What if Democrat and Republican states were countries?

I guess the first question to answer would be, if the States were competing with each other as independent nations, who would have ended up with the Louisiana purchase? Would Tecumseh have been successful in establishing a nation? Would the five nations confederacy around Lake Huron have been successful?

 

Those same counties favoured Sanders over Clinton in the Primaries.

http://graphics.latimes.com/election-2016-california-results/

I tend to think that Trump didn't really win the election. Clinton lost it. She didn't run the right campaign and the way the democrat party betrayed Sanders left a left a lot of voters feeling cold.

 

I think it was designed to solve the problem of slow communication, the tendency for each state to vote for whatever candidate they put forward and the problem of democracy - too much political power in the hands of the common masses. Not necessarily in that order.

 

GDammit. We'd have to build a BUNCH of walls!!!! California and the northeast have quite a border. Tell you what, I live in Florida, I'll take a crew down south and chainsaw the southeast quadrant and set it adrift. Maybe they can throw out the anchor as the gulf stream carries them near NY.

 

The republican country would have invaded and exterminated the democrat one a long time ago.

 

If California was a country we'd all be better off, just saying.

 

Mob rule.

 

My feeling is the Berniebots are the reason Trump is President now. I liked Sanders more than Hillary myself but I am also aware of the lesson McGovern taught us in 1972. NOBODY liked Vietnam and McGovern ran mainly against it but still lost by one of the greatest pluralities in American history. The American people will tolerate nearly anything but a radical, if Sanders had been the Democratic candidate Trump would have won the popular vote as well as the Electoral.

California is a strange place. There are few states in the Union that are so diverse and yet few that have such a sense of their uniqueness and so strong a loyalty to their state. If they had to go it alone I think they would become a much more conservative entity but I think they would do so together.[/QUOTE]

 

How?

 

How are you better off when you're a lot poorer?

 

Democrats who hate the Constitution.

 

Now there's an interesting scenario, what if the INDIANS had bought Louisiana? Three million was an awful lot back then, (I think it would be 120 million today) but many First American tribes, like the Cherokee, the Iroquois and the Sioux, were not without resources

 

What does that have to do with my question? How does the Electoral College stop mob rule?

 

The bill of rights protects against mob rule.

 

If all the world were in one city

 

51% of the people deciding for the 49%, which I agree is not fair.

But then it isn't any better when 49% can decide for 51%. It's even worse, as a matter of fact.

 

Sounds like you need to be organizing a Constitutional convention to get rid of the electoral college. Until that happens, them's the rules.

 

[/QUOTE]
Donald Trump is a radical.

 

Donald Trump is a radical.[/QUOTE]

He ran as a conservative, Americans don't see conservatives as radicals even if they are. ALL the conservatives truly loved Sanders, because most of them were seeing a Sanders Candidacy as the only real chance Trump had.

 

Why? Are you actually organizing a movement to break up California into a few distinct segments?

 

[/QUOTE]

Wow, I liked this. If CA had to go it alone, they'd be forced to look at their loony policies that are currently bankrupting them. No more sugar daddy, but maybe they could apply for foreign aid.

 

Th

This is why systems of proportional representation make so much more sense than first past the post systems.

 

Wow, I liked this. If CA had to go it alone, they'd be forced to look at their loony policies that are currently bankrupting them. No more sugar daddy, but maybe they could apply for foreign aid.[/QUOTE]

Isn't California a donor state now? How are they going bankrupt being sugar daddy if they're giving the Feds more than they receive?

 

Isn't California a donor state now? How are they going bankrupt being sugar daddy if they're giving the Feds more than they receive?[/QUOTE]

With their current modis operandi, they'd divert those monies previously going to Washington and piss that away too. The CA political class lives in lala land. Also, don't forget how much the military is going to cost them.

 

With their current modis operandi, they'd divert those monies previously going to Washington and piss that away too. The CA political class lives in lala land. Also, don't forget how much the military is going to cost them.[/QUOTE]

As much military hardware as comes out of CA they'd probably make MORE money, since they could supply the whole world as well as the US and Allies

Moot point, USA is never going to let San Diego go, no more than the Russians will lose Sevastopol