Would you support seperatism ?

  • 73 results
  • 1
  • 2

This topic is locked from further discussion.

#1 Posted by dkdk999 (6738 posts) -
If enough people in america (or whatever country), decided they wanted to split the country up in different groups i.e. A conservative state, a liberal state, libertarian state etc. Do you think it would be beneficial ? Why ?
#2 Posted by Nuck81 (5861 posts) -
If enough people in america (or whatever country), decided they wanted to split the country up in different groups i.e. A consertive state, a liberal state, libertarian state etc. Do you think would be beneficial ? dkdk999
Asinine
#3 Posted by Diablo-B (4049 posts) -

Nope. People love to praise democracy then b**ch when other people don't vote their way. Not everyone will agree with you. Deal with it

#4 Posted by jimkabrhel (15420 posts) -

If enough people in america (or whatever country), decided they wanted to split the country up in different groups i.e. A consertive state, a liberal state, libertarian state etc. Do you think would be beneficial ? dkdk999

Absolutely not. As flawed as our two party system is, I wouldn't want to split off the GOP because they sill offer a counterpoint to Democratic proposals, and it's fun to watch them persistently push anti-abortion and anti-gay agendas.

#5 Posted by Pirate700 (46465 posts) -

No, of course not.

#6 Posted by dkdk999 (6738 posts) -
I'm actually surprised why not ? You're against having a state that aligns with your own political views ?
#7 Posted by Aljosa23 (25121 posts) -

Yeah but only if the north east and west coast join Canada.

#8 Posted by Diablo-B (4049 posts) -

[QUOTE="dkdk999"]If enough people in america (or whatever country), decided they wanted to split the country up in different groups i.e. A consertive state, a liberal state, libertarian state etc. Do you think would be beneficial ? jimkabrhel

Absolutely not. As flawed as our two party system is, I wouldn't want to split off the GOP because they sill offer a counterpoint to Democratic proposals, and it's fun to watch them persistently push anti-abortion and anti-gay agendas.

Don't forget the pro-rape agenda. *giggles*
#9 Posted by jimkabrhel (15420 posts) -

Yeah but only if the north east and west coast join Canada.

Aljosa23

What's wrong with the upper Midwest? We'll bring Chicago!

#10 Posted by Diablo-B (4049 posts) -

Yeah but only if the north east and west coast join Canada.

Aljosa23
I actually like this idea. Do you think the mid-west can join us too?
#11 Posted by Laihendi (5828 posts) -
Yes that would be a good idea.
#12 Posted by Aljosa23 (25121 posts) -

Yes, the Mid-West can join too. 

Sh1t, just give us all the blue states.

#13 Posted by Ace6301 (21389 posts) -

[QUOTE="Aljosa23"]

Yeah but only if the north east and west coast join Canada.

jimkabrhel

What's wrong with the upper Midwest? We'll bring Chicago!

Chicago would nearly double our national number of murders. As for separatists, I don't support them. Unless you're really, really getting screwed over by your government leaving because you're not getting exactly what you want is idiotic. All you'd do is fracture nations to such a degree that everything ends up as fail states.
#14 Posted by Laihendi (5828 posts) -

Yeah but only if the north east and west coast join Canada.

Aljosa23
California is 618 billion dollars in debt. You want your country looted to fund their welfare programs?
#16 Posted by Aljosa23 (25121 posts) -

[QUOTE="Aljosa23"]

Yeah but only if the north east and west coast join Canada.

Laihendi

California is 618 billion dollars in debt. You want your country looted to fund their welfare programs?

Well they're also by far the biggest state economy in the US. And we already have welfare programs that are doing fine and an economy that's recovered incredibly fast sooooooo

#17 Posted by dagreenfish (1817 posts) -
In the U.S. no. But in other countries and situations it depends on whether or not I support self determination. In cases of human rights violations, oppression, second class citizens of groups of people , then yes. If simply ideological, economic, or social reasons, then no.
#18 Posted by dkdk999 (6738 posts) -
[QUOTE="jimkabrhel"]

[QUOTE="Aljosa23"]

Yeah but only if the north east and west coast join Canada.

Ace6301

What's wrong with the upper Midwest? We'll bring Chicago!

Chicago would nearly double our national number of murders. As for separatists, I don't support them. Unless you're really, really getting screwed over by your government leaving because you're not getting exactly what you want is idiotic. All you'd do is fracture nations to such a degree that everything ends up as fail states.

Creating a new country which is smaller than the old isn't "fracturing", it's just creating a new country. Why do you use the term "fracture" you think it's going to be unorganized and that's the problem ?
#19 Posted by Oleg_Huzwog (21885 posts) -

Separatism in response to an oppressive genocidal ruling majority (South Sudan)?  Sure, I'd support that.

Separatism in response to "boo-hoo, my candidate didn't win"?  No.

#20 Posted by Laihendi (5828 posts) -

[QUOTE="Laihendi"][QUOTE="Aljosa23"]

Yeah but only if the north east and west coast join Canada.

Aljosa23

California is 618 billion dollars in debt. You want your country looted to fund their welfare programs?

Well they're also by far the biggest state economy in the US. And we already have welfare programs that are doing fine and an economy that's recovered incredibly fast sooooooo

Please explain how Canada will benefit from taking in a state that spends far more money than it collects.
#21 Posted by GreySeal9 (24429 posts) -

Nope. People love to praise democracy then b**ch when other people don't vote their way. Not everyone will agree with you. Deal with it

Diablo-B

#22 Posted by wis3boi (31464 posts) -

It's already fvcked up enough

#23 Posted by Laihendi (5828 posts) -

Separatism in response to an oppressive genocidal ruling majority (South Sudan)?  Sure, I'd support that.

Separatism in response to "boo-hoo, my candidate didn't win"?  No.

Oleg_Huzwog
Why should Obama be president of a state that voted against him overwhelmingly?
#24 Posted by dkdk999 (6738 posts) -
Damn should have made thread as an argument for seperatism rather than a question, people like just saying "no" with no answer. I don't see why you wouldn't support living in a place that aligns better with your viewpoints.
#25 Posted by Aljosa23 (25121 posts) -

Please explain how Canada will benefit from taking in a state that spends far more money than it collects.Laihendi
Can you point out where I said they'll benefit? Anyways, if anything I'd be fine with them governing themselves in that area like the provinces do now. Welfare and social assistance is a provincial thing here and since California alone has a larger economy than Canada I don't think much would change there.

#26 Posted by Laihendi (5828 posts) -

[QUOTE="Laihendi"]Please explain how Canada will benefit from taking in a state that spends far more money than it collects.Aljosa23

Can you point out where I said they'll benefit? Anyways, if anything I'd be fine with them governing themselves in that area like the provinces do now. Welfare and social assistance is a provincial thing here and since California alone has a larger economy than Canada I don't think much would change there.

If Canada would not benefit from California joining it, then why would you want California to join it?
#27 Posted by Oleg_Huzwog (21885 posts) -

[QUOTE="Oleg_Huzwog"]

Separatism in response to an oppressive genocidal ruling majority (South Sudan)?  Sure, I'd support that.

Separatism in response to "boo-hoo, my candidate didn't win"?  No.

Laihendi

Why should Obama be president of a state that voted against him overwhelmingly?

Why should Governor Joe Blow govern a county that voted against him overwhelmingly?

Why should Mayor Jane Doe preside over a neighborhood that voted against her overwhelmingly?

#28 Posted by Aljosa23 (25121 posts) -

If Canada would not benefit from California joining it, then why would you want California to join it?Laihendi
Well I would benefit because traveling would be much cheaper and I wouldn't have to deal with those jerks at every USA-Canada border.

#29 Posted by LJS9502_basic (151410 posts) -

No. And please use spell check.

#30 Posted by Laihendi (5828 posts) -

[QUOTE="Laihendi"][QUOTE="Oleg_Huzwog"]

Separatism in response to an oppressive genocidal ruling majority (South Sudan)?  Sure, I'd support that.

Separatism in response to "boo-hoo, my candidate didn't win"?  No.

Oleg_Huzwog

Why should Obama be president of a state that voted against him overwhelmingly?

Why should Governor Joe Blow govern a county that voted against him overwhelmingly?

Why should Mayor Jane Doe preside over a neighborhood that voted against her overwhelmingly?

You are not answering the question.
#31 Posted by DJ-Lafleur (34157 posts) -

I guess it would depend on the situation. I don't see any reason to do so now though.

#32 Posted by dkdk999 (6738 posts) -

No. And please use spell check.

LJS9502_basic
Oh I spelled one word wrong.
#33 Posted by Diablo-B (4049 posts) -

[QUOTE="Laihendi"]If Canada would not benefit from California joining it, then why would you want California to join it?Aljosa23

Well I would benefit because traveling would be much cheaper and I wouldn't have to deal with those jerks at every USA-Canada border.

Why are we dancing around the issue? This has less to do with why Cali should join Canada and more to do with most of the south is ideologically more different then the rest of the US. If the south was removed, Canada would fit in seamlessly with the other parts of the US, culturally.
#34 Posted by Ace6301 (21389 posts) -
[QUOTE="Ace6301"][QUOTE="jimkabrhel"]

What's wrong with the upper Midwest? We'll bring Chicago!

dkdk999
Chicago would nearly double our national number of murders. As for separatists, I don't support them. Unless you're really, really getting screwed over by your government leaving because you're not getting exactly what you want is idiotic. All you'd do is fracture nations to such a degree that everything ends up as fail states.

Creating a new country which is smaller than the old isn't "fracturing", it's just creating a new country. Why do you use the term "fracture" you think it's going to be unorganized and that's the problem ?

Creating a new country by fracturing the old, stronger, country. States are not as black and white in ideology as you may think looking at an election map. There's quite a bit of blue in the red states and quite a bit of red in the blue states. So if a red state left because they dislike Obama (which is an extremely childish thing to do since he's temporary) what should all the blue voters do? Leave? Or maybe create their own nation? This seems to me more someone looking at a game and seeing they're losing and rather than trying to change their strategy to win they attempt to change the rules of the game to fit their current strategy.
#35 Posted by coolbeans90 (21305 posts) -

Separatism in response to an oppressive genocidal ruling majority (South Sudan)?  Sure, I'd support that.

Separatism in response to "boo-hoo, my candidate didn't win"?  No.

Oleg_Huzwog

#36 Posted by Laihendi (5828 posts) -
[QUOTE="Ace6301"][QUOTE="dkdk999"][QUOTE="Ace6301"] Chicago would nearly double our national number of murders. As for separatists, I don't support them. Unless you're really, really getting screwed over by your government leaving because you're not getting exactly what you want is idiotic. All you'd do is fracture nations to such a degree that everything ends up as fail states.

Creating a new country which is smaller than the old isn't "fracturing", it's just creating a new country. Why do you use the term "fracture" you think it's going to be unorganized and that's the problem ?

Creating a new country by fracturing the old, stronger, country. States are not as black and white in ideology as you may think looking at an election map. There's quite a bit of blue in the red states and quite a bit of red in the blue states. So if a red state left because they dislike Obama (which is an extremely childish thing to do since he's temporary) what should all the blue voters do? Leave? Or maybe create their own nation? This seems to me more someone looking at a game and seeing they're losing and rather than trying to change their strategy to win they attempt to change the rules of the game to fit their current strategy.

The federal government is out of control and it needs to be stopped. There would be much less conflict between government and constituency if the federal government was not so invasive and spread over a large area.
#37 Posted by dkdk999 (6738 posts) -
[QUOTE="Ace6301"][QUOTE="dkdk999"][QUOTE="Ace6301"] Chicago would nearly double our national number of murders. As for separatists, I don't support them. Unless you're really, really getting screwed over by your government leaving because you're not getting exactly what you want is idiotic. All you'd do is fracture nations to such a degree that everything ends up as fail states.

Creating a new country which is smaller than the old isn't "fracturing", it's just creating a new country. Why do you use the term "fracture" you think it's going to be unorganized and that's the problem ?

Creating a new country by fracturing the old, stronger, country. States are not as black and white in ideology as you may think looking at an election map. There's quite a bit of blue in the red states and quite a bit of red in the blue states. So if a red state left because they dislike Obama (which is an extremely childish thing to do since he's temporary) what should all the blue voters do? Leave? Or maybe create their own nation? This seems to me more someone looking at a game and seeing they're losing and rather than trying to change their strategy to win they attempt to change the rules of the game to fit their current strategy.

What will be "weaker" about a new country ?
#38 Posted by Ace6301 (21389 posts) -
What will be "weaker" about a new country ? dkdk999
Just about everything.
The federal government is out of control and it needs to be stopped. There would be much less conflict between government and constituency if the federal government was not so invasive and spread over a large area.Laihendi
So you run away from your problems. Nice.
#39 Posted by dkdk999 (6738 posts) -
Well I sure as hell can't dispute this guy.
#40 Posted by Laihendi (5828 posts) -
[QUOTE="dkdk999"]What will be "weaker" about a new country ? Ace6301
Just about everything.
The federal government is out of control and it needs to be stopped. There would be much less conflict between government and constituency if the federal government was not so invasive and spread over a large area.Laihendi
So you run away from your problems. Nice.

No, seceding from Washington would be removing the problem from the states. If you have an invasive and corrupt government then obviously something needs to be changed. What you are saying makes no sense at all.
#41 Posted by Pirate700 (46465 posts) -

[QUOTE="Laihendi"]If Canada would not benefit from California joining it, then why would you want California to join it?Aljosa23

Well I would benefit because traveling would be much cheaper and I wouldn't have to deal with those jerks at every USA-Canada border.

Trust me, you do not want CA as part of Canada. It would probably bankrupt you guys.

#42 Posted by PannicAtack (21037 posts) -

[QUOTE="Aljosa23"]

[QUOTE="Laihendi"]If Canada would not benefit from California joining it, then why would you want California to join it?Pirate700

Well I would benefit because traveling would be much cheaper and I wouldn't have to deal with those jerks at every USA-Canada border.

Trust me, you do not want CA as part of Canada. It would probably bankrupt you guys.

They'd gain most of the US film industry.
#43 Posted by Pirate700 (46465 posts) -

[QUOTE="Pirate700"]

[QUOTE="Aljosa23"]Well I would benefit because traveling would be much cheaper and I wouldn't have to deal with those jerks at every USA-Canada border.

PannicAtack

Trust me, you do not want CA as part of Canada. It would probably bankrupt you guys.

They'd gain most of the US film industry.

lol so what? CA has that now and the state is bankrupt, has some of the highest unemployment in the country and the state's infrastructure is completely falling apart. It would be like Canada taking on a whole country, larger than the entirety of it's own population currently, and now half of Canada (including CA) is bankrupt. Canada would implode if it took on CA.

#44 Posted by Ace6301 (21389 posts) -

[QUOTE="PannicAtack"][QUOTE="Pirate700"]Trust me, you do not want CA as part of Canada. It would probably bankrupt you guys.

Pirate700

They'd gain most of the US film industry.

lol so what? CA has that now and the state is bankrupt, has some of the highest unemployment in the country and the state's infrastructure is completely falling apart. It would be like Canada taking on a whole country, larger than the entirety of it's own population currently, and now half of Canada (including CA) is bankrupt. Canada would implode if it took on CA.

Legalize marijuana and tax it. ??? Surplus
#45 Posted by Pirate700 (46465 posts) -

[QUOTE="Pirate700"]

[QUOTE="PannicAtack"]They'd gain most of the US film industry.Ace6301

lol so what? CA has that now and the state is bankrupt, has some of the highest unemployment in the country and the state's infrastructure is completely falling apart. It would be like Canada taking on a whole country, larger than the entirety of it's own population currently, and now half of Canada (including CA) is bankrupt. Canada would implode if it took on CA.

Legalize marijuana and tax it. ??? Surplus

While that would be a big revenue generator, it likely wouldn't scratch the surface of CA's issues.

#46 Posted by LJS9502_basic (151410 posts) -
[QUOTE="Pirate700"]

[QUOTE="PannicAtack"]They'd gain most of the US film industry.Ace6301

lol so what? CA has that now and the state is bankrupt, has some of the highest unemployment in the country and the state's infrastructure is completely falling apart. It would be like Canada taking on a whole country, larger than the entirety of it's own population currently, and now half of Canada (including CA) is bankrupt. Canada would implode if it took on CA.

Legalize marijuana and tax it. ??? Surplus

It's not legal in Canada....
#47 Posted by Ace6301 (21389 posts) -
[QUOTE="Ace6301"][QUOTE="Pirate700"]lol so what? CA has that now and the state is bankrupt, has some of the highest unemployment in the country and the state's infrastructure is completely falling apart. It would be like Canada taking on a whole country, larger than the entirety of it's own population currently, and now half of Canada (including CA) is bankrupt. Canada would implode if it took on CA. LJS9502_basic
Legalize marijuana and tax it. ??? Surplus

It's not legal in Canada....

We don't need the money yet.
#48 Posted by LJS9502_basic (151410 posts) -
[QUOTE="Ace6301"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="Ace6301"] Legalize marijuana and tax it. ??? Surplus

It's not legal in Canada....

We don't need the money yet.

Aren't you taking over California?
#49 Posted by Pirate700 (46465 posts) -

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="Ace6301"] Legalize marijuana and tax it. ??? SurplusAce6301
It's not legal in Canada....

We don't need the money yet.

If Canada had CA, and it was going to legalize pot, it would have to be legal in Canada.

#50 Posted by Aljosa23 (25121 posts) -

[QUOTE="Ace6301"][QUOTE="Pirate700"]lol so what? CA has that now and the state is bankrupt, has some of the highest unemployment in the country and the state's infrastructure is completely falling apart. It would be like Canada taking on a whole country, larger than the entirety of it's own population currently, and now half of Canada (including CA) is bankrupt. Canada would implode if it took on CA.

LJS9502_basic

Legalize marijuana and tax it. ??? Surplus

It's not legal in Canada....

It might as well be, to be honest. The Feds don't even go after users anymore.