Total Posts:18|Showing Posts:1-18
Jump to topic:

Views on national split

Cowboy0108
Posts: 420
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2013 3:33:19 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I am for a national split. I think that the USA should split into about five different countries based on majority political rule. These new nations would be able to pass laws that more directly relate to the people's wishes in that area. For example, the Northern States want gun control and Obamacare and the Southern States do not. A split would allow the Northern States to have what they want without imposing upon the Southern States. I am curious to see various opinions on this topic and will gladly respond to comments and questions.
Cowboy0108
Posts: 420
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2013 4:35:37 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/27/2013 4:25:09 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
You're still on this?

I took a break. I still believe this and I want to see opinions from across the board.
ararmer1919
Posts: 362
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2013 5:05:27 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I think it would be a horrible idea. A major reason is simply the way our nation is set up. Every state supports the other states in all manners of infrastructure, economics, goods, ect. No individual state or even a small group of states could possibly survive on their own without the aid of the other states. A states economy is not large enough to support themselves. It is because all 50 of us pool out resources that we succeed so well. How would some of the northern states that don't have very good farming capabilities feed themselves? Excessive importation perhaps but then that puts even more strain on then economically. How about states that aren't very industrialist? No. A far simpler solution to the problems you mentioned is rather then breaking apart how about we just do what should be done and give more power to the individual state and less to the federal government? You brought up how northern states mostly want Obamacare and antigun laws but the southern states mostly don't so why not instead of forcing on all of us the same law which will make one side or the other upset give the states themselves the right to decide.
ararmer1919
Posts: 362
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2013 5:09:16 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Just to go a little further into the economic and goods problem with the states breaking up. The US produces 40% of its yearly oil take. However the vast majority of this oil comes from just 2 of the 50 states. Texas and Alaska. So if we were to separate into several different countries what happens to those countries that don't have Texas or Alaska in them? Pretty much sh!t out of luck eh?
Cowboy0108
Posts: 420
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2013 6:25:58 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/27/2013 5:05:27 PM, ararmer1919 wrote:
I think it would be a horrible idea. A major reason is simply the way our nation is set up. Every state supports the other states in all manners of infrastructure, economics, goods, ect. No individual state or even a small group of states could possibly survive on their own without the aid of the other states. A states economy is not large enough to support themselves. It is because all 50 of us pool out resources that we succeed so well. How would some of the northern states that don't have very good farming capabilities feed themselves? Excessive importation perhaps but then that puts even more strain on then economically. How about states that aren't very industrialist? No. A far simpler solution to the problems you mentioned is rather then breaking apart how about we just do what should be done and give more power to the individual state and less to the federal government? You brought up how northern states mostly want Obamacare and antigun laws but the southern states mostly don't so why not instead of forcing on all of us the same law which will make one side or the other upset give the states themselves the right to decide.

I agree completely with your states' rights idea. The problem is that it will not happen. The federal government gets bigger by the day, not smaller. The thing is, if it doesn't happen, America will collapse from the overall bipartisanship. The fed is just too stubborn to admit what needs to be done and America will fail because of it.
Now, to your problems with the split, they are all short term problems that can work themselves out. The Southeast can farm, manufacture, and provide services so they would be well off, the Northeast can go back to specializing in manufacturing which would provide funding enough for food imports and it already can provide many of the necessary services and then some. The Western Coast area has farming, manufacture, services, and tourism, so it can easily build its economy off of that. The Midwest would be primary agriculture and I could see some difficulty building with the low population, but again, the low population means that it has very few people to provide for. Alaska would sell oil and builds its economy off of that just like what the middle East did. Furthermore, Alaska would provide oil to the nation with an increased economic boost from it too.
My guess is that all the major problems would resolve themselves in a few years after the split. And let us not forget, there would be far less bipartisanship to deal with too.
Cowboy0108
Posts: 420
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2013 6:32:42 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/27/2013 5:09:16 PM, ararmer1919 wrote:
Just to go a little further into the economic and goods problem with the states breaking up. The US produces 40% of its yearly oil take. However the vast majority of this oil comes from just 2 of the 50 states. Texas and Alaska. So if we were to separate into several different countries what happens to those countries that don't have Texas or Alaska in them? Pretty much sh!t out of luck eh?

I would say Texas would go with the southeastern states based on what I understand the state to be like. Alaska would be its on country, in my opinion. I think that the southeast, tell me if I'm wrong, would strive for self dependency and will probably keep most of the oil from Texas. Alaska, however, would sell the oil to the rest of the country which would build its economy and meet the rest of the country's oil needs for a few decades, which is more than enough time to come up with a new energy source(especially considering that there would be multiple periods of economic prosperity in these years based on general economic cycles)
This is based on my opinion of how the US should split according to my understanding of the economy of the individual states in the country and the society of these states as well.
Jack212
Posts: 572
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2013 7:29:36 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
The import-export problem can be solved with a free trade agreement that maintains the economic status quo. Visa waivers for travelers would also be a good idea.

The real reasons behind the split are politics and culture. American culture is divided along geographical lines, and I think most people would be happier with a split. Also, I think America's power has gone to its head. The rest of the world would be better off if America broke up and stopped interfering with everybody else.
Cowboy0108
Posts: 420
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2013 8:10:51 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/27/2013 7:29:36 PM, Jack212 wrote:
The import-export problem can be solved with a free trade agreement that maintains the economic status quo. Visa waivers for travelers would also be a good idea.

The real reasons behind the split are politics and culture. American culture is divided along geographical lines, and I think most people would be happier with a split. Also, I think America's power has gone to its head. The rest of the world would be better off if America broke up and stopped interfering with everybody else.

Agreed. Though I admit to being quite militaristic, I do not want America to be the world's police force. Let people take care of themselves. If they can't, it is still their problem.
the_croftmeister
Posts: 678
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2013 8:59:31 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Indeed, the dependency argument is useless, where does the rest of America's oil come from? Other countries of course. If America was multiple countries where would each one get their oil from? Other countries.
Cowboy0108
Posts: 420
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2013 9:19:27 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/27/2013 8:59:31 PM, the_croftmeister wrote:
Indeed, the dependency argument is useless, where does the rest of America's oil come from? Other countries of course. If America was multiple countries where would each one get their oil from? Other countries.

I know. I see no reason why struggles with dependency and importation would not resolve themselves after just a couple of years. I think that everything would work out quite nicely and none of the countries would struggle with bipartisanship.
TheUnapologeticTruth
Posts: 40
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2013 10:24:34 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I agree on a split. Let the liberals have half and the conservatives the other. BTW the idea of a state not being able to support itself just shows how dependent we've become on the Feds.. A state IS supposed to support itself. The Union was mainly for military protection. How do you think the tiny countries in Europe work? Many are smaller than most of our States. Some states will have to import more oil, corn, industrial goods etc.. Just like every other nation on earth does. We can split up and have different constitutions while still being able to trade with each other and travel freely in between. Its really not that difficult to execute.
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2013 10:27:14 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
How about no.
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
Cowboy0108
Posts: 420
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2013 12:32:11 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/27/2013 10:24:34 PM, TheUnapologeticTruth wrote:
I agree on a split. Let the liberals have half and the conservatives the other. BTW the idea of a state not being able to support itself just shows how dependent we've become on the Feds.. A state IS supposed to support itself. The Union was mainly for military protection. How do you think the tiny countries in Europe work? Many are smaller than most of our States. Some states will have to import more oil, corn, industrial goods etc.. Just like every other nation on earth does. We can split up and have different constitutions while still being able to trade with each other and travel freely in between. Its really not that difficult to execute.

Yes, I have noticed that every argument against this idea has to do with distribution of resources, and that is not a good reason to prevent a split as the solution to the problem is simple: Do it yourself, import it, or go without.

Personally, I want to see arguments less about resources and more about if the nations would be more/less successful, how the nations would get along, and how the society of the new nations would change.
Cowboy0108
Posts: 420
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2013 12:32:29 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/27/2013 10:24:34 PM, TheUnapologeticTruth wrote:
I agree on a split. Let the liberals have half and the conservatives the other. BTW the idea of a state not being able to support itself just shows how dependent we've become on the Feds.. A state IS supposed to support itself. The Union was mainly for military protection. How do you think the tiny countries in Europe work? Many are smaller than most of our States. Some states will have to import more oil, corn, industrial goods etc.. Just like every other nation on earth does. We can split up and have different constitutions while still being able to trade with each other and travel freely in between. Its really not that difficult to execute.

Yes, I have noticed that every argument against this idea has to do with distribution of resources, and that is not a good reason to prevent a split as the solution to the problem is simple: Do it yourself, import it, or go without.

Personally, I want to see arguments less about resources and more about if the nations would be more/less successful, how the nations would get along, and how the society of the new nations would change.
AlbinoBunny
Posts: 3,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2013 2:24:20 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/27/2013 3:33:19 PM, Cowboy0108 wrote:
I am for a national split. I think that the USA should split into about five different countries based on majority political rule.

Which States would form which countries? Five different ones?
bladerunner060 | bsh1 , 2014! Presidency campaign!

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org... - Running for president.
http://www.debate.org... - Running as his vice president.

May the best man win!
Cowboy0108
Posts: 420
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2013 7:44:14 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/28/2013 2:24:20 PM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
At 7/27/2013 3:33:19 PM, Cowboy0108 wrote:
I am for a national split. I think that the USA should split into about five different countries based on majority political rule.

Which States would form which countries? Five different ones?

I think it is a matter of opinion. However, I think that the Southeast over to Texas would be a country. New England and the blue states in that region would be a country. The Midwest would be a country. The Western US would be a country. Alaska would be a country. That is just my opinion though.