Separate blue states from red states

Post Reply New Topic

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.

Go, ahead, dissolve the Union... However, before doing so, one might consider the possibility of the following:

Why the US (and the free world) would lose:

• Red and Blue states do not distribute themselves in a geographically orderly way. The North-East and the West Coast are highly Blue (Florida will probably lock in as a Blue state soon, as well), while the central United States is highly Red. Dividing these into two distinct unions would be a messy affair, and would create business hurdles across state borders where none existed before.
• The United States of America has a distinct international economic advantage due to its very large and affluent home market. Dividing up the country into 2 groups would hurt both the Blue and Red group of States, as they would both see this competitive edge diminished.
• A dissolution of the current union would mark the end of the US as the world's definitive superpower. This would shift the international power balance away from Washington and towards Brussels and Beijing. However, China will eventually overtake Europe and become the world's largest economic superpower. A dissolution of the US would thus weaken the international influence of democracies (one can hope that democratic reforms in China will offset this, though, but there is no reason to suppose that these will just "happen").

Who would lose more, Red or Blue?

• If we look at the 2012 presidential vote, we see that the Pentagon, CIA, NSA, DEA and FBI headquarters are all located within Blue states (D.C., Virginia and Maryland). Any remaining Red state intelligence community would be severely crippled in the event of a dissolution of the Union.
• Contrary to the views of many Red state Republicans, the Red states would likely stand to lose more than Blue states from an economic perspective, as the scientific and innovative sectors in the US economy are heavily concentrated in Blue states (and in Blue segments of Red states, like Austin, Texas). If the Red states actually were to form a union of their own, their social and religious politics would likely drive many innovative parts of the economy into the Blue states and cause a massive Brain Drain.
• The social and foreign policies of the union of Red states would likely be unpalatable in international comparison. The Red states would find themselves isolated on the world stage compared to the Blue states, who would find it much easier to form and strengthen relations with Europe, Canada, Mexico etc.
• The US influence in just about every international organization (including the seat on the UN security council, but also influence in NATO, WTO, IMF, the World Bank etc.) would likely go to the Blue states.
• Control of most US military bases overseas would likely go the Blue states (because of their greater international popularity, as mentioned above), as a continued military presence would have to be renegotiated with the host country in the event of a dissolution of the Union. This would leave most of the ability to perform international military operations in the hands of the Blue states.

... All in all, a dissolution of the Union would likely be a significant blow to US economic and political dominance in the world, and it would likely result in a massive marginalization of the union of Red states.

And finally:

What is the point?

• The US is becoming more Blue every day. And this is likely due to demographic changes within Red states (or previously Red states) as the relative size of the Hispanic population increases. Dividing up the country into Blue and Red states only to have the Red states gradually join the Blue states one by one at a later date seems like a lot of bother compared to just... waiting. Over time, the Democrats (or, more likely, the Democrats combined with a reformed Republican party which rejects social conservatism) will eventually accumulate enough power to dominate Congress, the Presidency and the Supreme Court.

So on the question on whether to divide the Union, I guess the philosophical message ought to be:

• To all Americans: A house divided against itself cannot stand.
• To Liberals: He that can have patience can have what he will.
• To Conservatives: U Mad, Bro?

Last edited by GGPViper on 01 Jul 2014, 3:29 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Thank you; very sound reasoning. I'm sure WP's conservative clique will bend over backwards to poke holes in those arguments.

well I can't speak for Washington, but Oregon makes alot of its money from trees still I believe. which fall in the red areas. 1/3ish of the population in those cities. If they really had most the population they'd gotten their laws passed. lol

oregon isn't really as blue as compared to east coast blue states. We vote democrats, but have many red state qualities also. I like the more neutral ground of the state. the few people in Washington I watch on youtube say it's similar.

how would you know they less likely to get civil rights protections in red areas.

those whole red states and conservatives are racist and blue liberal are savors idea is unrealistic.
lots of minorities believe they can defend the later with guns. the first gun control laws were acutely designed to take guns from minorities. one could also argue gun rights are civil rights. so minorities should fear the left as currently its wanting to removie gun rights, religious rights, 4th amendment rights, etc.

realisticly a balance is what makes our nation survive. neither left or right would likely last without the other. It is for this reason I don't like the ideal of either side having both house and senate.

and most the military bases would empty as the military floods into red states. Most military are red. hence while they volunteer for such a bloody violent job. most sheriffs are red too, as Colorado has found out. most our military aside from the marines(very relgious and red) are based in red states, texas, kentucky, nevada.)

the left always assumes blind obedience from the military.

also California would collapse without federal money, while taxes could run dependent from the other states, they've even started storing their own gold reserves, they have thier own power gride, own branch of each military force.

Alaska where alot of our gold comes from is read. so the blue states would continue to print money and dis value the currency to the point china finally draws the line. the weaker military less blue states would face invasion as china would want resources for the money owned. and people say oh but then they would not have anyone to sell stuff to. they sell a lot to Europe, but in the event they take over parts of the usa, there is no reason they couldn't still sell to them. heck they could mandate that we only buy from them.
the current trend of blue people leaving blue states and turning red states to blue won't last. people are growing sick of the democrat party.

the reality of any splitting though is bloodshed. the last one took alot of our population. there would be so much human loss, confusion. and as we tear each other apart you can expect that Russia and china would send troops to "stop the violence"

also I don't think the religious side is so anti education and tech as you all think. they also aren't anti minorities. There are quite a few inventors and scientist that are religious. There are at least 1/3 of democrats or liberals who are religious. I have yet to meet a conservative christian in my state. though I don't go to the east side of the state.

So everyone in a red state has a poor paying job? Don't bother to say thats not the case only because of the ever loving and benevolent federal government, while at the same time you all think any US government is only a puppet to big business. That aside, even poor paying jobs are better than the fate that awaits any solid Blueland. You can't have jobs when you've run all the employers to Redland by regulating them into bankruptcy.

Ah yes, sharing; the war cry of those who have nothing to share alike.

The red states are (mostly, except Alaska) contiguous so that would work out for them (although a very oddly shaped country with New Mexico and possibly Colorado poking up into it). But it's just unworkable for the blue states because they aren't contiguous. Even before you get to economic matters and all else GGPViper spelled out, there's the fact that the Northeast/ North Midwest chunk of Blue is separated from the West Coast by the Red West. Blue has snagged the Great Lakes and Michigan within them but still is even more oddlt shaped than Red. And then there is the matter of purple (states that elect Democrats and Republicans in similar numbers). To whom does Florida belong? Does it make Red contiguous or is it a lonely outpost of East Coast Blue separated by from its' fellow states by South Red? And Colorado- is it Red bearing down on lonely New Mexico Blue? Or is it part of a Western Blue spike sticking up into Red?

Right now the US has all of Canada between itself and Alaska and that seems to be working out. But that's mainly because of good relations with Canada. Since this proposed divide would be an angry rather than an amiable split, I don't think the states cut off from the rest of their country would fair as well as Alaska currently does. Also, Alaska (and Hawaii) are tiny outposts of a giant U.S. If it were suddenly not so giant, outposts would lose much support.

My state is not exactly that red.
http://t.answers.com/answers/#!/entry/i ... 477104f2/2

Yes, people who make the rich richer deserve to take part in the profits they generate. And that's a whole lot more than encompasses minimum wage. And last I heard, many right wingers want to do away with the minimum wage, and "pay people what they're worth." Or in other words, all workers would be declared worthless. Such would be the fate of red America.

Many red states - and not just those south of the Mason-Dixon line - have had abysmal records with race relations. Even Idaho had once had laws forbidding interracial marriage. That's not to say that blue states have always played fair with racial minorities - we have not - but it's red states today that are still trying to slip past government civil rights legislation in order t practice voting suppression, and equates government programs with "reparations for slavery" - talk about barely hidden racism! And incidentally, all the guns in the world isn't going to change things for minorities, unless you figure they should stage an armed rebellion and turn the red states blue.

Here in MN, our upper- and middle-classes prefer passive-aggressive discrimination. The official line is that we're an academic meritocracy, but our "students" are mostly rich-kids whose parents could afford to have them tutored. Beer pong is a bigger part of their college life than studying. At the same time, we have lots of poor people with five times the motivation who can't get a decent job.

Every one of those $100,000-per-year slackers displaces 4-5 entry level workers who would have put in a hard 8-10 hours every day. You could pay four people $23,000 a year (a living wage in MN) and cover their health care premiums in full for the same amount of money. (That was true even before the ACA.)

Dear corporate America: If you move your business to RedLand, you'll pay half the taxes and have access to cheap labor, less red tape, and generous import/export laws. Thank you for your consideration.

Checkmate.

No one is really supposed to go through life doing minimum wage jobs. You use them to get started and as a stepping stone to bigger and better or even to get back on your feet after a long hard fall. To purposely hold jobs like that longer than necessary when others are available (and I'm not saying they always are but a strong usually which is close enough) and waiting for minimum wage to go up is the hallmark of a slacker. I'd be about willing to bet that most of the rich and middle class people you despise for being "haves" started out making minimum for their first job in high school or college but had the gumption to reach a little further.

I won't hold my breath and I dont think anyone else will on that.

That's just paranoia, there.

"Had" is past tense of "have".
Did you know that?


Not that again.


Which ones, exactly? Are those programs tailored for people of color and exclude whites? That's an honest question since I don't live in a red state and generally don't keep up with them with the fanatical drive of some people.

We believe in gun rights for all. You don't because it's not part of the progressive package.

Raptor-

I think you know that there are plenty of people who through circumstance are stuck in minimum wage jobs - especially since outsourcing is so popular with corporate America.
"Paying people what they're worth" is in fact very popular - if crazy - talk in right wing circles.
And no, those programs that are being called "reparations for slavery" are not tailored only for non-whites. But you can't tell that to right wing demagogues (such as McDaniel in Mississippi) and the boobs who vote for them.

I see my point went right over you but that's no surprise.

Paying people what they're *worth has my support but I won't go along with lowering minimum wage. I don't think most other conservatives would, either.

Hmm..... Well, you see; I don't live in Mississippi and have no vote there so I'm not much up on who's doing what there. Y'all been getting much rain in Mississippi, have ya?

*Worth as in their value as an employee.