Should the US be split into three countries?

[nitro]

I have been thinking that the US is really three countries philosophically: democrats, republicans, the rest. We were founded by a very homogeneous set of people, and even then we had a Civil war.

We are far far away from the people that founded this country, and even though we are geographically one nation under one set of laws, we are barely that anymore. Is it time to divorce each other?

The question is, who would get what? Maybe just to make it easy, the Democrats would get the west, the Republicans would get the east, and the rest the middle. It would be three separate nations. People could choose to move to any of those nations freely between them, but you would only get two moves. Three you are stuck. That way you could live with the reps, and of either the rest or the dems, then decide.

 

[ksmetana]

well it would never happen, but

You would have the republicans in the south, democrats in the north, and everyone else in TEXAS.

The illegals have to get through the republican mexican border before they get to the promised land.

all the poor move to the north, all the rich move to the south

north goes bankrupt, south goes bankrupt

Texas thrives.

 

[rallydog]

Put the democrats in Rhode Island to contain the damage. :eek:

 

[Scataphagos]

Not 3.. rather, 2.

On the one hand.... "Tit-sucking parasites"... who depend upon government largess for their living.

On the other hand... Those who take full responsibility for themselves and their lives.

The "other handers" would love it... no more subsiding the incompetent, lazy and indigent.

The "one handers" would soon die out. If there is no one to bleed for a living, they won't be sustained and will perish.

Soon, we'll be left with only "other handers"... just as when the country was founded.

Yeah, I'm for it.

 

[Covertibility]

10 States Where An Absurd Percentage Of The Population Works For The Government - Basically red states - no surprise.

 

[Grandluxe]

Then China will become the greatest nation in the world, as they have been for the last two out of 3 thousand years. So perhaps, the cycle of history is unalterable after all.

 

[joneog]

Why not have 50 seperate countries?

Each one would be a little different and you could shop around. Tax, regulation, entitlement, abortion policies etc. etc. would then reflect the will of the people who live there.

If the individual nation-states want to create trade, immigration, defense etc agreements among them, they can do that.

Somewhat paradoxically, many of the same people that want small government and states rights love the military empire, so they dissonantly support and hate the centralized state, simultaneously.

 

[clearinghouse]

Quote from nitro:

I have been thinking that the US is really three countries philosophically: democrats, republicans, the rest. We were founded by a very homogeneous set of people, and even then we had a Civil war.

We are far far away from the people that founded this country, and even though we are geographically one nation under one set of laws, we are barely that anymore. Is it time to divorce each other?

The question is, who would get what? Maybe just to make it easy, the Democrats would get the west, the Republicans would get the east, and the rest the middle. It would be three separate nations. People could choose to move to any of those nations freely between them, but you would only get two moves. Three you are stuck. That way you could live with the reps, and of either the rest or the dems, then decide.

No need to break the country apart, just take power away from the federal government and give it back to the states. Or we could break the states apart further so people get more localized control. Good example: Southern California and Northern California should be two completely different states.

 

[El Guapo]

Well here comes Johnny with his pecker in his hand
He's a ball man, and he's off to the rodeo.

Quote from Scataphagos:

Not 3.. rather, 2.

On the one hand.... "Tit-sucking parasites"... who depend upon government largess for their living.

On the other hand... Those who take full responsibility for themselves and their lives.

The "other handers" would love it... no more subsiding the incompetent, lazy and indigent.

The "one handers" would soon die out. If there is no one to bleed for a living, they won't be sustained and will perish.

Soon, we'll be left with only "other handers"... just as when the country was founded.

Yeah, I'm for it.

 

[Kassz007]

So you would have a one-government authoritarian rule in each of the three seperate countries?