• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Should the Union be dissolved?

Should the Union be dissolved?

  • Yes

    Votes: 2 10.0%
  • No

    Votes: 18 90.0%

  • Total voters
    20

TOJ

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 28, 2007
Messages
4,588
Reaction score
663
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
There is another poll concerning Civil War. As someone stated in that thread the US people are too apathetic (maybe just too pathetic) to really fight another civil war. IMO this does not fit that topic.

Is it time to just drop the pretense of being a United people and let the individual states go their separate ways?

I travel all over the Country and conduct training sessions. One hundred percent of my students have advanced degrees and most have doctorates. They range in age from late twenties to sixties. Typically I have several hours together with a half-dozen or so where a major portion of the time there is nothing to do except visit. After the prelims of how I got into the business, the weather, and other small talk, at some point, it usually turns to politics.

I almost always know what the poiltical views of the majority of those in attendance are going to be by the location. Those in the North East, MN, MI, and Pacific Nothwest have much more in common with Canadains then with those in the South, Midwest, and Mountain states. And, if demographic trends continue, the majority of Californians will soon be wanting CA to rejoin Mexico or, more appropriately, wanting Mexico to join CA.

I have broached this idea to my students just to get their reaction. Those in the South, Midwest (not including MN and MI) and Mountain states are almost always favorably disposed toward the idea.

In the NE, especially, but also on the Left Coast, I hear terms like red-neck, country hicks, fly-over country, etc. They obviously have no respect for those in Fly-Over Country but they are the ones most adamant about keeping the Union together. I would think the so-called Blue States would love to rid themselves of the Red States.

BTW, I never express my political opinions to clients. I live by the rule never debate religion or politics with relatives, friends, or clients. ;)

I listen and occasionally pose a question. They usually take it and run and it makes for an interesting time.

:mrgreen:
 
I would think the so-called Blue States would love to rid themselves of the Red States.

purplescale.gif


purplemap.gif
 
Last edited:
Now there is the kind of well thought out discusssion I've come to expect from you. :rofl

Please point to the red state or blue state on that map. I see 51 various shades of purple. You can find Democrats in Utah and Republicans in Vermont without looking too hard, which makes your entire premise stupid.
 
Please point to the red state or blue state on that map. I see 51 various shades of purple. You can find Democrats in Utah and Republicans in Vermont without looking too hard, which makes your entire premise stupid.
I would bet the people of UT, ID, WY, ND, SD, NE, KS, MO, AR, TX, MS, TN, KY, GA, SC, and several other states would vote overwhelmingly to be separated from the northeast and west coast states. Shouldn't majority rule?

Wasn't the breakup of the Soviet Union a good thing? What reasons are there to keep the Union together?
 
I would bet the people of UT, ID, WY, ND, SD, NE, KS, MO, AR, TX, MS, TN, KY, GA, SC, and several other states would vote overwhelmingly to be separated from the northeast and west coast states. Shouldn't majority rule?

Sure. Except the majority would never vote for that, and if you honestly believe that, then you haven't a clue what you're talking about.

TOJ said:
Wasn't the breakup of the Soviet Union a good thing?

Ya.

TOJ said:
What reasons are there to keep the Union together?

1. Mutual protection through a single large military.

2. The prevention of harmful protectionist policies by mandating a nationwide free-trade zone, and the abolition of customs every time goods cross state boundaries.

3. The strengthening of the economy through a comprehensive interstate highway system.

4. The ability to protect property rights, by having a framework in which one state (or a resident of one state) can sue another state (or a resident of another state).

5. The ability to protect the environment by having federal environmental laws, since pollution from one state can easily affect another.

Those are just a few that I can think of off the top of my head.
 
1. Mutual protection through a single large military.
A military that is continually at war around the world. If the states were separate, they could have defense pacts with other states or nations but could decline to send troops or funding all over the world to fight other people's battles. The terrorists would probably start concentrating on EU and leave the states alone since there would no longer be one large target.

2. The prevention of harmful protectionist policies by mandating a nationwide free-trade zone, and the abolition of customs every time goods cross state boundaries.
What is so great about a nation-wide free-trade zone? Again, the individual states could form free trade pacts with each other. If NY does not want to let something from MS into NY, that should be their prerogative. If NY wants to impose fees on goods coming from other states, thereby making their citizens pay higher prices, they shoud be free to do that. Who are you to tell them otherwise.

3. The strengthening of the economy through a comprehensive interstate highway system.
Why should NJ people have to pay for the roads in AL? If AL wants good roads, they should pay for them.

4. The ability to protect property rights,
What if the people of some state, say the People's Republic of Massachusetts, think the govenment should own the land and means of production. Why is it any of your business unless you live there?

by having a framework in which one state (or a resident of one state) can sue another state (or a resident of another state).
That sounds like an argument straight from a scumbag trial lawyer.

People from overseas sue in this country all the time. Why is the Union needed to sue someone and, anyway, fewer law suites would be a good thing.

5. The ability to protect the environment by having federal environmental laws, since pollution from one state can easily affect another.
That might have been true 40 years ago, but is just BS now. People everywhere want clean water and air. If you think otherwise, supply one verifiable name of a rational person who says they want to drink or bathe in dirty water and breathe dirty air.

Those are just a few that I can think of off the top of my head.
If that's the best you can do, you need to try harder. Where's the beef? There is no there there. :2razz:
 
Is it time to just drop the pretense of being a United people and let the individual states go their separate ways?

No. The whole is greater than the sum of the parts.

I would think the so-called Blue States would love to rid themselves of the Red States.

I think that would be financial suicide. How would they get their products without access to ports. You seem to think that everyone seperates, and then get along famously. What would keep war from breaking out? Dissolving the union would not improve relations. Texas votes to secede from the union every year. There isn't a place more ethnocentric or afflicted with a superiority complex.

Kandahar is right. There are no 100% blue or red states. No matter how much the media wants you to believe that there are only two points of view and everything is an either/or situation, it just isn't so. The world is not black and white. I don't care how much the "decider" tries to paint it that way.
 
No. The whole is greater than the sum of the parts.
In what good way?


I think that would be financial suicide.
For whom?


How would they get their products without access to ports.
I would expect some states would form alliances, maybe even join to create new Unions. I just think the the current situation is not sustainable. There is too much animosity.


You seem to think that everyone seperates, and then get along famously. What would keep war from breaking out? Dissolving the union would not improve relations. Texas votes to secede from the union every year. There isn't a place more ethnocentric or afflicted with a superiority complex.
Why do you think war would break out? Is that the TX legislature or a popular vote?


Kandahar is right.
Even a broken clock is right twice a day. :2razz:
There are numerous idiologies in every area, but so what. Why do the majority in WY have to abide by what NYers think is a good idea.

There are no 100% blue or red states.
And your point is? If the majority in a state wanted out, they should be able to get out. Anyone who didn't like it could move.


No matter how much the media wants you to believe that there are only two points of view and everything is an either/or situation, it just isn't so. The world is not black and white.
I don't give a hoot in hell what the media thinks about this.


I don't care how much the "decider" tries to paint it that way.
I've never heard anyone in this or any other administration speak to this and, that being the case, what does it have to do with this topic? Do you just use all your posts as opportunities to express your hatred?

I would think the NE liberals would love it. They have not been able to get a president elected from the NE for a long, long time and, since Hillary is not really a NYer, it's not going to happen this time.

Let's see, Bush 2-TX, Clinton-AR, Bush 1-Tx, Reagan-IL by way of CA, Carter-GA. That's a long time for yeehaa presidents. :shock:
 
Should the Union be dissolved? No.

I love when I can solve all my problems before 12.
 
A military that is continually at war around the world.

Irrelevant.

TOJ said:
If the states were separate, they could have defense pacts with other states or nations but could decline to send troops or funding all over the world to fight other people's battles.

What is the benefit of having 50 different foreign policies? :confused:

TOJ said:
What is so great about a nation-wide free-trade zone?

Please tell me you're joking...

A WORLDWIDE free-trade zone is what we should be striving for.

TOJ said:
Again, the individual states could form free trade pacts with each other.

We already have that. It's called a country. And yet you have a problem with it for some strange reason.

TOJ said:
If NY does not want to let something from MS into NY, that should be their prerogative. If NY wants to impose fees on goods coming from other states, thereby making their citizens pay higher prices, they shoud be free to do that. Who are you to tell them otherwise.

Protectionism harms the economies of everyone involved.

TOJ said:
Why should NJ people have to pay for the roads in AL? If AL wants good roads, they should pay for them.

You obviously do not understand what the word INTERSTATE means.

TOJ said:
What if the people of some state, say the People's Republic of Massachusetts, think the govenment should own the land and means of production. Why is it any of your business unless you live there?

Straw man. A federal government protects property rights in the way that I described: by providing a legal system in which people can air their grievances against people from other states. I don't know what the hell you're talking about with communism...it is completely irrelevant to anything I said.

TOJ said:
That sounds like an argument straight from a scumbag trial lawyer.

People from overseas sue in this country all the time. Why is the Union needed to sue someone and, anyway, fewer law suites would be a good thing.

Fewer lawsuits would be a good thing if they're frivolous lawsuits. It would NOT be a good thing if there were fewer lawsuits simply because people are unable to claim their property because the defendant lives in another state.

If I live in Ohio and I enter into a contract with someone in Indiana, who would be responsible for enforcing the contract, under your system? What if it's necessary for me to sue the other person, and the Indiana government tells me to screw off? This improves protection of property rights...how?

TOJ said:
That might have been true 40 years ago, but is just BS now. People everywhere want clean water and air. If you think otherwise, supply one verifiable name of a rational person who says they want to drink or bathe in dirty water and breathe dirty air.

So federal regulations shouldn't be a problem, since everyone wants those things anyway, right?
 
I would expect some states would form alliances, maybe even join to create new Unions. I just think the the current situation is not sustainable. There is too much animosity.

You have failed to show ANY animosity at all. Educated people from New England might occasionally chuckle at the silly rednecks in Middle America, but they aren't seriously suggesting that they all be killed and/or denied their property and/or discriminated against. Hardly the basis for a civil war.


Besides, what makes you think we're so divided anyway? Because Bush's share of the electorate was 15% more in Mississippi than in California? :roll:
 
You have failed to show ANY animosity at all. Educated people from New England might occasionally chuckle at the silly rednecks in Middle America, but they aren't seriously suggesting that they all be killed and/or denied their property and/or discriminated against. Hardly the basis for a civil war.

Besides, what makes you think we're so divided anyway? Because Bush's share of the electorate was 15% more in Mississippi than in California? :roll:

I've read that in the south there is a small crowd of people who actually advocate completely dissolving the Union(It was on an issue of the Economist). What these people fail to consider is the consequences dissolving the Union would have. What benefits are there in letting states carry out foreign policies on their own? What benefits are there in letting 50 little *** states that mean nothing by themselves(except California of course) try and pay their own way in this world?
 
There is another poll concerning Civil War. As someone stated in that thread the US people are too apathetic (maybe just too pathetic) to really fight another civil war. IMO this does not fit that topic.

Is it time to just drop the pretense of being a United people and let the individual states go their separate ways?

I travel all over the Country and conduct training sessions. One hundred percent of my students have advanced degrees and most have doctorates. They range in age from late twenties to sixties. Typically I have several hours together with a half-dozen or so where a major portion of the time there is nothing to do except visit. After the prelims of how I got into the business, the weather, and other small talk, at some point, it usually turns to politics.

I almost always know what the poiltical views of the majority of those in attendance are going to be by the location. Those in the North East, MN, MI, and Pacific Nothwest have much more in common with Canadains then with those in the South, Midwest, and Mountain states. And, if demographic trends continue, the majority of Californians will soon be wanting CA to rejoin Mexico or, more appropriately, wanting Mexico to join CA.

I have broached this idea to my students just to get their reaction. Those in the South, Midwest (not including MN and MI) and Mountain states are almost always favorably disposed toward the idea.

In the NE, especially, but also on the Left Coast, I hear terms like red-neck, country hicks, fly-over country, etc. They obviously have no respect for those in Fly-Over Country but they are the ones most adamant about keeping the Union together. I would think the so-called Blue States would love to rid themselves of the Red States.

BTW, I never express my political opinions to clients. I live by the rule never debate religion or politics with relatives, friends, or clients. ;)

I listen and occasionally pose a question. They usually take it and run and it makes for an interesting time.

:mrgreen:

E Pluribus Unum.
 
E Pluribus Unum.
To what end?

Chooie said:
I've read that in the south there is a small crowd of people who actually advocate completely dissolving the Union
I've not herard about any organized groups in the south but how about Vermonters and an econ prof from Duke University. Modern-Day Secessionists Will Hold a Conference on Leaving the Union
More than a dozen secessionist organizations are likely to send representatives

...

working with an emeritus professor of economics at Duke University, Thomas Naylor, who is a founder of the Second Vermont Republic, an association that seeks to return Vermont to an independent republic.
 
You have failed to show ANY animosity at all. Educated people from New England might occasionally chuckle at the silly rednecks in Middle America, but they aren't seriously suggesting that they all be killed and/or denied their property and/or discriminated against. Hardly the basis for a civil war.
What are you blathering about now? Are you dazed and confused about which thread you are on.

I specifically stated this was not about civil war. That is the other thread. I am talkng about some states leaving the Union or, if most wanted out, a complete dissolution. I do not think NJ, NY, VT, or any other NE state would want to send troops to stop MS or AL from leaving the Union.


Besides, what makes you think we're so divided anyway? Because Bush's share of the electorate was 15% more in Mississippi than in California? :roll:
Only those with BDS think everything is about Bush. You really should get some treatment. :2razz:
 
There is another poll concerning Civil War. As someone stated in that thread the US people are too apathetic (maybe just too pathetic) to really fight another civil war. IMO this does not fit that topic.

Is it time to just drop the pretense of being a United people and let the individual states go their separate ways?

I travel all over the Country and conduct training sessions. One hundred percent of my students have advanced degrees and most have doctorates. They range in age from late twenties to sixties. Typically I have several hours together with a half-dozen or so where a major portion of the time there is nothing to do except visit. After the prelims of how I got into the business, the weather, and other small talk, at some point, it usually turns to politics.

I almost always know what the poiltical views of the majority of those in attendance are going to be by the location. Those in the North East, MN, MI, and Pacific Nothwest have much more in common with Canadains then with those in the South, Midwest, and Mountain states. And, if demographic trends continue, the majority of Californians will soon be wanting CA to rejoin Mexico or, more appropriately, wanting Mexico to join CA.

I have broached this idea to my students just to get their reaction. Those in the South, Midwest (not including MN and MI) and Mountain states are almost always favorably disposed toward the idea.

In the NE, especially, but also on the Left Coast, I hear terms like red-neck, country hicks, fly-over country, etc. They obviously have no respect for those in Fly-Over Country but they are the ones most adamant about keeping the Union together. I would think the so-called Blue States would love to rid themselves of the Red States.

BTW, I never express my political opinions to clients. I live by the rule never debate religion or politics with relatives, friends, or clients. ;)

I listen and occasionally pose a question. They usually take it and run and it makes for an interesting time.

:mrgreen:

No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No.
 
Just seeing the posters in this thread I must say It's great to see the left and right wings come together in unity. :)
 
I would bet the people of UT, ID, WY, ND, SD, NE, KS, MO, AR, TX, MS, TN, KY, GA, SC, and several other states would vote overwhelmingly to be separated from the northeast and west coast states. Shouldn't majority rule?

Actually, I'm quite happy with the northern parts of the West Coast.

If I were to vote to secede from anyone, it'd be the East. Everything east of, say... Nebraska. Especially the "Red States" in the East, which aren't anywhere near as similar to Wyoming, Idaho, or even Utah as people seem to believe.

You can keep Texas and Oklahoma, too.
 
Just seeing the posters in this thread I must say It's great to see the left and right wings come together in unity. :)
Yep, kind of funny what it takes isn't it. :lol:
 
Although doing a bit of research has shown many of the same reasons against secession as Kandahar has already mentioned, the point of secession is rather moot. In 1869, in Texas v. White, SCOTUS, with Chief Justice Chase speaking for the majority, ruled that secession was illegal and unconstitutional.

Texas v. White - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Texas v. White: Information from Answers.com
Texas v. White, 1869

I don't understand how it's unconstitutional....
 
Although doing a bit of research has shown many of the same reasons against secession as Kandahar has already mentioned, the point of secession is rather moot. In 1869, in Texas v. White, SCOTUS, with Chief Justice Chase speaking for the majority, ruled that secession was illegal and unconstitutional.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_v._White
Texas v. White: Information from Answers.com
Texas v. White, 1869
So that would have been about 12 years after Dred Scott, wouldn't it? ;)
 
If it ain't broken, don't fix it.

I think that, despite our flaws, we have an incredible system in one united democracy. The fact that instead of having 50 different countries we have one, large country with civil discourse and national freedoms is a huge benefit.
 
Back
Top Bottom