Separate blue states from red states

Post Reply New Topic

As the US Supreme Court just lost all credibility (http://www.alternet.org/labor/doing-radical-rights-dirty-work-supreme-courts-latest-blows-against-women-and-unions?paging=off&current_page=1#bookmark ), and that the US Congress lost all credibilty a long time ago, it might be time for US liberals to examine some radical ideas. Create a alliance of the blue states and let declare themselfs a separate country from the United States. (Which would comprise of only what formed the red states.) If the a state declare himself a independant country, the govnerment would send the ramy to submit it, but if many states declare themselfs a separate entity, then the govnerment would be forced to listen.

Then, the blue states would be free to prosper (And could change the constitution, like limiting some of the powers of the corporations, change the second amendment and state that the first amendment is there to protect individual human beings religious freedom like it's supposed to.) with well funded education, welfare, health care and science, while the red states, dependent of the blue states for they prosperity, would fall in ruin with they're religious and market fanaticism.

Yes, they've quite naughty.

The blue and red states all mixed in, though. It's not like this is 1861 and there is a relatively clear dividing line

There goes that prosperity when all the businesses you're doing your damndest to regulating right out of business pick up and move to red states where they will be welcome. Or had you planned on keeping them from leaving USSR style?


Can't let those pesky freedoms get in the way of peace, eh....

Except for actually religious people, of course.

Who's gonna pay for it when you force all your businesses to flee to Redland?


Whats in it for you, anyway? Unless you've moved your profile says you live in Quebec.
Oh, by the way; in case you haven't noticed, you're gunz kill kidz thread is being torn to shreds and not just by me.

It's a bit more complicated than that. Even in red states frequently rural areas will be red while urban areas are blue. So should the cities declare themselves to be a separate country from their surrounding countrysides?

I have seen interesting graphics showing how those states that are primarily red actually receive more of the government supports they rant against than the primarily blue states do, but that doesn't surprise me really considering what I know of conservative types.

We've had threads like this before"

http://www.wrongplanet.net/postt232187.html

http://www.wrongplanet.net/postt238862.html

thinking in factions is the biggest trap ever the founding fathers even heavily warn against it

This was essentially tried once already, in 1861. Let's just say a lot of people on both sides weren't very happy afterwards.



In other words, democracy is only valid when you get the outcomes that you want: a socialist state in which its "citizens" (prisoners) are disarmed.

You want to have your cake and to eat it, too.

If blue states want the red states+Florida to form a new separate entity (because red states would more likely be the ones to distance themselves from Washington) the following will happen, the blue states will starve from a lack of grains and fruit, run out of oil and coal to manufacture with, get overwhelmed by the red states far superior amount of military strength and pro second amendment population, and run out of jobs because all the big unions and bigger government chased them to the red states.
The founding fathers put the branches of government as checks and balances to prevent to much of a build up of power in one branch.

We've had debates like this before and it always cracks me up when they say that the blue states would prosper if they were independent of the red states.
Prosper on what??

Washington and Oregon - both blue states - have a lot of grain fields and orchards (and California has bountiful orchard produce as well), so it's not like the blue states are going to starve. Plus the red states populations will be left without good paying jobs or medical coverage, leaving them in a weakened state while social and business elites get rich. And you're forgetting, blacks and other minorities might very well be pushed into armed rebellion after they are pushed into second class citizenship after the red states roll back civil rights protection.

And how would red states prosper when the populace are regulated to poor paying jobs with no benefits, while big business gets rich on their backs? A country's wealth can only be judged not by how the rich prosper, but by how everyone shares in it. I wouldn't expect a red country to indulge in such pro-labor "socialism."

only Salem, Portland and Eugene are blue, those grain field are in the red parts of the state. We in the red parts wouldn't want to be and would declare Independence from those cities. then build a wall around them.

minorities like guns too.

That's a simplistic view of economy. What would happen is that red states would cut their spending to prevent deficit (They don't want to tax peoples who actually got money.), which would bring a lot of loss of jobs and weaken their economy, thus bringing other deficits and bringing them to further cut their spending, and so, and so on... As a result their education system would be strongly weakened and their infrastructure would start to fall in ruins. Thus they would be unable to compete with the innovation and expertise of the blue states, which mean while they could get some low pay industrial jobs, the innovating and creative jobs high paying jobs would be held in the blue states. And, by the way, the wealthy would not create much jobs and invest their wealth in the red states, for the same reason they don't do it since the mortage bubbles, they don't want to risk their wealth in a uncertain economic situation. The crumbling infrastructures of the red states would also be of concern, as it would be expensive to compensate for that. The blue states wouldn't starve either, as they could buy their food Brazil and Africa. As for oil, the oil used in US mostly come from Canada. While red states military strength might be of concern in the short term, it wouldn't be a problem for long, as with their skrinking budget they would be forced to use milice with aging equipment, while the blue states would remain strong and would eventualy surpass the red states military technologically. Expect to see the blue states to be able to curbstomp the red states with bulletproof powered armour, making the precious red states guns useless. There is also the concern that the rest of the world may become more and more concerned about global warming, making them likely to brought economic sanctions on the red states, for they stuborness for doing nothing about it, even denying what for everyone else is obviously true. Their ressources may also become useless, as better recycling of ressources is brougth (That may be the only hope for our civilisation to survive.)

The reason I propose the separation of the blue states is to avoid at least part of the USA to escape what may be a inevitable decline because of the political influence of the red states. As things go now, we may see the end of the world first modern democracy.

^
"Bullet proof power armor"? Take off the clown shoes, I'm dying laughing over here.

Central planning, comprehensive regulations, high taxes, government spending lead to prosperity and innovation? A (relatively) free economy is doomed to bankruptcy and collapse? Wow, it's as if the USSR never happened. Or the DDR vs. the BRD. Or the two Koreas, today.

It's probably too late for you, but for any readers who may be on the fence, allow me to recommend a brief and eminently well-written book. Reading it reduces the odds that one will post utter hooey in discussion groups.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/051754823 ... SY200_QL40

But those liberal areas are where the population mostly resides - that's certainly the case here in Washington. Those conservative rural areas would be economically lost without the liberal urban areas they've long had ties to.
And guns isn't the deciding factor if minorities stay happy in a red United States, but rather continued civil rights protections and, if necessary, a social safety net - both of which have been lacking for minorities and the poor in red areas.

Tollorin, the U.S might end up having to do that. You can't live with people who want to force everyone to live in a theocracy/ objectivist utopia (dystopia for the majority). They'll wreck everything.