Why don't we just split the country in two? (economic, financial, election)
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.
Talk about ignorant comments. Hamtramk, Michigan, population all of 21,000 is just a part of Detroit and is rabidly Democrat and doesn't represent the rest of Michigan at all. The US would be better off if that border of Canada could be shifted 5 miles so they would get Detroit.
Yeah, I'm perfectly aware that Hamtramk is part of Detroit. I lived in Metro Detroit for 14 years. YOU might not think Detroit is representative of Michigan, but it is the largest city in Michigan and very much a part of that state. Your fellow conservatives and Trumpsters throughout Metro Detroit won't at all like your dismissal of their city.
As for (very liberal) Canada having Detroit, they wouldn't want it, because they think it's representative of the decay of the United States as a whole. Isn't it cool how everyone has a unique perspective?
The Left can't stand Trump and conservative. The Right can't stand Hillary and Democrats. We are increasingly refusing to be governed by what we view as the heavy-handed policies of the other side and I can see bloodshed coming in the future (I know the Left already considers it, and, if Obama was just a taste of what we could get if another Dem got in, I could see our side starting the shooting too.). If we cannot seem to agree enough to stay together, perhaps we should split right down the Mississippi or something.
Or perhaps we'll give the Democrats the West and East Coasts and we'll keep the Midwest and the South. You get Hawaii and we keep Alaska. Sound good? We'll even let you add Peurto Rico to the Democrat States of Amerika. (And you can have Chicwalkee, another state formed from the union of Milwaukee and Chicago.)
This sounds like an excellent idea! Unfortunately, I doubt you will be able to get Trump to move where his supporters live. And no way Melania would ever live in the south or midwest. They seem to want to live around urban liberals for some bizarre reason. But he'll have to go live among his following---it's part of the deal.
This sounds like an excellent idea! Unfortunately, I doubt you will be able to get Trump to move where his supporters live. And no way Melania would ever live in the south or midwest. They seem to want to live around urban liberals for some bizarre reason.
Ha! Yeah. Funny, that, isn't it? Trumpsters seem oblivious to that fact, though.
There's no good reason for the United States to remain united. The United States is a failed marriage and it's time for a divorce. Secession is a natural extension of freedom and democracy. I fully support California and Texas secession, if that's the will of the people there.
There's no good reason for the United States to remain united. The United States is a failed marriage and it's time for a divorce. Secession is a natural extension of freedom and democracy. I fully support California and Texas secession, if that's the will of the people there.
Tain't Cally-forny ner Tejas that's wantin' out, sonny.
I've never lived in Detroit, but got a pretty fair picture of it through the local media and working (over the phone) with people there on a daily basis -- particularly between 1965-1983. My personal impression is that, like an eccentric relative, Metro Detroit mirrors (and tends to accentuate) much of both the worst, and the finest elements of the combination of enterprise, adaptability, tradition and healthy rebellion that is the American experiment. It will find its own way, as it should.
Last edited by 2nd trick op; 12-09-2017 at 07:03 PM..
We're not turning our back on global responsibilities; only against the collectivist nonsense that made us the one-worlders' favorite whipping boy for too many years. If the United Nations had made it clear not long after its inception that institutionalized Marxism was as foul a scourge as Naziism, and dedicated itself to its extermination -- there would be no problem.
But those of us who recall the Cold War can also recall the collection of banana republics and petty tyrannies which turned the UN into a laughingstock. The collapse of the Soviet Union under the weight of its own chains simply demonstrated the need for a new villain. A 2003 Newsweek cover story proclaimed "Why America Scares the World", but Newsweek has since clearly identified itself as mostly hostile to those outside the circle of the Left-leaning elite.
And don't even think of trying to win those of us out here in the real world over with your global-warming sob stories. The only goal of that crowd is creation of another level of international bureaucracy, which can't even devise a means to address the issue -- save for the first step of a power- and revenue-grab.
Actually, according to a 1960's communist document, the Commies were deciding between using the UN and the USSR as their global domination force. Seeing what the UN has done since its inception, I think that it, not the USSR, was the greater Evil Empire and that Reagan defeated the wrong one. The USSR would have fallen on its own, though our help hastened its demise. The UN was started by Commies (it was originally envisioned by the Commie Woodrow Wilson under the League of Nations.) The UN is behind Common Core, the Syrian Civil War, and the open borders invasions of Europe, Australia, Canada, and the US, and, of course, wealth redistribution from first world to third world countries under the guise of "climate change" legislation. And now that they are rising in power, they want their old rival, Russia, out of the way.
I'm no fan of Putin (I find his ban on all but the Eastern Orthodox Church in Russia to be detestable, as is what he does to journalists). However, that said, if I wasn't thinking he might be plotting with Iran against the US and Israel, I'd consider the US working with him to defeat the United Nations just like we worked with Stalin to defeat the Nazis and the Japanese. (However, this time, we won't make the mistake of letting Putin survive much longer after World War III is over and the UN and its globalist allies are dead and defeated, so that, much like how the USSR controlled half of Germany and loads of Europe, that they don't do the same now after the fall of the UN, the AU, and the EU.
I'd prefer it if the southern red states just seceded. Let's see how well they do without the blue states subsidizing them with our taxes (which they've decided to raise).
Red states couldn't survive without blue states paying for them. So or course they raise the taxes on them.
Status:
"81 Years, NOT 91 Felonies"
(set 2 days ago)
Location: Dallas, TX
5,789 posts, read 3,583,053 times
Reputation: 5687
I'm trying to avoid extremes here. It's not either-or. No, that is not a glib statement. I really do believe that. Whether the breakup of the USA in this day and age for the usual reasons given would truly be a good idea is not my point. The point is secession, etc. itself.
The obvious flaw in arguments for secession / break-up is that it starts a slippery slope. If whole regions can secede, then why not the individual farm owner, or even typical suburbanite with quarter to half acre lot? Why deny "the little person" what the big groups have? I don't know about on C-D, but in other places I make the joke about taking my "kingdom", declaring secession from my county, my state, and the United States (in precisely that order, for the sake of orderly process) and declaring my land The Republic of (surname)ia. If everybody did that, we'd end up in a situation barely different from the Early Middle Ages, in which a knight or count ruled over his lands, barely answerable (if at all) to a higher authority. It doesn't take an economist or historian to see how inefficient and politically unstable this system can easily be.
On the other hand, no secession at all would mean no right to secede even if a Kim Jong-un figure came to power in Washington DC, or if the most powerful group sought out genocide against an oppressed group in the area where the latter group is the majority of the residents. Don't even ask about relatively trivial matters like "taxation without representation". This also seems unfair if you think the colonies did have a right to secede from Great Britain (and a secessionist war it was).
In the end, there seems to be no perfect way to achieve this, aside from sheer force of arms. But if there is a way to achieve this without bloodshed, and do it in a way consistent with the Constitution, perhaps there needs to be a process by which a state or region thereof (with the state's consent, of course) may secede IF a certain number of the Congress or US Senate or certain number of states give permission for the secession. If Czechoslovakia could do it peacefully and amicably after the Cold War, that would give some hope a 'reasonable middle' may be found.
Understand that I am not for secession, and certainly if Texas had a vote on it by its citizens, I would very likely vote "No". That still does not change the fact that in some (admittedly extreme) circumstances secession can be ethically legitimate, and it's responsible to adjust the law or the Constitution to reflect this.
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.