Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
So much of America is divided into the 'red' or 'blue' ideal frames of thought. Each side hates the other, and thinks the other is not only unintelligent, but out to get them.
The days of independents and centrist seem to be gone. If a person does not pick a side in every debate, a side picks them (or at least treats them as members of the other)
So (in an imaginary hypothetical sense), would the best thing for America be an ideological split?
If so, how would that happen? By population? By State? A simply geographic split?
[quote=tindo80;11361142]So much of America is divided into the 'red' or 'blue' ideal frames of thought. Each side hates the other, and thinks the other is not only unintelligent, but out to get them.
The days of independents and centrist seem to be gone. If a person does not pick a side in every debate, a side picks them (or at least treats them as members of the other)
So (in an imaginary hypothetical sense), would the best thing for America be an ideological split?
If so, how would that happen? By population? By State? A simply geographic split?[/quote]
By any means possible! The red states would be working and prospering while the blue states would be in a welfare office or on every corner with a sign looking for a handout. "Honestly I just need a beer" "Will work *wink* for food"
So much of America is divided into the 'red' or 'blue' ideal frames of thought. Each side hates the other, and thinks the other is not only unintelligent, but out to get them.
The days of independents and centrist seem to be gone. If a person does not pick a side in every debate, a side picks them (or at least treats them as members of the other)
So (in an imaginary hypothetical sense), would the best thing for America be an ideological split?
If so, how would that happen? By population? By State? A simply geographic split?[/quote]
By any means possible! The red states would be working and prospering while the blue states would be in a welfare office or on every corner with a sign looking for a handout. "Honestly I just need a beer" "Will work *wink* for food"
Considering the blue states pay more into the federal govt than they get back, and the red states pay less than what they get back...
The USA should be split. I made a thread about this same topic a few weeks ago actually.
We need to limit the power of the federal gov., allowing each state to make it's own laws like the constitution says the USA can do. Or we need to split it up in a new way.
Trying to unite all of the USA under one federal government is not working well, and it goes against wait America was founded upon. Power in the USA is supposed to be decentralized, lately we have been going in the opposite direction.
It should be split into those who want bigger government, or government running their lives. And then the other half would be those that want barely any government.
The Red and Blue don't have too many differences.... So why would you split those two idealogies who both believe in strong /bigger gov't , and less freedoms for individuals??? You can say republicans want small government, but they really don't if you look at the last 8 years., and they love restricting freedoms as well.
I say we work out a swap with Canada. They get New England in exchange for Alberta and maybe Saskatchewan and interior BC. Maybe we can throw in Cascadia to seal the deal.
The USA should be split. I made a thread about this same topic a few weeks ago actually.
We need to limit the power of the federal gov., allowing each state to make it's own laws like the constitution says the USA can do. Or we need to split it up in a new way.
]
OK, but giving greater power to the states has ended badly more often than not. The civil war, the civil rights period, katrina, the pre-jacksonian days etc.
Quote:
Trying to unite all of the USA under one federal government is not working well, and it goes against wait America was founded upon. Power in the USA is supposed to be decentralized, lately we have been going in the opposite direction.
I was wondering more along the lines of 2 america's. The 'red' minded people and the 'blue minded'.
Red minded people tend to have one ideology for how they see things should work and do not like contributing to things they oppose (example welfare, social assistance, taxes, public education, etc). Blue minded people prefer more of a social safety net-ala the European style of governing (publicly funded health, anti-war, high regulation on business etc).
Socially reds dont like demographics they see as 'blue', or at least see such people as inherently 'bad' or inept (big city folks, poor people, minorities, gays, social workers, non profits).
Blues dont like red demographics and see them as inherently 'misguided' or even 'immoral' people (big businesses, the rich, the christian-religious, rural inhabitants).
Maybe (just imagining a hypothetical), each side should have a right to its own ideals of what they see as 'america'. At that, most conservatives prefer to live with, work with, and associate with other conservatives. Thats increased since Clinton. Most liberals likewise prefer living near, working with, or associating with other liberals.
Would an american 'velvet revolution' (ala what happened in yugoslavia...not a revolution, but rather a political split and divide) be appropriate? If so, who would get what and where?
(before anyone says it, Im aware that yugoslavia did not go so well post split)
I disagree the the days of centrists and moderates are gone - I think there are more of "us" than of the ideological extremes out there, despite the extremes being louder and creating "better news" for coverage. I do believe the centrists need to vote in candidates who are also centrists.
As for the U.S. splitting, our country has been through this at least once before - the ideological divide pre-Civil War was also immense if history has recorded the time properly - we are still one nation (though let's try to resolve these differences without the bloodshed). I believe we have to keep chipping away at communication with those with whom we disagree and try to have the patience to have reasonable discussions where we can. Let the ones screaming nonsense on either side scream, let everyone else discuss.
So, my short answer is "no"
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
