What if - Red zones and blue zones. Creating 2 separate countries?

[RUNVS]

Now first up I should say that I am not American. I am actually in Australia but I do, as a result of our media hear a lot about US politics and one thing that I have always seen is that in the USA there are a lot of areas that are either very left wing or very right wing, more so than other countries I think and the gap between a state like Alabama and a state like New York in ideology is huge, more so than the gap between left and right in most other first world nations I feel.

So for a bit of fun and hopefully to have a genuine discussion I was wondering if the USA was next year split up into 2 different countries along these rather crazy lines

What would the red country and what would the blue country be like?

Other questions that do not need to be answered but I thought could get the discussion going would be

What would be the 2 political parties in the blue country and what would both parties be like?

What would be the 2 political parties in the red country and what would both parties be like?

How would each country differ from what they are like now. How much more left wing would the blue country be than America and how much more right wing would the red country be than America?

What would the economies of both nations be like? What would their GDP be like, poverty levels and primary exports?

Socially how would each country differ?

Which country would have more influence around the world?

What would the militaries of both countries look like?

How would both countries use their military?

and which country would you prefer to live in?

 

[Wyatt earp]

This is topic 5,765 on that subject come up with something new OP

 

[RUNVS]

This is topic 5,765 on that subject come up with something new OP

I apologise if I have create a thread that has been done a lot before. I had a quick look but I could not find a thread much like what I was asking.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Welcome.

Many of our Progressives are also not Americans

 

[Wyatt earp]

Oh crap sorry didn't pay attention, welcome aboard

If that would of happen the blue states would look like Detroit and the red states would be a boring little house on the prairie. We so hate each other but we need each other, if we didn't have each other who would we argue with?

 

[RUNVS]

Oh crap sorry didn't pay attention, welcome aboard

If that would of happen the blue states would look like Detroit and the red states would be a boring little house on the prairie. We so hate each other but we need each other, if we didn't have each other who would we argue with?

Thanks.

Well the British have the French so both countries could still argue with one another plenty

I find it amusing that in America whenever a side of politics wins the other side of politics often say "We are moving to Canada as (insert president) will ruin the country". Of course I may have heard that a few times about my own country and people saying they will pack their bags and move to New Zealand.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Lol

 

[Wyatt earp]

Hey OP I am on a few other boards what is it so fascinating to Australians and new zealanders about American politics? Because I have known a lot of you here on the net, I don't have a clue about your politics could only name Your new prime minister tony abbot a conservative nothing else

 

[Sonny Clark]

Now first up I should say that I am not American. I am actually in Australia but I do, as a result of our media hear a lot about US politics and one thing that I have always seen is that in the USA there are a lot of areas that are either very left wing or very right wing, more so than other countries I think and the gap between a state like Alabama and a state like New York in ideology is huge, more so than the gap between left and right in most other first world nations I feel.

So for a bit of fun and hopefully to have a genuine discussion I was wondering if the USA was next year split up into 2 different countries along these rather crazy lines

What would the red country and what would the blue country be like?

Other questions that do not need to be answered but I thought could get the discussion going would be

What would be the 2 political parties in the blue country and what would both parties be like?

What would be the 2 political parties in the red country and what would both parties be like?

How would each country differ from what they are like now. How much more left wing would the blue country be than America and how much more right wing would the red country be than America?

What would the economies of both nations be like? What would their GDP be like, poverty levels and primary exports?

Socially how would each country differ?

Which country would have more influence around the world?

What would the militaries of both countries look like?

How would both countries use their military?

and which country would you prefer to live in?

Excellent observations, and equally excellent questions. Thanks. ---- First, the summation would obviously be an answer of, "very little difference from what we're seeing and experiencing now, given the fact that citizens on both sides would continue to vote as they do now". We have a much divided citizenry that doesn't understand the power of unity. It is doubtful that they would change their behavior, use common sense, and reverse the trend. Secondly, we live in an age, much like some ages in the distant past, where greed, power, and influence rule, with absolute authority. We are led to believe that we have a voice, and that we as a whole, control government, and government legislation and policies.

I don't see where a "division" of this nation into two separate entities would change anything as long as the citizens behaved politically as they do now. It would just be more of the same, but in two different countries under your scenario.

Great questions and an interesting thought though. Thanks again.

 

[RUNVS]

Hey OP I am on a few other boards what is it so fascinating to Australians and new zealanders about American politics? Because I have known a lot of you here on the net, I don't have a clue about your politics could only name Your new prime minister tony abbot a conservative nothing else

If anything our politics are more nuts than American politics

2007 - Labor (left wing party) under Kevin Rudd wins the election after over 10 years of a Liberal (right wing) government
2010 - Labor going down in the polls before an election so factions develop in the party and our Prime Minister is knifed by his treasurer and she (Julia Gillard replaces him)/
2010 - Gillard wins the 2010 election with the slimmest of margins and only is able to hold the House of Representatives with the help of 2 independent Members of Parliament and another party called The Greens.
2010 - To get the Greens support (support she needed to get the numbers in the house of reps) Gillard needed to implement a Carbon Tax which she said she would not do during the election campaign. As a result the opposition leader Tony Abbott seized on this lie and expertly campaigned against her on how this Carbon Tax would destroy the economy.

The next 2 and a half years Kevin Rudd who did not like being knifed leaked damaging information about Gillard to the press and in the next 2 years the party went through 2 leadership challenges.

2013 - As a result of the Carbon Tax, Kevin Rudd releasing damaging information about Labor (his own party) Labor was months away from a new election and looking like they were going to suffer their worst defeat in 100 years Kevin Rudd tried another leadership challenge and because his public approval was now higher than Gillard Labor picked him (even though they hated him) as they thought he could save them a lot of seats in the House of Reps and the Senate.

2013 election - Rudd did that but Labor still lost and Tony Abbott, a very conservative politician became Prime Minister but because of how bad Labor was Abbott did not really have to announce any policies in order to get elected.

2015 - Abbott has been in power for 18 months and he is so unpopular, trying to deregulate education, trying to make universal healthcare no longer free and also trying to cut workers rights that his polling ratings have tanked and there is leadership rumblings around at the moment where factions within the Liberal Party are getting ready to knife Abbott and replace him with someone who is more popular.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Damn very informative, I got ammo now to fight a liberal Australian friend with, thanks

 

[RUNVS]

Excellent observations, and equally excellent questions. Thanks. ---- First, the summation would obviously be an answer of, "very little difference from what we're seeing and experiencing now, given the fact that citizens on both sides would continue to vote as they do now". We have a much divided citizenry that doesn't understand the power of unity. It is doubtful that they would change their behavior, use common sense, and reverse the trend. Secondly, we live in an age, much like some ages in the distant past, where greed, power, and influence rule, with absolute authority. We are led to believe that we have a voice, and that we as a whole, control government, and government legislation and policies.

I don't see where a "division" of this nation into two separate entities would change anything as long as the citizens behaved politically as they do now. It would just be more of the same, but in two different countries under your scenario.

Great questions and an interesting thought though. Thanks again.

No problem at all.

I have always found that with politics the people that usually win are the ones that are the most power hungry and are most willing to do whatever it takes to win. It is why so many people look at their leaders and think "surely there is someone better". The problem is the better people are usually not anywhere near as driven to do whatever it takes to rise up the political ranks. In order to do well in politics you need to have a personality that is not always conducive to actually being a good leader.

 

[Sonny Clark]

Excellent observations, and equally excellent questions. Thanks. ---- First, the summation would obviously be an answer of, "very little difference from what we're seeing and experiencing now, given the fact that citizens on both sides would continue to vote as they do now". We have a much divided citizenry that doesn't understand the power of unity. It is doubtful that they would change their behavior, use common sense, and reverse the trend. Secondly, we live in an age, much like some ages in the distant past, where greed, power, and influence rule, with absolute authority. We are led to believe that we have a voice, and that we as a whole, control government, and government legislation and policies.

I don't see where a "division" of this nation into two separate entities would change anything as long as the citizens behaved politically as they do now. It would just be more of the same, but in two different countries under your scenario.

Great questions and an interesting thought though. Thanks again.

No problem at all.

I have always found that with politics the people that usually win are the ones that are the most power hungry and are most willing to do whatever it takes to win. It is why so many people look at their leaders and think "surely there is someone better". The problem is the better people are usually not anywhere near as driven to do whatever it takes to rise up the political ranks. In order to do well in politics you need to have a personality that is not always conducive to actually being a good leader.

I agree, thanks.

 

[jwoodie]

Great post - thanks! One of the more interesting aspects of your question is that liberals would bitterly oppose such an idea while most conservatives would welcome it. Reminds me a little of the Hapsburg Empire trying to hold onto its power.

A Red State nation would look more like Australia, whereas a Blue State nation would look more like France.