Is it conceivable?

Looking at polls of the democratic primaries, and the way the country has been almost totally split since after Reagan, and knowing the massive cultural divide between the coastal/northern US states vs southern states - is it possible, decades from now, that the US might split into two or more separate countries?

The same states that are polling hopeless Biden in the Democratic primaries, are almost entirely the same states that voted (and will probably vote again) for Trump in 2016. Likewise, the solid Dem states seem to be favouring Sanders.

There is such a divide (from an outsiders pov) in terms of culture, politics, economics and religion, that I really don't see how, long term, such a disunited union cannot eventually see some people (and in growing numbers) wonder why they remain attached to a geographical entity that is so diverse.

So, to our American friends - is it possible?

I've been pushing the same idea for a while now...

And Quill has his favoured 'Pacific States' solution..

California, Texas, and probably New York state, all have big enough economies to support themselves as independent countries --  so if the USA does eventually devolve into 3, 4 or even 5 smaller entitities, those three could find neighbouring states choosing to join them,  rather than remaining with a crumbling inbred and criminally-infested Bible belt/Deep South festering corpse.

Especially when China overtakes the USA as numero uno in another 30 or 40 years,  and with India potentially kicking them back into 3rd place by century's end..

Eilzel wrote:Looking at polls of the democratic primaries, and the way the country has been almost totally split since after Reagan, and knowing the massive cultural divide between the coastal/northern US states vs southern states - is it possible, decades from now, that the US might split into two or more separate countries?

The same states that are polling hopeless Biden in the Democratic primaries, are almost entirely the same states that voted (and will probably vote again) for Trump in 2016. Likewise, the solid Dem states seem to be favouring Sanders.

There is such a divide (from an outsiders pov) in terms of culture, politics, economics and religion, that I really don't see how, long term, such a disunited union cannot eventually see some people (and in growing numbers) wonder why they remain attached to a geographical entity that is so diverse.

So, to our American friends - is it possible?

We tried that once and it didnt work well. Since then, supreme court rulings have been unequivocal. It's not legal. If someone wants out, they will probably have to shoot their way out.

Let's say folks decide to make it happen? How do you divide up all the debt? Can't cut a country in half and saddle one side with all of the debt. A new country is going to want to start with a clean slate.

That being said, I'm cool with TX leaving. Unlike the US, Californa and NY, our economic house is in order and people continue to pour in to take advantage of our robust economy.

'Wolfie wrote:

I've been pushing the same idea for a while now...

And Quill has his favoured 'Pacific States' solution..

California, Texas, and probably New York state, all have big enough economies to support themselves as independent countries --  so if the USA does eventually devolve into 3, 4 or even 5 smaller entitities, those three could find neighbouring states choosing to join them,  rather than remaining with a crumbling inbred and criminally-infested Bible belt/Deep South festering corpse.

Especially when China overtakes the USA as numero uno in another 30 or 40 years,  and with India potentially kicking them back into 3rd place by century's end..

Yeah the geography does favour 3/4 separate entities over one. I think if the place continues its polarisation it is a genuine possibility, even if not in our lifetimes.

Maddog wrote:

Eilzel wrote:Looking at polls of the democratic primaries, and the way the country has been almost totally split since after Reagan, and knowing the massive cultural divide between the coastal/northern US states vs southern states - is it possible, decades from now, that the US might split into two or more separate countries?

The same states that are polling hopeless Biden in the Democratic primaries, are almost entirely the same states that voted (and will probably vote again) for Trump in 2016. Likewise, the solid Dem states seem to be favouring Sanders.

There is such a divide (from an outsiders pov) in terms of culture, politics, economics and religion, that I really don't see how, long term, such a disunited union cannot eventually see some people (and in growing numbers) wonder why they remain attached to a geographical entity that is so diverse.

So, to our American friends - is it possible?

We tried that once and it didnt work well.  Since then, supreme court rulings have been unequivocal. It's not legal. If someone wants out, they will probably have to shoot their way out.  

Let's say folks decide to make it happen? How do you divide up all the debt? Can't cut a country in half and saddle one side with all of the debt. A new country is going to want to start with a clean slate.  

That being said, I'm cool with TX leaving. Unlike the US, Californa and NY, our economic house is in order and people continue to pour in to take advantage of our robust economy.  

The USSR broke up, so it can be done, even if that was much younger. Yugoslavia likewise, and the Austro-Hungarian empire. If forces dictate it then people will find solutions to the economic aspects.

Eilzel wrote:

Maddog wrote:

We tried that once and it didnt work well.  Since then, supreme court rulings have been unequivocal. It's not legal. If someone wants out, they will probably have to shoot their way out.  

Let's say folks decide to make it happen? How do you divide up all the debt? Can't cut a country in half and saddle one side with all of the debt. A new country is going to want to start with a clean slate.  

That being said, I'm cool with TX leaving. Unlike the US, Californa and NY, our economic house is in order and people continue to pour in to take advantage of our robust economy.  

The USSR broke up, so it can be done, even if that was much younger. Yugoslavia likewise, and the Austro-Hungarian empire. If forces dictate it then people will find solutions to the economic aspects.

Those were comprised of different countries and nationalities. Also, those countries were economic disasters. The US isn't.

But if the economy tanks here, like people of my way of thinking, think it will, then all bets are off.

The word Boogaloo appears on my Facebook feed pretty much every day.

But the Boogaloo isn't a peaceful process.

https://www.adl.org/blog/the-boogaloo-extremists-new-slang-term-for-a-coming-civil-war

Eilzel wrote:Looking at polls of the democratic primaries, and the way the country has been almost totally split since after Reagan, and knowing the massive cultural divide between the coastal/northern US states vs southern states - is it possible, decades from now, that the US might split into two or more separate countries?

The same states that are polling hopeless Biden in the Democratic primaries, are almost entirely the same states that voted (and will probably vote again) for Trump in 2016. Likewise, the solid Dem states seem to be favouring Sanders.

There is such a divide (from an outsiders pov) in terms of culture, politics, economics and religion, that I really don't see how, long term, such a disunited union cannot eventually see some people (and in growing numbers) wonder why they remain attached to a geographical entity that is so diverse.

So, to our American friends - is it possible?

I think people are finally beginning to realize the veracity and validity of what I've been saying about my Pacific States. I reached my final conclusion, years before others--perhaps because I have a doctorate in politics, and it is my job to think such things through. I have watched people respond to my theory with incredulous, eye-raising rejection, now to calmer attitudes of you might be right. The reason is, it's happening...and it's happening for the reasons that I originally stated.

Let's just take the concept of "middle of the road', ideologically. If you isolate those sections of the US that would be separate countries, you see that 'middle of the road' changes drastically, and it changes ever more drastically, day-to-day. That means the ideological center-point of those regions are drifting apart ever more widely each day that goes by: a divided public, becomes a divided culture, eventually becomes a divided country...and historically, it will proceed until even the languages are separate.

We see this happening, most certainly between the south and the east and west coasts. The drift is most pronounced on issues such as race and guns. But, dig more deeply and you see the old, original rift between an industrial, mercantile, forward-looking side, and an agrarian, nostalgic side that looks unfavorably toward people of color. And, lo and behold, we even recognize a drift-apart in language, with a southern draw vs. a clipped New York accent, and a relaxed, laid-back California accent. All of this is evidence of the drift. Like I said, it’s happening before our eyes.

The cracks were always there; as I’ve said, the debate over slavery started before the Constitution was signed. We could have seen it: there were two different cultures to begin with. Slavery was only symptomatic of the agrarian, backward-looking southern society, and the northern, industrial Ohio valley, was symptomatic of an emerging industrial/mercantile society. The roots of two vastly different countries were poised, but in the founders’ insensitivity, they tried to mash them together. Now, like bending a paper clip one too many times, original stresses surface and it breaks apart.

Maddog wrote:Those were comprised of different countries and nationalities. Also, those countries were economic disasters. The US isn't.

The US is an economic success because the coasts, west and east, carried the south.  The agrarian, cotton-pickin' south was never going to go anywhere.  We still, net-net, support states like Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina and Alabama.

Only recently, in the past 50-years, have industries tried to build plants in Georgia, Texas and Alabama.  But it's like welfare: building manufacturing plants for humanitarian purposes.  The south will never reach the gigantic--self-initiated, I might add--proportions of Massachusetts, New York, Pennsylvania, Michigan and the Ohio Valley.  The Industrial Belt and the west coast are the regions that saved the UK and Europe during WWII, while the south was still riding mules and pickin’ their ears.

Another simple solution is to get back to how the country was founded. The states predate the federal government and they formed that government to work for the states. Until recently, it was far more important who your governor was than the president. The federal government had very limited powers and each state acted much like it's own little country. The feds limited their powers to matters that affected the country as a whole. Treaties, military matters and the like.

Read the 10th amendment and it's very clear how much power was to be vested in the states and how little would be in the federal government.

The founders knew what Eilzel seems to be grasping. One size doesnt fit all in the US and if you try to force it, it creates turmoil.

On other note, it's usually the more liberal position to want to force compliance on those that don't want it. You saw it in Brexit and you see it here in the US. I don't really give a fuck what people in ither states do, until they tell me I have to do what they are doing and want the Feds to enforce it.

If everyone would leave each other alone, we could easily get along in the loose union that we were supposed to.

Maddog wrote:We tried that once and it didnt work well. Since then, supreme court rulings have been unequivocal. It's not legal. If someone wants out, they will probably have to shoot their way out.

The Supreme Court is just a bunch of old fuddy-duddies, dependent on a Constitution that no longer works.  If there is one thing that Trump has taught us, it's that institutions were meant to be broken.  You just have to be visionary enough.

Watch, if the Supreme Court rules against a Democratic Congress enough times, the Congress will increase the number of justices and a Democratic president will appoint liberal judges that will overturn everything that they don’t like.  Remember, the Constitution establishes the Supreme Court (Art. III), but it leaves to Congress how many judges will sit.

As for the Civil War--“we tried that once and it didn’t work well”--what didn’t work was the recovery.  Sure, a modern, industrial nation is going to crush a nation of hicks, but the outcome doesn't make for righteousness.  The original point of the Civil War was valid: these two entities don’t belong together.  The south is like the tar-baby: you just can't get unstuck!  The recovery should have recognized the two separate economies, cultures and belief-systems, and formally separated them in way that accommodated all.

Now look what we have.  A ‘Mali’, or third-world presence, smack in the middle of the most advanced nation in the world.

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Abiding by this would do much the same as breaking into two different countries without shooting at each other.

Take these 4 topics for instance. Guns, slavery, healthcare and abortion. The first two are addressed in the constitution, while the second two are not.

Let the states decide the latter two. Problem is, a lot of people dont want the states deciding these things unless they are deciding the way that they agree with.

10th Amendment wrote:"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

These words are simply an expression of one philosophy of the United States...state's rights. The other philosophy, of course, is federalism. How much power does the federal government have vs. how much power do the state governments have? The 10th Amendment itself gives you the answer: read it again ^, it says federal authority first, then left-overs to the states. Article VI reiterates, saying the federal Constitution shall be the supreme law of the land. Rooting for one or the other these days is like pissing in the wind...and it does nothing to solve the problem. The issue isn’t disagreement over the organization.

Guns? Abortion? Slavery? Healthcare? These are just issues. If you are on one side, and the federal government is laying down the law, you are for states’ rights. If you are on another side, and the state government is laying down the law, you are for federalism. Issues are manifestations of the differences, but not the real problem. States’ rights are just opportunism, and which side of the issue do you favor?

No, the real difference is disagreement over the basic belief systems of two peoples. Hostile forces cannot a union make. All it will get you is perennial conflict and a permanent rift in a nation that tries it. Tito tried it, and all you got was an ill-fated Yugoslavia, that fell to pieces when the props failed. Czechoslovakia tried it, and they gave up ultimately too. Look around. Do you see north/south rushing to bond in this country? If anything, they are farther apart.

Perhaps the United States is too big. As Les said, there are more than two pieces. The coasts, east and west, agree, but they are geographically inconvenient. The Midwest is another matter, as are the Plains states. I’ve thought a lot about this—I was born in New England, and I will miss the northeast—but I have decided that whatever anyone else does, I can try to achieve only for my little corner of the world: the Pacific States of America.

The Russian empire is similarly vast. And just as diverse anthropologically.

Just like the USA, the soviet empire kept grabbing nearby territories until eventually its size spanned an entire continent.

Then several states gained their independence and cut loose - the old USSR hasn't been as lucky as the USA in hanging on to its acquisitions.

JulesV wrote:The Russian empire is similarly vast. And just as diverse anthropologically.

Just like the USA, the soviet empire kept grabbing nearby territories until its size spanned an entire continent.

Many states  gained their independence and cut loose. The old USSR
hasn't been as lucky as the USA in hanging on to its acquisitions.

We are a country of immigrants that lack historical ties to areas. The only group that can make historical claims are Native Americans and their numbers are tiny.

Our differences have more to do with politics.

Ya the history of how the two countries were created is different.

But the hunger for acquiring new lands was the same. Both superpowers avidly gobbled up everything in their path.

Funny how Russia kept contracting and expanding in size depending on the latest war and my God there were NUMEROUS. No nation lost as many tens of millions of soldiers as the Russians. I wonder if it was worth it.

Maddog wrote:

JulesV wrote:The Russian empire is similarly vast. And just as diverse anthropologically.

Just like the USA, the soviet empire kept grabbing nearby territories until its size spanned an entire continent.

Many states  gained their independence and cut loose. The old USSR
hasn't been as lucky as the USA in hanging on to its acquisitions.

We are  a country of immigrants that lack historical ties to areas.  The only group that can make historical claims are Native Americans and their numbers are tiny.  

Our differences have more to do with politics.  

Politics is a derivative endeavor, as I pointed out in the discussion on states' rights.  Our most basic differences have primarily to do with economics, which is why the rift between the northeast and the south is so profound.  The industrial-mercantile energy drove the population of the north to great extremes.  While the agricultural cash-cropping of the south led to a slower pace, and slavery permitted and promoted slovenly laziness in white southerners.

Today, what result?  It should come as no surprise that the five poorest states in America (in order, from poorest up: Mississippi, New Mexico, Louisiana, West Virginia and Alabama) are also right in the middle of the cash-cropping, lazy south.  https://www.roadsnacks.net/poorest-states-in-america/  

California shouldn't have to support their lazy asses, yet have only two Senators!