If the red states and blue states separated into two countries, what would result?

[Spare_change]

Check your facts. The red states consume much more in federal handouts than the blue. The Red Blue Paradox - Reason.com

Bullshit. The same lie has been told a million times. Retelling it does make it true.The majority of military and other Government assets are in Red States. That's not a fucking hand out nimrod.My home State of Virginia gets a lot of Federal money. Why? Norfolk Naval Base in the largest naval base in the world. There is the Pentagon....CIA headquarters.....Langley AFB.....The Federal Reserve in Richmond. Quantico. Yorktown Naval Weapons Station.

Since when has the military been a handout, shortbus? The article cited said handouts. It didn't say anything about federal facilties, military or otherwise. But, to answer you question, blue states have many federal facilities. If you weren't so near-sighted, you'd see it for yourself, right across the line in MD.

Sorry --- it doesn't work like that.

Go to the source --- States Most Least Dependent on the Federal Government WalletHub

Clearly, it says that it the criteria used was:

1) Return on Taxes Paid to the Federal Government; 2) Federal Funding as a Percentage of State Revenue; and 3) Number of Federal Employees Per Capita.

Or, another discussion - Liberals love claiming red states mooch more than blue states . Here s proof that s baloney. -

Please try to use facts - not propaganda.

 

[SwimExpert]

Five years from now, if we looked back, what would we see? And what would we be doing next?

This is a pretty ridiculous notion, but what the hell, I'll play along.

The first problem would be differentiating between red and blue states. Most states are purple. There are only a small handful of states who can truly be said to be either red or blue. As state populations try to pick one or the other side there would be substantial internal conflict. Many states have localities that are predominantly red or blue, often being a division between more urban and more rural areas. Any event substantial enough to justify the nation tearing apart into separate counties based on partisan differences would likely be substantial enough to spur states to tear apart for the same reasons.

The result would be a geographic paint spattering of red rural territory and blue urban territory. This would create a much higher degree of geographic continuity among the red territory with substantially non-continuous blue territory. That would favor the red country in their effort to form a single country while blue territories would have substantial difficulty. Most likely result would be a New England nation, a Democratic State of California, and a smattering of blue city-states. All would be independent. Most blue nations would probably try to convince Canada to annex them, and New England might succeed. But the rest would likely be rejected. The various blue city-states would likely form some kind of weak alliance or confederacy for the sake of mutual defense, but it would not likely have any substantive value.

The various countries would start encountering significant economic difficulties. The city-states would possess wealth and production means, but lack the natural resources would be a problem, as would their likely attempts to adopt impractical economic policies. The red nation would be abundant in resources and adopt more stable economic policies, but lack outlets to process the same, and lack adequate markets. Attempts to establish trade would be difficult as each the polarization that lead to the split would likely persist, with each side would be loathe to agree to anything other than an inequitable arrangement; both sides would be trying to pressure the other for ideological purposes. The likely result would be armed conflict.

The red state would most likely initiate the armed conflict, and be able to easily pick off the city-states at will. The city-states would find their cause further complicated by the fact that they will have established substantial anti-gun policies, resulting in a lack of adequate weaponry and an inability to import arms due to the red state blocking all imports. California, by this point, will likely have been invaded by Mexican drug cartels and become a wasteland.

 

[westwall]

Check your facts. The red states consume much more in federal handouts than the blue. The Red Blue Paradox - Reason.com

Bullshit. The same lie has been told a million times. Retelling it does make it true.The majority of military and other Government assets are in Red States. That's not a fucking hand out nimrod.My home State of Virginia gets a lot of Federal money. Why? Norfolk Naval Base in the largest naval base in the world. There is the Pentagon....CIA headquarters.....Langley AFB.....The Federal Reserve in Richmond. Quantico. Yorktown Naval Weapons Station.

Since when has the military been a handout, shortbus? The article cited said handouts. It didn't say anything about federal facilties, military or otherwise. But, to answer you question, blue states have many federal facilities. If you weren't so near-sighted, you'd see it for yourself, right across the line in MD.

The information you are obtaining refers to ALL Federal monies going to the States. It doesn't differentiate between welfare and regular government spending.

 

[WelfareQueen]

Check your facts. The red states consume much more in federal handouts than the blue. The Red Blue Paradox - Reason.com

Bullshit. The same lie has been told a million times. Retelling it does make it true.The majority of military and other Government assets are in Red States. That's not a fucking hand out nimrod.My home State of Virginia gets a lot of Federal money. Why? Norfolk Naval Base in the largest naval base in the world. There is the Pentagon....CIA headquarters.....Langley AFB.....The Federal Reserve in Richmond. Quantico. Yorktown Naval Weapons Station.

Since when has the military been a handout, shortbus? The article cited said handouts. It didn't say anything about federal facilties, military or otherwise. But, to answer you question, blue states have many federal facilities. If you weren't so near-sighted, you'd see it for yourself, right across the line in MD.

Sorry short bus. Try again. Your post = fail.

 

[Kosh]

[Yep. The blue states would be full of folks wanting someone to take care of them. Pay their bills. Buy their food and basically support them for life.
The red states would be full of can do people who don't need anyone to take care of em and wouldn't expect anyone to take care of them.
I'll take the red states thank you very much.

Check your facts. The red states consume much more in federal handouts than the blue.

The Red Blue Paradox - Reason.com

And the far left propaganda rolls out without question or hesitation from the programmed drones.

They just post and not even bother to understand the source or the information, just search for keywords..

 

[blastoff]

Red states would have to secure their borders like the US should have done decades ago in order to keep the loser blues from coming and stealing our stuff. And that could be a hoot because we'd have huge Shoot to Kill signs for them to see and, hopefully, ignore.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

This is patently ridiculous. We are 'United' for a reason. It is foolish to dissolve our union over political differences. That happens to be what triggered the Civil War!

A forced union is not a union at all.

 

[WelfareQueen]

[Yep. The blue states would be full of folks wanting someone to take care of them. Pay their bills. Buy their food and basically support them for life.
The red states would be full of can do people who don't need anyone to take care of em and wouldn't expect anyone to take care of them.
I'll take the red states thank you very much.

Check your facts. The red states consume much more in federal handouts than the blue.

The Red Blue Paradox - Reason.com

And the far left propaganda rolls out without question or hesitation from the programmed drones.

They just post and not even bother to understand the source or the information, just search for keywords..

The same lie has been told here at USMB at least 50 times. It is refuted with hard evidence every time and yet they still put forth the same nonsense.

Either libs are incredibly stupid or willfully ignorant. I suspect a little of both.

 

[TemplarKormac]

This is patently ridiculous. We are 'United' for a reason. It is foolish to dissolve our union over political differences. That happens to be what triggered the Civil War!

A forced union is not a union at all.

How is it forced? People like you value this nation in it's entirety, then call it a 'forced union.' To me, being a former conservative, means that dissolving this country runs contrary to the beliefs some people who call themselves 'patriots' hold. Just what would it serve to fracture America in two? Why call us the United States when we seek only to divide ourselves?

 

[Stephanie]

The blue states wouldn't know how to survive and it would dog eat dog

How much food can you grow in cement jungles?

lol

 

[TakeAStepBack]

This is patently ridiculous. We are 'United' for a reason. It is foolish to dissolve our union over political differences. That happens to be what triggered the Civil War!

A forced union is not a union at all.

How is it forced? People like you value this nation in it's entirety, then call it a 'forced union.' To me, being a former conservative, means that dissolving this country runs contrary to the beliefs some people who call themselves 'patriots' hold. Just what would it serve to fracture America in two? Why call us the United States when we seek only to divide ourselves?

Are you suggesting that states can secede without federal backlash? Are you aware the last time states were no longer interested in a union, we ended up with a blood bath of Federal northern aggression?

Tell me how it isnt forced. It is coerced and well known that no state will ever be permitted to secede from the 'union'.

 

[konradv]

Go to the source --- States Most Least Dependent on the Federal Government WalletHub Clearly, it says that it the criteria used was:1) Return on Taxes Paid to the Federal Government; 2) Federal Funding as a Percentage of State Revenue; and 3) Number of Federal Employees Per Capita.Or, another discussion - Liberals love claiming red states mooch more than blue states . Here s proof that s baloney. -.

You haven't proven that there aren't lots of federal installations in blue states and only mention VA amongst the reds. I doubt there's much in Utah, Montana and Wyoming either, so I don't have any trouble with saying you're the purveyor of propaganda here. Next you'll be telling us that the red states are smarter because they have more community colleges!

 

[Spare_change]

Go to the source --- States Most Least Dependent on the Federal Government WalletHub Clearly, it says that it the criteria used was:1) Return on Taxes Paid to the Federal Government; 2) Federal Funding as a Percentage of State Revenue; and 3) Number of Federal Employees Per Capita.Or, another discussion - Liberals love claiming red states mooch more than blue states . Here s proof that s baloney. -.

You haven't proven that there aren't lots of federal installations in blue states and only mention VA amongst the reds. I doubt there's much in Utah, Montana and Wyoming either, so I don't have any trouble with saying you're the purveyor of propaganda here. Next you'll be telling us that the red states are smarter because they have more community colleges!

Nice generalization - but false.

Look at the facts .... apologize.

 

[Katzndogz]

This is patently ridiculous. We are 'United' for a reason. It is foolish to dissolve our union over political differences. That happens to be what triggered the Civil War!

A forced union is not a union at all.

How is it forced? People like you value this nation in it's entirety, then call it a 'forced union.' To me, being a former conservative, means that dissolving this country runs contrary to the beliefs some people who call themselves 'patriots' hold. Just what would it serve to fracture America in two? Why call us the United States when we seek only to divide ourselves?

Are you suggesting that states can secede without federal backlash? Are you aware the last time states were no longer interested in a union, we ended up with a blood bath of Federal northern aggression?

Tell me how it isnt forced. It is coerced and well known that no state will ever be permitted to secede from the 'union'.

In the proposed scenario no state would secede. It would be a mutual decision to separate. This was never decided by the civil war. It was never addressed at all.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Tell me how it isnt forced. It is coerced and well known that no state will ever be permitted to secede from the 'union'.

So, if you do secede, you lose all of your constitutional rights. I find it odd when people cry and whine about their Constitutional rights, but beg to secede from the Union. Forgive me, but I see that as trying to have it both ways. Secession is madness. You destroy what the founders fought and died to create, a Union. For people who invoke the names of our founders quite often, you guys really do want to destroy what they created.

To fracture this country in part would expose those citizens of the seceded states to an environment where their rights and liberties are uncertain and indeterminate. Just what would you do once you seceded? Nobody seems to think about that. You would break up families, bonds between friends, show the world that America as a people are no longer united among themselves.

"...We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

-Preamble to The United States Constitution

The Constitution never intended America to dissolve, as is made clear here. For a certain group of states to secede from the greater union is an act of selfishness, not an act to preserve personal liberties of American citizens:

"When the Articles of Confederation were found to be inadequate to the exigencies of the country, the Constitution was ordained 'to form a more perfect Union.' It is difficult to convey the idea of indissoluble unity more clearly than by these words. What can be indissoluble if a perpetual Union, made more perfect, is not? . . . The Constitution, in all its provisions, looks to an indestructible Union, composed of indestructible States. When, therefore, Texas became one of the United States, she entered into an indissoluble relation. All the obligations of perpetual union, and all the guaranties of republican government in the Union, attached at once to the State. The act which consummated her admission into the Union was something more than a compact; it was the incorporation of a new member into the political body. And it was final. The union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States. There was no place for reconsideration, or revocation, except through revolution, or through consent of the States."

Texas v. White 74 U.S. 700 (1868)

"The Supreme Court has repudiated emphatically the mischievous heresy that the union of the states under the constitution is a mere league or compact, from which a state, or any number of states, may withdraw at pleasure, not only without the consent of the other states, but against their will."

United States v. Cathcart, 25 F. Cas. 344, 348 (C.C.S.D. Ohio 1864) (No. 14,756)

"The people, through [the Constitution], established a more perfect union by substituting a national government, acting, with ample power, directly upon the citizens, instead of the Confederate government, which acted with powers, greatly restricted, only upon the States."

-Lane Cnty. v. Oregon, 74 U.S. (7 Wall.) 71, 76 (1869)

"The Constitution assumed that the government and the Union which it created, and the States which were incorporated into the Union, would be indestructible and perpetual; and as far as human means could accomplish such a work, it intended to make them so."

White v. Hart, 80 U.S. (13 Wall.) 646, 650 (1871)

"Interposition is . . . based on the proposition that the United States is a compact of states, any one of which may interpose its sovereignty against the enforcement within its borders of any decision of the Supreme Court or act of Congress, irrespective of the fact that the constitutionality of the act has been established by decision of the Supreme Court. . . . In essence, the doctrine denies the constitutional obligation of the states to respect those decisions of the Supreme Court with which they do not agree. The doctrine may have had some validity under the Articles of Confederation. On their failure, however, ‘in Order to form a more perfect Union,’ the people, not the states, of this country ordained and established the Constitution. Thus the keystone of the interposition thesis, that the United States is a compact of states, was disavowed in the Preamble to the Constitution."

-Bush v. Orleans Parish Sch. Bd., 188 F. Supp. 916, 922–23 (E.D. La. 1960)

When this country was founded, when the Constitution was established, it was done so by the people. All of them. We are not 'states,' we are a union of people.

Also, read Federalist #10. James Madison warned of behavior like this as 'violence of faction' and that a bigger Republic was more suited to handle this issue than smaller ones, i.e. States. Secession amounts to factionalism, not patriotism. I argue that secession would end the republican form of government and instill a more democratic form, i.e smaller amounts of people electing delegates for the majority of people in the seceded states.

"From this view of the subject it may be concluded that a pure democracy, by which I mean a society consisting of a small number of citizens, who assemble and administer the government in person, can admit of no cure for the mischiefs of faction."

Moreover, Jon Jay wrote that a union was more effective in handling foreign threats, in Federalist #2.

"With equal pleasure I have as often taken notice that Providence has been pleased to give this one connected country to one united people -- a people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of government, very similar in their manners and customs, and who, by their joint counsels, arms, and efforts, fighting side by side throughout a long and bloody war, have nobly established general liberty and independence."

 

[TemplarKormac]

Are you aware the last time states were no longer interested in a union, we ended up with a blood bath of Federal northern aggression?

That 'bloodbath' ended slavery in America. Or are you suggesting that the North should have done nothing to abolish it? Secession by the Southern States was based mostly on a flawed premise: the preservation of slavery, which was contrary to the Republican form of our government. In my mind, there was an obligation to restore liberty to all Americans, not give it to one and not the other. So inasmuch, slavery needed to be stopped. If that involved bloodshed, so be it.

 

[Kondor3]

Reminds me of that fun-game we play in Illinois, called "Let's split Chicago off from the rest of Illinois and let Chicago become its own state."

The idea of Chicagoans supporting their own welfare case load without six-collar-county and downstate support is downright comical.

 

[initforme]

Everyone in the red states would be working for $3 an hour and benefits slashed to zero. That's a start.

 

[Kosh]

Go to the source --- States Most Least Dependent on the Federal Government WalletHub Clearly, it says that it the criteria used was:1) Return on Taxes Paid to the Federal Government; 2) Federal Funding as a Percentage of State Revenue; and 3) Number of Federal Employees Per Capita.Or, another discussion - Liberals love claiming red states mooch more than blue states . Here s proof that s baloney. -.

You haven't proven that there aren't lots of federal installations in blue states and only mention VA amongst the reds. I doubt there's much in Utah, Montana and Wyoming either, so I don't have any trouble with saying you're the purveyor of propaganda here. Next you'll be telling us that the red states are smarter because they have more community colleges!

WOW! The far left is strong with this one..

Yet the bulk of the money that is used in these "red" states are disturbed heavily to "blue" areas like large cities controlled by the far left..

 

[initforme]

Make that $2 an hour and you had better be thankful for it.