DanTex (16,147 posts)
At this point, I think I'm in favor of the balkanization of the US.
Split into a number of smaller countries with an EU-style free trade and free travel agreement and a common currency.
Let the red states have their tax cuts for the rich, and let us have social democracy, high-speed trains, green energy, and so on.
With the country split 50-50, nothing happens. It's just gridlock. Nobody gets what they want.
And it's no secret which states want what. At this point, with the exception of a few swing states, we already know how states are going to vote for the presidency, and what kind of conrgresspersons they will send to Washington. Red states and blue states want different things, so why not let everyone have what they want?
And it will also provide for a natural experiment comparing political ideologies. People who think supply side economics actually works, have at it! Then check in 20 years and see how it worked.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10028210042
Split into a number of smaller countries with an EU-style free trade and free travel agreement and a common currency.
DUmp-monkey must have failed civics. That's exactly what the US was supposed to be... until a bunch of red commie leftist bastards started demanding federal control over everything and ruined it.
They tend to forget the sovereign state thing, most especially when someone doesn't want to issue gay wedding licenses or allow perverts in the womens bathroom.
Split into a number of smaller countries with an EU-style free trade and free travel agreement and a common currency.
Let the red states have their tax cuts for the rich, and let us have social democracy, high-speed trains, green energy, and so on.
The replies to that thread on the island is a real collection of stupid.
I agree with the Dummy's premise, but not the details.
**** you. A split's a split. Take your unicorn based currency and cram it, and forget about "free travel". You assholes will need to spend 21 days in quarantine just to make sure you're not bringing the plague into the Free States.
citood (310 posts)
1. If you look at the county by county electoral map
For recent national elections, it will become apparent that this is not a difference that is held at the state level.
This is a conflict between large population centers and the surrounding rural areas. Even the deepest blue state is at least 25% red, and vice versa.
Response to DanTex (Original post)Thu Oct 6, 2016, 02:28 PM
snooper2 (28,187 posts)
2. You know in Dallas county it is like 55% dem vs 45% repuke right?
Response to snooper2 (Reply #2)Thu Oct 6, 2016, 02:41 PM
DanTex (16,147 posts)
5. Yes, I do. And I also know my old hometown of Austin would get screwed in the deal.
Just thinking out loud.
Response to DanTex (Original post)Thu Oct 6, 2016, 02:35 PM
angrychair (3,365 posts)
3. As much as I like that idea
The divisions in our country are not as cut and dry.
I live in Washington state, which most would consider a very blue state, in many ways it is but in some ways it is not. The Cascades are a very real divide here... King county (county that includes Seattle) is the main reason our state is blue.
In the 2012 election Washington went for Obama 52/48
I actually worry how many votes Johnson and Stein will pull from Clinton here (as Washington went heavily for Sanders and has a disportionate number of "Bernie or bust" people)...depending on what that number is could determine who takes Washington's EV.
Many are working hard here to help Clinton win, including me, but no one should assume Washington is a blue state until election results are in.
My point is that our country is in a intractable mess and are only hope for resolution is that our children are smarter than us.
Response to angrychair (Reply #3)Thu Oct 6, 2016, 03:35 PM
Star Member Aristus (37,638 posts)
26. Regarding the subject of the OP, re: Balkanization - I think if we actually became
the Republic of Cascadia, the Washington State portion of the republic would just be west of the Cascades. The eastern portion of the state would probably join Idaho in whatever permutation of Balkan-style state they wanted.
I just spent last weekend in Spokanistan. I couldn't believe all the Trump posters I saw...
Response to DanTex (Original post)Thu Oct 6, 2016, 02:40 PM
world wide wally (5,587 posts)
4. One of our biggest problems is the lack of equality in our representation
A state like North Dakota gets a congressional representative at the rate of let's say 1 in 225,000. On the other hand, a place like New York gets one representative for like every 700,000 citizens.
And both states have two Senators.
How is this equal?
Response to world wide wally (Reply #4)Thu Oct 6, 2016, 02:42 PM
NobodyHere (1,938 posts)
6. It's not suppose to be equal
Response to NobodyHere (Reply #6)Thu Oct 6, 2016, 02:46 PM
world wide wally (5,587 posts)
8. That's a shame
Response to world wide wally (Reply #8)Thu Oct 6, 2016, 02:55 PM
Star Member former9thward (17,367 posts)
10. No its not.
It how our country has remained stable since the end of the Civil War while so many have came to pieces.
Response to former9thward (Reply #10)Thu Oct 6, 2016, 03:01 PM
DanTex (16,147 posts)
12. So you're in favor of unequal representation? Seriously?
Response to DanTex (Reply #12)Thu Oct 6, 2016, 03:08 PM
R.A. Ganoush (96 posts)
13. That's what the House is for Dan
You may not like it, but it's an effective counter-weight and a brilliant strategy.
It's not supposed to be fair, it's supposed to work. And it's allowed this grand experiment to work for over 200 years.
YMMV of course.
Response to R.A. Ganoush (Reply #13)Thu Oct 6, 2016, 03:15 PM
DanTex (16,147 posts)
17. Yup, genius to under-represent people in Queens and over-represent people in Wyoming.
The same kind of genius that brought us Jim Crow.
Response to DanTex (Reply #17)Thu Oct 6, 2016, 03:27 PM
R.A. Ganoush (96 posts)
21. How is that though when NY has more representation
In the House than Wyoming?
Response to R.A. Ganoush (Reply #21)Thu Oct 6, 2016, 03:28 PM
DanTex (16,147 posts)
23. Because there are more people in NY.
Wyoming has more representation than my household. Same reason. I guess it would be fun if my household got 2 senators and one representative, but it wouldn't be fair, and I wouldn't pretend that it was.
Response to DanTex (Reply #17)Thu Oct 6, 2016, 04:00 PM
ileus (14,728 posts)
30. Then convince the people of Wyoming they shouldn't get a say.
and see how that turns out...
Response to ileus (Reply #30)Thu Oct 6, 2016, 04:02 PM
DanTex (16,147 posts)
32. They should get a say. The same amount of say as people in Queens.
Response to DanTex (Reply #17)Thu Oct 6, 2016, 04:12 PM
yeoman6987 (13,084 posts)
35. Oh my.....
Response to DanTex (Reply #12)Thu Oct 6, 2016, 03:18 PM
MicaelS (6,307 posts)
18. So if you get you way..
Why have Senators at all? Just have a unicameral House.
You ought to know the reason the Founders set things up the way they did. They were terrified of mob rule and what happened in Rome. And they did not want he large population centers to dominate the country.
And yes, I'm quite happy with the way things are. Seriously. I like having a bicameral system. Fix the gerrymandering problem, yes, but leave the rest alone.
Response to MicaelS (Reply #18)Thu Oct 6, 2016, 03:22 PM
DanTex (16,147 posts)
19. Good point. We probably shouldn't have senators at all.
We should have a proportional representation parliamentary system.
The founders were wealthy slave owners who wanted to look out for the rights of wealthy slave owners.
I'm sure a lot of them would be thrilled that low-population states with virtually no minorities get far more influence than urban states with higher AA and latino populations. What is strange is that people on a progressive message board are also happy about that.
Would you feel the same way if Queens and the Bronx had 20 times more senators per capita than Wyoming and North Dakota? Hmm.
Response to DanTex (Reply #19)Thu Oct 6, 2016, 03:42 PM
MicaelS (6,307 posts)
29. Did you read what I wrote?
I like the system as is. So A BIG FAT ****ING NO!!!! to more Senators.
No matter how many ways you ask "have you stopped beating your wife" type questions, I do not agree with you, period.
Response to MicaelS (Reply #29)Thu Oct 6, 2016, 04:01 PM
DanTex (16,147 posts)
31. Of course you like the system the way it is. It serves your interests.
You don't live in Queens, so what benefit would it be to you personally if people in Queens had equal representation in the government?
Response to MicaelS (Reply #29)Thu Oct 6, 2016, 04:04 PM
world wide wally (5,587 posts)
33. Assume you keep the Senate at 2 per state.
How does that make representation in the house fair?
And the other form of obstruction is the filibuster. It is far too easy for one single Senator to block something 59 Senators may favor by simply filling out a form.
No wonder Congress is so dysfunctional . To top it all off, their approval rating is in single digits and yet incumbents win 95% of the time.
And while we're at it, Texas gets to rewrite our history textbooks because they have a large proportion of school age children (sales = profit... Texas = Republican)
Response to world wide wally (Reply #4)Thu Oct 6, 2016, 02:46 PM
DanTex (16,147 posts)
9. Yup, that's a huge problem.
I worked out the math with a friend once. If NYC had the same per capita representation in the senate as Wyoming, there would be 10 senators from Brooklyn, 9 senators from Queens, 6 from Manhattan, 5 from the Bronx, and 2 from Staten Island. Total of 32.
Give or take.
I'm thinking if that were the case, the GOP would be pretty anxious to make things more equitable.
Response to world wide wally (Reply #4)Thu Oct 6, 2016, 03:12 PM
Exilednight (8,650 posts)
15. The reason the Senate is divided the way it is is to make sure
states with large populations do not run roughshod over states with small populations. The House is designed to give weight to those with large populations.
Response to world wide wally (Reply #4)Thu Oct 6, 2016, 03:32 PM
Humanist_Activist (6,704 posts)
25. On thing that should be done is the repeal of Permanent Apportionment Act of 1929...
Which fixed the number of Representatives to 435, leading to the absurdity that you are pointing out. The country has nearly tripled in population and has added 2 states since then. That means that, before factoring in population growth, the House permanently lost at least 2 representatives. All you need to do to lose representation in the House is have slightly slower population growth, that's it, in the next census, you are less represented. Its undemocratic, I believe its unconstitutional, and indefensible.
Response to DanTex (Original post)Thu Oct 6, 2016, 02:45 PM
Codeine (17,915 posts)
7. It's all moving our direction.
For all the negative shit that's around us we really do need to acknowledge that shit is sliding inexorably our way, and has been doing so for a while now. Purple states are bluing and red states are purpling.
Response to Codeine (Reply #7)Thu Oct 6, 2016, 02:57 PM
Star Member former9thward (17,367 posts)
11. What?
The GOP now holds more seats in Congress and the state legislatures than they did in the 1920s.
Response to former9thward (Reply #11)Thu Oct 6, 2016, 03:11 PM
LanternWaste (26,066 posts)
14. A rational mind realizes both premises may validly exist simultaneously.
"Purple states are bluing and red states are purpling..."
"The GOP now holds more seats in Congress and the state legislatures than they did in the 1920s."
A rational mind realizes both premises may validly exist simultaneously, despite petulance for its own sake attempting to convince one otherwise.
Response to former9thward (Reply #11)Thu Oct 6, 2016, 03:23 PM
bluesbassman (18,321 posts)
20. People blur the Presidency with actual governing.
The DNC made that mistake too, which led to having a R majority in the House.
As capeable as PBO was and is, he was not able to govern by himself. That's a good thing, but it also illuminated how dysfunctional and obstruction minded the GOP is at the national level. Without some serious Democratic headway made in the House and Senate, I'm HRC encountering much of the same resistance that Obama has faced.
Response to former9thward (Reply #11)Thu Oct 6, 2016, 04:56 PM
Codeine (17,915 posts)
36. Demographics are demographics.
The GOP is doomed. One can only gerrymander an unrepresentative majority for so long.
We won the culture war as well. That shit is done.
Response to Codeine (Reply #36)Thu Oct 6, 2016, 05:00 PM
Star Member former9thward (17,367 posts)
37. If demographics are demographics then we should be gaining seats not losing them.
That argument (which I have heard for decades) makes no sense.
Response to DanTex (Original post)Thu Oct 6, 2016, 03:15 PM
upaloopa (11,243 posts)
16. No state budget alone can pay for all we get from the federal government.
A better idea is to turn the whole country blue
Response to DanTex (Original post)Thu Oct 6, 2016, 03:27 PM
ananda (16,155 posts)
22. Well, I wouldn't mind if my county became a state.
We don't have congressional representation here
because of gerrymandering.
Response to ananda (Reply #22)Thu Oct 6, 2016, 04:05 PM
Star Member Buckeye_Democrat (1,488 posts)
34. +1 !
Response to DanTex (Original post)Thu Oct 6, 2016, 03:31 PM
Star Member geek tragedy (64,700 posts)
24. So, where do Iowa and North Carolina fit in?
12 years ago, Virginia and Colorado were considered part of the GOP red wall, now they're part of our blue wall.
After 2012 Iowa looked like a Blue State and NC looked like a Red state.
They're looking the opposite now.
And what the heck is the deal with Ohio?
Response to geek tragedy (Reply #24)Thu Oct 6, 2016, 03:36 PM
DanTex (16,147 posts)
27. Good questions. I don't have the answers. But I'm sick of being held back by the GOP.
The real reason we haven't made the progress we should have in the last decades is the GOP. That's the only reason. It's obvious.
Even if (when) Hillary wins, it will be more gridlock and incremental progress. It's so obvious what we need to do. But we can't.
Yeah, I get that there are purple states. But I'm sick of getting dragged down by the red ones.
Response to DanTex (Original post)Thu Oct 6, 2016, 03:36 PM
JoePhilly (27,459 posts)
28. No. I want it all!!
Every state.
Let them move off the grid in huts made of sticks.
DanTex (16,147 posts)
At this point, I think I'm in favor of the balkanization of the US.
Split into a number of smaller countries with an EU-style free trade and free travel agreement and a common currency.
Let the red states have their tax cuts for the rich, and let us have social democracy, high-speed trains, green energy, and so on.
With the country split 50-50, nothing happens. It's just gridlock. Nobody gets what they want.
And it's no secret which states want what. At this point, with the exception of a few swing states, we already know how states are going to vote for the presidency, and what kind of conrgresspersons they will send to Washington. Red states and blue states want different things, so why not let everyone have what they want?
And it will also provide for a natural experiment comparing political ideologies. People who think supply side economics actually works, have at it! Then check in 20 years and see how it worked.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10028210042
world wide wally (5,587 posts)
4. One of our biggest problems is the lack of equality in our representation
A state like North Dakota gets a congressional representative at the rate of let's say 1 in 225,000. On the other hand, a place like New York gets one representative for like every 700,000 citizens.
And both states have two Senators.
How is this equal?
I take it that DU-folk anticipate The CHILL and their Prog ideology will be rejected by voters?
LanternWaste (26,066 posts)
14. A rational mind realizes both premises may validly exist simultaneously.
"Purple states are bluing and red states are purpling..."
"The GOP now holds more seats in Congress and the state legislatures than they did in the 1920s."
A rational mind realizes both premises may validly exist simultaneously, despite petulance for its own sake attempting to convince one otherwise.
Split into a number of smaller countries with an EU-style free trade and free travel agreement and a common currency.NO. No common currency. The liberals would immediately print so much money that the common currency would be worthless in 6 months.
Works for me dummie. We could fund the new Conservative States of America by selling the Degenerate States of America food and electrical power and taxing the shit out of it... and you would pay it. You would gladly pay it when your belly is empty and you are sitting in the dark looking at your electric yugo by the curb.
funny, I was thinking the same thing. All the food and that nasty coal the love to hate will all be on our side of the fence. The billowing smoke from our generators might fog out our view of their windmills and rolling blackouts while they are stabbing each other over an ear of corn.
I think I may have to call the Doctor in about four hours. :)
Response to DanTex (Original post)
Thu Oct 6, 2016, 08:18 PM
Star Member Cal33 (6,964 posts)
52. I think your state-by-state idea is excellent. As for those who prefer the county-by-county one,
let me say this: The heavy-population counties wouldn't be able to survive as such,
because they wouldn't have enough land for farming. They'd be forced to depend on the
low-population counties for food, water ..... etc. ..... They'd be doomed before long.
With the state-by-state option, I think eventually many, if not most, of the liberally
minded people in the red states would sooner or later move into the blue states, and
conversely, conservative people in the blue states would move over into the red ones.
It will take some time, but eventually the blue states will be prospering, and the people
living in the red ones will be going through their own self-made hell. Only then will
some of them begin to question their own values. As for the diehards, well, nothing
will help them change.
The possibility of some hungry and angry red state making war on a prosperous blue
neighbor is there, of course. And so are other more pleasant possibilities: when they
see almost all the blue states doing well, and all the red states not doing well at all,
they might begin to demand change from their big business over-lords.
I went back there to read all the new comments.
My head hurts from the retardity of the primitives.
I will say this: We'll have all the farmers and ranchers, because you leftist shitbags sneer at them and mock them and hate them.
Not to mention one very important thing . . .
Water.
:whistling: :whistling: :whistling: :fuelfire: :fuelfire: :fuelfire:
Not to mention one very important thing . . .
Water.
:whistling: :whistling: :whistling: :fuelfire: :fuelfire: :fuelfire:
I wonder where they think the corn and wheat needed for most things will come from DC and north?
I will say this: We'll have all the farmers and ranchers, because you leftist shitbags sneer at them and mock them and hate them.
Works for me dummie. We could fund the new Conservative States of America by selling the Degenerate States of America food and electrical power and taxing the shit out of it... and you would pay it. You would gladly pay it when your belly is empty and you are sitting in the dark looking at your electric yugo by the curb.Yeah, their "Green Energy" probably won't be enough to supply even a tenth of the Blue States' energy needs, so we'll make out like bandits selling them power.
Though Jerry Moonbeam Brown & Co. are working on getting rid of them, there are a lot of farmers and ranchers in CA's Central Valley, Salinas Valley, and Inyo, Monterey, San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara, and Ventura Counties. OR, WA, IL, and MI have substantial agricultural areas as well, for now. But NE Prog States would be up the proverbial Odoriferous Creek lacking propulsion.
Having traveled extensively around NYS, I can tell you that there's a lot more agricultural land, especially in the western part of the state (i.e., west of I-81), than you think. There's not a whole heluva lot of it, say, in the 10000-series ZIP codes, however. :whistling:
I'll need to remember this the next time there's a thread in which a DUmmy claims that the Republicans want to secede/ split up the country.
Awesome point as well on how it's pretty much guaranteed that they'll run out of food, since they mainly live in urban areas that can't grow anything and much of their populations are lazy welfare parasites.
A few more points to understand:
In the Blue States, they will rapidly cave to every single demand LGBT activists scream about, eventually leading to them overturning the ban on gays donating blood. They'll pat themselves on the back about how enlightened they are and how they're an enclave of tolerance, but it'll backfire on them in a year or so when all of a sudden, at least a third of the Blue States' population is HIV- positive.
It's guaranteed that they'll fully open their borders to all illegal immigrants, then later they'll be completely mystified as to how it is that California seems to be controlled/ influenced more by its increasingly powerful urban gangs than by its elected officials. They'll probably say something like, "One of the first things we did when we separated from those Red State rednecks was to completely outlaw guns in our states, yet California's gun- murder rate is through the roof, especially in its southern areas! We just don't get it, it's as if violent criminals don't care about the fact that they're breaking our gun laws!"
They'll inevitably outlaw openly practicing Christianity and Judaism (Those who follow those faiths will then flee to the Red States where they can practice their faith in peace), and grant Islam all kinds of special privileges. Then, as we've seen happening already in England, the massive influx of Muslim immigrants will designate whole neighborhoods as "Muslim- only areas," and demand to be allowed to govern those areas from within by Sharia law. The Blue States' political leaders will of course cave to this demand in order to avoid seeming intolerant or "Islamophobic", and this will embolden the Muslims enough that they'll expand and seek to do the same of entire towns and even cities. All the while, Jihadists will perform terrorist attacks against non- Muslim areas of the Blue States on a regular basis.
Yeah, their "Green Energy" probably won't be enough to supply even a tenth of the Blue States' energy needs, so we'll make out like bandits selling them power.
You recognize the obvious and then in an instant run away from it.
I know, I saw that and my head swam from the dissonance. 1) We'll starve. 2) We'll prosper!
Response to DanTex (Original post)Thu Oct 6, 2016, 02:40 PM
world wide wally (5,587 posts)
4. One of our biggest problems is the lack of equality in our representation
A state like North Dakota gets a congressional representative at the rate of let's say 1 in 225,000. On the other hand, a place like New York gets one representative for like every 700,000 citizens.
And both states have two Senators.
How is this equal?
DUmmies, for all of the brains that they sit on, forget that originally the US Senate represented the interests of the state, not the people. Each state got two, regardless of size of population. A states population count determined the number of House representatives.
DUmp-monkey must have failed civics. That's exactly what the US was supposed to be... until a bunch of red commie leftist bastards started demanding federal control over everything and ruined it.
They tend to forget the sovereign state thing, most especially when someone doesn't want to issue gay wedding licenses or allow perverts in the womens bathroom.
And it will also provide for a natural experiment comparing political ideologies.