LETS BREAK UP THE USA

well we were talking abt this a lil on the gop speculation thread last night, i suggested having the south start their own country as a way to separate the highest concentration of foreign interventionists from their supply of cash, this is all abt making the world a better place, how would you break up the usa?

my other idea is to have the usa canada and mexico become one big awesome country

Been there, done that.

ice cre?m, you know we fought a civil war about this, right.

lilz

idk that was before my time, feel like conditions have prob changed

good luck texico

what's changed – the South still racist, homophobic, and beyond redemption?

oh, right – the South is now a GOP bastion. The Dems are now the lapdogs.

it took you 30 seconds to remember that?

well theres not slavery anymore for one, and for two weve developed a nasty habit of killing poor people all over the world w/our army

feel like theres so much status quo bias re the concept of a 'country' - itd be better if the whole thing was a lil more fluid

http://www.gifbin.com/bin/florida.gif

itd be better if the whole thing was a lil more fuid

fantastic thread, feel like this'll be really productive

http://i38.tinypic.com/6pyd20.gif

john how would you break up the usa

or does anyone think this is really the ideal configuration

you are allowed to add one additional country to the usa as a ~wildcard state~, which do you choose + where will you put it

can we grab pieces of canada and mexico in the mix? like seattle and vancouver make more sense together than seattle and alabama.

I'm asking ice cram not canadians this question btw

send everybody who thinks it's amusing or cool to spend time & energy hating on states/regions to some country full of similarly small-minded bigots, leave everybody else to be posi w/each other

yeah i feel like thats reasonable xp

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_lpiDRDaH-mU/SigyPn7WUVI/AAAAAAAAN70/GK3YGtw113c/s400/ALTERED+STATE.jpg

the rules say if you want a piece of canada you have to give up one of the five ilx-agreed-upon big US cities, which will you choose

houston

every IHOP should be its own little principality within the united states, like andorra. none of the IHOP countries would have extradition agreements with the US, so if you commit a crime you can cross the border over into an IHOP to avoid being arrested. but you have to make a purchase every hour or they kick you out, also there's a two-hour wait for a table.

like my position is: you hate New York? fuck you, you're an asshole. you hate Alabama? fuck you, you're an asshole. you hate Seattle? fuck you, you're an asshole. you hate Mississippi? fuck you, you're an asshole. do that 46 more times and then do Puerto Rico, Guam & American Samoa just to be on the safe side

but your position is also 'all americans deserve suffering cause they voted for reagan'

john i feel like weve been through this, i totally do not hate the south, i like the south v much and would def choose to live there over some other regions of the country *cough cough midwest* - this is purely abt the political structure of the country, or countries

When you decide what to do with Canada, please post here so I can let everybody else know.

feelin p amused & cool right now tbh

*cough cough midwest*

explain

ice cr?m diplomatically extends his swathe of hated land

the idea that in the absence of The Part Where the People Have Bad Voting Habits the rest of the country will continue to vote as it has (instead of reorganizing along the same idiotic lines that are inherent within a two-party system) is idiotic. carve off the south, new states will become The Bad States. that's what everybody's love of binary thinking gets them

can we make gabbneb president of flyoverlandia

like my position is: you hate New York? fuck you, you're an asshole. you hate Alabama? fuck you, you're an asshole. you hate Seattle? fuck you, you're an asshole. you hate Mississippi? fuck you, you're an asshole. do that 46 more times and then do Puerto Rico, Guam & American Samoa just to be on the safe side

fwiw I have completely justified, non-assholish reasons for hating Tupelo, MS

'the part where people have bad voting habits' is very linked to the culture of the part where people have bad voting habits

but your position is also 'all americans deserve suffering cause they voted for reagan'

people's inability to grasp what "deserve" means in that formulation is really not working wonders for my ability to think highly of fellow human beings, step up game please iats

besides we all know this country is going nowhere fast until my inevitable bloody military coup

'the part where people have bad voting habits' is very linked to the culture of the part where people have bad voting habits

yup, and those cultures will form themselves in any collection of Americans. it's not "southerners" who are racist dickheads in NY and Portland. I know I'll never in a million years cure you of your ridiculousness on this q and yet one tries from time to time. You're wrong, you'll always be wrong, nothing's going to change that, you're never going to know it & you'll trudge on in the darkness of your ignorance on this question for the rest of your life, <3 u anyway but it's true, the end.

I mean the idea that a place like oklahoma can have more people voting for kerry than obama *in every district* would have nothing to do w/ ~the culture and people of oklahoma~, it's just like, hey 'bad voting habits'

can a mod change the thread title to LETS BREAK UP ILX

I mean the idea that a place like oklahoma can have more people voting for kerry than obama *in every district* would have nothing to do w/ ~the culture and people of oklahoma~, it's just like, hey 'bad voting habits'

― iatee, Tuesday, November 1, 2011 5:01 PM (25 seconds ago) Bookmark

posts v. much in character

the idea that in the absence of The Part Where the People Have Bad Voting Habits the rest of the country will continue to vote as it has (instead of reorganizing along the same idiotic lines that are inherent within a two-party system) is idiotic. carve off the south, new states will become The Bad States. that's what everybody's love of binary thinking gets them

― pathos of the unwarranted encore (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Tuesday, November 1, 2011 12:57 PM (49 seconds ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

oh well unless we adopt a new form of government which im totally in favor of btw well still have a two party system, its just the center will shift, im hoping enough that we can stop spending all our money on killing poor people in countries far away and spend it on fast trains and the social safety net instead, maybe my plan wont accomplish that, or maybe theres some other plan that works better idk

*cough cough midwest*

explain

― Mr. Que, Tuesday, November 1, 2011 12:56 PM (6 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

eh idk its just not my style, too down to earth or w/e

I promise that after my bloody coup I will spend time killing poor people right here in our country (as well as middle-class and wealthy people; basically I pledge to go all Vorhees on the country)

eh idk its just not my style, too down to earth or w/e

but you're down to earth?? right???? i dunno

voting DJP, filming his rampages

yeah i mean the midwest has many places that im sure would please me, i was just teasing m/l, i tbh p much agree w/john that everywhere is sweet in its own way, like i said this thread is more abt political structures xp

what if someone started a whole media network to push certain political ideas and outcomes

i mean, imagine

Rupert Murdoch is an ideologue by accident—if there was as much money to be made by frightening the left as there is by frightening the right, he'd have started something like MSNBC decades ago.

But just to be clear, you believe this system of unfettered, limitless campaign contributions, isn't having a deleterious effect on our democracy?

I just don't understand how anyone can see this as LESS of a problem, than, say, term limits or representation disparities. In the case of small states with inordinately large legislative power it is CORPORATION DOLLARS that determine policy.

But just to be clear, you believe this system of unfettered, limitless campaign contributions, isn't having a deleterious effect on our democracy?

fuckin hate when people argue like this

what, without reading the posts of the people they are arguing with?

it is touching to me that you guys care enough to attune yrselves to the vicissitudes of my posting style, and i irl lold, which is not to say that your complaints are unfounded, just that something abt the whole sitch made me lol, so thank you

― ice cr?m, Wednesday, November 2, 2011 5:52 PM (1 hour ago) Bookmark

it's sad to me that you have to frame this as if it were anything other than people who like you telling you "you're coming off like a dick now dude, your positions here are lame & dumb" but w/e

i think as long as you have power structures with disproportionately large concentrations of capital compared to the electorate at large, those structures will disproportionately influence the outcome of elections, whether you set a spending cap or not.

for example: if you fund election spending publically, how do you decide which candidates or parties are deserving of public funding?

sorry if i offended you john, i just wanted to do this thought-experiment, clearly it got a little out of control

http://img329.imageshack.us/img329/3065/catbitewj1.gif

lol wut the

ahahaha

am0n OTM

for example: if you fund election spending publically, how do you decide which candidates or parties are deserving of public funding?

all of them

basically you just set a limit (say, no. of signatures or registered voters) and say anybody over that limit gets funding. this is not complicated.

(becomes candidate)

and then you mandate that the money has to be spent on campaign activities or returned, set accounting requirements etc.

which is not to say that rich/powerful interests wouldn't find ways to game the system (they would, this is their sole reason for existence - to exercise power), but it would create a radically different electoral playing field than the one we have now

my all time favorite campaign finance reform proposal http://www.salon.com/2007/02/05/campaign_finance_10

The rich/powerful have already sussed that mastering the flow of information is urgent and key, and that a monopoly over informational content is unnecessary so long as you can command the lion's share of attention. So long as the vast majority of us are members of an essentially passive audience, they are extremely happy. They are succeeding in ways that nearly fullfill their wildest dreams.

basically you just set a limit (say, no. of signatures or registered voters) and say anybody over that limit gets funding. this is not complicated.

well this is where i was heading - bear in mind i'm not familiar with all the mechanics of the US system, but - you have to set the bar at a sizeable level of support or else everybody who fancies a few thousand out of the public purse can put their hand in the pot and the thing rapidly becomes unaffordable. the higher the level of voter support you set to be eligible for public funding, the higher the existing public profile of the candidate wd need to be. and who is advantaged in having a high public profile? clue: it's not people with no money. and so on.

admittedly i am thinking mainly of the UK system, wherein it seems likely that public funding wd do little to introduce new voices and ideas into politics but simply help to sustain the increasingly shaky finances of the existing shitehawk parties we have.

obv really i'm coming from a position that believes reforming our existing representative systems is little more than shining the jackboots of the guy that's stamping on yr face

More like buying him new boots with crepe soles. Might help with his bursitis though

I keep on checking in on this thread to see if it gets fun like who's gonna draft tennessee, the reds or the commies, but damn you guys

do you really need the "unpleasant" qualifier for the noun "dickholes", like how many pleasant dickholes have you encountered

(*waits*)

― he carried yellow flowers (DJP), Wednesday, November 2, 2011 10:49 AM (23 minutes ago)

was hoping some fans of urethral sounding would step forward by now

― D. Boon Pickens (WmC), Wednesday, November 2, 2011 10:14 AM (1 week ago) Bookmark

Sorry, it's been a busy as hell week. Hope I'm not too late.

let's just get rid of states so that the ones left will form a smiley face

http://makingmaps.files.wordpress.com/2008/01/smiley-bomber.jpg

http://monarch.tamu.edu/~smrs/09425456.gif

hahahahaha

http://i39.tinypic.com/j6mlfk.jpg

This one from Common Census Project is the most interesting of these to me, mostly cause it's based on the actual spheres of influence that people experience. It's much more readable on the site.

http://www.commoncensus.org/maps/national_640.gif
This map draws responses to the question,

"On the level of North America as a whole, what major city do you feel has the most cultural and economic influence on your area overall?"

omg Salt Lake hogging that shit

the nfl teams one works better imo

every nfl fanbase should get 2 senators

that would genuinely lead to a more representative form of government than what we have atm

this is my favorite map right now

lol at grand junction being influential in utah but not within its own borders

redding california cannot qualify as a major city, I bet like half the people in ca couldn't tell you where that was

ca people aren't really knowledgeable w/r/t geography tho

lol @ minneapolis getting its own sphere of influence apart from the twin cities, and that it's all in iowa and the western burbs

rip st. paul

intersting map!

lol at Montreal taking part of upstate New York

Reminds me of figuring out what side of the lake someone was from by whether "town" was Clinton or Heber.

http://commoncensus.org/maps/mlb_1280.gif

http://commoncensus.org/maps/nfl_1280.gif

salt lake city must be a weird place to watch baseball

hard to find beer

http://aschmann.net/AmEng/#LargeMap

redding california cannot qualify as a major city, I bet like half the people in ca couldn't tell you where that was

i will always treasure redding because it contains the northernmost in-'n-out burger on the west coast