Should the US divorce?

I know this has been thrown out there for years.
Is it time for the country to break up?

Let's face it California and Texas are practically their own little countries already.
Should our country be split into two, or even more different countries based on political or religious, or moral values?

Is it fair that some states are irresponsible and everyone has to pay that debt?
If one part of the country collectively believes in open borders/abortion/gun control etc etc. should they have to follow laws that don't represent them? Maybe some countries want universal healthcare, maybe some don't.
How do you think it could be split off?
Here is how I would see it.

I could see clusters of like minded places California, Oregon, Washington State as a country, Michigan, Wisconsin, Iowa, Minnesota as a state. Texas, Alabama, Louisiana. etc.. These places wouldn't necessary have to be near each other either.

I wonder if as different countries everyone could prosper more. I know some say, oh the left will destruct, or the right will be ultra religious. I wonder for a minute if we could actually be better as completely different countries.

Who gets to keep the govt equipments?

a reply to: JAGStorm

The Soviet Union split.

So anything is possible.

a reply to: JAGStorm

Is it time for the country to break up?

Putin's wildest dream come true !
No , of course you shouldn't break up your nation.

a reply to: JAGStorm

I think the strength of the US in every way, be economic, military, etc lies in unity as the US is a huge country land-wise with a population of 327 million . If you split it up it would be the US like its the EU and the separated states like the member states of the EU.

And look at the EU right now, nothing but unity. Just my two cents...

a reply to: JAGStorm

If that were to happen, we would see wars on American soil within a generation.

I don't think anyone wants to see that.

We may have disagreements on how we govern the country, but we're all still Americans.

If the world was not corrupted with power then yes, splitting into smaller unions would be a good move imo. Governing works well on small scale, falls to pieces on large scale for many reasons.

But as the world is so corrupt it wouldn't work.

a reply to: JAGStorm

There was an interesting article in NY Mag on this question. The Constitution allows for "interstate compacts," which is a potential solution.

I think three things would be better solutions for this Red-Blue fistfight, though:
1. Limit corporate power
2. Term limits for congress
3. A viable third party

originally posted by: watchitburn
a reply to: JAGStorm

If that were to happen, we would see wars on American soil within a generation.

I don't think anyone wants to see that.

We may have disagreements on how we govern the country, but we're all still Americans.

Communism/socialism is as unAmerican as you can possibly get and the majority of the west coast would/is wrapping their arms around it... so I wouldn’t say “we’re all Americans” when half the nation is trying to destroy the very fabric that made U.S. just that...

We've got states and states rights for a reason.
The U.S. should not divide, but with high population centers growing something does need to be done.

California is a great example. Southern California has so many people jam packed so close together that they're passing insane laws that make no sense for anybody, and enforcing them far and wide.

I guess what we really need is a good plague, or an extended break from electricity. A few months would solve the population problem in cities...

originally posted by: watchitburn
a reply to: JAGStorm

If that were to happen, we would see wars on American soil within a generation.

I don't think anyone wants to see that.

We may have disagreements on how we govern the country, but we're all still Americans.

My fear is that we are going to see war on American soil regardless.

One of the huge issues of breaking up the country into individual countries, is the fact that a lot of states that lean either left or right, it's not the entire state that leans left or right, but instead is Big Cities vs Rural Areas.

If you take a look at a county map showing the results of the last election, you'll see that Blue (left leaning) counties are were the big cities are, with the rest of the state's counties being Red (right leaning).

Take a look at the state of Washington: Seattle is a very left leaning huge city.....while the rest of the state tends to be much more red and right leaning. If the state were to leave the Union......what should it do? If it leans all the way left, that's not very fair to those that do not live in the big city, and of course the opposite is true too.

The only solution I can see that would be more "fair" as far as political ideology goes, is to allow the counties where the big cites reside to divorce themselves from the rest of each state they are in.

This in a lot of ways is how ancient Greece was set up, and Italy was up until the mid 1800s: a collection of City States that ruled themselves.

I don't see it working too well though. Most of the big cities are going to have issues trying to feed themselves unless they import their foods......and the more rural areas would also have issues in obtaining materials that they need as most ports (both air and sea) would be controlled by the big cities.

a reply to: eriktheawful

Yep, I’m a Texan born and raised. Total liberal - been living in Austin for almost 20 years now, and I’m not leavin’!

originally posted by: SwissMarked

originally posted by: watchitburn
a reply to: JAGStorm

If that were to happen, we would see wars on American soil within a generation.

I don't think anyone wants to see that.

We may have disagreements on how we govern the country, but we're all still Americans.

Communism/socialism is as unAmerican as you can possibly get and the majority of the west coast would/is wrapping their arms around it... so I wouldn’t say “we’re all Americans” when half the nation is trying to destroy the very fabric that made U.S. just that...

THIS!!! Say you have a roommate or two. You guys can disagree on what to watch on TV, what temperature to keep the residence at, maybe what color you want to paint the walls. You can possibly compromise on those issues.

But compromising ends when one of the roommates has extreme believes like letting anyone off the street come and stay in your residence or them letting friends come over and clear the fridge of all food when you paid for half of the food. Or throwing parties at the place and putting flyers all over the streets up for just anyone to come over.


This is the point we are at now. CA and some liberals are so extreme that their viewpoints are close to where we just can't compromise. There gets to a point where their beliefs can negatively effect and endanger your way of living and there is no middle ground.

They wanna change the very principle and foundation this country was built on. No borders, No nation, No deportation!!! Hell, they chant it in the streets!

They wanna get rid of the 2nd amendment by first banning Ar15s. But then shotguns and handguns will be next. We all know this. Once you give an inch they are never happy and want a full mile. Slowly raising the temp of the water as to not alert the frog that it is gonna be cooked alive soon.

Patriots aren't gonna live like this. There will be a breaking point.

We are close to that point and all joking aside I think civil war or separation is possible in the future.

A lot of people are scared to talk about this. But its a reality and deep in our hearts we all know it.

originally posted by: Look2theSacredHeart
a reply to: JAGStorm

There was an interesting article in NY Mag on this question. The Constitution allows for "interstate compacts," which is a potential solution.

I think three things would be better solutions for this Red-Blue fistfight, though:
1. Limit corporate power
2. Term limits for congress
3. A viable third party

Super interesting article!
I was surprised by this:

Surveys have shown that two-thirds of Californians oppose independence, and not only because the Calexit movement’s lefty critiques of Trump do not align with its righty origins

Not necessarily but the 17th amendment does need to be repealed. It changed the method of electing senators and literally de-fanged the states influence over the federal government. It shifted the balance of power and control to the fed exclusively.

The Seventeenth Amendment (Amendment XVII) to the United States Constitution established the popular election of United States Senators by the people of the states. The amendment supersedes Article I, §3, Clauses 1 and 2 of the Constitution, under which senators were elected by state legislatures.

This move was made in conjunction with the 16th that created the Federal Reserve and individual taxation. Basically, it was the strategy of the oligarchs of the time to steel our government away from the public. It worked.

a reply to: watchitburn

but we're all still Americans.

Yea, residents of a tax jurisdiction that can't control its own borders. Be sure to give a hearty good morning to your new neighbors..........ISIS terrorists from Somalia.

a reply to: JAGStorm

Wow, that was an interesting article at your NY mag link!

Let’s just admit that this arranged marriage isn’t really working anymore, is it? The partisan dynamic in Washington may have changed, but our dysfunctional, codependent relationship is still the same. The midterm results have shown that Democrats have become even more a party of cities and upscale suburbs whose votes are inefficiently packed into dense geographies, Republicans one of exurbs and rural areas overrepresented in the Senate. The new Congress will be more ideologically divided than any before it, according to a scoring system developed by Stanford political scientist Adam Bonica: the Republicans more conservative, the Democrats more liberal.

nymag.com...

America should just sell California to Mexico. If you have open boarders, it's going to become Mexico sooner than later, the rest of us should make money off of California stupidity.

originally posted by: JAGStorm
I know this has been thrown out there for years.
Is it time for the country to break up?

Let's face it California and Texas are practically their own little countries already.
Should our country be split into two, or even more different countries based on political or religious, or moral values?

Is it fair that some states are irresponsible and everyone has to pay that debt?
If one part of the country collectively believes in open borders/abortion/gun control etc etc. should they have to follow laws that don't represent them? Maybe some countries want universal healthcare, maybe some don't.
How do you think it could be split off?
Here is how I would see it.

I could see clusters of like minded places California, Oregon, Washington State as a country, Michigan, Wisconsin, Iowa, Minnesota as a state. Texas, Alabama, Louisiana. etc.. These places wouldn't necessary have to be near each other either.

I wonder if as different countries everyone could prosper more. I know some say, oh the left will destruct, or the right will be ultra religious. I wonder for a minute if we could actually be better as completely different countries.

We need to become a Christian nation acting on the message Jesus left us to live our lives. The ultra religious right throws Jesus message in everyone's face, yet sets policy in direct violation of that message. Un til the Christian right comes to terms with this, our society and community will continue to degrade.