Break up the USA into Liberal & Conservative nations???

Do you think its time for the USA to split up, into a Conservative nation and a Liberal/Progressive nation?

Would there be a voluntary or even forced transfer of like-minded people to their respective nation?

Would we also split up the national debt, evenly & fairly?

Is it time we just give up on trying to work together and find common ground, and instead let Liberal/Progressive ideology do exactly what it wants, and let the Conservatives have their own nation to do as they like?

 

I'm of mixed thoughts on this. Personally I'm tired of Conservatives preventing us from instituting good social welfare programs, cutting the defense budget, establishing true civil and voting rights, fighting climate change. I'd hate see large parts of the USA go full-Conservative, banning abortion, having the death penalty for most felonies, banning all non-white immigrants, banning homosexuality, severely limiting the rights of Muslims, but if thats what it takes for the Northeast and Midwest and West Coast to be the nation we truly want to be, maybe so be it.

Its likely many folks in the Conservative nation will love what the Liberal nation is doing, and will move to our side. Lots of educated wealthy people. They will hate the racism, bigotry, misogyny and Neo-Fascism taking place in the Conservative country,

 

It would be next to impossible to do as many of the blue cities are in red states.

Something absolutely needs to happen though, the number of posts bringing up civil war by the red caps has gone up substantially over the years.

Honestly I think the best course is to completely limit federal power and allow the states to act as miniature nations. Kind of like the constitution set up

The problem is the federal government is involved in way too much.

 

That is not how civil wars work. REDO FROM START.

That would be an international law fail, since the US is a party to two treaties that forbid that.

However, the parent State and the successor State(s) could abrogate those treaties.

Comrade, there's no such thing as a "national debt" except in the minds of communists, socialists, fascists, nationalists and monarchists.

So, which one are you?

The fact that you don't understand there is no such thing as a "national debt" screams proof positive you don't even know what it is.

There is, however, a federal debt that consists of the sum of the public debt and the government debt.

It would be fair and reasonable, not to mention logical, for successor State(s) to apportion the government debt, since it consists of non-marketable treasury securities for the OASI, OADI, HI and SMI Trust Funds.

 

It's not necessary to chop the country in half to fix our problems. No, all we need to do is amend the Constitution so that those who take UNEARNED income or UNEARNED "benefits" from the government in any given calendar-year are automatically disqualified from being able to VOTE during that same calendar-year.

So, get the bums and moochers out of decision-making positions, and overnight, the country's problems are ended!

 

So like the elderly with tax or utility subsidies? That could be interesting indeed.

 

The citizens who should not be allowed to vote are "those who take UNEARNED income or UNEARNED benefits". Age, per se, makes no difference. Again, this proscription which disallows the ability for a citizen to vote would be only for the SAME calendar year in which a person collects the UNEARNED income and/or benefits!

Clarification: Social Security and Medicare are -- generally speaking -- EARNED by specific conditions in a person's life, mostly including being forced by the government to pay all of a person's working life into those systems.

Exceptions: If I ran the thing, just about the only exceptions would be for those who cannot (CANNOT) support themselves -- like those with catastrophic injuries, and incurable, debilitating illness, birth defects, etc., all of which are thoroughly verified and reexamined periodically to prevent fraud and benefit-theft. Those unfortunate people should not only be provided with unlimited support and welfare by the government, they should be allowed to vote, too!

They are in an entirely different class from those who simply lay around on their lazy asses, sucking welfare handouts from taxpayers endlessly, and voting as often as possible for Democrats to keep their 'gravy-train' rolling....

. ... "We voted Democrat, and now we're gonna CHOW DOWN!"

 

the national debt would have to be split for sure

 

would the south get slavery back?

 

not unless they manage to disarm them first.

 

No, and the reason is that we can't form a new state within the borders of an existing state. The same reason that states can't be split into two states.

 

Decentralization of authority would result in local communities having more legal autonomy and would eliminate the need/desire for dividing up the nation. We could keep The Union and just accept (tolerate) that different regions will have different laws.

 

Ding ding ding!

This is really the easiest answer. And even then, it would not be that easy, as it would probably require a law that invalidates the incorporation doctrine. That's the only way that say, a state like New York or California, could ban guns or prosecute people for "hate speech" without running afoul of the constitution.

If you were a gun owner living in a blue state, it would be too bad, since then the police could come to your home and take your guns, but it's a lot better than civil war.

 

Something like 40% of the elderly in my area and surrounding counties are on some type of tax exemption or subsidies to help pay for their property taxes. Very reliable and consistent Republican voters.

What about welfare states that receive more money from the fed than they contribute, can we revoke their right to participate also?
Companies that pay nothing in taxes, can we make it where they cannot lobby too? Maybe prevent their owners or major shareholders from voting.

I’m down — would be a great experiment

 

I have to disagree with your characterization, here. The Constitution did not set up a system of (originally) 13 "miniature nations." We were certainly intended to have sovereign, federal law.

Your description is overly vague, and non-specific. There already are differences in some laws, from state to state. But there are other, federal laws, that all must accept. Also, every state must respect the laws of the other states. Without these consistencies, we would no longer be a single, united country, but more like a confederation. And to change our Constitution to reflect what you seem to be describing, would require Amendments to it-- things are nowhere near desperate enough, yet, for either Congress to pass these Amendments, nor for two-thirds of the states to ratify them.

 

Your terminology is faulty: I don't think this is what you mean, but interest payments and stock dividends are both considered, "unearned income."

 

No, not at all. First of all, what would people like me, moderate/centrists do? We'd have to go for splitting the country in 3? One for the radical left, one for the radical right, and one for the centrists?? I don't want the radical left to prevail in my state, but then I don't want the radical right to prevail, either. Second; and then, the division between red states and blue states doesn't really reflect accurately what pockets of population inserted into these states think: there are many blue cities in red states, and many red rural areas in blue states. Third, there is a lean and mean world out there and as the climate worsens and resources dwindle with populational growth and fewer fertile lands for agriculture, and problems for securing drinking water, energy sources, etc., there will be more international tensions for which a UNITED United States will be better equipped in terms of national security and defense.

We need to learn to live with our differences and to work out some compromises. Splitting the country is not the solution. It will just weaken us in the international scene.

We are not the only country in the world with tensions between leftists and rightists. Those other countries for the most part learn to work with each other to a certain degree, instead of splitting all over the place. There's been a few example of countries splitting (like the former Yugoslavia but the situation there was different, with recent civil war, and ethnic and linguistic strife that went way beyond what we currently have in the USA; a better example would be the Czech Republic and Slovakia which amicably split out from each other, but these cases are rare).

There are a few other examples, like Ireland and Northern Ireland, Cyprus and Northern Cyprus, Romania and Moldavia, Korea and North Korea, but in each of these cases, there were much more profound issues than the ones that separate red and blue Americans.

I say, I don't favor red, and I don't favor blue. I favor red, white, and blue.

 

Problem is, there are lots of Conservatives in Liberal states, and vise versa. They may not take kindly to their state becoming its own nation, run by opposing politics.

 

Again (since I mentioned this to you in another thread, already), your idea that benefit recipients in America are lazy moochers/parasites, is a distorted view. The moochers/parasites are the minority. The vast majority of people who are disabled in our country are truly disabled and deserve the help they get. As a physician, I encounter a lot of disability applications, with patients asking for forms to be filled certifying disabilities, etc. The VAST majority are ashamed of it and saddened by their state of need, and would want nothing other than recovering their health and productivity; they'd be working if they could. Sure, there are a few malingerers and fakers but for the most part they get caught.

Many conservatives have this stereotypical view that America is a welfare state where many are in-the-take. This couldn't be farther from the truth. As compared to Western European countries, our safety net is minimal, and we are most definitely not a welfare state.

Not that I'd suspect you of this, but often this stereotypical view is tainted with racist undertones. "The blacks are parasites who want handouts rather than productive work; they are lazy. Hispanics want food stamps." In my 41 years of practice, the vast majority of blacks and Hispanics I've treated are hard-working people who are not happy when they acquire disabilities.

One way to gauge a nation's degree of civilization, it to look at how they treat their most disadvantaged citizens. It's easy to kowtow to the rich and privileged. It takes a lot more humanitarian qualities, to deal with the poor and disadvantaged. Given that I'm acutely aware of this issue, frankly, despite the fact that I like you a lot as a poster, posts like this one you've authored irk me.

Remember the last Republican candidate who mocked 47% of Americans as moochers and parasites? Well, he lost. He was punished by the voters for his contemptuous and inaccurate views.

 

"yet" is true. But we're trending in that direction. A 'confederation' would be preferable to a civil war.

 

Those who are truly disabled because of very real, verifiable situations like debilitating injuries and chronic disease, along with birth defects, etc. should be fully supported by the government through a variety of welfare programs AND be allowed to vote. That has been my position from the beginning.

The ones I think have no right to be a part of our national decision-making processes are the OTHERS, who, by using one liberal-inspired handout method or another, are able to continue sucking subsistence welfare out of U. S. taxpayers on an indefinite basis, even though there is no substantial reason why they cannot support themselves!

We'll never get rid of all the many handout welfare programs now... I know that. They've all been 'welded' into the system for decades, beginning with the great liberal 'demi-god', Frankie Roosevelt, almost 90 years ago, and nurtured through the years by other liberal Democrats like Lyndon Johnson and Barack Obama. So, yes, all welfare recipients can (and will) go on drawing their 'benefits' forever -- BUT -- I maintain that anyone who is NOT substantially (and verifiably) disabled, and who draws UNEARNED income or UNEARNED benefits from the government during any given calendar year should lose the right to vote in all elections during that same calendar year.

You are welcome to disagree, but I did want to make that clarification. Not everyone who receives government welfare is a "bum" or a "moocher", Dr. Center, but many ARE, and our population of those who do receive handout welfare or 'subsidies' of one kind or another has grown substantially -- and remained high -- ever since 2007....

Sidebar: I think we may agree that if we could actually achieve 100% participation in full (FULL) vaccination of all persons (yes, including even illegal aliens) in this country, the government could stop the economically-suicidal, senseless practice of 'paying-people-NOT-to-work' and our economy would rebound successfully! I'm not trying to patronize or 'co-opt' you, but I did want to make this clarification also....

 

That's crazy talk !!

more crazy talk !

I think we are just playing make believe

I say we all vote libertarian and get along ??

 

Crazy? Crazy would be trying to enslave people who have firearms.

 

Nothing suggests failure like two sides that cannot get along. The end of America as being 'the greatest'.

 

But what's your estimated proportion of moochers among the allegedly disabled? Because, like I said, these applications do go through physicians, and what we see is that the vast majority are real disabilities. I don't have a stat on hand, but do you? Are you only of the opinion that many are moochers, or do you have evidence of this percentage?
---------
I'm no economy expert but I seem to remember that it's been shown that disability benefits are not what is resulting in a shortage of workers, right now. I could be wrong about it, though.