• 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!

Is It Finally Time to Break up the USA? [W:84]

Break up the USA?

  • Yes

    Votes: 12 15.0%

  • No

    Votes: 68 85.0%
  • Total voters
    80
Perhaps, but the only problem I'd have with that is some imperialist seizing control of a breakaway region, and using it as a vessel for imperialism and create a superstate of North America or something.
 
jonny5 said:
1. I'm not a liberal so save your partisan attacks on liberal whiners

2. I AM a libertarian and I supported Independence for ideological groups or states under Bush, Obama, and now Trump. Im hoping that liberals now finally realize that govt has gone too far, that their own tyrannical actions have led us to Trump, and the only way to secure the freedom to pursue their socialist agenda is to rid themselves of the conservative half of the country. Likewise, conservatives can have their theocracy/oligarchy, and libertarians can be left alone. Win Win Win.

So, are you ready to dissolve the political bands which have connected us with each other, to alter or to abolish the USA, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to you shall seem most likely to effect your Safety and Happiness?
Click to expand...

That would never work--we'd be at war with each other within a year, just like last time.
 
Yes.

I have been making this argument for years now and have done a thread or two on the topic. We have a country that tries to represent/cater to too many cultures and ideologies. Some states get nowhere near the return for their taxes from the federal government that other states receive. I can see an independent state for the Cascadian Region, Southern/Central California, Texas, Midwest, etc.
 
jonny5 said:
1. I'm not a liberal so save your partisan attacks on liberal whiners

2. I AM a libertarian and I supported Independence for ideological groups or states under Bush, Obama, and now Trump. Im hoping that liberals now finally realize that govt has gone too far, that their own tyrannical actions have led us to Trump, and the only way to secure the freedom to pursue their socialist agenda is to rid themselves of the conservative half of the country. Likewise, conservatives can have their theocracy/oligarchy, and libertarians can be left alone. Win Win Win.

So, are you ready to dissolve the political bands which have connected us with each other, to alter or to abolish the USA, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to you shall seem most likely to effect your Safety and Happiness?
Click to expand...

Everyone stays in the union.

 
jonny5 said:
Well in my scenario, a single state isnt becoming independant. But rather all or most of the states agree to a split.
Click to expand...

Ah I understand now. Didn't a libertarian group start such an attempt in NH? (or some NE state but cannot remember now) a few years ago.
 
It's missing the "WTF is this?" option.
 
Gonzo Rodeo said:
Which parts break off libertarian? Most of Colorado and some of Oregon?

Where should my wife and I live? She's a progressive, and I'm a conservative leaning libertarian.
Click to expand...

I doubt it's most of Colorado anymore. However, it would be damn near all of Wyoming.
 
jonny5 said:
Wherever you want. You can stay where you are, or move. Libertarians would probably go to Texas or New Hampshire, or make their own state.
Click to expand...

Too many social conservatives in Texas for most libertarians to get along.
 
jonny5 said:
1. I'm not a liberal so save your partisan attacks on liberal whiners

2. I AM a libertarian and I supported Independence for ideological groups or states under Bush, Obama, and now Trump. Im hoping that liberals now finally realize that govt has gone too far, that their own tyrannical actions have led us to Trump, and the only way to secure the freedom to pursue their socialist agenda is to rid themselves of the conservative half of the country. Likewise, conservatives can have their theocracy/oligarchy, and libertarians can be left alone. Win Win Win.

So, are you ready to dissolve the political bands which have connected us with each other, to alter or to abolish the USA, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to you shall seem most likely to effect your Safety and Happiness?
Click to expand...

Some element of balance between government and citizens would be great.

What we have now is government that's self-will-run-riot.

But the question is: How can a new government be constructed where we don't wind up with the opposite effect? In other words, the citizens become self-will-run-riot. Should that happen it would most likely mean that the people have divided into multiple minorities - all vying for power.
 
Last edited:
DifferentDrummr said:
And it turned out to be true. It took "a bit" of time for the new nation to get back on its feet economically.
Click to expand...

No one said creating a new country isn't difficult.

But you said, "it would accomplish nothing."

Are you saying we were better off remaining as a British colony?
 
Geoist said:
No one said creating a new country isn't difficult.

But you said, "it would accomplish nothing."

Are you saying we were better off remaining as a British colony?
Click to expand...

You never know: it may have been possible to negotiate a reasonable deal with the mother country.
 
DifferentDrummr said:
You never know: it may have been possible to negotiate a reasonable deal with the mother country.
Click to expand...

We did negotiate. Unfortunately, it had to be done with muskets.
 
Baralis said:
Ah I understand now. Didn't a libertarian group start such an attempt in NH? (or some NE state but cannot remember now) a few years ago.
Click to expand...

NH. They are attempting to work from the bottom up and at least take over the local govts. Making progress so far, theyve had a couple thousand people move there and won several local elections.
 
Removable Mind said:
Some element of balance between government and citizens would be great.

What we have now is government that's self-will-run-riot.

But the question is: How can a new government be constructed where we don't wind up with the opposite effect? In other words, the citizens become self-will-run-riot. Should that happen it would most likely mean that the people have divided into multiple minorities - all vying for power.
Click to expand...

Thats up to the people. Maybe it works maybe it doesnt. Fear of failure is not a good reason to remain stagnant.
 
antiquity said:
Sure it would.....California and New York would go bankrupt in about six days without federal money.
Click to expand...

fed_spend.jpg
 
jonny5 said:
We have to all agree on certain fundamentals. Like following the law and the rules for changing the law. Like not infringing on unalienable rights. Otherwise you get what we have. The persons in power ignore the law and use force and simple majorities to give themselves more power.
Click to expand...

If that were 100% true, then whoever got power first would retain power indefinitely. Since that is not the case in reality, your statement is not 100% true and I stand by what I said. Diversity of political values is a positive and physically separating the nation based on political beliefs would be catastrophic.
 
jonny5 said:
Thats up to the people. Maybe it works maybe it doesnt. Fear of failure is not a good reason to remain stagnant.
Click to expand...

I didn't refer to fear of failure.

We have 310 plus million people that its government has been operating under the current Constitution, which is law. Over the course of the life of our present form of government (for about 240 years give or take) it's learned to create a self-interests bubble, which controls everything outside of the bubble.

There is a portion of the population who has, via about ballot system, redressed their grievances with the current government. So be it. Very few people are in opposition to changing government where it isn't so self-will-run-riot, but there is an inherent danger in failing to "carefully and methodically busting the bubble so-to-speak" - especially using people who have no experience in managing the business of over 300 million people plus the nation relationships with every major nation in the world.

240 year of enmeshed actions of members of 3 branches of government can't be undone with a dozen Executive Orders.

But to elect a president who has zero respect for any branch of the government - or the system of law - which is an essential element despite its current dysfunctionality - who invokes consequences that are not beneficial for our nation without fear of reprisal. Our system of government, built around a Constitution, despite all of its flaws, like it or not, includes boundaries for even a president.

Yes, we need some significant changes, but not imposed by an individual who is self-will-run-riot.

It must feel really good to wake up one day and find yourself having the power to do and say as you please - with no one to contradict you, to keep your actions from falling outside the boundaries of one's designated duties as prescribed by law. To ignore and reprimand, admonish, censure, berate, or criticize any individual or group who confronts you with your limitations of power...anytime someone pisses you off and you do as you please anyway. And then make up your own version of regarding other's comments or some event and declare it the truth.

To make a drastic transition in the way our government works - requires having someone who knows what they **** that their doing and doesn't devote most of their time talking about their image being bruised or butt hurt become they've been criticized. Every president since Washington has been frequently criticized.
 
fredmertzz said:
If that were 100% true, then whoever got power first would retain power indefinitely. Since that is not the case in reality, your statement is not 100% true and I stand by what I said. Diversity of political values is a positive and physically separating the nation based on political beliefs would be catastrophic.
Click to expand...

Democrats and Republicans have retained power for about 200 years now.
 
Sherman123 said:
No. And anyone who tries to act on this belief should be dealt with as a traitor. We've been down this road before: You Don't Get To Leave.
Click to expand...




Wow, Iron Curtain much there? Sounds a smidge dictatorial, especially given how the US has supported independence for a number of other regions formerly part of a larger nation.
 
This is yet another time-wasting poll which will accomplish nothing.
 
jonny5 said:
Democrats and Republicans have retained power for about 200 years now.
Click to expand...

Yes, there will always be some who feel that they are not represented, ever. That doesn't mean that we ship them off.

Let's say Gary Johnson got 15% of the popular vote this past election. That's not enough to ever form a major party. But it is enough for the other parties to take notice and change their positions to better reflect how the people feel. Parties evolve because of our division. The names "Republican" and "Democrat" have retained power for nearly 200 years. But the platforms of today look little like they did then (for better or worse). We need diversity in political beliefs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom