Let them have zero safety net, privatized everything. No taxes, but they pay a toll for the road, have no health care, no social security. Our college is paid for, theirs is private.

Geographically, it doesn't work. Drive down my block. There are red and blue houses. Most states and counties are purple. Even red counties have sizeable Democratic majorities. But maybe there is a way to have some kind of subscription based network.

I guess work would be problematic too.

Ultimately, I think we're stuck together for better or worse. And for most people who are not that political, the trouble involved in any transition would not be worth it.

But is an appealing idea.

[endarkenment]

98. That is my thinking as well. Two governments one territory.

[Strawman]

108. I'd love to see some locality try it as a pilot experiment

It would have to be a very politically charged place where people would be inclined to put up with the bullshit involved.

I do think conservatives or libertarians would do much better on a smaller scale than they would nationally, but I would exempt the conservatives from federal taxes (unless they voted to pay them) and they would also forgo federal benefits/aid.

[muriel_volestrangler]

158. OK, 3 words this time: "separate but equal"

"I'm sorry, son, but your mom and I decided, in the Great Dividing, to give our allegiance to the 'minimal government' nation. So that's why you go to a crappy school, and we can't afford college fees for you. Now, I know you're sweet on that girl next door, from the Progressive government nation, and you'd love to raise a family with her, but how could you get married? She'd be entitled to social security, while you wouldn't. And what would your children do? They'd belong to neither nation. And remember, no-one is allowed to convert from one nation to another, because that way people would belong to one to get low taxes at one time of life, and to the other to get good social services at a different time. So that's why you have to live your life separately - and why we have to use the no-maintenance dirt track out the back, while she gets to walk on the paved street. It's how God intended it, you see."

[Kalyke]

93. Because I don't want to move from the warm South.

And I'm sure you'd make the fundies live here.

[endarkenment]

97. I'm not convinced you would have to.

The two wholly separate territories model is only one model.

[Greyhound]

125. Have you ever been in SoCal?

Warm without the rat sized insects, plus great beaches, hunting, skiing, climbing/hiking, as well as pretty good city stuff.

C'mon, we can show you it's not as bad as you've been told.
:toast:

[endarkenment]

101. Aside: I enjoy DU most when there is real dialog on interesting issues

I'd like to thank everyone who participated in this, pro and con, and encourage more of the same.

[Greyhound]

134. Indeed. This is what DU is for IMO, and why I hang here.

Thanks for starting this, it is been found to be good.
:hi::kick:

[LanternWaste]

109. resulting in the Balkanization of the U.S.

I think stating that it's merely two cultures, two world views, etc. is underestimating it to the nth degree.

If we are indeed separated to the point in which dissolution is an agenda, I would imagine that many, many opposed factions would be forced to claim right to independence, thus resulting in the Balkanization of the U.S.

And were that the case, I think we'd be many more times worse off than we currently are...

[endarkenment]

121. I'm not quite sure what is wrong with splitting up into N states.

I don't view 2 or 1 as magic numbers.

[LanternWaste]

135. The absurdity of the logistics involved

The absurdity of the logistics involved in Balkanizing a country aside... (see 'Is America Breaking Apart? by John A. Hall)


How many independent states? Based on what-- simple differences of opinion? Gun Owners v. non-gun-owners? Racial differences? Or can one simply state, "I'm my own country?"

What would be the precise and relevant advantage to to balkanizing the U.S.? Just so we can live next door to neighbors that are "more like us"?

What would be the precise and relevant goal of balkanizing the U.S.?

The semi-developed countries which have been balkanized (U.S.S.R., Yugoslavia, etc) in the latter half of the 20th century have enjoyed relative peace? Or have they been involved in internecine warfare? What's to lead anyone to believe petty states and petty tyrants of the former U.S. would be any different?

Sheesh-- in a time in which we should be working together to tear down walls, people actually entertain the notion of building more walls-- "so I don't have to see 'them'"




Wishful thinking without fear of consequence-- fun to imagine, much more difficult (and deadly) than imagined to put into practice

[onenote]

112. the only nonsense that I see in the OP is the OP.

Along what lines would you divide the country. How they vote in presidential elections? Whether they have a Democratic or republican governor? The Congresional delegation or the state legislature? Does the line up change every so often? Or is it not even geographic. My neighbor who has a McCain sign should be part of a different "republic" than I am?

My vote for today's silliest OP.

[endarkenment]

123. Ok - all good questions.

These are things that we could work out, yes? To go back to the metaphor, in a divorce there are lots of messy unpleasant details to be worked out, pleasantly or unpleasantly. I never stated that it would be easy, nor did I say anything about a strict territorial division.

[onenote]

131. no, they really can't be "worked out"

Is one group going to toss out the other group? Who decides who is "in" and who is "out" of the group that makes the decision? Is there a standard? Does the electorate have a say in whether their state gets to be part of the current republic or some new republic? What if the voters in every state still want to be part of the present republic even if the voters in some parts don't want them to be. Does the second group try to secede? Or do envision some sort of mutual pact to accomplish this separation.

THe country isn't all red or all blue. States aren't all red or all blue. Cities aren't all red or all blue. Families aren't all red or all blue.

[ColbertWatcher]

113. "Why not accept that the divisions are real and irreconcilable?"

Because they are not; the divisions are--for the most part--imaginary.

I would agree though to send the fundies somewhere else.

[endarkenment]

127. Well we can disagree about the assumptions here

but that is a somewhat separate argument. Your two sentence input is self-contradictory and defeats your own argument.

[Lifetimedem]

114. That was tried once remember?

[torbird]

117. I wish I was in the land of cotton

Old times there are not forgotten
Look away
Look away
Look away, Dixie Land!


Seriously, the Confederacy weeps!

[endarkenment]

124. See above.

The slaughter was about not allowing the separation.

[Kazak]

120. D.S.A.?

:shrug:

[Kazak]

126. D.S.A.?

:shrug:

[ArmedAmerican]

128. because I don't want Karl Rove to win

All this animosity is manufactured by Rovian political strategy. Even if the U.S. were split into America and Dumbfuckistan, if the new country ever held elections you can bet your ass they'd manufacture another idealogical split between the parties.

The Rovian tactic is to create a platform composed of positions which are emotionally charged, impossible to overturn, immune to rational discourse, and whichever side of each of those issues is held by the least educated, that's the position your party takes.

[Cleita]

129. There could be a way of doing this without splitting the nation.

Although, giving most government to the states is a right wing idea, it could work this way. Lets say each state decides how much they want to participate in the federal government. So those states who want more federal government to get money for roads, schools, be protected by the military etc. would participate more and pay taxes for that reason. States who want to be more independent than that would pay fewer federal taxes but also would receive less proportionately according to the degree of their participation. Therefore poor states like Wyoming would have to do without the federal dollars that rich states like California pay for them. They would be able to vote in presidential elections, but their participation in Congress could depend on how much they want to be a part of the federal government. It's time that these states don't have that big of a say in our federal government unless they want to participate fully in it.

That means more to be distributed among those states who want a strong federal government and it's benefits if there was more socialism in it for the greater good. Maybe some states, like Alabama, only want to participate as far as being part of our military but nothing else. So be it. They would get nothing else but military protection in the time of war. (Also, dirty little secret. The military is a back door welfare system for the poor in places that have little in the way of social welfare or free education. This way the children of the poor can get a shot at pulling themselves out of poverty, if they don't get shot in a war first.)

So we could have states that have social democracies in place for health care, free education, poverty elimination, environmental protections, corporate regulation and so on at one end of the spectrum and then those states who only want to participate in the military and therefore are only allowed to cast a vote for President, but not have any representatives in Congress. There would be of course states with varying degrees of these extremes in between, but the amount of participation in the federal government and taxes that they are willing to pay would determine what aid they get from the federal government.

Now there is the tricky question of federal land and national parks. Who would get them the federal government to preserve the heritage or the state governments to squander as they wish? As you can see this is tricky any way you work it. In summation I think we need a stronger but more liberal federal government that operates for all the people of the United States, not just the rich ones. I think it's up to us to make our case to the right wingers about the error of their ways and thinking.

[onenote]

132. and how, pray tell, would this approach become a reality? Constitutional amendment?

You think that could ever happen?

[Cleita]

137. No it could never happen, anymore than having some states secede from

the Union. This is a "what if it could be done, this might work." Well it could work in fiction. I don't know though in reality if it would require an amendment though, because the Constitution is set up to recognize state's rights. This is why we are called a federation. States are meant to be semi-autonomous. It's seems though that states like Idaho and Alabama who hate the federal government, don't mind taking money for roads, bridges or various pork barrel projects that states like California and New York pay for. I think in theory their lack of respect for a central federal government should be reflected in the amount of money and government they receive from us. So if they don't want Social Security or to pay taxes, then they shouldn't really object to not having any representation in Congress or federal money allocated to them. Most states do want to be part of the military though, which would be minimal participation to be part of the federation.

[Lyric]

165. We aren't called a federation. We are called a union.

We ceased to be a "federation" when the Articles of Confederation were rejected and replaced with the Constitution. Within the Constitution, the word "federation" cannot be found, and "Confederation" is only found twice--once to forbid states to enter into any confederations, and again to state that the debts of the former confederation of states will carry over to the newly-created nation under the Constitution. That particular clause was included as a bone thrown to the wealthy speculators who had invested heavily in war bonds during the Revolutionary War, and who were worried that the debts of the old confederation might be erased during the creation of the new union. The Federalists needed the wealthy on their side, so they made sure to protect their interests right there in Article VI of the Constitution. It's bitterly amusing, actually--from the very beginning, it was made plain who the priority class truly was in America. *sigh*

[Cleita]

169. And the federal government comes from where?

Do look at how the federal government in Washington defines themselves, sort of like the FBI?

[Lyric]

196. I think there was a misunderstanding, and I am sorry.

There are basically three forms of government--unitary, confederal, and federal.

Unitary = power rests in the hands on the national government, and state/local governments are simply administrative branches of said national government. People deal directly with the national government (or its local agents) when they want/need something.

Confederal = power rests in the hands of state/local governments, and those state/local governments decide how much power to give the national government. People deal with state/local governments, and in turn, those state/local governments deal with the national government.

Federal = Power is shared between the state and national governments, and each is usually subject to a larger governing document or law--like a Constitution. People deal with state/local government for some things, and national government for others.

We are indeed a "federation" by this definition--I misunderstood you, and thought you were using the word to indicate a CONfederation. My apologies. :hi:

[AtomTan]

138. What's with all the South hating today?

Not necessarily the OP, but sprinkled throughout this thread, and others today. A bunch of these states are about to go blue, folks! How about some support instead of abandonment?

[QC]

149. Too much unity on DU lately--time to stir up some shit! n/t

[trof]

151. It's a cycle we go through several times a year.

I used to get my knickers in a twist, but now I just move on.
Welcome to DU, BTW.
:hi:

[endarkenment]

156. Conceptually it is Dumbfuckistan

It is only loosely territorial, as has been pointed out here in this thread, and earlier after the 2004 electoral debacle. It is more clearly a cultural issue. The right has been explicitly waging what they view as a Culture War on Secular America - they completely understand that we are two nations under one government. We secularists, on the other hand, being inclusive and empathic by nature, are not even sure we are in a war and generally refuse to admit that we are two nations under one government.

The split is mischaracterized as 'us' against 'the south'. It is easy to look at the electoral map and view the idiocy of a winner take all regional election system as a good representation for where these two nations live. The more refined purpled version of those maps give a better picture. Another simplification is 'rural/exurban' vs 'urban', and that division is perhaps closer to a true territorial representation than any other.

What I keep coming back to, while acknowledging the validity of all the objections to separation given here, is that we are two nations under one government and that this current system is not working. It is not working for them - they view, for example, access to abortion as an abomination they cannot live with. It is not working for us - we view prop 8 in california, legislation that will take rights away from some citizens of california, as an intolerable abomination. We have been fighting this irreconcilable struggle for at least 30 years and it does not appear to be getting any closer to resolution. In my opinion the conflict is just getting worse and is threatening to move from rhetoric to action.

[Greyhound]

184. It's a division of philosophy, not a team sport.

This team sport diminution of our political life is one of the causes of our frustration. There is nobody speaking for far too many Americans and we want our voice. This binary illusion of choice is insufficient to the task and will inevitably lead to more conflict.

[AtomTan]

141. America is a lot more than its voters

You'll find most of America's natural beauty in the red states. When I think of what inspires me about this country, I don't think of the urban sprawl of the northeast.

[billyoc]

143. I'd rather give ALL the nuclear weapons to the Taliban

than let these Christian Phalangists have ONE of them.

[Adsos Letter]

159. This was attempted once, in the 1860's...however...

if we're gonna start splitting things, howse about dividing California, North from South...with the dividing line somewhere around San Jose?

[4 t 4]

164. Let's take that further, not two parties

many, many parties. Let's get rid of the two party system all together. It is nothing but damaging to us all. We have gone beyond that now. You should have to stand on your own two feet with your ideals. It damages us all. People born in to a Republican party continue to vote Republican etc.. No Party anymore, just issues and while we are at it ,it no longer makes sense to have ONE man in charge of it all. The job is way, way to big. Any Ideas?

[Greyhound]

183. I think the basic problem with any enlightened form of government in the US today is that

they all depend on an informed and interested populace to run them well. We have developed a culture that is proud of ignorance and learning is a terrible chore that has to be borne until the law allows them to stop, forever.

I'm not even sure that we have the mechanisms to change this, without spending several generations deprogramming the flock.

[muriel_volestrangler]

186. A Single Transferable Vote system

allows smaller parties to get some representation, and even independents standing on their own, if they're popular. And it allows people to choose the best people inside a party (though admittedly, the American primary system does already do that a lot better than party systems in most other countries).

However, if you want to keep at least 1 seat in the House of Representatives for each state, then you'll have to say that the smallest states would be single-seat constituencies, rather than multi-seat ones (and if you stayed with the rough number of seats in the House from now, you'd want to divide up larger states into several constituencies - STV in a 53 seat constituency would produce a nightmare ballot form, make voting take forever, and people couldn't rank dozens of politicians accurately - we just can't have that amount of information about different people. And some might say that STV with widely varying constituency sizes would have some unfairness built in.

[natrat]

166. give em everything east of the rockies

[bridgit]

170. Well I'm not leaving California, the shit-heads will have to leave...

Unless we move to Barcelona, hubby says it's possible so....there's that

[DonCoquixote]

171. The urban parts of the South

Are VERY Blue, ask residents of New Orleans or Atlanta. Meanwhile, sadly, the rural parts of the north are just as Red as any that fly the stars and bars.

As a Floridian, a stated which is possibly the most Purple of all states, I can understand the anger, but I cannot understand how anyone would abandon people like me that are fighting hard down here. To be blunt, yes, Dixie is Dixie, for all her sins and graces, but frankly, part of the reason I am voting for Obama is because he and dean were the first to seriously attempt to campaign in the South. It's not our fault that the Dems had to wait so long to actually develop a 50 state strategy, and that they were fought tooth and nail by a former president from a small town in Arkansas that should have known better. I still remember Howard Dean being vilified here, and I still remember how certain people kept saying "well Barack HUSSEIN Obama won't get those coveted white blue collar guys in Ohio and Pennsylvania that we need, so we have to chuck him." Sorry to reopen old wounds, but yes, I did feel hurt. Yes, I am glad to see Bill and Hill doing what only they can do, but I do expect people to think before they blithely assume that their state is somehow more evolved just because they live in an urban center.

Not all of us can move up North, and frankly, I think the South is too good to be left in the hands of those Stars and Bars waving fools who somehow think are they are "native" than I am, even though MY ancestors were here LONG before theirs were. While their ancestors were in the UK, mine were building Churches and Villages in places like St. Augustine, San Antonio, Biloxi, and yes, even a little port town that Spain ruled for 100 years called New Orleans. Go the the "French Quarter" and you will see Spanish crests on the streets, especially on that street named for a group of Spanish Royalty named the Bourbons.

Hey, it's not like I cannot appreciate the contributions of the Scots-Irish. I live in Florida, and hate seeing many of the Diners, BBQ joints, Taverns and Farmer's Markets being paved over to accommodate many of ex NY/NJ Yuppie retards I moved out of New Jersey to get AWAAAY from. These are the guys who talk and act like Sean Hannity and Glenn Beck, who are as rude to me as they are to the locals. These are the folks whose Yuppie ways raised the rents so high that many of us could no longer afford our own homes up north, and yet, because they STILL thought they were paying too many taxes, decided to come down here.

OK, I will taper off my rant, but let me quote one of the founding fathers. "we must all hang together, or else we will hang separately." The international corporations, this New aristocracy for whom nations are nothing more than just another bit of real estate, would gladly do their best to destroy North America. They would replace all of us with low paid labor from India, and replace them with cheaper Chinese labor. Then they will act like they are "helping" Africa, and make sure they only have enough telephone lines for call centers. It will be a race to see who can offer the most subhuman wages, and it will not matter one bit to the folks in their condos in places like Dubai/London/New York/Tokyo/Sao Paolo/Stockholm/Beijing, especially since all these cities will be gutted out and made just another extension of corporate franchises. They will all drive Bentleys, sip Starbucks, have Ikea furniture, and spend half their day talking into their Nokias, and be completely like their twins everywhere else.

[Poseidan]

172. first, because it isn't a Republic

There is a reason why the nation is often referred to as a 'Democracy'. I'll give you a hint... because it is a Democracy. In Republics, the people don't rule (as in, ruled by the people, for the people), the people are simply 'free'.

Secondly, because dividing the country in two is precisely what the Confederates want. It has been their strategy ever since they lost the original war. Divide the country 'politically', which was their only option after losing militarily.

Why even suggest such a nonsense proposition? Because a few Confederate primates evolve slower than everyone else? The answer is NO, not under any set of circumstances. If one state wants to secede, and become 'Republican-land', fine, let all the little critters go there and live in retard-ville until it collapses on its own stupidity, then we'll buy it back at profit.

[Romulox]

182. Pssst. Do you recall what song the Union soldiers played when marching on Georgia?

A: The Battle Hymn of the Republic. :hi:

I don't know where you get these odd ideas, but of course USA is a republic.

[endarkenment]

188. I actually don't know where to start.

Our form of government is a constitutional republic.

A republic is a state or country that is not a monarchy,<1><2> but in which the people (or at least a part of its people)<3> have impact on its government.<4><5> The word originates from the Latin term res publica, which literally translates as "public thing" or "public matter".
A republican government differs from a democracy by limiting governmental authority by law. For example, a constitutional republic specifies what authority the government has and the rights of citizens.
The organization of republics can vary widely. The first section of this article gives an overview of the characteristics that distinguish different types of republics. The second section of the article gives some short profiles of the most influential republics by way of illustration. A more comprehensive list of republics appears in a separate article. The third section is about how republics are approached as state organizations in political science: in political theory and people governed.

...

Examples of Republics

...

Constitutional republic - A const, and judicial powers are separated into distinct branches so that no individual or group has absolute power and the power of the majority of the population is checked by only allowing them to elect representatives. The fact that a constitution exists that limits the government's power, makes the state constitutional. That the head(s) of state and other officials are chosen by election, rather than inheriting their positions, and that their decisions are subject to judicial review makes a state republican.-United States

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

[Romulox]

179. Just two? When it happens, the US will fragment into at least a half dozen states. nt

[mmonk]

180. I would say I'm for that except if I'm not already on the list, I might be if I say so.

[Greyhound]

192. Don't worry, you were on the list with your first post. n/t

[Toucano]

181. Easier solution: Increase the size of the House

435 people cannot possibly represent 300 million people, so they represent the loudest and richest.

There should be something closer to 10,000 members in the House according the the maximum size limit imposed by the Constitution.

The 435 person limit imposed by congress has caused low population states (Alaska, Idaho, Wyoming, etc.) to have a highly disproportionate representation in the Senate.

[Thothmes]

197. Lets see

The govt will have to lease the Nationals Stadium for the House of Representatives. A delibrative body of 10,000 representatives should be very efficient and be able to do the peoples business without any mindless haggling. Yep lets jack up the House to 10,000 representatives and watch the whole operation grind to a halt.

[DainBramaged]

187. Wow, America, where have you gone.

This is Freeper shit.

[GTurck]

189. We separated once before...

and had a Civil War. Then there really was a way to split along lines of agreement physically but how would that work now? Are you going to make millions of Americans move from one part of the continent to another? Are you going to force separation of families? Yours is not a well thought out solution and not even a liberal or progressive one. This country is a whole and it rises and falls together. That is something that "appealing to the base" gets wrong and the issue of the Bush residency. Bush and his allies have never thought of the country as a whole but only of those who voted for them or would ever vote for them. In other words Bush has only been the president of a minority of this nation and has left the rest of us to spin in the wind. Obama's great appeal is that he talks and acts like he wants to represent us all and not just the "base"; whatever that is.

[DangerDave921]

193. LOL

Quite a dream! But if all the rich folks and CEO's and big corporations go with the Repub side, who is going to pay all those higher taxes to give all the tax credits?? LOL

[spin]

194. We have two political parties...

and the people we elect play politics like the Cleveland Browns and the Pittsburgh Steelers play football. It's a hard hitting game with a lot of dirty activity that is rarely caught by the referees.

It's a lot of fun to watch the Browns and the Steelers play. The fans get a lot of entrainment, but in the end nothing of any real consequence occurs. But then it's just a game.

It's also interesting to watch the Republicans and the Democrats fight. Unfortunately, nothing of any real consequence occurs after these contests either. The country still faces the same problems year after year after year. The rich get richer and the poor get poorer. Education for our children sucks. The crime rate never really decreases. Thirty five years after the gas crisis of the 1970's we are nowhere near energy independence. We still lack a medical system that works for everyone. Social Security will soon not exist or will be worthless for the recipients or extremely burdensome for those who work.

If we continue down the same road, our problems will only get worse. Perhaps the Democratic Party will gain an overwhelming control of all branches of government and things will improve. But unless this happens and perhaps even if it does, we need to push both parties to work together to find workable compromises that will solve some of the problems we face.

If you are in a failing marriage, you can get a separation and possibly even a divorce. The OP suggests separation as a an solution to the great divide in our country. I suggest the two political parties should set down and attempt to resolve their differences. If both parties in a troubled marriage do this, the marriage can become stronger. Separation and divorce create serious problems for both married people, as it would for our citizens if we tried to separate our country.

“Coming together is a beginning. Keeping together is progress. Working together is success.”
Henry Ford

“Respect your fellow human being, treat them fairly, disagree with them honestly, enjoy their friendship, explore your thoughts about one another candidly, work together for a common goal and help one another achieve it.”
Bill Bradley

[Fire1]

201. Have you ever tried 'reasoning' and 'compromise' with those

idiots?? I have and it doesn't work. The mind set of this 'new right' is no different from the 1860's. Talk about 'unamerican!'

[upi402]

203. True

Facts and truth are of no consequence to those who are used to believing in fictitious religious crapola and corporate TV News.

[Fire1]

202. Can you imagine living in a world of democrats! In the words of

Louis Armstrong, "What a wonderful world"