Is the US splitting up?

I live in a nice little liberal democracy in the South Pacific - so I have not particular horse/donkey/elephant in USD opolitics other than if the US wants to lead the "Free World" then y'all want t lead me, and that is ofgreat interest to me.

So from way down here it looks like the US is splitting up - at the bottom of this BBC article is this paragraph:

Meanwhile, increasingly, Americans live in their own separate liberal and conservative worlds, listening to different media, barely conversing. Instead of steering the ship, the crew are throwing punches.

And that seems to resonate with what I see on the news and read around the 'net - lib'rals and republicans sem to have nothing to say to each other - just stuff to say ABOUT each other.

so did the BBC correspondant make an accurate assessment of the state of the USA today?

The government has been cheating on the people with whores like the UN, the EU and China, and the people are getting more than a little angry.

IMO, we do need to split the country into at least 2 parts. The "statists"(aka liberals, democrats and many republicans) and the individualists(those desiring real freedom with the personal responsibility it entails). That would be my suggested division.

Originally posted by DarthMuerte
IMO, we do need to split the country into at least 2 parts. The "statists"(aka liberals, democrats and many republicans) and the individualists(those desiring real freedom with the personal responsibility it entails). That would be my suggested division.

I second that.
Where should the border be?
I'm going to draw up a map...

EDIT:
Here is a start

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul


It is very devisive. Brothers and sisters even at each others throats over political leanings. Friendships broken, people avoid others they work with or know casually because of either being liberal or conservative.

Seems WAY too many people are able to shake the left/right paradigm and these political stances are fought to the death.

To me, people don't get how they are manipulated by the MSM and even alternative media. Divide and conquer is working. Even on a site that members proclaim to deny ignorance.

reply to post by DrGod


The Mason/Dixon line of course.

Originally posted by DarthMuerte
IMO, we do need to split the country into at least 2 parts. The "statists"(aka liberals, democrats and many republicans) and the individualists(those desiring real freedom with the personal responsibility it entails). That would be my suggested division.

Actually, the planet is divided into those two factions already - the United States - and everyone else (with minor exceptions). I suggest those who like big government hop a plane and find a sunny socialist nation to settle in and leave the rest of us alone. I prefer the US with its borders intact.

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
I live in a nice little liberal democracy in the South Pacific - so I have not particular horse/donkey/elephant in USD opolitics other than if the US wants to lead the "Free World" then y'all want t lead me, and that is ofgreat interest to me.

So from way down here it looks like the US is splitting up - at the bottom of this BBC article is this paragraph:

Meanwhile, increasingly, Americans live in their own separate liberal and conservative worlds, listening to different media, barely conversing. Instead of steering the ship, the crew are throwing punches.

And that seems to resonate with what I see on the news and read around the 'net - lib'rals and republicans sem to have nothing to say to each other - just stuff to say ABOUT each other.

so did the BBC correspondent make an accurate assessment of the state of the USA today?

Nope, that is exactly how they want it, and is how they are keeping us together, by separating us into political ideologies that are superficial only, where both parties agree on the issues that actually matter. Have you noticed the differences between Obama and Romney when it comes to Iran, Israel, indefinite detention,domestic assassinations, internet freedom, sound money, and the fed? (Hint: there are none.)

As another poster point out yes there are two distinct ideological groups in the US, the statists and the libertarians, but when the statists have two of their own guys facing off in an election it means they have already won.

No the BBC is a controlled media ,we have always been this way. It's just that now we are seeing a swing toward the progressive left going back to right and they are starting to panic.Sensationalism, slamming Christianity and traditions we have are coming back without the closed minded crap of the 50s.Our best hope is to create a meritocracy based on character and skill sets but hey,we are still a great experiment that I don't think ANYONE completely understands us all nor do we.

If the US was to ever split into two separate nations, they would be at each others throats almost immediately and I would also guarantee we would see the old civil war battle line reform.

Separate the US will destroy itself, together it is strong

In regards to the US splitting up over political ideology, the FUNNY thing about Conservatives in this country is that they are AGAINST any type of assistance, emergency funds, help, safe-guards, or brotherly-hand UNTIL THEY AND THEIR STATES REQUIRE IT.

Then when the Conservatives are in need, the Conservatives and Liberals come together. As soon as the Conservatives do not require help any more, they go back to the "high-and-mighty, tough-luck Americans, dig yourselves out of the bottomless pit" attitude!!

Conservatives have that "splitting up" from the rest of us attitude. The word "hypocrites" comes to mind...

reply to post by AwakeinNM

Actually, the planet is divided into those two factions already - the United States - and everyone else (with minor exceptions). I suggest those who like big government hop a plane and find a sunny socialist nation to settle in and leave the rest of us alone. I prefer the US with its borders intact.

Might makes right.

The only chance the individualists have is that the system will crash so bad that the UN can't get across the ocean.

reply to post by DarthMuerte

IMO, we do need to split the country into at least 2 parts. The "statists"(aka liberals, democrats and many republicans) and the individualists(those desiring real freedom with the personal responsibility it entails). That would be my suggested division.

If splitting is the only way, I vote for East and West of the Mississippi.

It's not splitting up. The problem here is you are attracting people who can't see the other side as human. I'm the black sheep in a family of conservatives. Should they hate me? Leave me to starve if i run into trouble? Should i leave my parents to suffer when they are old because I don't agree with their political views? That is just stupid. So let's say you guys get this split you want. What happens when you are kicking out people you knew and loved until you found out what they believed?

Is being a Liberal or a Conservative enough to earn your hate?

Originally posted by antonia
It's not splitting up. The problem here is you are attracting people who can't see the other side as human. I'm the black sheep in a family of conservatives. Should they hate me? Leave me to starve if i run into trouble? Should i leave my parents to suffer when they are old because I don't agree with their political views? That is just stupid. So let's say you guys get this split you want. What happens when you are kicking out people you knew and loved until you found out what they believed?

Is being a Liberal or a Conservative enough to earn your hate?

Individualists wouldn't kick anybody out just because they were collectivists. The collectivists would leave because none of their government programs would be there for them to use.

Actually, when some of the collectivists figured out our side, they might decide it is the best way to go, and become individualists.

Individualist means that a person can do whatever that person thinks is best, and live with the result.

Originally posted by Semicollegiate
[Individualist means that a person can do whatever that person thinks is best, and live with the result.

Isn't that the definition of classical anarchy??

Originally posted by Semicollegiate

Individualists wouldn't kick anybody out just because they were collectivists. The collectivists would leave because none of their government programs would be there for them to use.

Actually, when some of the collectivists figured out our side, they might decide it is the best way to go, and become individualists.

Individualist means that a person can do whatever that person thinks is best, and live with the result.

edit on 4-11-2012 by Semicollegiate because: (no reason given)

There is no pure ideology. Everyone is both of these things. If you go to a church or have a family you are in a collective and yet you are an individual with your own thoughts. You are simply making an argument from false duality. You must be one or the other in your mind, but no one is. There is no pure ideology so I do not argue from that point of view. Both the left and the right bring something to the table. Instead of seeing people as inhuman and the enemy you might try something else. We do have to live on this planet together unless you have figured out some way to kick all the people you don't agree with off this rock.

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul

Originally posted by Semicollegiate
[Individualist means that a person can do whatever that person thinks is best, and live with the result.

Isn't that the definition of classical anarchy??

Do anarchists do what they think is best? if so yes, if not no.

reply to post by Semicollegiate


classical anarchy is, AFAIK, you do what you want and live with the consequences -
here's het opening para from Wiki on anarchy:

Anarchy has more than one definition. In the United States, the term "anarchy" typically is used to refer to a society without a publicly enforced government or violently enforced political authority.[1][2] When used in this sense, anarchy may[3] or may not[4] be intended to imply political disorder or lawlessness within a society.

Outside of the US, and by most individuals that self-identify as anarchists, it implies a system of governance, mostly theoretical at a nation state level although there are a few successful historical examples,[5] that goes to lengths to avoid the use of coercion, violence, force and authority, while still producing a productive and desirable society

And further in the article on anarchism:

Anarchism is generally defined as a political philosophy which holds the state to be undesirable, unnecessary, or harmful,[1][2][3] or, alternatively, as opposing authority or hierarchical organization in the conduct of human relations.[4][5][6][7][8][9][10] Proponents of anarchism, known as "anarchists," advocate stateless societies based on non-hierarchical[5][11][12] voluntary associations.[13][14]

So it sounds like it might fit in one of he many and varied defintions.

What has always perpelxed me, however, is how are you going to ensure that people "do good"?? Who defines it? what happens if they do not do good?

reply to post by antonia

There is no pure ideology. Everyone is both of these things. If you go to a church or have a family you are in a collective and yet you are an individual with your own thoughts. You are simply making an argument from false duality. You must be one or the other in your mind, but no one is. There is no pure ideology so I do not argue from that point of view. Both the left and the right bring something to the table. Instead of seeing people as inhuman and the enemy you might try something else. We do have to live on this planet together unless you have figured out some way to kick all the people you don't agree with off this rock.

I think there is a difference between manditory and voluntary. Voluntary collectivism will always happen for whatever good reason. That is one of the infinity of things that an individual can choose.

I think most collectivists haven't really thought it out.
1) a person sees that his/her life has been controlled and exploited by people who have more power in the system than he/she does.
2) that person wants the system to be more powerful so the individuals he/she is being hurt by will be stopped.
3) the system gets more powerful
4) the explioters have more power than the person who is being exploited and turn the more powerful system into a more exploitative system.

In other words, if the system is hurting you, make it smaller and not bigger.

I suppose some people are natural born collectivists, would not exploit each other, and would live in perpetual harmony and comfort. They would make thier own place in an individualistic society.