National Divorce

email | 2/25/09 | John J Wall

[iacovatx]

Seems like an idea that needs some exploration. It seems clear that a few urban areas can be ceded to the new nation. Oh, I should make clear that we Americans are not in any way, shape or form going to separate from the leftist socialists and their government. WE ARE THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. The socialists have already taken action to secede from us, our freedoms, our traditions, our success, and our nation. The socialists will have to come up with a new name for their country. Let’s see, some possible names might be:

Impover-ania
Abortion Coast
Isle of Fetid Corruption
Union of Soviet Socialist Misery
Inflation-aria
The People’s Republic of Not So Equal Animals
Cuba
The Land of Green, Joyful, Iron-Fisted Prosperity
The Land of Enforced Happiness

[Aria]

Oh those are funny! Not sure what my favorite is but maybe the Isle of Fetid Corruption. LOL

All I really know is that what is going on is the opposite of what made this country great. The constitutional lecturer knows damn well that he is destroying everything the founding fathers intended. And who will do anything about it? NO ONE. The SCOTUS won’t even make him show a birth certificate. It will be left to WE THE PEOPLE to change this because those in power sure won’t. We’re just the poor saps paying the bill and I’m sick of it. 900 million to Hamas? I can’t even say how disgusted I am.

[buccaneer81]

I’d let them have everything West of VAIL,

Not Alaska, though. That's ours.

[Purdue Pete]

Thanks for the ping! I love the south...count me in.

[ottbmare]

I readily admit this. But you would also then have to admit that those cities contain some of the wealthiest Americans who pay most of the taxes.

Northern cities, like Boston, Chicago, and New York, do indeed contain some of the wealthiest individuals. But many rich people live in the country rather than in cities, and many live throughout the South. You may be unfamiliar with the staggering amount of money available around Richmond, McLean, Middleburg, and Charlottesville VA, around Atlanta, Charleston, Miami, Dallas, Houston, Fort Worth, and in enclaves and on country properties everywhere in the South.

I really do not quite take your point. Are you suggesting that there would be some sort of economic disadvantage to the South to leave the Union? Surely not. A group of states organized around principles of capitalism, instead of socialism, would be at a great political and financial advantage. Besides, if we had a nation with only a small part of the exchequer spent on welfare and social programs, not only would they prosper but the indolent would then make tracks for the generous Northern cities. So we would be free of the need to support so many of them. Enjoy!

[Einigkeit_Recht_Freiheit]

Here: http://elections.nytimes.com/2008/results/president/explorer.html

You can see that in the lowest income counties in America Obama won by 53% to McCain’s 47%

In the highest income counties Obama won 54% and McCain 46%.

Obama of course won in every economic demographic, but McCain tended to do better among the poor.

Here: http://redbluerichpoor.com/blog/2008/11/election-2008-what-really-happened/

you can see that Obama won more than 50% of the higher income. Couldn’t find the equivalent 2008 breakdown that you had, sorry.

[SolidWood]

Obama of course won in every economic demographic, but McCain tended to do better among the poor.

Wow, by a whooping 1%, according to your numbers!

The only thing they show us is that a slight majority of Americans of all stripes were massively deluded, suckered into Obama for a variety of reasons.

Looking at the 2004 elections it's clear that the productive heart of America tends right.

The limited, but powerful crowd of uber-liberal super-rich prominent bozos and coastal elites is not representative of the upper-middle class, lower-upper class that is the lifeblood of America.

Even when looking at liberal states, it is the big cities with a few rich liberals and massive populations of gullible poor Democrat fools that tilt the states towards the left. The outer areas of states like California or New England are decidedly more conservative than the cities.

The breadbasket of America that is sustaining the liberal molochs are the red areas. The big cities cannot survive without them.

[Einigkeit_Recht_Freiheit]

The breadbasket of America that is sustaining the liberal molochs are the red areas. The big cities cannot survive without them.

Aside from the obvious food production - which takes less than 1% of the population and could be even more efficient than that - would you be so kind as to elaborate on what you mean?

[SolidWood]

The premise of the top article is that the red areas and blue areas should separate. Where do you intend to grow foodstuffs in NYC or San Francisco?

Agriculture lies in red rural areas and the big blue cities depend on them. There is no point in your exclusion of the food production other than dodging around.

Furthermore I wonder where those big liberal cities would get their energy from? Ever pondered where our domestic energy ressources are?

If those cities would separate, they would depend entirely on outside help... which is immensely costly. Who would pay for it? Would the few rich liberals in the cities stay to foot the bill for the super-majority of poor, huddled urban masses? Or wouldn't they rather leave for somewhere else?

[Einigkeit_Recht_Freiheit]

Actually California is the largest producer of American agriculture products. Of course we arent talking about wheat, but in terms of pure value. On the other hand, those farmers are conservatives so they may choose to leave.

[SolidWood]

I expressedly made the point that we should look at how the certain parts of the big "blue" states lean politically. The big cities are blue, the outlying parts, which include agriculture are red.

California 2004 and 2008: