The king of the north
The king of the north
N
Don't forget the Cubans!
Lets pretend for the OP's purpose that Florida is part of the "North"- which, legitimately, it is. There wouldn't be two Republicans in South Florida to rub together if it wasn't for the Cuban immigrants, who have always been very pro-red.
The overall idea is silly. First, the rural areas of every state vote red, and the cities vote blue. If you stop looking at "states" as if that distinction is important, and instead look at cities and rural areas, you'll see that rural areas vote conservative (mostly socially conservative) and cities tend to vote liberal (there's only a few cities that vote red, even in red states- many states that vote red don't even have a red city). I think that the current setup has led to a more conservative senate than we "should" have by populace, and that has probably affected both parties and their policies in a generally negative way. I think a way featuring the votes from all of America, instead of this infernal truncation method, would address this mightily. The Republicans in California are 100% nonrepresented. New York has the same number of senators as Montana. Neither of these is just.
Splitting America would be absurd. Understand that the whole net effect of the two party system is to have gridlock- that may even be intended. Additionally, the two areas need each other desperately.
Dear mr prwaith: I love u2! But u dont know how the free compose
As a social and economic experiment this would be a great thing to see
Which side would prevail the more liberal north or the more conservative south
Though which side would the west come on seeing that states like arizona and utah are conservative and states like new mexico and colorado are more liberal
I dare to bring ONCE MORE the land of the free!
---------- Post added 2013-06-22 at 08:37 AM ----------
Is there a Chance to F* Obama?
It doesn't matter what liberal means in Europe, or anywhere else. To Americans, when discussing America, there's the side that's progressively getting more liberal, and the side that isn't. There's nothing wrong with calling them liberal and conservative.
On topic, no, this shouldn't happen. We should simply give the individual states more power, and less to the federal government. Besides, the divide isn't really north and south, so much. If there was a way to split the two populations though, it might be amusing to see which side fares better. The liberal half probably would at first, until so many people were on government assistance that there wasn't a backbone to support it. And there's no question which side would win in a war.
"Oh, wretched ephemeral race, children of chance and misery, why do you compel me to tell you what it would be more expedient for you not to hear? What is best of all is utterly beyond your reach; not to be born, not to be, to be nothing. But the second best for you is --- to die soon." Silenus
Dear Mr/Mrs Itsamuh: t doesn't matter what liberal means in Europe, or anywhere else. To Americans, when discussing America, there's the side that's progressively getting more liberal, and the side that isn't. There's nothing wrong with calling them liberal and conservative.
---------- Post added 2013-06-22 at 08:44 AM ----------
Für unseren deutschen freunde: http://youtu.be/D7Ieq2xInrI
See I find this argument amusing cause while true now if this was to happen, most of those on gov't assistance here are dems/liberals as such what i'd for see happening are GOP based policies on welfare/gov't assistance being put in place that people on it now would not like. Those people would then flock to the North. Thus the south would be in a better place imo. It actually boggles my mind that people snub the south's ideas on how to fix the system in regards to gov't assistance and then quote the fact the south takes in more than the north. Perhaps since we have more people on it we have more experience with the flaws in the system and our ideas are not terribad racist redneck thoughts like people make them out to be /shrug. my 2c.
“Do not lose time on daily trivialities. Do not dwell on petty detail. For all of these things melt away and drift apart within the obscure traffic of time. Live well and live broadly. You are alive and living now. Now is the envy of all of the dead.” ~ Emily3, World of Tomorrow
Words to live by.
While one definition of liberal- or as we call it here "classically liberal" is often associated with free markets and the assumption of rational actors, "liberal" and "conservative" have very well defined meanings in modern American politics- and given the OP is ONLY talking about America, anything relating to the European use of those words is factually incorrect and useless. Not in the general case- but in the American political case.
If you are legit confused:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal..._United_States
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conserv..._United_States
The first article is better quality than the second, likely due to the overwhelming liberal bias (again, American usage) of the wikipedians, but both get the point across (while a liberal WOULD open with "Liberalism in the United States is a broad political philosophy centered on the unalienable rights of the individual.", a conservative would start with something like "Conservatism is based on the belief that people deserve liberties, should be held accountable for their actions, and are basically good" or something, not some mealy mouthed "herp derp conservatism goes back to the 50s!").
Big ideas like spending gobs more then you take in? Yeah that's an AMAZING Southern idea!
You do realize that your southern states receive on average vastly higher amounts of federal money compared to what they contribute right? There's even a list in this thread showing it.
And of course it became a conserv vs liberals war ^^
It would definitely be a bad idea. US still leads the world (tho some people would rather die than admit so). If US breaks apart, most of the countries would break with it, mostly EU.
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaand over your head my point goes. See if you cut off the people we are taking care of, we don't spend more than we make. Its cold and somewhat cruel but it forces them to either work harder, adjust their lifestyle or move. (I guess tech they could die but thats not really good :/ ).
And yes they could "flock" when they are told either you work to earn on ur own way, cause ur time is up, or u use the last of ur assistance to leave the state/country.
as for evidence i've been on the system, worked (and still working my ass off) to get off it. I saw the abuse of people that were like oh i'm 2 stressed to work i need help, oh i stumped toe etc.... yes it happens. Let alone the people claiming needs for help but yet making 2-3k a month cash under the table on top of 2k a month in assistance. Also been in gov't assistance housing and seen 50 inch LCD tv's, top of line furniture, etc... That's the shit the south wants to fix/stop. All about helping those that want to help themselves, but want to live on the system oh well tough shit and take'em off it.
(note: none of the above applies for those that truly can't work for medical/mental reasons)
more on topic: Yeah, it wouldn't bother me at this point, even less if Hilary runs and wins in 2016.
Last edited by cuafpr; 2013-06-22 at 10:10 AM.
Actually it would be an idea, but the north USA should then unite with Canada and the south USA should unite with Mexico. And done.
I think it would be a grand idea. We, the British, can then sail over in our Ships of the Line and retake the country with our tea and muskets!
In all seriousness; I think a division like that would damage both sides in different ways and cause hostilities to break out as those issues are 'dealt' with by the means available, which would, I assume, involve taking what you need from the other side. You'd essentially start a civil war after a while. The religious element in the south would more than likely take control and I have doubts that they would tolerate you guys up north.
It's always been Wankershim!
My Brand!
Bad idea, each individual state should just get more power, with the US federal government as a way to improve collaboration, trade and national security inbetween states.
Kinda like the EU, but then in a way that works better.
As much as I would like to see how the north would do vs the south, it's not really a great experiment. Go 30 minutes outside the city in any northern state and it's just as conservative as the south. Obviously there are exceptions in places like wisconsin, vermont, and maine. But for the most part, rural=conservative, suburban = moderate, urban = liberal (progressive, for you europeans who can't seem to understand that words mean different things in different places).