JoeKyleVol
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Dec 15, 2008
- Messages
- 1,163
- Likes
- 497
I know this has probably been discussed before in a tangential manner in other threads, but I thought I would start one focused specifically on this topic.
Should the United States remain one indivisible country, or split into two or more countries? The increasing political polarization of our nation is compounded by greater regional divides. The South is very different from the North, and the Midwest from the West.
Why should people in New York and California have a say over what Tennessee and Texas does, and vice versa?
Why should politicians in Washington have a greater say over the border security of Southwestern states than those states themselves? Why should the Federal government dictate how states handle illegal immigrants within their own borders, especially when they extend amnesty-esque orders?
Why should federal judges invalidate laws made by numerous states?
The United States is a very large, heterogenous nation with increasingly divergent political views in our various regions. Perhaps a group of about 10-12 nations with a much looser federal government more akin to the European Union (if even one at all) would be better than our current situation. It gives greater autonomy to like-minded states, but also allows for some federated coorperation.
Our current Union gives too much power to a Federal government which must make decisions for regions that are growing more polarized. Fifty individual countries would just be unwieldy and weak. But a group of smaller nations may be a more sensible solution, I think.
What say you?
Should the United States remain one indivisible country, or split into two or more countries? The increasing political polarization of our nation is compounded by greater regional divides. The South is very different from the North, and the Midwest from the West.
Why should people in New York and California have a say over what Tennessee and Texas does, and vice versa?
Why should politicians in Washington have a greater say over the border security of Southwestern states than those states themselves? Why should the Federal government dictate how states handle illegal immigrants within their own borders, especially when they extend amnesty-esque orders?
Why should federal judges invalidate laws made by numerous states?
The United States is a very large, heterogenous nation with increasingly divergent political views in our various regions. Perhaps a group of about 10-12 nations with a much looser federal government more akin to the European Union (if even one at all) would be better than our current situation. It gives greater autonomy to like-minded states, but also allows for some federated coorperation.
Our current Union gives too much power to a Federal government which must make decisions for regions that are growing more polarized. Fifty individual countries would just be unwieldy and weak. But a group of smaller nations may be a more sensible solution, I think.
What say you?
