Why don't we admit the obvious and split the country into two?

Well, since you live in a country which no doubt has some kind of basic universal healthcare (and no doubt some choice options for those who can afford a little more) and where unfettered access to ownership of near weapons-of-war is not even a debate and where such weapons cannot be easily obtained by psycopaths who fire willy-nilly into innocently celebrating crowds or march into schools and mow down numerous people's babies on a fairly regular basis, you can be forgiven for thinking that your non-sequitur attempt at an analysis and solution was somehow apropos?

 

If you think we don't have exactly the same problems with exploitation of welfare that America does, you're labouring under a misapprension.

 

I never even broached the subject. This thread has literally nothing to do with that except (marginally) the healthcare issue.

 

This thread is about splitting America in two, is it not?

 

Based on the criteria outlined in the OP. Why not try reading them before jumping to conclusions?

There's potential and actual economic strength (and weakness) in both perspectives. Neither specifically prognosticates a "welfare state" unless of course that's your only frame of reference?

 

~ A brilliant idea ! The time has come ...

 

I'm suggesting it's a good basis for splitting. Those who are adamant that free housing and money are a human right, can live according to that credo.

 

The funny thing is, all of these blue, soon to be rebel states have had that power all along. They've always been able to provide free housing, UBI, universal health care, you name it, their states could have always had that. All they have to do is have their state vote on it. Forming their own country isn't necessary.

 

I think you are playing into their trap, no disrespect, but do you really think the majority of the country is far left or far right? We only hear about the EXTREMES because that makes for way better headlines and less boring news. The more division the media can create (both sides do this), the better ratings they will have and more "loyalists" and "extremists". I can tell you most people are not on the extreme.

 

But not the bases for splitting that are in the minds of most Americans or that are mentioned on the OP.

 

You could be right about that. Interesting that a takes a thread about splitting the country to shine a light on that consideration?

 

That would be because it came from MY mind, obviously. So let's discuss it!

 

Here's why: I have an affinity for people in blue states, yes Democrats too, based on our shared history and largely shared values of representative government, equality of opportunity, and separation of powers. So do you, I hope.

If people in blue states need my help, I'll offer it to them before I'll offer it to people in Chile, Hungary, Mexico or Canada.

Go to a foreign country and you'll be happy to get home, whether you are from Vermont or Alabama.

 

I think it's the subject for a different thread for the reason that it's far from the thoughts of Americans who are thinking about this. Abortion, gun laws, LGBT rights aren't connected to welfare. There's actually very little welfare in the US compared to many other Western influenced countries. From the way people talk you'd think we were swimming in it but we're not.

 

I'm not interested in those other 'reasons', I'm interested in this one.

Meantime, I take it you're confident Americans would be okay if welfare (for any but the orphan/disabled etc) was abolished? You feel Americans are an industrious lot, and don't really have a 'problem' with dependence?

 

Like I said (or at least implied) that may well be an interesting question but I still think it's a question for a different thread so why not go start one?

 

But this one already exists ... it's literally about splitting the nation into two!

 

But not for the reasons you stated. If that were the motivation the two different "halves" could end up looking very different to the ones suggested under the stated criteria.

Or maybe not?

 

Oh I think they'd look very different. But that's the point, isn't it?

 

It’s not really a secret. The fringe minority is called fringe for a reason.

 

No, I meant the arrangements of which states joined which "half" would look very different.

California is, for instance, quite socially liberal but it's also phenomenally wealthy. It won't be looking for "handouts" from Alabama.

 

Bullcrap, California is in debt up to the eyeballs.

 

Excellent. California can be the frontrunner, showing how 'social liberalism and phenomenal wealth' reduces nasties like dissolution, dependence, decay, a wealth divide, and homelessness. Their Progressivism and Socialism should quickly cure the state of such ills, making them a shining example for the likes of Alabama.

 

I've recently moved to California, and the only attraction for the homeless that I can see is the weather. They live in absolute squalor.

 

There is no hope for either California or Alabama, if they both stay in the United States. Reform either from a left or right perspective, is completely dead and buried thanks to the hyperpartisanship and paralysis in Washington. We need to an 'amicable separation into two countries with two distinct constitutions, two different congresses and two Presidents, and two different federal court systems.