Should the US split Up?

More Libtard 'facts' pulled from the ass.

Look at your map. Really look at it.

Now, ask yourself where all of the US banks and market exchanges are located. And that includes a certain market exchange in Chicago that farmers in the Red States are dependent on.

Next, ask yourself where the major ports are located for trade with the Pacific region.

You're the idiot that created an unsustainable country out of Red States. Don't blame me for your stupidity.
 
Because you rail for the Republicans and blast the Democrats when they do the same thing. Really tired of seeing nothing but partisan bullshit on this forum

And in your world raising and lowering taxes are exactly the same thing.

Well they are both still taxation. Lets say you worked and I took 100% of your income, you'd be a slave yes? So at what percent are you no longer a slave?
 
Here's the new map.

As if Things Weren't Bad Enough, Russian Professor Predicts End of U.S. - WSJ.com

California will form the nucleus of what he calls "The Californian Republic," and will be part of China or under Chinese influence. Texas will be the heart of "The Texas Republic," a cluster of states that will go to Mexico or fall under Mexican influence. Washington, D.C., and New York will be part of an "Atlantic America" that may join the European Union. Canada will grab a group of Northern states Prof. Panarin calls "The Central North American Republic." Hawaii, he suggests, will be a protectorate of Japan or China, and Alaska will be subsumed into Russia.

If we split, that's closest to what I'd expect. I'd expect the whole West Coast would go with California and you'd see that go as deep inland as Nevada for sure. I'd imagine Texas would take with it Louisiana and maybe Oklahoma. The New England states have explored secession before back in 1814 or so as their interests have always been with the European markets. That leaves a chunk of the USA that would probably collapse on it's own or end up in Canada.

I have no clue what happens to states like Mississippi, Georgia, Alabama, Kentucky, or Tennessee. They'd likely end up third world as I don't think anyone can say with a straight face that any of those states have sufficient resources or industry to truly go it alone.

Alaska would have to buddy up to Canada pretty quick or become a Russian province. There's no way militarily they could stop that. Hawaii would probably either be entirely separate as they once were or a protectorate.

I can say this though, a split like this wouldn't end well.
 
Last edited:
Because you rail for the Republicans and blast the Democrats when they do the same thing. Really tired of seeing nothing but partisan bullshit on this forum

And in your world raising and lowering taxes are exactly the same thing.

Well they are both still taxation. Lets say you worked and I took 100% of your income, you'd be a slave yes? So at what percent are you no longer a slave?

Can you choose who you marry? Where you live? What job you have?

You're not a slave.
 
And in your world raising and lowering taxes are exactly the same thing.

Well they are both still taxation. Lets say you worked and I took 100% of your income, you'd be a slave yes? So at what percent are you no longer a slave?

Can you choose who you marry? Where you live? What job you have?

You're not a slave.

Not if I'm gay. Not if eminent domain. Not if they have to meet affirmative action quotas.

You never addressed the taxation issue.
 
Not if I'm gay. Not if eminent domain. Not if they have to meet affirmative action quotas.

You never addressed the taxation issue.

I agree, there's a problem with the Government being involved in the Gay Marriage issue at all. Eminent Domain is a legal process you can fight in court. Affirmative Action Quotas is another problem.

As far as your question goes: You can be a slave even at 0% taxes, so I don't have an answer. If you were a miner working in a company town and your only available store was the Company store, it was pretty common for "Free" workers to find themselves so far in debt that they were trapped, forever, in that job. They didn't have the resources to move and all of their pay went to support a subsistence existence.

When it comes to economics, freedom comes when you have the resources sufficient to make the required economic sacrifices to be able to change your lifestyle/social class. Once you're locked into a social class or lifestyle by financial concerns, you're no longer free. And that question isn't necessarily tax related.
 
Well they are both still taxation. Lets say you worked and I took 100% of your income, you'd be a slave yes? So at what percent are you no longer a slave?

Can you choose who you marry? Where you live? What job you have?

You're not a slave.

Not if I'm gay. Not if eminent domain. Not if they have to meet affirmative action quotas.

You never addressed the taxation issue.


Affirmative action is not quotas.
 
It's getting pretty obvious, according to the electoral map over the years that the American Union just isn't what it used to be, it's rapidly failing as a cohesive, working nation.

Is it really such a crazy idea that the result could be a two or more nation split?

If we keep going in this direction we may have a 2nd civil war betweend the Taxed and the Takers.

Best hope not, because if the rich have to fight the poor, they'll have to do something for themselves, quite possibly for the first time in their life.

Hard to hire your own army when the people you'd pay want to kill you.

Well i'm not the rich nor do I feel like it would be a civil war between rich and poor as much as between workers/taxpayers and takers/non-payers.
 
No, I think we will fall if we remain divided, but that does not mean I want it to happen.

Immie

Bummer that we reelected the great divider, then.

Next Obama Speech;

I've driven a wedge between rich and poor;
I've driven a wedge between mother and child;
I've driven a wedge between black and white;
I've driven a wedge between public workers and private sector workers
I've driven a wedge between lenders and borrowers
I've driven a wedge between the insured and our government backed insurance
Where one nation stood; I've driven a wedge of division to fracture and debase.
My pledge is that I will continue to divide this nation, until it is no more.
 
As a matter of fact. Most blue states send more to the federal government than they recieved.

Ohhh, you planning to pull a map from the hate sites from 1994?

Most red states recieve more than they send in. Just a simple fact. The red states are the welfare states.

Right, California didn't get hundreds of billions in Porkulus...

However, seems you people tried seccession once already, how did that work out?:badgrin:

I wish you would try thinking, just once, to try it out..
 
LOL. Now Widyo Willyo, time for a reality check. The blue states are the ones that send more money to the federal government than they recieve. The red states are the ones that take more from the federal government than they send in. So the red are the welfare states. The very people that vote Republican.

False, comrade.

It isn't 1994 anymore. Despite what the hate sites have trained you to mewl.
 
It is very attractive to conjure up images of the American civil war and transplant those images to today. obama would be another Assad! Seeing headlines across Europe saying "obama kills 30,000 Americans" . Maybe The UN would send in peacekeepers and demand he step down.
 

Forum List

Back
Top