How would the U.S. go about the process of splitting in two?

[Anonymous]

Right Wing Nuts take the right coast, Left Wing Nuts get left, West coast, and the Jesus Freaks get the middle+ OK. Give Red Neck imbreds Louisiana and Mississippi, Latino's can have TX & AZ, African Americans can either self deport back to Africa or set up in Alabama or NYC and those 65 plus get Florida. Just illustrating the stupidity of this thread

+1

You are just illustrating the stupidity of this whole f*cking forum.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the toughest part would not be the constitutional process. The balance sheet for the South is the problem. The southern states would go almost immediately into default because they can't cover their expenditures with revenue, even if the new southern nation kept the current Federal tax schedule. They are net dependents on northern revenue.

It's scary that you're that clueless as to where your food comes from, not to mention the cotton in your tighty whittles.

You should give that Vermont milk and cheese diet a try for a month, ok, I'll let you have one apple a week too.

Since I am from a farm state I am not worried about starving. For one because eight of the top ten agricultural states are in the north you idiot, and because unless the south actually exports food, it is even more screwed.

God you people are impervious to fact. Does it ever occur to you to google score you throw out an assumption like that ? This isn't 1800, Virginia and south carolina aren't ag powerhouses anymore.

I'd take the SC manufacturing resurgence any day. God bless Right to Work states. Enjoy your grapes and soybeans.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It needs to be done. If you simply wouldn't be interested in this or think it's ridiculous, you're free to skip this. What I want to know is, how would we start the process?

It will never happen as the ruling elite will not allow it. They want one world government.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the toughest part would not be the constitutional process. The balance sheet for the South is the problem. The southern states would go almost immediately into default because they can't cover their expenditures with revenue, even if the new southern nation kept the current Federal tax schedule. They are net dependents on northern revenue.

It's scary that you're that clueless as to where your food comes from, not to mention the cotton in your tighty whittles.

You should give that Vermont milk and cheese diet a try for a month, ok, I'll let you have one apple a week too.

Since I am from a farm state I am not worried about starving. For one because eight of the top ten agricultural states are in the north you idiot, and because unless the south actually exports food, it is even more screwed.

God you people are impervious to fact. Does it ever occur to you to google score you throw out an assumption like that ? This isn't 1800, Virginia and south carolina aren't ag powerhouses anymore.

I'd take the SC manufacturing resurgence any day. God bless Right to Work states. Enjoy your grapes and soybeans.

Yay, 46th in the nation for unemployment! Take that, Nevada! Not much point in right to work for jobs that are done cheaper abroad, but what do you expect when the kids in school are staring at pictures of Jesus riding a dinosaur instead of learning to add and subtract.

In the odd hope that you are not one of those students, let me throw some math at you. Over the last 20 years, SC taxpayer have put $302b into the Federal Government. They have SPENT $495b dollars of federal money. That means over that time period, they received $192b in aid from the rest of us. The state GDP is only $159b. So what that means is that SC effectively has a debt that is 120% of its GDP - and that's without being charged the interest on that debt!

That debt, absent the subsidies we pay to it, is worse than Greece. Meanwhile the state of Illinois pays for 3.5 South Carolinas. Good luck with that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'd LOVE to be separated from the Bible Belt south!

No problem since you are going to HELL anyway.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the only way it could work would be if everything that is currently handled by the federal government were operable on a state level - or via consortia of states. Once that was accomplished, then the states or consortia could band together, I suppose, into two sets of "united states". But what's more likely is that you would wind up with a whole ton of tiny little state-sized countries. Some would be successful, some would not. I think. I don't know. This is too hard to think about on a Friday night!

I think you just invented the Articles of Confederation.

If I had been drinking milk, I would have snorted it out of my nose. Well done.

Of course, now OP is going to have to go look up "Articles of Confederation" - because only overeducated marxist islamophiles know anything about . . . wait, what's that word again? Oh, yeah . . . history.

[Anonymous]

The following states are the only states which contribute as much or more than they take out:

Delaware
Minnesota
New Jersey
Illinois
Connecticut
New York
Ohio
Michigan
Nebraska
Massachusetts
Colorado
Wisconsin
Texas
Georgia
Nevada
California
Arkansas
Washington
Rhode Island
New Hampshire
Pennsylvania

Based on this, I would predict that in a North/South split, Texas would have to secede a second time, for its own fiscal sanity. Arkansas might decide to go with the North.

[Anonymous]

Thanks for that list, PP. I am the "If you think those are the states that would go bankrupt..." poster and couldn't find any information in beggar vs. donor states that was less than 8 years old.

[Anonymous]

What on earth makes you think the North would take Arkansas?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What on earth makes you think the North would take Arkansas?

The history is that Arkansas was on the fence about secession in the civil war, it almost always goes Democrat, Missouri might go to the North, and Arkansas may not like the financial implications of going to the south. It is relatively successful but not huge like Texas or Florida, so it could be pushed around by both the big states and the desperate ones.

[Anonymous]

9:55, residual positive feelings about Bill Clinton, William Fulbright, and Dale Bumpers? Will take AR a long time to raise electeds like them again.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What on earth makes you think the North would take Arkansas?

The history is that Arkansas was on the fence about secession in the civil war, it almost always goes Democrat, Missouri might go to the North, and Arkansas may not like the financial implications of going to the south. It is relatively successful but not huge like Texas or Florida, so it could be pushed around by both the big states and the desperate ones.

I'm aware of the history. You didn't answer the question.

[Anonymous]

OP asked a rather interesting legal/procedural question and we responded with our usual mud-flinging diatribes.

How about me answering a question with a question: How might we go about reuniting our country's two hostile tribes -- liberals and conservative? I'm not speaking of erasing philosophical differences, just learning how to treat each other like fellow Americans who have different ideas about how to reach common goals.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP asked a rather interesting legal/procedural question and we responded with our usual mud-flinging diatribes.

How about me answering a question with a question: How might we go about reuniting our country's two hostile tribes -- liberals and conservative? I'm not speaking of erasing philosophical differences, just learning how to treat each other like fellow Americans who have different ideas about how to reach common goals.

Except that it's really not. The second response pretty well laid out the procedure- it's actually pretty simple - and identified several of the myriad reasons why it will not happen. So it ceases to become interesting, and becomes navel gazing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think the only way it could work would be if everything that is currently handled by the federal government were operable on a state level - or via consortia of states. Once that was accomplished, then the states or consortia could band together, I suppose, into two sets of "united states". But what's more likely is that you would wind up with a whole ton of tiny little state-sized countries. Some would be successful, some would not. I think. I don't know. This is too hard to think about on a Friday night!

lol DC is so nerdy that solving national problems on weekend seems to be more fun than going out.