Current Events > why can't the US just be divided into two countries?

(+) Yeah! (+)

There is literally no benefit to blue states or people who vote vote for having Republicans around. If all Republicans moved to Canada on Friday America would be better place .

LOL the republicans country would be broke since they don't pay taxes. It would probablly dissolve with in 10 years.

Telling people in blue states they have to live in fear of Republicans gaining national control because of a corrupt system that disenfranchises them is not defensible. Give an ultimatum about splitting the country if the Electoral College and senate aren't abolished/completely reworked, if red states aren't willing to then leave and focus money that would go to red states on helping refugees from them relocate.

The climate doesn't stop at the border you morons

KI_Simpson posted...

Give an ultimatum about splitting the country if the Electoral College and senate aren't abolished/completely reworked, if red states aren't willing to then leave and focus money that would go to red states on helping refugees from them relocate.

Let's throw in the Supreme Court while we're at it

TodorokiHayato posted...

Country for Democrats and the country for the Republicans. I think it would solve most of the issues when it comes to the polarization of politics.

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/0/8/7/AAbh80AAErVn.jpg

This is the third topic of weak bait from this account.

TMOG posted...

California alone is the world's fifth largest economy as of 2022.

One single state in a nation of 50 has a better economy than 191 countries -- and if it split off from the US, it's a fair bet that it would outpace 192 countries.

This point is not worth discussing with you if you cannot understand how nation states gain power through acquisition of land and people. If you can't see that, and can't see how the US losing land would hurt it, then I don't know what to tell you.

TMOG posted...

Good luck with your literally everything that isn't oil

Unlike Saudia Arabia for whom that strategy is working pretty damn well Texas, which has already been a country, has a fully functional economy, ports for shipping, and would probably be just fine.

But you certainly shouldnt want to eject a huge population that is majority Democrat just because you feel like its okay to act like an asshole to Texans.

Antifar posted...

The climate doesn't stop at the border you morons

So why do people in blue states have to live in constant fear while every other/actual democracy gets to have elections where Republicans don't get to threaten them with extra votes?

cjsdowg posted...

There is literally no benefit to blue states or people who vote vote for having Republicans around. If all Republicans moved to Canada on Friday America would be better place .

No thank you. If you insist on dumping them on us just drop them off up on Victoria Island in January and make sure you don't give them the supplies they need to actually establish up there.

Because if Republicans can't come to terms with having to give basic human rights to everyone and having to follow the law, they don't get to just throw a tantrum and take what's ours, they get to leave, or be removed. If they want to build their own country they can do it on their own land.

divot1338 posted...

Unlike Saudia Arabia for whom that strategy is working pretty damn well Texas, which has already been a country, has a fully functional economy, ports for shipping, and would probably be just fine.

But you certainly shouldnt want to eject a huge population that is majority Democrat just because you feel like its okay to act like an asshole to Texans.

Regardless of whether you think it's the ethical choice, phrasing splitting the country as "you just want to punish people in red states" is disingenuous bullshit. It isn't about punishment, it's about self-defense so that people like Trump and McConnell aren't given power over blue states due to a corrupt system that gives rural areas extra votes.

It would be impossible to negotiate which side gets what parts of the military and which nuclear weapons.

Shadow_Don posted...

It would be impossible to negotiate which side gets what parts of the military and which nuclear weapons.

This is why my suggestion is letting Texas secede and letting the MAGAs move there

The history of mass, forced migrations is a terrible one.

divot1338 posted...

Unlike Saudia Arabia for whom that strategy is working pretty damn well Texas, which has already been a country, has a fully functional economy, ports for shipping, and would probably be just fine.

But you certainly shouldnt want to eject a huge population that is majority Democrat just because you feel like its okay to act like an asshole to Texans.

Saudi Arabia are only too aware that they cannot continue to depend on oil. They have a whole strategic plan to diversify (Vision 2030).

I don't imagine for a moment that Texas has any such thing. Even if it did, can you imagine how pathetically useless any plan drawn up by Abbott and co would be?

Xenogears15 posted...

This point is not worth discussing with you if you cannot understand how nation states gain power through acquisition of land and people. If you can't see that, and can't see how the US losing land would hurt it, then I don't know what to tell you.

Japan and Germany have larger economies than California and have less land than California so idk what your argument is here, especially since I already acknowledged that the US would go down in the rankings if it lost California.

divot1338 posted...

Unlike Saudia Arabia for whom that strategy is working pretty damn well Texas, which has already been a country, has a fully functional economy, ports for shipping, and would probably be just fine.

Until it's hit by some snow or a heat wave and everything relating to oil production and trade screeches to a halt because their electrical grid is garbage and they have to ask the federal government for bailouts and help every year.

Hell, earlier this month they had to receive $60,000,000 from the federal government to strengthen their power grid because they're not able to support their own grid that they insist on having to avoid federal regulation.
https://www.texastribune.org/2023/07/06/texas-electricity-grid-federal-grant-extreme-weather/

Didn't they try this already?

I mean yeah, the points about "what happened last time" or "we can't let them do what they'd do" would be valid, if they weren't doing it anyway. As it stands, it'd be cutting in half how widely they can do those things.

Write up a treaty and send it to Congress and the states. If it's a popular enough idea it'll happen.

Spoilers: it won't happen because it's one of the worst fucking ideas ever.

If you believe these people are fascists, you should look up what happened to the neighbors of fascist countries before volunteering to become one.

TodorokiHayato posted...

Country for Democrats and the country for the Republicans. I think it would solve most of the issues when it comes to the polarization of politics.

It would not.

People who keep saying this seems to falsely believe states are only red and blue states.

In reality they are a shade of purple.

No. Fuck those losers, they're the ones that suck.

Antifar posted...

If you believe these people are fascists, you should look up what happened to the neighbors of fascist countries before volunteering to become one.

By that logic countries neighboring fascists should surrender and let themselves be absorbed because neighboring them is somehow worse.

TMOG posted...

Because then they're not united duh

Then we just rename our selves to the Divided States of America. Boom, problem solved

KI_Simpson posted...

By that logic countries neighboring fascists should surrender and let themselves be absorbed because neighboring them is somehow worse.

Or, perhaps, there is a different approach one could take towards fascism.

TMOG posted...

Japan and Germany have larger economies than California and have less land than California so idk what your argument is here, especially since I already acknowledged that the US would go down in the rankings if it lost California.

Actually, looks like I confused your post for someone else and misread it. My bad.

Splitting the country isn't feasible, but neither is moving forward with the way things are.

The GOP is in the process of fomenting genocide against the LGBTQ community. They are actively hold back renewable energy, healthcare, education, science, civil rights, art, and a myriad of things important to American society and culture. They provide nothing while opposing everything of value.

It doesn't just affect people who live in states that they run. Blue states pay taxes to the Federal Government who then gives it to states run by the GOP to make up for the shitty policies of the GOP. Blue states would better serve their citizenry by keeping that money and using it in way that benefit them, rather than subsidizing the atrocious choices of governance made by red states.

Even ignoring all of that, the GOP is in the process trying to destroy the idea of free and fair elections through gerrymandering, suppression, and now through legislation trying to make it so thet can simply disregard the results of any election they don't like, so it's not as if people can vote their way out of this problem.

There is no path forward for this country worth taking that involves the GOP.

ScazarMeltex posted...

Splitting the country isn't feasible, but neither is moving forward with the way things are.

The GOP is in the process of fomenting genocide against the LGBTQ community. They are actively hold back renewable energy, healthcare, education, science, civil rights, art, and a myriad of things important to American society and culture. They provide nothing while opposing everything of value....

If we take into account the fact that 20 years ago exactly zero blue states had gay marriage we can deduce that you are either absurdly ignorant of history and politics or you have the memory of a goldfish.

You are winning the cultural war over time but here you are flipping out saying we should just disband the country because things aren't happening quite quickly enough for you. You rant about red states and renewable energy when most of the renewable power increases are happening in red states.

https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2022/04/us-wind-electricity-generation-renewable-energy/

Atralis posted...

If we take into account the fact that 20 years ago exactly zero blue states had gay marriage we can deduce that you are either absurdly ignorant of history and politics or you have the memory of a goldfish.

That's because of the Defense of Marriage Act, which was passed by both a Republican Senate and Republican House in veto-proof majorities, which tied Clinton's hands and made gay marriage illegal at the federal level until it was struck down in 2013 and fully repealed in 2022

Intro2Logic posted...

The history of mass, forced migrations is a terrible one.

On that note, splitting the country in two would inevitably leave several Native American reservations in the new Republican States of America who are not likely to recognize their tribal sovereignty or honor any treaties signed with the United States government.

TMOG posted...

That's because of the Defense of Marriage Act, which was passed by both a Republican Senate and Republican House in veto-proof majorities, which tied Clinton's hands and made gay marriage illegal at the federal level until it was struck down in 2013 and fully repealed in 2022

Clinton did not support gay marriage. Obama didn't either when he ran in 2008.

Atralis posted...

Clinton did not support gay marriage.

And yet Clinton didn't want to sign the DOMA into law because he felt it was needlessly divisive and went on the record about it. If the Republicans didn't get a veto-proof majority in the Senate and House, he absolutely would have vetoed it.

TMOG posted...

And yet Clinton didn't want to sign the DOMA into law because he felt it was needlessly divisive and went on the record about it. If the Republicans didn't get a veto-proof majority in the Senate and House, he absolutely would have vetoed it.

Taking a non-stance on a controversial issue is the same as supporting those who would victimize in the name of it

Tyranthraxus posted...

Taking a non-stance on a controversial issue is the same as supporting those who would victimize in the name of it

He didn't "take a non-stance", he literally had no choice but to sign it into law and went on record that he didn't want to

TMOG posted...

He didn't "take a non-stance", he literally had no choice but to sign it into law and went on record that he didn't want to

He could have vetoed it.

Also DOMA, while banning gay marriage at the federal level, still allowed states individually to allow it which MA did in 2004 which gets back to my point that 20 years ago zero blue states allowed gay marriage.

The Dems that live in the middle of nowhere on the blue side would start wanting lower taxes, and republicans in big cities on the red side would want roads and shit fixed in a timely manner requiring more taxes.

Atralis posted...

He could have vetoed it.

Do you read anything

TMOG posted...

That's because of the Defense of Marriage Act, which was passed by both a Republican Senate and Republican House in veto-proof majorities, which tied Clinton's hands and made gay marriage illegal at the federal level until it was struck down in 2013 and fully repealed in 2022

TMOG posted...

And yet Clinton didn't want to sign the DOMA into law because he felt it was needlessly divisive and went on the record about it. If the Republicans didn't get a veto-proof majority in the Senate and House, he absolutely would have vetoed it.

Tell me what you think "veto-proof" means

TMOG posted...

Do you read anything

Tell me what you think "veto-proof" means

Veto proof means that if the president vetos a law congress can then override the veto. The president can still veto the law and force congress to take that step. I'll also note that Republicans haven't had a veto proof majority in both houses of congress since reconstruction. A large portion of democrats voted for the law.

Because the Republicans will see how good the Democrats have it, grow increasingly bitter, and invade.

Atralis posted...

saying we should just disband the country

ScazarMeltex posted...

Splitting the country isn't feasible

???

Nothing Scazar said was wrong. Trying to frame calling out the GOP for passing anti trans legislation across the country, engaging in voter suppression, and attempting to overthrow elections as "flipping out about things not happening quickly enough" is disingenuous as fuck. Standing idly by while they do shit like this is exactly how you lose ground.

Republican country would try to claim Alaska but I say it should go to the Democrat country

Zikten posted...

Republican country would try to claim Alaska but I say it should go to the Democrat country

Alaska will become the new northern border for the two kingdoms. It'll have a massive stone wall ice fortification that spans over 2000 miles, separating the white walkers (conservative extremists) from breaching civilization. Who will protect the walls you ask? The incels and simps that were ostracized from society will become the new night's watch.

divot1338 posted...

Its a country not a baby, Solomon.

"I'll take the top part!"

Antifar posted...

Or, perhaps, there is a different approach one could take towards fascism.

Which approach works better when the fascists get extra votes that mean you're in constant danger of them controlling your government?

Liberals are so eager not to have to do the work of defeating fascism.

Intro2Logic posted...

Liberals are so eager not to have to do the work of defeating fascism.

There shouldn't be work to be done.

'Fascism sucks'
'I agree, let's have a beer!'

Is how things used to go. Now it's

'Fascism sucks'
'Why are you attacking me!'

ClayGuida posted...

There shouldn't be work to be done.

That doesn't change the fact that there is work to be done, it needs to be done, and we need to stop complaining and do the work instead of fantasizing about splitting the country in two.

These kinds of topics really grind my gears. It reeks of lazy liberals who want to take what looks like the easy way out, when instead they'd be shooting us all in the foot.

GOP country would have no rights of any kind, abortion outlawed, civil rights outlawed, political rights only theirs, one party dictatorship, etc.