It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: Nyiah
originally posted by: Aazadan
originally posted by: Nyiah
Failing multiple secessions, IMO, the best route to go would be 50 territories akin to Guam, US Virgin Islands, Puerto Rico, American Samoa, but with substantially more autonomy, significantly less federal meddling, and equal representation for all things fed in DC.
But that would make too much sense, so of course it'll never happen.
Why should there be equal representation? Mississippi is not equal to California.
If memory serves, Puerto Rico has more population than about 20 US states, but zero useful representation in Washington.
It may not be equal in terms of statehood, but exactly how is neutering them as far as federal representation goes anywhere close to fair?
originally posted by: szino9
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...
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.
originally posted by: a325nt
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: 4003fireglo
Yeah. Go ahead. Split us up so I can charge you damn yankees $150 per pound for Texas backyard pecans, and that's p'KHAN to the rest o' yas.
originally posted by: Aazadan
a reply to: JAGStorm
Most of the cultural divides in the US aren't along state lines, they're along rural vs city lines. There's not really a way to split that.
originally posted by: a325nt
originally posted by: Aazadan
a reply to: JAGStorm
Most of the cultural divides in the US aren't along state lines, they're along rural vs city lines. There's not really a way to split that.
Could just annex every city- cut them off. Close the roads. Wouldn't take two weeks without food delivery before they fell to chaos- ever seen the movie "the road"?
originally posted by: Nyiah
originally posted by: 4003fireglo
Yeah. Go ahead. Split us up so I can charge you damn yankees $150 per pound for Texas backyard pecans, and that's p'KHAN to the rest o' yas.
Backyard what? Is that like a regional chest thump over a regular pecan, or something else entirely?
BTW, I hate pecans. And almonds. And -- eh, it's just easier to say the only nut I like is walnuts
originally posted by: a325nt
Could just annex every city- cut them off. Close the roads. Wouldn't take two weeks without food delivery before they fell to chaos- ever seen the movie "the road"?
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.
originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: Aazadan
The problem with testing standards: they teach to the middle at best, and the lowest typically. They have caused an educational environment where learning is boiled down to rote memorization. You are taught what to think, not how to think.
Its been a downward spiral, and no one is putting a stop to it. We just double down and do more of it.
Regulating markets is a federal duty. I see nothing wrong with having standards and enforcement of water/ground/air quality. The mercury dumped in the Colorado River in Colorado ends up in West Texas....so we hav ea stake (rhetorical mercury...as an example i made up).
originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: Aazadan
There are 50 states. And the representation of each state on an equal footing is mostly centralized in the senate. In the house and in the electoral college its more about population.
In the Senate, each state is an equal.