When is it cool to propose having two Americas?

[fskimospy]

I have a better idea. Overturn Roe v. Wade and let New York permit abortion and Louisiana restrict it. Sound a little less troublesome than a civil war?

We can't do that though because the Constitution protects a woman's right to control her own body. More importantly though this conflict stretches over a lot more than just abortion rights. It comes down to tax policy, infrastructure spending, social safety nets, etc, etc.

It doesn't have to be a civil war at all, both sides can simply go their own way. You don't like the mandates, the tax policy, etc, that blue states force on you so why not just peacefully separate? You will have to give up the money blue states send you every year but you'll be free from their bullshit. What's more important?

 

[repoman0]

It doesn't have to be a civil war at all, both sides can simply go their own way.

This. Why the violence? Go in peace this time!

 

[Thebobo]

I say split!. But I want to name the new countries and how we'll split.

For us, Webecoolistan - enlightened, educated, prosperous.

For you, Pathaticstan - losers, deadbeats, meth heads, deplorables.

 

[ivwshane]

This. Why the violence? Go in peace this time!

Peaceful? Then what the hell are they going to do with all their guns?

 

[Atreus21]

We can't do that though because the Constitution protects a woman's right to control her own body. More importantly though this conflict stretches over a lot more than just abortion rights. It comes down to tax policy, infrastructure spending, social safety nets, etc, etc.

The constitution also once protected racial segregation and the non-freedom of slaves who escaped to the north by your reasoning.

But the constitution does establish a framework for breaking into two countries?

It doesn't have to be a civil war at all, both sides can simply go their own way. You don't like the mandates, the tax policy, etc, that blue states force on you so why not just peacefully separate? You will have to give up the money blue states send you every year but you'll be free from their bullshit. What's more important?

Blue states don't force mandates on us. The federal government does.

To pretend that such a separation would be possible without conflict is silly.

It's not necessary. The country can survive stupid partisanship as it always has. And at any rate I'd rather be beholden to foolish laws than break up the country.

 

[Indus]

The country can survive stupid partisanship as it always has. And at any rate I'd rather be beholden to foolish laws than break up the country.

The country may but the people can't.

And other snowflakes have always wanted their safe space. Just look at secession.

 

[Atreus21]

The country may but the people can't.

And other snowflakes have always wanted their safe space. Just look at secession.

They can't? Are people fighting and dying everyday for their cause? Are politically-driven murders skyrocketing?

We take ourselves far too seriously. When a real conflict comes we won't be posting on internet forums about it.

 

[Indus]

They can't? Are people fighting and dying everyday for their cause? Are politically-driven murders skyrocketing?

We take ourselves far too seriously. When a real conflict comes we won't be posting on internet forums about it.

What do you call cops shooting blacks? What do you call the 3 white guys who tried to blow up buildings to kill Muslims?

People are posting on the internet because people communicate. It's easier than sending a courier on a horse.

And even people like you prefer playing PUBG than to actually picking up a weapon and taking a chance of getting headshot.. much safer in PUBG where you get to start again.

Therefore there is a majority that would want this done without violence if possible.

 

[fskimospy]

The constitution also once protected racial segregation and the non-freedom of slaves who escaped to the north by your reasoning.

But the constitution does establish a framework for breaking into two countries?

The idea that the Constitution doesn't mean anything because of Plessy v. Ferguson is not compelling. Yes though, before the 13th amendment the Constitution did not protect escaped slaves. It's one of the reasons why when people talk about how right the founding fathers got things I have to laugh. They explicitly protected the right to own others as property.

Blue states don't force mandates on us. The federal government does.

To pretend that such a separation would be possible without conflict is silly.

It's not necessary. The country can survive stupid partisanship as it always has. And at any rate I'd rather be beholden to foolish laws than break up the country.

The reason the federal government is placing those mandates on you is because blue states think that's a better model for governance. I do find it interesting that you would prefer to have a single country where abortion is legal than a separated one where it is not (in your half). Considering you believe it to be child murder how do you square that?

 

[Atreus21]

What do you call cops shooting blacks? What do you call the 3 white guys who tried to blow up buildings to kill Muslims?

Or for that matter the Bernie Sanders supporter who tried to ice a US Congressman and nearly did?

What do I call them? Crimes and horrific acts, endemic to any society throughout all of human history. Not acts precipitating a need to break up the freaking country.

And even people like you prefer playing PUBG than to actually picking up a weapon and taking a chance of getting headshot.. much safer in PUBG where you get to start again.

Therefore there is a majority that would want this done without violence if possible.

Okay I had no idea what PUBG is before I searched for it.

Doing such a thing without violence is a complete pipe dream.

 

[Indus]

Doing such a thing without violence is a complete pipe dream.

Not if you allow a population exchange.

 

[Atreus21]

The idea that the Constitution doesn't mean anything because of Plessy v. Ferguson is not compelling. Yes though, before the 13th amendment the Constitution did not protect escaped slaves. It's one of the reasons why when people talk about how right the founding fathers got things I have to laugh. They explicitly protected the right to own others as property.

They got things right in their understanding of human nature and the need to disperse power across multiple branches as much as possible without precluding the government's ability to govern. Those who equate them with demigods are foolish.

The idea that a supreme court decision means "constitutional" isn't compelling either. What was constitutional at one time became unconstitutional at a later point.

Let democratic processes work. State legislatures are perfectly competent to decide the question.

The reason the federal government is placing those mandates on you is because blue states think that's a better model for governance. I do find it interesting that you would prefer to have a single country where abortion is legal than a separated one where it is not (in your half). Considering you believe it to be child murder how do you square that?

I square it on the basis that, in any country with democratic norms, you don't get to just quit when you don't get your way. Same as with marriage. I would prefer that we live in a country that recognizes all human beings as precious, but at the same time I see the country as an enduring force for good in the world despite its moral lapses in areas like abortion.

 

[MrSquished]

Or for that matter the Bernie Sanders supporter who tried to ice a US Congressman and nearly did?

What do I call them? Crimes and horrific acts, endemic to any society throughout all of human history. Not acts precipitating a need to break up the freaking country.



Okay I had no idea what PUBG is before I searched for it.

Doing such a thing without violence is a complete pipe dream.

I didn't say it was possible or not, just that what would you do if it were.

I'd strongly consider going for it. This goes way beyond abortion on so many fundamental issues spanning from economics to social and everything in between. You are trying to paint these differences as minor quibbles when they are fundamental in nature.

 

[fskimospy]

They got things right in their understanding of human nature and the need to disperse power across multiple branches as much as possible without precluding the government's ability to govern. Those who equate them with demigods are foolish.

The idea that a supreme court decision means "constitutional" isn't compelling either. What was constitutional at one time became unconstitutional at a later point.

A supreme court decision explicitly means what is constitutional. That's literally the point. Yes though, as the constitution is a living document perceptions over time can change. The idea that we can somehow ignore SCOTUS's declaration of a fundamental human right because that could change someday is not compelling.

Let democratic processes work. State legislatures are perfectly competent to decide the question.

To use your example that was our position on slavery, that state legislatures were perfectly competent to decide. Was that a good idea? When it comes to fundamental human rights we don't leave it up to the states.

I square it on the basis that, in any country with democratic norms, you don't get to just quit when you don't get your way. Same as with marriage. I would prefer that we live in a country that recognizes all human beings as precious, but at the same time I see the country as an enduring force for good in the world despite its moral lapses in areas like abortion.

So the US is an enduring force for good despite its 600,000 annual child murders? I'm sorry but I'm still totally unable to understand this perspective as that's a child murder rate somewhere around half the murder rate of the Holocaust over the span of WW2. We aren't talking about tax policy or GMO labeling, we're talking about industrialized child murder. I don't want to get into another abortion debate but I know that if my country were engaged in the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of children on an annual basis I couldn't shrug my shoulders and say 'you can't win 'em all!' It would only seem logical to sacrifice the financial payments blue states give you to save a significant fraction of those lives.

 

[Atreus21]

I didn't say it was possible or not, just that what would you do if it were.

If it were, I would in the first case lament the inability of the populace of the best country that ever existed to bridge their differences sufficient to keep the country together. Secondly I would lament the glee that would run rampant among our true enemies, and await the inevitable pressure from them, having divided, and shortly to conquer.

If that were to happen, I honestly wouldn't care about the details - they wouldn't matter in context to such a catastrophe. It's like asking what I'd do with all my free time if my wife left with my children.

I'd strongly consider going for it. This goes way beyond abortion on so many fundamental issues spanning from economics to social and everything in between. You are trying to paint these differences as minor quibbles when they are fundamental in nature.

I don't agree. We have a common culture at bottom. It's not like we're trying to live side by side with Pakistani culture.

 

[Atreus21]

A supreme court decision explicitly means what is constitutional. That's literally the point. Yes though, as the constitution is a living document perceptions over time can change. The idea that we can somehow ignore SCOTUS's declaration of a fundamental human right because that could change someday is not compelling.

Of course it's compelling. It was compelling to abolitionists, civil rights activists, and to anyone who's ever fought against unjust laws.

To use your example that was our position on slavery, that state legislatures were perfectly competent to decide. Was that a good idea? When it comes to fundamental human rights we don't leave it up to the states.

How do you suppose fundamental human rights are arrived at if not democratic processes? Do we have a window from which God decrees these things to a certain few?

So the US is an enduring force for good despite its 600,000 annual child murders? I'm sorry but I'm still totally unable to understand this perspective as that's a child murder rate somewhere around half the murder rate of the Holocaust over the span of WW2. We aren't talking about tax policy or GMO labeling, we're talking about industrialized child murder. I don't want to get into another abortion debate but I know that if my country were engaged in the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of children on an annual basis I couldn't shrug my shoulders and say 'you can't win 'em all!' It would only seem logical to sacrifice the financial payments blue states give you to save a significant fraction of those lives.

Look, before I say one more thing: take the financial payments away. I don't care. Just stop acting as if I do. My interest in preserving the union isn't because of a desire to keep the gravy train going, and to suggest otherwise is dishonest and insulting.

Yes, despite its evils, and in context to the rest of the world, the US is an enduring force for good, and always has been. We were better after slavery was abolished than before. We were better before abortion was legalized than we are now. Things can be improved without blowing things up.

 

[MrSquished]

If it were, I would in the first case lament the inability of the populace of the best country that ever existed to bridge their differences sufficient to keep the country together. Secondly I would lament the glee that would run rampant among our true enemies, and await the inevitable pressure from them, having divided, and shortly to conquer.

If that were to happen, I honestly wouldn't care about the details - they wouldn't matter in context to such a catastrophe. It's like asking what I'd do with all my free time if my wife left with my children.



I don't agree. We have a common culture at bottom. It's not like we're trying to live side by side with Pakistani culture.

I guarantee you the Trumpist tea party bagger social conservatives would gladly add religion into the government if they controlled their own state. And just look at how blatantly racism is being normalized by Trump and his fans. I can only imagine what the rabid Trumpists would legislate against the gays.

I don't think our culture is as common as you think.

 

[Atreus21]

I guarantee you the Trumpist tea party bagger social conservatives would gladly add religion into the government if they controlled their own state. And just look at how blatantly racism is being normalized by Trump and his fans.

I don't think our culture is as common as you think.

Whatever you say. If I can travel to the deepest blue state from the deepest red state and suffer no significant culture shock, I'd say we have plenty in common.

A split without violence is an unrealistic scenario, and furthermore it's not as desirable as you seem to think.

 

[fskimospy]

Of course it's compelling. It was compelling to abolitionists, civil rights activists, and to anyone who's ever fought against unjust laws.

It is not a compelling argument as to why we can pretend the constitution doesn't protect things now. You could make the same argument for any law.

How do you suppose fundamental human rights are arrived at if not democratic processes? Do we have a window from which God decrees these things to a certain few?

They are decided at a country-wide level because states have shown they can't be trusted to protect human rights. See slavery.

Look, before I say one more thing: take the financial payments away. I don't care. Just stop acting as if I do.

Trust me, you would. Louisiana gets about a 33% rate of return on its federal tax dollars and is subsidized to the tune of about $12 billion a year, which is about 5% of your GDP. To put that in context the financial crisis caused about a 4% decline in GDP. If you don't care about that you're crazy.

Yes, despite its evils, and in context to the rest of the world, the US is an enduring force for good, and always has been. We were better after slavery was abolished than before. We were better before abortion was legalized than we are now. Things can be improved without blowing things up.

This isn't answering my question in any meaningful way. We are talking about a half century Holocaust that has claimed tens of millions of lives. Way, way worse than the Nazis. You have the opportunity to cut that number of deaths in half every year and you're not going to take it? How is that not monstrous?

 

[Atreus21]

It is not a compelling argument as to why we can pretend the constitution doesn't protect things now. You could make the same argument for any law.

The law as established is unjust. It needs to be overturned. That's it.

They are decided at a country-wide level because states have shown they can't be trusted to protect human rights. See slavery.

Which earlier you said was also federally enshrined. Furthermore they're not decided democratically. They're decided by an oligarchy. Again, let democratic processes work.

Trust me, you would. Louisiana gets about a 33% rate of return on its federal tax dollars and is subsidized to the tune of about $12 billion a year, which is about 5% of your GDP. To put that in context the financial crisis caused about a 4% decline in GDP. If you don't care about that you're crazy.

I don't. Kill it.

This isn't answering my question in any meaningful way. We are talking about a half century Holocaust that has claimed tens of millions of lives. Way, way worse than the Nazis. You have the opportunity to cut that number of deaths in half every year and you're not going to take it? How is that not monstrous?

No, because it's unrealistic, makes vast assumptions, and there are better options available to us. Our democrat governor, the first for which I've ever voted, has promised to sign a bill that comes to his desk that bans abortion past 15 weeks. That's progress without having to resort to such extremes.

You'd have made an excellent foil to William Wilburforce.

 

[fskimospy]

The law as established is unjust. It needs to be overturned. That's it.

Which earlier you said was also federally enshrined. Furthermore they're not decided democratically. They're decided by an oligarchy. Again, let democratic processes work.

A large majority of Americans support abortion in most or all cases. (A 17 point gap in favor) Democracy has worked then!

http://www.pewforum.org/fact-sheet/public-opinion-on-abortion/

I don't. Kill it.

I don’t believe you even for a second. On the small chance you actually don’t care you’re exhibiting a monstrous disregard for the well-being of your fellow citizens. People will literally die because of that.

No, because it's unrealistic, makes vast assumptions, and there are better options available to us. Our democrat governor, the first for which I've ever voted, has promised to sign a bill that comes to his desk that bans abortion past 15 weeks. That's progress without having to resort to such extremes.

No it isn’t, it will be struck down by the courts immediately. That’s my point. You have an opportunity to craft a country that respects life and you won’t take it.

 

[Atreus21]

A large majority of Am
ericans support abortion in most or all cases. (A 17 point gap in favor) Democracy has worked then!

http://www.pewforum.org/fact-sheet/public-opinion-on-abortion/

Yet you oppose returning the issue to state legislatures, who can't be trusted to vote the way you want them to?

I don’t believe you even for a second. On the small chance you actually don’t care you’re exhibiting a monstrous disregard for the well-being of your fellow citizens. People will literally die because of that.

Or the state government will raise taxes, cut spending, or anything else that they have to do to address the shortfall. If you want to cut it off, just do it. For God's sake I don't care.

No it isn’t, it will be struck down by the courts immediately. That’s my point. You have an opportunity to craft a country that respects life and you won’t take it.

And then appealed to.....the Supreme Court perhaps? The source of the problem in the first place? And which at any moment might see a liberal SCOTUS justice retire to be replaced by a republican president such that Roe v. Wade might be revisited?

The goal is the reversal of Roe v. Wade and the return of the issue to state legislatures such that a social issue might be addressed by the public, not 9 lawyers. There's no other way to get there, apart from breaking the country apart as you say, which no one wants. Reform can be accomplished without literally tearing the country apart.

 

[fskimospy]

Yet you oppose returning the issue to state legislatures, who can't be trusted to vote the way you want them to?

Like I said our system doesn’t allow the states autonomy on basic human rights. You can say we learned our lesson from slavery, haha. Should we just have returned the slavery issue to the states?

Democracy has worked in this case; the country strongly supports human rights here. If you actually want things done democratically then it’s case closed. I suspect you don’t want it done democratically though, you want your way.

Or the state government will raise taxes, cut spending, or anything else that they have to do to address the shortfall. If you want to cut it off, just do it. For God's sake I don't care.

You misunderstand the economics, we are talking about a 5% contraction in GDP. Raising taxes or cutting spending won’t help, just like we couldn’t solve the financial crisis by raising taxes and cutting spending.

You’re saying you don’t care about a situation 25% worse than the financial crisis even without taking into the cascading effects of such a sudden and massive contraction in GDP, meaning the infliction of massive suffering on yourself, your friends, and your neighbors.

If you don’t care about that then I don’t know what to say other than I’m truly shocked at the lack of basic human decency. Have you already forgotten?

And then appealed to.....the Supreme Court perhaps? The source of the problem in the first place? And which at any moment might see a liberal SCOTUS justice retire to be replaced by a republican president such that Roe v. Wade might be revisited?

The goal is the reversal of Roe v. Wade and the return of the issue to state legislatures such that a social issue might be addressed by the public, not 5 lawyers. There's no other way to get there, apart from breaking the country apart as you say, which no one wants.

The issue was addressed by the public through constitutional means.

 

[Chaotic42]

Why do it by state? These maps seem relevant:

Areas which voted for Trump

Areas which voted for Hillary

As a cartographer the topology of these new countries both intrigues and terrifies me.

But no, this is a pretty horrible idea, even as just something to play around with.

 

[fskimospy]

Why do it by state? These maps seem relevant:

As a cartographer the topology of these new countries both intrigues and terrifies me.

But no, this is a pretty horrible idea, even as just something to play around with.

Seems like you would do it by state, not by county and as always geographic maps are highly misleading as they measure dirt, not people. If you do it by state you can get some pretty decent contiguous areas.

Basically you would have the northeast and the west coast going their own way and the middle/south going theirs. There would be a couple of problematic states in the middle though, yes.

Also, I doubt some states that voted for Trump would want to be part of a new Conservastan.