The US would be better off splitting up

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by QCassidy352, Nov 3, 2004.

  1. QCassidy352 macrumors G3

    QCassidy352

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2003
    Location:
    Bay Area
    #1
    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?
     
  2. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #2
    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.
     
  3. makisushi macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2004
    Location:
    Northern VA
    #3

    One of the wonderful things about this country is that we can all live together AND have differing opinions. Diversity as it were.
     
  4. QCassidy352 thread starter macrumors G3

    QCassidy352

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2003
    Location:
    Bay Area
    #4
    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.
     
  5. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #5
    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?
     
  6. jsw Moderator emeritus

    jsw

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2004
    Location:
    Andover, MA
    #6
    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.
     
  7. Backtothemac macrumors 601

    Backtothemac

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2002
    Location:
    San Destin Florida
    #7
    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.
     
  8. wordmunger macrumors 603

    wordmunger

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2003
    Location:
    North Carolina
    #8
    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 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.
     
  9. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #9
    Which is why the GOP won by nominating a northeastern conservative. ;)
     
  10. mypantsaretight macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2004
    #10
    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
     
  11. jadam macrumors 6502a

    jadam

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2002
    #11
    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.
     
  12. QCassidy352 thread starter macrumors G3

    QCassidy352

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2003
    Location:
    Bay Area
    #12
    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?
     
  13. jadam macrumors 6502a

    jadam

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2002
    #13

    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?
     
  14. Thomas Veil macrumors 68020

    Thomas Veil

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2004
    Location:
    Reality
    #14
    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.
     
  15. quackattack macrumors 6502a

    quackattack

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2004
    Location:
    Boise, ID
    #15
    I'm not happy about the election either, but this is the worst idea I have ever heard, ever.
     
  16. Thomas Veil macrumors 68020

    Thomas Veil

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2004
    Location:
    Reality
    #16
    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.


    You could cut the irony in this statement with a knife.
     
  17. QCassidy352 thread starter macrumors G3

    QCassidy352

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2003
    Location:
    Bay Area
    #17
    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.
     
  18. QCassidy352 thread starter macrumors G3

    QCassidy352

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2003
    Location:
    Bay Area
    #18
    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.
     
  19. MacNut macrumors Core

    MacNut

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Location:
    CT
    #19
    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.
     
  20. yg17 macrumors G5

    yg17

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2004
    Location:
    St. Louis, MO
    #20
    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.
     
  21. MacDawg macrumors P6

    MacDawg

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2004
    Location:
    "Between the Hedges"
    #21
    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.
     
  22. MacNut macrumors Core

    MacNut

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Location:
    CT
    #22
    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.
     
  23. jadam macrumors 6502a

    jadam

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2002
    #23
    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.
     
  24. Thomas Veil macrumors 68020

    Thomas Veil

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2004
    Location:
    Reality
    #24
    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.
     
  25. MacDawg macrumors P6

    MacDawg

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2004
    Location:
    "Between the Hedges"
    #25
    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
     

Share This Page