The US would be better off splitting up

[QCassidy352]

I've given this a good deal of thought, and I honestly can't understand why the US is, or should remain, one unified country. Look at the election map from last night. A huge sea of red, with blue on both ends and some at the top.

I'm from Boston. I don't share the culture, the beliefs, the values, the religion, or the economic conditions of all of those red states in the south and the midwest. Let me be honest - I don't like those places, and I don't like most of the people who live there. And they feel the same about me and where I live, and anyone who says differently is a liar.

You can wave "united we stand" flags and talk about being "proud to be an american" all you want, but at the end of the day, there are at least 2 countries here, if not more, and they have no business being associated with each other in any way more serious than as trading partners. The difference in culture and values is too great. I don't want those red states having any say over how my country is run, and they don't want people like me having any say over how their country is run.

It makes me absolutely sick that the gay marriage ban passed by overwhelming margins in 11 out of 11 states. (I'm a straight, white male, btw.) It probably makes most southerners and midwesterners sick to think that there are married gay people in MA right now.

In this election, whoever won, about 49% of the pekople were going to be sick at the thought of the next 4 years. With 2 countries, there would still be elections, but there would be much finer distinction - like the primaries are now. 49% of the country wouldn't rabidly hate their elected leader. The US is already 2 countries in every way that matters except governmental control. Why not just make it official?

[mactastic]

This country was founded on the idea that different is OK. We fought to keep it united when people wanted to secede over their complete different-ness.

[makisushi]

I've given this a good deal of thought, and I honestly can't understand why the US is, or should remain, one unified country. Look at the election map from last night. A huge sea of red, with blue on both ends and some at the top.

I'm from Boston. I don't share the culture, the beliefs, the values, the religion, or the economic conditions of all of those red states in the south and the midwest. Let me be honest - I don't like those places, and I don't like most of the people who live there. And they feel the same about me and where I live, and anyone who says differently is a liar.

You can wave "united we stand" flags and talk about being "proud to be an american" all you want, but at the end of the day, there are at least 2 countries here, if not more, and they have no business being associated with each other in any way more serious than as trading partners. The difference in culture and values is too great. I don't want those red states having any say over how my country is run, and they don't want people like me having any say over how their country is run.

It makes me absolutely sick that the gay marriage ban passed by overwhelming margins in 11 out of 11 states. (I'm a straight, white male, btw.) It probably makes most southerners and midwesterners sick to think that there are married gay people in MA right now.

In this election, whoever won, about 49% of the pekople were going to be sick at the thought of the next 4 years. With 2 countries, there would still be elections, but there would be much finer distinction - like the primaries are now. 49% of the country wouldn't rabidly hate their elected leader. The US is already 2 countries in every way that matters except governmental control. Why not just make it official?


One of the wonderful things about this country is that we can all live together AND have differing opinions. Diversity as it were.

[QCassidy352]

This country was founded on the idea that different is OK. We fought to keep it united when people wanted to secede over their complete different-ness.

Right, and I don't see why the Civil War was worthwhile except on the slavery issue. As far as I'm concerned, the South should have been able to leave if it wanted. Both sides would be happier today if they had. (provided they freed the slaves first... which would never happen, I know, but I'm talking theoretically.)

My question is really why *should* we live together when our opinions are so different? Aside from the fact that it's a historical precedent, what's the *point?*

We don't get along, so we go our separate ways. Like a no-fault divorce.

[mactastic]

Right, and I don't see why the Civil War was worthwhile except on the slavery issue. As far as I'm concerned, the South should have been able to leave if it wanted. Both sides would be happier today if they had. (provided they freed the slaves first... which would never happen, I know, but I'm talking theoretically.)

My question is really why *should* we live together when our opinions are so different? Aside from the fact that it's a historical precedent, what's the *point?*

We don't get along, so we go our separate ways. Like a no-fault divorce.

Do you remember when the South was a Democratic stronghold? Things change. If we divided now, who's to say in 20 years those divisions would still be valid?

[jsw]

Another thing to keep in mind is that those red and blue states made the divisions seem too clear. All of the states were different shades of purple, really. Some more red, others more blue, but none red or blue.

[Backtothemac]

So, I am a liar because I say that even though I am southern by birth and Alabama by the grace of God that even though I feel that way. When I say I love Boston, the northeast, and my friends that are democrats, then I am a liar.

Please.

That is the most rediculous thing that I have ever heard, and frankly, it is an ignorant statement that is being blinded by the fact that you cannot take the fact that Bush won. Why?

You quote the ammendments that were restricting gay rights. I support civil unions, and frankly gay marriage. However, the will of the people is the will of the people. If you are in the minority, you are in the minority. However, much of the heartland is conservative, while the coasts tend to be liberal. The problem wasn't the country, it was your candidate. He was to liberal for the heartland.

The only way the democrats will carry the country, is by nominating a southern democrat IE Clinton and Carter.

[wordmunger]

I'm really tired of the blue states writing off the rest of the country as a bunch of uncultured goons.

Even in the most conservative of conservative states, Utah, 26 percent of voters went for Kerry. 43 percent of North Carolina did, and most "red" states were in ball park of 40 percent.

If you take a look at a county-by-county (http://www.usatoday.com/news/vote2000/cbc/map.htm) map of the election results (this one is 2000, but all indications are that the results in 2004 are pretty similar), you see that almost every state has red-blue divisions. There's more blue in Tennessee than there is in New York. North Carolina has huge swaths of blue. Most of "blue" California, Oregon, and Washington are red.

Writing off the entire south and heartland as hopelessly conservative is a horrible overgeneralization.

[mactastic]

The only way the democrats will carry the country, is by nominating a southern democrat IE Clinton and Carter.

Which is why the GOP won by nominating a northeastern conservative. ;)

[mypantsaretight]

If the country split up, Republicans would starve and die. Don't be so cruel.

Red (republican) states are net recipients of federal monies. Those monies are paid in by blue (democratic) states. Even within individual states, red districts are net takers as compared to blue districts.

Guess those lies about hard-working Republicans paying for welfare moms die hard.

Don't believe the truth? Look it up for yourself at the (Republican-run) IRS, OMB, and CBO.

peace

[jadam]

most retarded idea ever.

Who the hell do you think you are to tell me, a new york citizen, to split off from the rest of my country.

[QCassidy352]

Look, say what you want about "shades of purple" and various percents, but no one campaigned in the south, no one campaigned in Cali, MA, NY etc. All of the time and all of the money went to a few battleground states because they were the only ones that could be changed and everyone knew it.

See, the funny thing is, most of the country saw Kerry as some kind of super-liberal. Um no. Kerry is a compromise candidate. I had to hold my nose to support him because he's not liberal enough by half.

The south and the heartland are hopeless conservative. Not every individual, not every county, but every state, and the entire region. Some of those places haven't voted democrat since the Civil War. And it's the same for the north - has MA EVER voted republican?

My point isn't to bash the south. It isn't to criticize. It's that the values and the culture of some parts of this country really don't have anything to do with the values and culture of the other parts of this country.

I'm not crying because I lost. I'm saying that no matter who won this time, and no matter who wins next time, 49% of the people aren't just going to be disappointed, they're going to be sickened.

I didn't expect to convince you. But the point is, there is a regional split of values and beliefs in this country. Talk shades of purple all you want, but the split is there, by a large enough percent that no one contests Cali, the northeast, or the south. We don't agree with each other. Why should we elect each other's leader?

[jadam]

Look, say what you want about "shades of purple" and various percents, but no one campaigned in the south, no one campaigned in Cali, MA, NY etc. All of the time and all of the money went to a few battleground states because they were the only ones that could be changed and everyone knew it.


OOO yeah they didnt have a democractic convention in MA or a Republican convention in NY did they?

BTW if you think you so damned elitist, look at the polls for your northern states, its not necessarly kerry 90 bush 10 now is it?

[Thomas Veil]

The US would be better off splitting up
Well, that's part of what I was saying in the "In case of Bush victory" thread.

"Different" is okay. But I don't want to be in the same country as radicals...and the Republican party has been taken over by its radicals.

Split up, we'd still have two-party systems, except that the "new" America would have moderates and liberals, and the "old" America would have conservatives and neo-cons.

[quackattack]

I'm not happy about the election either, but this is the worst idea I have ever heard, ever.

[Thomas Veil]

I'm really tired of the blue states writing off the rest of the country as a bunch of uncultured goons...
Take it easy, wordmunger. We all recognize that's just a generalization. There are plenty of principled, intelligent liberals there...just not enough of them.


Who the hell do you think you are to tell me, a new york citizen, to split off from the rest of my country.
You could cut the irony in this statement with a knife.

[QCassidy352]

OOO yeah they didnt have a democractic convention in MA or a Republican convention in NY did they?

BTW if you think you so damned elitist, look at the polls for your northern states, its not necessarly kerry 90 bush 10 now is it?

Ok, you need to take a deep breath and calm down. This isn't personal towards anyone. Did I say I was "elite?" Did I say the north was better than the south? No. What I said was that certain regions are fundamentally very different from each other and really have no reason to be considered part of one country.

Now, the rep. convention was in NY because they wanted to exploit 9/11 near the anniversary. There was never any thought of Bush carrying NY.

I am very disturbed by how much Bush got in the north, no doubt. But you continue to miss the point. It's clear enough that no one tries to sway states like NY, MA, GA, MI, CA, etc. It may not be 90-10 but it's a long way from 50-50.

[QCassidy352]

I'm not happy about the election either, but this is the worst idea I have ever heard, ever.

Why? Aside from a knee-jerk reaction that it's bad for a country to split up... why is it the worst idea you've ever heard?

Don't get mad, explain your position.

Mine is that certain regions of this country are different enough from one another that it's silly to pretend that they have the same interests or concerns - economic or social.

Majority rule doesn't make sense when the split is close to 50-50 and the interests are sufficiently divided.

[MacNut]

The problem is not that the country is divided, its that Kerry wasn't able to unite the country. And John Edwards was NOT the best choice for VP. I think even the Democratic party is realizing that they nominated the wrong person.

[yg17]

It doesnt sound like a terrible idea, but then again, I'm a very liberal democrat in a very conservative state, missouri. And Im not alone, so lets say a split took place, there are people who would be stuck on the wrong side and couldn't afford to move. Id rather it stay the way it is and have a chance for a democractic president in 08 than a split where I'll be in the conservative hellhole with no chance for a president evne slightly right of the middle.

[MacDawg]

Another thing to keep in mind is that those red and blue states made the divisions seem too clear. All of the states were different shades of purple, really. Some more red, others more blue, but none red or blue.

I agree JSW
With many of the states "too close to call", it is obvious that no state can be completely characterized the way the maps suggest. To separate the US into 2 countries (absurd) would require separating each state into 2 states and every county into 2 counties, etc. Even then people would need to move to location nearest them. These new countries would not even consistent boundaries.

Our country is mixed down to the very fabric, even as witnessed by the popular vote.

It is part of what keeps us balanced and great.

[MacNut]

Don't forget that most of the country is Independent with no political ties to any party, and what would happen to those people if the country were to split.

[jadam]

Lets not forget, the majority of the US military bases are in the so called "RED" states.

what you consider the "Blue" states will never have a chance of seceding.

[Thomas Veil]

For those of us who consider ourselves very political, it probably would involve some migration. Aside from that, QCassidy's idea seems to have has more pluses than minuses.

[MacDawg]

C'mon, even if everybody migrated and formed 2 new countries, it wouldn't be long before the Red country would have to take over the Blue country anyway. :p

[QCassidy352]

what you consider the "Blue" states will never have a chance of seceding.

And of course they will never try. This country will never see another secession attempt again after the way the last one went.

Even the shades of purple are misleading though. A friend from Texas once put it this way: "What you call a republican in massachusets, we call a democrat. What you call a democrat, we call a liberal. What you call a liberal, we call a communist. And what you call a communist, we hang from the nearest tree." (she was a democrat, btw)

The point being that even when you see the south voting for democrats or the north voting for republicans, it's not the same thing as when it's the reverse. Bill Weld, the former governor of MA, was a republican - but so disliked for his political stances in his own party that republicans in congress blocked his appointment to be an ambassador. Even among democrats in the south, a guy like Ted Kennedy wouldn't stand a chance. And same for a guy like Newt Gingrich among northern republicans.

Ah screw it, I'm leaving this forum again. I stopped posting in the political forum because it got so time-consuming and depressing... but of course, the election sucked me back in. Well, see how much I've posted here today? Enough of this - I'm done, quitting cold turkey again! See you all in the rest of the forums.

[blackfox]

You know last night in my neck of the woods (Oregon) there was a lot of talk of "Cascadia" (N. California,Oregon, Washington, BC), an idea popularized by the book "Ecotopia" in the late 70's. The story went that Cascadia seceded from the Union and had supposedly planted tactical nuclear weapons under the US capital to insure their security. Interesting book, but of course fiction.

It does make sense, however, to trend towards a federation-style system of governance, where like areas group together. In many ways that is already the case. I know that Oregon has little in common with Iowa and so in some senses it makes sense to modify the system to more accurately reflect regional flavors.

[MacDawg]

It does make sense, however, to trend towards a federation-style system of governance, where like areas group together. In many ways that is already the case. I know that Oregon has little in common with Iowa and so in some senses it makes sense to modify the system to more accurately reflect regional flavors.

Isn't that why we have states and state governments, etc.?

[Thomas Veil]

QCassidy, don't leave this forum. I find your thoughts highly "outside the box", reasonable and entertaining.

It's just like this today because of the election. In fact, a few days ago, to my surprise, it was kind of dead in here.

[Mr. Anderson]

The election demographics are not a valid indicator of splitting the country up in sections. In another election with different candidates you'll most likely see different zones.

Besides, if we can't live together sharing and tolerating our differences here in the states, how can we be expected to do that with foreign countries?

We all live on the big blue marble together, as soon as everyone realizes that we can put all the crap behind us and move on. I don't think we'll see any improvement there in my lifetime - sad, that.

D

[blackfox]

Isn't that why we have states and state governments, etc.?
Well, yes...I admit I am a little too tired, hung-over and emotionally-drained from recent events to put too much into my posts. I was thinking of a Swiss-type system. Still, if States were given the leeway that many in the Federal government pay lip-service to that would be a good start.

[Thomas Veil]

The election demographics are not a valid indicator of splitting the country up in sections. In another election with different candidates you'll most likely see different zones.

Besides, if we can't live together sharing and tolerating our differences here in the states, how can we be expected to do that with foreign countries?

We all live on the big blue marble together, as soon as everyone realizes that we can put all the crap behind us and move on. I don't think we'll see any improvement there in my lifetime - sad, that.

D
Again, the differences are too huge, and the right has become too radical.

I'm sure you could've used that same argument against splitting from the Crown and founding this country -- and even then our forefathers were divided on that issue -- but in the end it was the right thing to do.

[skunk]

Again, the differences are too huge, and the right has become too radical.
It comes and it goes. Looking at the maps of past elections, many states are able to go either way. Kerry, it must be said, was about as inspiring as a stale sandwich.

[MacNut]

It comes and it goes. Looking at the maps of past elections, many states are able to go either way. Kerry, it must be said, was about as inspiring as a stale sandwich.

And Kerry lost votes to Al Gore and he was even less inspiring.

[skunk]

And Kerry lost votes to Al Gore and he was even less inspiring.
Evidently not.

[jxyama]

um, isn't one of the fundamentals of democracy tolerance for different views? if we split up every time there are divisions, then all we'll have in the end will be a bunch of clustered "democracies" where all the constituents have the same opinion. hardly sounds like what democracy is supposed to be to me...

no, i didn't like the result of this election. but i accept that the majority of this country, in both popular and electoral sense, decided that W is the way to go. as frustrated as i am, i find it very arrogant and anti-democratic to claim that "we" are smarter and "we" know better, even though voting showed "we" are the minority.

[wordmunger]

It doesnt sound like a terrible idea, but then again, I'm a very liberal democrat in a very conservative state, missouri. And Im not alone, so lets say a split took place, there are people who would be stuck on the wrong side and couldn't afford to move. Id rather it stay the way it is and have a chance for a democractic president in 08 than a split where I'll be in the conservative hellhole with no chance for a president evne slightly right of the middle.
Yes! Thank you! I'm in the exact same situation as you here in NC.

And wouldn't it be the same for a conservative in a "blue" state? This would simply be a recipe for more divisiveness, and even downright oppression.

[Thomas Veil]

I basically addressed these in earlier posts.


um, isn't one of the fundamentals of democracy tolerance for different views? if we split up every time there are divisions, then all we'll have in the end will be a bunch of clustered "democracies" where all the constituents have the same opinion. hardly sounds like what democracy is supposed to be to me...
Again, the differences are too huge, and the right has become too radical.
I said this elsewhere: we liberals now feel there is no place for us in this country anymore. Can you tell me what part of our government represents us? How much have we been represented over the last 24 years? Also...


Split up, we'd still have two-party systems, except that the "new" America would have moderates and liberals, and the "old" America would have conservatives and neo-cons.


...i find it very arrogant and anti-democratic to claim that "we" are smarter and "we" know better, even though voting showed "we" are the minority.
The thing is, "we" are almost always the minority...and the country's moving even farther to the radical right. Even if you cite Bill Clinton, he was a moderate, not really a liberal -- and he was barely tolerated by the radical right.

[stubeeef]

II'm from Boston. I don't share the culture, the beliefs, the values, the religion, or the economic conditions of all of those red states in the south and the midwest. Let me be honest - I don't like those places, and I don't like most of the people who live there. And they feel the same about me and where I live, and anyone who says differently is a liar.

Which 1/3 of Mass does the W voters from your state get in your mitosis of states?

[MacNut]

Being from Connecticut there are a lot of Republicans and just more Democrats. For the most part, CT is an independent state. The argument that New England is a strict Democratic region I think is a false statement.

[jackieonasses]

Quite frankly that is the most ignorant thing I have ever heard. This country was founded upon the idea that its okay to be different, to have your own opinions and beliefs. And even to express them, which is why you are allowed to write such an obsurd idea on something like this.

The civil war was not started because of slavery, it was started because the south suceeded because of their opinions of slavery- which obviously proved to be the wrong answer. So if slavery ended up being a horrible excuse for sucession, then why would you think that something as trivial as differences would be good enough reason?

Besides, if we split up the way you sound like it should- and divide into what like 3 parts- Then how prone would we be to an attack due to the lack of organization that a new country has? Especially in the state we're in with the world. I'm not going to be ridiculous and say that Bush is the most amazing thing, because I don't agree with everything he does. But, if you hold such bad feelings for the way America is right now, why don't you just go ahead and leave? I mean seriously, if you're are being serious about this whole issue of sucession, then why don't you just move to Canada or Mexico, where I'm sure everyone is just alike and all hold the same values, opinions, and morals- that way when they allow you to participate in their governments, you can know that nothing is ever going to go wrong.

I'm sorry to rant on about this, but I think this is the most unamerican statement I have ever read- especially when John Kerry himself said that we shouldn't be a nation divided- or didn't you watch? Once again sorry to rant, but you expressed your opinion so i expressed mine.

[jxyama]

The thing is, "we" are almost always the minority...and the country's moving even farther to the radical right. Even if you cite Bill Clinton, he was a moderate, not really a liberal -- and he was barely tolerated by the radical right.

i guess my point was, "we are the minority so let's split away so we are no longer the minority" just doesn't sound like the way democracy is supposed to work, that's all.

[scem0]

The country really isn't that divided.

I'm from Texas and I dislike Bush (dislike is probably not a very good word to represent how I feel towards him :cool:). Most of the states in mid-US didn't have above 60% supporting bush. It looks really bad, but when you think about it, it's not that bad at all. Is Ohio majorly pro-Bush? no... Do they show up red on the map... yes.

Do you think that

I'm from Boston. I don't share the culture, the beliefs, the values, the religion, or the economic conditions of all of those red states in the south and the midwest.

You see... I think you really [i[do[/i] share the same culture, beliefs, and values of the 'red states', it's just the 'black and white'ness (or the red and blueness ;)) of the electoral map that makes the country seem so divided.

scem0

[quackattack]

Why? Aside from a knee-jerk reaction that it's bad for a country to split up... why is it the worst idea you've ever heard?

Don't get mad, explain your position.

Mine is that certain regions of this country are different enough from one another that it's silly to pretend that they have the same interests or concerns - economic or social.

Majority rule doesn't make sense when the split is close to 50-50 and the interests are sufficiently divided.

Well ok... I didn't really want to get dragged into a discussion like this, but here we go.

Why is part of the United States seceding and forming its own country the worst idea ever? I'm not even sure where to begin answering that ridiculous question, but the first two things that come to mind are diversity and logistics.

First of all, diversity is a GOOD THING. Different points of view keep each other in check. Do you really want an entire country run by W that has no one to oppose anything, very scary. He could pass anything he wanted in his new GOP country. This would cause the two parties (or countries) to grow even further apart and produce even more radical ideas. Why not just start another civil war?

Second, you are oversimplifying what you see. You see red and blue states and draw lines in your mind. You must realize that most of those states were extremely close. Near 50-50 in most of them. So if you really wanted to divide the country you would have to do more than divide states. Mostly you would have to divide rural-urban areas throughout the every state. Logistically how in the world would you govern a country that is scattered throughout the entire United States? This idea just doesn't make any sense at all.

I think America is a great country. True I may be mad, and a little worried at this point. I really don't see what throwing out laughable ideas like this is going to accomplish. If anything we need to come together and play the hand we have been delt. Ok, thats enough from me, I can't believe I even gave this question the dignity of a response.

[Drewswa77]

Hey QCassidy352


Just move outta here. Please.

Try Cuba, the weather's nice.

[the future]

I'm sorry to rant on about this, but I think this is the most unamerican statement I have ever read.

And "unamerican" is the most idiotic word there is.

[skunk]

What on earth can it mean? You lot are capable of anything... :confused:

[Freg3000]

And it's the same for the north - has MA EVER voted republican?

Oh it was centuries ago. Millennia even. Oh no, wait, it was only 20 years ago.

I strongly disagree with your idea to begin with, but when I saw this, I found justification for my initial opinion. You are just wrong. The whole red state/blue state thing is a new phenomena. Reagan won every state except Minnesota (and DC) in 1984. Nixon won 49 states in 1972. Bush Senior won almost 4 times the number of electoral votes than Dukakis in 1988.

If you are so short sighted not to see recent history, I can see where your call for secession stems from.

Sorry if this seems over the top, but a blatant disregard for the facts can not go unchallenged.

[skunk]

I can see where your call for succession stems from.

Sorry if this seems over the top, but a blatant disregard for the facts can not go unchallenged.
Nor can a blatant disregard for vocabulary: it's "secession", not "succession".

[Freg3000]

Nor can a blatant disregard for vocabulary: it's "secession", not "succession".

I've changed my misspelling. My apologies. Now address the true blatant disregard for the truth.

[skunk]

From a previous post in this thread:
"It comes and it goes. Looking at the maps of past elections, many states are able to go either way."

IOW, I agree... ;)

[wowser]

Splitting in two would be AWFUL. Imagine a state as poweful as the US, but one in which right wing thinking went totally unchallenged. Scary. America need to heal itself as Kerry said.

[blackfox]

Splitting in two would be AWFUL. Imagine a state as poweful as the US, but one in which right wing thinking went totally unchallenged. Scary. America need to heal itself as Kerry said.

<ahem>Texas<ahem>

[IJ Reilly]

I said this elsewhere: we liberals now feel there is no place for us in this country anymore. Can you tell me what part of our government represents us? How much have we been represented over the last 24 years? Also...

The problem with representation isn't so much ideological as it is political. If you look at the issues, particularly domestic issues, a clear majority of Americans side with the Democratic platform. Then a whole lot of them then go ahead and vote for Republicans. It isn't so much that the right wing doesn't have any opposition in the ideas department, but that the opposition to conservativism currently lacks an effective party to represent them.

The Democratic Party has been a shambles since 1980. They have failed from at least that time forward to market a message that Americans can take to the polls. After spending a couple of decades in the wilderness, the Republican became very good at marketing their message -- and have won big more on the message than on the substance. They've become brilliant at getting people to vote against their own self-interests.

The Democratic Party is in desperate need of new leadership. If they can get somebody to run the show like Gingrich did for the Republicans during the '80s, it won't be long before the media will be talking about the "new liberal revolution" in the US and the Republicans will be ducking for cover. The beauty of this is, ideologically, the country hardly has to move a muscle for this to happen. All it takes is the right leadership.

Some day.

[ProjektJ]

Now, the rep. convention was in NY because they wanted to exploit 9/11 near the anniversary. There was never any thought of Bush carrying NY.

I live in new york. I go to stuyvesant high school, which is about 3 blocks away from the wtc. I can see ground zero from my classroom window. They used our tragedy as their photo-op, and i can sure as hell tell you that they were not welcome here.

[Durandal7]

A warning to Democrats.
One of the biggest factors in your loss was that the Left has been throwing a non-stop hissy fit for the last 2 years. Unless you want to lose even more Senate and House seats in 2006, I would recommend the following:

No more doomsday predictions.
No more whining about how everyone who voted for Bush is an idiot, if you keep it up you will only increase GOP support.
No more calling for Civil War.
No more unsubstasiated claims that you are moving to Canada.
No more sweeping insults aimed at large groups of voters based on party affilliation or geographic location.

"Anbody But Bush" was a spectacular failure because the Left operated under the assumption that they could win an election based on shrill hatred of a candidate. Unless you wake up and realize this, you will only become a smaller and smaller minority.

[scem0]

<ahem>Texas<ahem>

It's sad that I feel guilty for where I live.... :(

scem0

[stubeeef]

I say give the salt flats and badlands to the liberals. If they make anything good out of it, we can invade and take it back over at our will!

[2jaded2care]

Anecdotally, I believe that in addition to more American flags, I have seen around here fewer Confederate displays and "Fergit, Hell!" bumper stickers since 9/11. Of course the Stars n' Stripes would be expected, and perhaps the fading Stars n' Bars are just a misperception on my part (or just a sign of increasing mobility and urbanization), but... I was kind of hoping that the South was finally realizing that, yes, we lost the "Recent Unpleasantness", and no, it wasn't such a bad thing that our only solution was to bide our time until the South could "rise again". And that maybe we really are a part of the U.S. after all.

9/11 seemed to elicit a kind of "I can criticize my brother, but don't you dare hit him" response.

And now some of you want to secede because your guy lost an apparently legitimate election. Not to gloat (I voted Bush, but it wasn't exactly gleefully) or trivialize your concerns, obviously this will have lasting ramifications. However, it is a battle, not the war.

I'll admit that there's regional differences. That's why people choose to live in different regions. Or different countries, for that matter. Go where you best fit, live happily, don't complain that your individual beliefs aren't automatically enshrined in law to apply to everyone else as well.

I too find the polarization of the country troubling. I know Iraq has a lot to do with it, but there doesn't seem to be much room for compromise domestically, either.

I'll admit that hypothetically it might be interesting to split the country and see which side "wins". Never happen in reality, too much money at stake. Perhaps a computer simulation might tell us someday. But I doubt it.

[solvs]

no, i didn't like the result of this election. but i accept that the majority of this country, in both popular and electoral sense, decided that W is the way to go. as frustrated as i am, i find it very arrogant and anti-democratic to claim that "we" are smarter and "we" know better, even though voting showed "we" are the minority.
Though it is frustrating, especially considering a lot of Bush supporters think Saddam had WMDs and ties to Al Qaeda, it is our system. Kerry was not enough to defeat Bush, despite the majority of people who feel this country is headed in the wrong direction (whatever the right direction may be). I do feel mislead, but perhaps Bush can take the narrow win as an indication that he should move more towards the center to get things done like Clinton did (before the BJ). And perhaps he will clean up his own mess now that he has been forced to.

But that is the point. You are supposed to have moderate conservatives to defend the country and curb spending. Then you have moderate liberals to protect the social programs... arts, education, healthcare, keeping Big Business in line. All theoretical, but you get my point. Both sides are supposed to balance each other out. To keep each other honest, and protect the respective party's individual rights. It doesn't always work out that way, so we sway one direction, then sway another. Things like 9/11 bring out the emotions, but the Iraq war and mistakes are supposed to make you think about what's going on, and question the government so it doesn't become corrupt or power hungry.

Those of us in the middle are screwed while each side fights for the party's key constituents. Both sides have become so partisan, it's no wonder there is so much apathy. The opposition couldn't win, because as much as people hated Bush, Nader and Kerry didn't seem like real alternatives. We are supposed to be divided to stop either side from completely taking over, but we are not supposed to be this divided. It's only going to get worse from here. Conservaties, Liberals... get your acts together and stop whoring for the extreme sides of your party and you may actually get something done. You'd think they'd learn their lessons, but the people seem to be eating it up.

Well... half of them anyway.

[mactastic]

I say give the salt flats and badlands to the liberals. If they make anything good out of it, we can invade and take it back over at our will!


What, and move all the Mormons to the cities? :D

[jxyama]

slightly off topic, but one of the worst things i've been following (and being frustrated) as a resident of a state that passed an "anti-gay marriage amendment" (MI) is the way media has been reporting it.

most of the media is reporting that the "amendment defined marriage." that's utter b.s. straight from the Michigan ballot, this is how the amendment read (emphasis mine):

Proposal 04-02. A PROPOSAL TO AMEND THE STATE CONSTITUTION TO SPECIFY WHAT CAN BE RECOGNIZED AS A 'MARRIAGE OR SIMILAR UNION' FOR ANY PURPOSE. The proposal would amend the state constitution to provide that "the union of one man and one woman in marriage shall be the only agreement recognized as a marriage or similar union for any purpose."

this amendment didn't define marriage as a union of a man and a woman. it did nothing but deny gay couples any benefits or methods of obtaining any form of an union. this isn't about defining marriage - it's all about discriminating against gays and media is not doing the correct job. if the aim was to define marriage, the proposal should have read "the marriage shall only be recognized between a man and a woman."

makes me so mad that after all these years, such a blatant discriminatory amendment can pass in so many states and no one reports it as discriminatory, but rather, "defining" something. discrimination is discrimination. no defining around it.

[maxterpiece]

new map (http://kenlayne.com/new_map.jpg)

[stubeeef]

good and evil

right and left

black and white

jesusland and satin-land?

[zimv20]

an angry letter to the red states can be found here (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/11/07/blue_state_to_reds/):

An open letter to the Red-State victors:

With hard work and superb organization, you have triumphed over John Kerry and the forces of Blue-state paternalism. Congratulations. The multinational corporations that hold you in bondage remain free to profit off your sweat nearly tax free, while their overpaid senior execs continue to pay a pittance in personal income tax.

Your primary and secondary schools will continue to turn out third-rate pupils with limited opportunities, while you enjoy the satisfaction of making it on your own without health care when a catastrophic illness bankrupts your family.

Your agricultural universities will continue issuing Ph.D.s in football, and bogus Protestant Evangelical and Fundamentalist theology, and how to jerk off a bull safely. Your children will learn to borrow enough money to erect chicken houses so that they, like you, can take custody -- not possession, but custody -- of Tyson's chicks, feed them, rear them, assume losses from those that fail to thrive, and in the end earn just enough money to service their endless debt, and realize a profit of perhaps $12K a year. Your bank thanks you; Tyson thanks you; George W. Bush thanks you; and I thank you.

You can continue sending your sons to die in Iraq on a fool's errand. When you bury them, you can console yourselves with Bush's platitudes about their heroic mission to defend America from weapons of mass destruction.

You can savor the deficit spending that stimulates commerce today, but will cripple the US economy in ten or fifteen years' time when the bills come due with interest. Perhaps a Democrat will be in office at that time, who can be blamed for W's delayed economic fiasco.

You can continue believing, as Republican Party brainwashing has persuaded you, that we, your neighbors, are your enemies. You can believe that we have no morals; that we pimp out our teenage daughters for Internet porn; that we eat babies; that we are all gay; that we are cowards on the battlefield; and that we want to run your lives and give you AIDS.

Here's a clue: we are not your enemies; we are your countrymen. Your enemies are the greedy multinationals that the Republican Party bends over backwards to accommodate. Incidentally, most of them are based in Blue states, as are their Republican owners and major shareholders.

Here in the Blue States, Democrats and Republicans alike generate the lion's share of America's wealth, although it is you Reds who provide the lion's share of the stoop labor. You are our Mexicans, so to speak. We could not have accomplished the economic miracle that is America without your willing capitulation to a system that lies to you and ****s you over at every turn.

Look at economic output and educational achievement on a state-by-state basis: it's painfully evident that we Blues are immensely more productive and better educated than you Reds. We have lots more money. We live longer. We eat better. We work less. We **** more. We do cocaine and smoke fine Canadian buds, not the homebrew crank and cheap Mexican headache reefer you guys are stuck with. We drink French wine and Stoli martinis, not Budweiser. Our children rarely bother us: we've got them on Ritalin and Prozac. Our teeth are straighter and whiter, our necks longer, and our fingernails cleaner. And many of us are the Republican elite who have just punked you.

It's good to be a Blue, regardless of which party you join.

Understandably, you resent us, so you've fabricated an imaginary measure of superiority: Christian "values." Yet you talk about values the way a pre-teen girl talks about "love" in fan letters to Ashton Kutcher. You recycle quasi-religious platitudes and received slogans. You know nothing of moral theology, a rigorous philosophical pursuit that hardly exists outside the Catholic Church and its elite universities. You make of the Bible what you will; you attend prayer meetings with other semi-literates, where you reinforce each other's sloppy understandings of the text, and combine them with half-digested bits of old-timey Hallmark-card "wisdom." And when you spout gibberish, you call it "speaking in tongues." You actually fancy that you're saints, you silly, narcissistic creatures.

Nevertheless, you are fellow Americans. The Blue Republican elite encouraged you to vote for George W Bush, because they quite simply own him, and they know that his administration will make policies that help them, even if hurt you. We Blue Democrats voted for John Kerry because we believed he would minister to your needs better than Bush. A President Kerry would have shared some of our wealth with you, assured your health care, raised the minimum wage, and checked the rapacious greed of the multinationals that hold you in thrall.

President Kerry would have helped us to help you, which is all that we ask. It pains us to see you in wage slavery. It pains us to see you so ignorant and uneducated, and so eager to place yourselves in bondage. Yes, we live better; but we wish you to live better too, even if it means sacrifice on our part.

What we wanted for you would have been far better than that which you, in your ignorant pride, demanded for yourselves. Oh, you defeated us all right, but only to your detriment.

We Blues will come out of the Bush era no worse for wear, although you Reds will come out very much diminished, deeper in debt, and less able to improve your circumstances by your own powers. But because you wish to be flattered more than helped, you will be grateful for your ass ****ing from the Blue-state Republican elite that is laughing behind your backs today.

We did not wish it so. We honestly did want to help.

On 2 November, you thanked us by electing a shrewd, manipulative handmaiden to corporate America who panders to you while ruthlessly exploiting your ignorance and weakness for the benefit of his patrons in the national plutocracy. There is nothing we can do about that. You won fair and square.

We should let you rot. We should secede and leave you to fend for yourselves. Then you will see firsthand just how dependent you are. We are sick of fighting for you by fighting against you. Perhaps, when you see how dreary your lives have become without us, you will finally develop the spine to fight for your basic, human rights. And then we will gladly confront the plutocracy alongside you. We need your help to defeat the Blue Republicans, who, I assure you, are just as decadent as we are, though often richer.

But until you finally learn to respect yourselves, we can't respect you, and we therefore can't be bothered to give a rat's ass about you.

So let us secede, Blue America and Red America. We can handle the Blue state Republicans, so long as we don't have a lot of ignorant Red state lemmings frustrating our efforts and screwing themselves in the bargain. Secession will enable us both to live as we have chosen without the other's interference. We will prosper, and you will get a clue.

But do stay in touch after the borders slam shut. When you finally tire of living on the modern, corporate plantations of Cargill, Tyson, ConAgra and Smithfield; when you tire of shopping at Wal-Mart and sending your daughters to sling hash at Denny's in hopes that they'll meet the nicer sort of truck driver; when you tire of sneaking into Blue America as illegal white-trash wetbacks eager for casual work dusting our parlors; and when, like men, you finally rise up in rebellion against this immoral usury -- then, and only then, let us talk.

We'll gladly get your backs. But first you must grow the brains and the balls needed to profit from our help.

[vwcruisn]

an angry letter to the red states can be found here (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/11/07/blue_state_to_reds/):


thanks zim... that was the highlight of my day... very funny, and sadly... true

[Xtremehkr]

There is no point in splitting up. Things will get worse before they get better, but it has all been done before. Greed has a tendancy to eat itself and all is not lost yet. In the same way that the GOP was able to use 911 to get their way they will inevitably create a situation that gets them canned.

There is no point in giving up, especially since there hasn't really even been much of an effort to fight back yet.

The gloat monkies will have their day, says more about them really.

[IJ Reilly]

This diatribe represents the lowest possible point in our national dialog -- or at least, so I would hope.

[mactastic]

This diatribe represents the lowest possible point in our national dialog -- or at least, so I would hope.


I doubt it. But this is pretty bad. Bout as low as the paper that called liberals cheese and sushi eating blah blah blah. Stuff like that does nothing to help, and in fact contributes to making things WORSE if possible. Until the two sides stop seeing each other as enemies things are going to get worse. The last time we let that kind of thought get out of hand there was a war. :mad:

[Lyle]

This diatribe represents the lowest possible point in our national dialog -- or at least, so I would hope.Indeed. I recognize that this communique from "Commandante Camembert" is satire (OK, I really, really hope that it's just satire) but it does express what a lot of "red staters" believe that the "blue staters" think of us: for example, that our agricultural universities issue "... Ph.D.s in football, and bogus Protestant Evangelical and Fundamentalist theology, and how to jerk off a bull safely". Mind you, I do have a degree from one of those agricultural universities, but it's in Aerospace Engineering, not football. ;)

A number of the participants in this forum prove that not all Democrats have the kind of condescending, elitist attitude portrayed in this "open letter". But as long as the more combative types continue to serve as the public face of the Democratic party, I think it's going to be hard to dispel that belief.

[Lyle]

... Stuff like that does nothing to help, and in fact contributes to making things WORSE if possible. Until the two sides stop seeing each other as enemies things are going to get worse.Agreed, and as a follow-up to my previous post I'd add that I recognize that there's an equally significant problem in some of the right-wing media, although I've never actually heard Rush and friends claim that the Democrats "pimp out [their] teenage daughters for Internet porn", "eat babies", etc. Maybe I just missed his show that day. ;)

[mactastic]

Indeed. I recognize that this communique from "Commandante Camembert" is satire (OK, I really, really hope that it's just satire) but it does express what a lot of "red staters" believe that the "blue staters" think of us: for example, that our agricultural universities issue "... Ph.D.s in football, and bogus Protestant Evangelical and Fundamentalist theology, and how to jerk off a bull safely". Mind you, I do have a degree from one of those agricultural universities, but it's in Aerospace Engineering, not football. ;)

Hey, I could have taken Animal Husbandry classes at my uni too, but I saw what those kids boots looked like after class. :eek:
I stuck with my architecture classes.

A number of the participants in this forum prove that not all Democrats have the kind of condescending, elitist attitude portrayed in this "open letter". But as long as the more combative types continue to serve as the public face of the Democratic party, I think it's going to be hard to dispel that belief.

And Tom DeLay, Dennis Hastert etc. aren't the combative public face of the GOP? Remember, the right also condescendingly looks down on the left as well for elitist reasons. Both sides regard, and portray, the other as evil. It's gotten so bad that neither side can tolerate someone who is so beneath them.

[Thomas Veil]

I know I'm repeating myself, but I don't think the problem is only one of liberal "salesmanship". Historically the country has swung, pendulum-like, from liberal to conservative and back again. This time, I don't see any sign that liberalism is coming back. (Again, don't tell me about Bill Clinton; the only elected Democrat in the last 24 years was a moderate...and look how the right vilified him.)

Between the manipulative Karl Rove campaigns, the increasingly conservative Congress and (presumably) Supreme Court, the entrenched hate radio poisoning people's minds, and an electorate that (as IJ said) even when it thinks blue, votes red, and I just think you've got too big an obstacle to overcome with better marketing. Just my own opinion. Your mileage may vary.


There is no point in splitting up. Things will get worse before they get better...
Now there's a cheery thought. ;)


From a previous post in this thread:
"It comes and it goes. Looking at the maps of past elections, many states are able to go either way."
Going both ways is what they'll outlaw next. :D

[Xtremehkr]

The Democrats had a long run with some interuptions here and there. The republicans managed to get a Presidency or two until Reagan came along and they developed a strategy of appealing to peoples weaknesses. I don't think that dishonesty is a platform that can be sustained forever, especially when the changes that are being made are going to impoverish those who believed in you.

There is only so long you can make liberals your scapegoat when you have control of all three branchs of government.

A blue state like California is going to resist the Federal Government in the present form. Even if we have the Groper as Governor, his level of success has not been astounding either and he is a moderate for the most part.

The blue states should really start considering keeping more of the money that is redistributed to red states though, California needs the investment in aging infrastructure. For every dollar that California pays to the Federal Government we get $0.63 back, a lot of the $0.37 we never see again goes to red states for development.

Since they are so against taxes and government, they really won't mind if we keep what is ours, in fact, they should be encouraging it if they are to be consistent.

We'll set the example through better living. Eventually they will have to wonder why California continues to grow and prosper while their states remain backwater podunks.

[Sayhey]

Even in the states of the old confederacy, approximately 15 million people voted for the Democratic ticket. That's over 40% of the vote from those states. So let's stop with the red/blue state nonsense. It makes sense when counting electoral college votes, but it is totally hopeless in making any kind of analysis of why people voted one way or the other. Perhaps we all should go back and listen to Barack Obama's speech about the red states and blue states before we decide to leap into secession.

I'm much more interested in what I see as the most important phenomenon coming out of this election. That is the rise of religious fundamentalism and its merger with, or some would say take over of, the Republican party. I don't want to reduce the election to this trend - many voters voted for Bush for other reasons than religious ones - but this is a very significant development in the degree to which the religious right was able to mobilize people. It means something as a "tipping point" (an oft overused phrase) in US politics. Do we now have a political party controlled by forces that have an agenda set by religious doctrine? In short, are we moving in the direction of the destruction of that famous wall separating church from state? That is something to ponder, not fantasies of splitting the US into two nations.

[IJ Reilly]

Agreed, and as a follow-up to my previous post I'd add that I recognize that there's an equally significant problem in some of the right-wing media, although I've never actually heard Rush and friends claim that the Democrats "pimp out [their] teenage daughters for Internet porn", "eat babies", etc. Maybe I just missed his show that day. ;)

No, not that specifically, but plenty that's just as bad if not worse.

Michael Savage: Another few people you're not going to hear from. Madeleine Albright. Thank God that hag will disappear. Remember, she was gone and forgotten -- I mean, she was a monster. She was a monster. She reversed the rules of Clausewitz. She bombed the poor Serbian civilians, civilian population, without negotiating with them. She was a monster in a dress. Yet she painted herself as this compassionate woman. You look at her, it's like a funhouse in Coney Island. The horror house in Coney Island when you're five couldn't be more terrifying than this. (11-3-04)

Rush Limbaugh: The left is scared to death of God. They think Bush is a believer, and they got quotes from people that say Bush doesn't think, he just follows his instincts based on how he feels after he prays. He's just -- "this is horrible." They're out there and they're scared to death because they don't understand God. They don't understand a personal relationship with God. They can only think it's trouble. (10-18-04)

Rush Limbaugh: I still say, if you really dig deep, you might find some Clinton PAC money, laundered three or four different ways, found its way to the Swift Vets. But that's just me. (8-31-04)

Ann Coulter: John Kerry apparently wants to create jobs in the body bag industry, as we come under more attacks when he refuses to fight the war on terrorism.

Ann Coulter: Does anyone believe when Edwards is in his little girlie voice with his girlie hands, saying we will track the terrorists down where they are. We will stop them. We will kill them. All Cheney has to say is, we'll take care of it. (10-6-04)

Ann Coulter (on Max Cleland): As soon as he became the designated hysteric, liberals were lying about how he lost his limbs in Vietnam. It was not in combat. He did not win a Purple Heart. But suddenly, Democrats who thought that a draft-dodging pot smoker would make an excellent commander in chief just eight years ago, now demand military service. They've all become jock-sniffers for war veterans. (10-5-04)

ALAN COLMES: [R]ight after September 11, you said, and you know where I'm going with this, I'm often asked if I still think we should invade their countries, kill their leaders, convert them to Christianity. You say the same thing Nixon said in 1972: "Now more than ever."

COULTER: Now more than ever.

[...]

COULTER: By Friday of 9/11, we had accomplished point one and point two. Invade their countries, killed their leaders.

[...]

COLMES: Would you like to convert these people all to Christianity?

COULTER: The ones that we haven't killed, yes.

COLMES: So no one should be Muslim. They should all be Christian?

COULTER: That would be a good start, yes.

[...]

COLMES: But you're talking about a group of extremists who misuse Islam and aren't practicing true Islam. But would you like to convert all of these countries to Christianity. Should they all become Christian nations? Because that's what your ...

COULTER: Yes, that would be terrific.

COLMES: ... remarks suggest.

COULTER: That would be terrific, yes. (10/4/04)

Michael Savage: When you hear "human rights," think gays. When you hear "human rights," think only one thing: someone who wants to rape your son. (8-3-04)

I've repudiated the commentary posted above. I think it's way over the top, uncivil and unhelpful. So, where (as I have asked many times before) is the repudiation of the right-wing commentators who make very nice livings broadcasting at least equally outrageous remarks on national radio and television on a daily basis?

[blackfox]

I read an interesting opinion in the local weekly here in Portland, which I will (poorly) paraphrase, as I found it interesting. Some of this may overlap with previous posts, and for that I apologize.

The point being made was about Red and Blue state divisions, and how they obviously obscure the reality that no state is overwhelmingly one way or the other. The author made the point that it is really about city vs rural.

It seems that Kerry won every city over 500,000 and half of those from 50,000 to 500,000. This suggests and was advanced by the Author, that Liberals really live on a bunch of Islands or Archipelegos, surrounded by a sea of conservative rurality.

While the author was perhaps unneccesarily harsh about the character of rural, conservative voters (backwards would be appropriate), he made some interesting points about the plurality and diversity necessarily experienced in a urban setting and that this reality breeds tolerance and understanding as well as a host of other traditionally Liberal habits. In rural areas, this diversity is not there, and people can be comfortable dealing in platitiudes and prejudices about people they have never experienced and know nothing about. I found his argument logical, if not completely air-tight.

It is also a hopeful article, at least to Liberals, as it reminds us that the Urban centers, often the center of Culture and Learning, are Liberal turf and though we may not be able to effect much change on the National Level, we can effect change within our local urban pods. City and State law can often mitigate or override Federal meddling, as is the case with California fuel-efficiency standards, or Oregon's Euthanasia Law, along with a host of Municipal laws regarding sensible growth, public transport etc.

It ends with a reminder that the key to the Democrats winning is demographics, and as such, is inevitable. As cities grow, so will Liberalism, eventually to the point that it will make the difference. Or not, it is only an opinion.

[Brother Michael]

Normally, I stay away from this part of the forum, however this time, I feel I must state my opinion.

It never ceases to amaze me how those that supported Kerry are ready to jump ship to Canada or want to divide off from the rest of the Union.

Wasn't the political platform that Kerry ran on was the idea that we needed to unite a divided nation?

Anyone who wants to break away or leave because Kerry lost is really just pissing on his vision. Right now though the country needs to unite behind the current president...whether you voted for him or not he is your president.

Kerry lost. I'm sorry, almost nothing is going to change that now, instead of making the worst of the situation why not continue to use that political activism that you have had in the past year to make the nation better?

Something else that has irked me, what makes you think that if Kerry had won everything would have been different? By midnight on Wednesday, Congress was already Republican. Kerry would have had a very hard time passing legislation with Congress being that far right.

Mike

Also: Try to remember, that we don't vote for our President the Electoral college does, even if Kerry had won the popular vote, he still lost.

And, I didn't vote for Bush...but I am still going to support him to the point that he is our president.

[mactastic]

It never ceases to amaze me how those that supported Kerry are ready to jump ship to Canada or want to divide off from the rest of the Union.

I supported Kerry but have not expressed any desire to leave because he lost. Methinks you paint with too broad a brush here. Perhaps you meant to say you are surprised by how many Kerry supporters have expressed interest in leaving.

[yoda13]

I've given this a good deal of thought, and I honestly can't understand why the US is, or should remain, one unified country. Look at the election map from last night. A huge sea of red, with blue on both ends and some at the top.

I'm from Boston. I don't share the culture, the beliefs, the values, the religion, or the economic conditions of all of those red states in the south and the midwest. Let me be honest - I don't like those places, and I don't like most of the people who live there. And they feel the same about me and where I live, and anyone who says differently is a liar.

You can wave "united we stand" flags and talk about being "proud to be an american" all you want, but at the end of the day, there are at least 2 countries here, if not more, and they have no business being associated with each other in any way more serious than as trading partners. The difference in culture and values is too great. I don't want those red states having any say over how my country is run, and they don't want people like me having any say over how their country is run.

It makes me absolutely sick that the gay marriage ban passed by overwhelming margins in 11 out of 11 states. (I'm a straight, white male, btw.) It probably makes most southerners and midwesterners sick to think that there are married gay people in MA right now.

In this election, whoever won, about 49% of the pekople were going to be sick at the thought of the next 4 years. With 2 countries, there would still be elections, but there would be much finer distinction - like the primaries are now. 49% of the country wouldn't rabidly hate their elected leader. The US is already 2 countries in every way that matters except governmental control. Why not just make it official?

I haven't read this whole thread yet, so if someone has already mentioned this, then I am sorry, but I couldn't get past the first post...Breaking up the country is the most ridiculous idea I have heard of. I must also be a liar as well, since a couple of family members I am real close to and love very much are extremely liberal. My brother voted for Kerry and my nephew also voted for Kerry and lives in Boston, while he is going to grad school. We just agree to disagree about politics and move on. There is no need to break up the country. This is where the beauty of federalism comes into play. The more powers that are reserved for the states, as is allowed for in the Constution, the more each state can set its own course for itself. So these so called "blue" states and so-called "red" states can tailor their own laws to suit the makeup of their people. This federalism allows states like California to fund embryonic stem cell research and states like Mass. (sorry always misspell that) to allow gay marriage, etc. It also allows states in the South and other areas to ban gay marriage, embryonic stem cell research, choose not to have an income tax (state level), etc. Yet all the people enjoy protection of the Constitution. As long as the govt. does not get too big the states are left to choose these matters for themselves. Which is exactly what the founders intended. Besides if you break up the states, all it would do is weaken the powers of the govt. to provide services due to reduced tax bases and it would be harder to be an international force in trading, which would hurt the economy, which would hurt everyone's quality of life, in both areas, even more so than those who are hurting now. It would also be harder to fund a national defense and be effective in that arena. It just makes little sense. Federalism allows for regional differences, even if they are extreme.

[Thomas Veil]

Here's one thing that bothers me:

The morning after the election, I came to the conclusion that secession might be in order completely on my own. I didn't see it on TV, in the paper or on the internet. I just thought: this country has become completely hostile to liberal thought.

But for me to be able to do a quick Google search (1 (http://www.washtimes.com/national/20041109-122753-5113r.htm) 2 (http://putative.typepad.com/putative/2004/11/more_rationale_.html) 3 (http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article7255.htm) 4 (http://www.cafepress.com/bettybowers/346860) 5 (http://slate.msn.com/id/2109317/) 6 (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1276061/posts) 7 (http://www.mises.org/blog/archives/002712.asp) 8 (http://speakout.com/forum_view.asp?Forum=George_W__Bush&MID=14461&mMID=14461) 9 (http://enthusiasm.cozy.org/archives/2004/11/secession/) 10 (http://www.therationalradical.com/misc/redbluesplit.htm) 11 (http://www.itshappening.com/showthread.php?t=71656) 12 (http://www.demsonline.net/index.php?option=com_simpleboard&func=view&catid=4&id=3417)) and find so many other people are talking the same idea...that tells me I'm not nuts. There is an extremely angry and disenfranchised group of people out there.

What remains to be seen is: is this just a passing anger, or does this idea have legs, possibly getting more powerful as Bush spends his "capital" or appoints reactionary Supreme Court justices?

Right now, the right is making smart-ass cracks about what a looney idea this is. They do so at their own peril. I think it would be foolhardy in the extreme for conservatives to laugh this off. Even if nothing comes of it, it demonstrates a palpable helplessness and frustration that is felt from the left as it loses more and more power to the radical right. And if something does come of it, well....

[zimv20]

is this just a passing anger, or does this idea have legs
for me, it's not a sudden anger at the election results, it's a couple decades of observing what i see as unsustainable practices:
debt, both personal and federal
an increasing skills gap
a culture of consumerism
overuse of natural resources
less compromise in politics
a society that panders to the lowest common denominator in
education
media
politics
marketing / advertising


i long ago came to the conclusion that something has to give. either the above have to change, or the US is going to break apart naturally, through bankruptcy and/or blue areas being tired of subsidizing the red areas.

before this happens, and i think this is what we're seeing now, there's going to be a brain-drain. similar to what happened in germany and other places in the late 1800s / early 1900s. imo, this at least partly contributed to a more easily propaganda-ized german populace in the late 1930s. (and let's note that, at the end of that era, germany was broken up)

fwiw, some rather smart and personal friends of mine have already left.