NationStates

Albionist Great Britain wrote:

La xinga wrote:Who really cares, probably every country in Europe was founded by a dude who didn't think Black people and White people were equal.

Eh, it wasn’t so much white v black, it was much more extensive than that. There wasn’t any idea AFAIK of a ‘white’ identity anywhere in Europe up until Americans exported it. Even today there’s less of a ‘white’ idea than there is in the USA. People were just plainly more exclusive back then, religiously and in ethnicity. As well IIRC the whole racial inferiority more came with the empires and is relatively recent to better justify European supremacy [so the statement you made is incorrect IMO, but I agree that racism in America’s roots isn’t special].

I'm sure if you showed an African American to one of these they would say them "not equal".

In part, I was inspired by the title (if not content and argument) of this post: viewtopic.php?f=20&t=492169

As the past years have shown, there is an overwhelming proof for various political, social, and cultural divides in the United States. These divides are generally aligned along regions; indeed some sociologists even claim that it is better to characterise the United States as "a collection of nations". Combined with the fact that many citizens of the United States cannot even agree on core values (economic policy, foreign policy, socio-cultural policy, and so forth), would it be better "Balkanisaed?" Or are there still ways that the United States can still be saved as a whole union?

My opinion: For now, it is better to have the United States intact. Part of this is due to my belief that a United States-China-EU trio is generally good for stable world affairs. I think the United States can be saved through more power being concentrated to a central government, while also taking political measures such as implementing direct selection of the president and making representation more fair (for example, right now Californians are being oppressed by not having enough representation). But that is just my opinion, and you are free to leave your opinions below.

-Ocelot- wrote:

Ifreann wrote:America's military doesn't protect any other nations. It doesn't even protect America. It protects America's economic and political interests, as determined by America's government.

I live in a country that is being protected by America. Being a NATO ally literally prevents our neighbors from smashing us into pieces. Maybe you are too privileged to understand how defensive alliances impact smaller countries, especially vulnerable countries in eastern Europe.

Except, America doesn't care about the safety of the people of Eastern Europe. You can tell because a world war didn't erupt when Russia invaded Ukraine and conquered Crimea. If a neighbouring country did invade, do you think America would help? Would you expect American tanks to be rolling up your streets, driving off the invaders? They might do that, if it suits the economic and political interests of the government of the day. But equally they might not, because it might not suit their interests.

How are Californians not getting enough representation?

If my understanding of the US Presidential election system is correct, many millions of votes in California are currently not represented during them.

Ifreann wrote:

-Ocelot- wrote:
I live in a country that is being protected by America. Being a NATO ally literally prevents our neighbors from smashing us into pieces. Maybe you are too privileged to understand how defensive alliances impact smaller countries, especially vulnerable countries in eastern Europe.

Except, America doesn't care about the safety of the people of Eastern Europe. You can tell because a world war didn't erupt when Russia invaded Ukraine and conquered Crimea. If a neighbouring country did invade, do you think America would help? Would you expect American tanks to be rolling up your streets, driving off the invaders? They might do that, if it suits the economic and political interests of the government of the day. But equally they might not, because it might not suit their interests.

Ukraine wasn't in NATO, or really any sort of ally with the U.S when Russia yoinked Crimea.

If a NATO ally were invaded, and the U.S didn't uphold its obligation, literally no one would work with America in a diplomatic sense.

I would like to point out that historically Europeans normally did not just kidnap Africans and bring them to the new world. It did happen not deigning it but The MAli (one of the oldest empires in west Africa.)were one of the foremost exporters of slaves. The enslaved there own people just to keep there economy afloat because the relied on gold too much. Saying a nation should be abolished because it had slaves is pointless. Slavery was only abolished in the world because one our moral compass was fixed and two it honestly was no long useful in western powers. Instead of trying to rewrite the past to hide the blemishes, you should instead keep nothing but the truth. Otherwise history will repeat itself.

I personally support the US staying as a union. It might not be perfect, but the present world order is extremely dependent on the US being the "big-brother" of all nations. The Pax Americana has kept the world rather stable, and I intend it to continue that way, at least until the world figures out fighting is bad.

Salus Maior wrote:

Ifreann wrote:Except, America doesn't care about the safety of the people of Eastern Europe. You can tell because a world war didn't erupt when Russia invaded Ukraine and conquered Crimea. If a neighbouring country did invade, do you think America would help? Would you expect American tanks to be rolling up your streets, driving off the invaders? They might do that, if it suits the economic and political interests of the government of the day. But equally they might not, because it might not suit their interests.

Ukraine wasn't in NATO, or really any sort of ally with the U.S when Russia yoinked Crimea.

If a NATO ally were invaded, and the U.S didn't uphold its obligation, literally no one would work with America in a diplomatic sense.

Yea.

Sanghyeok wrote:If my understanding of the US Presidential election system is correct, many millions of votes in California are currently not represented during them.

705,000 DCians don't even get to vote in the first place. Also, are you proposing the Independent States of America?

Hell naw. The US needs reform not dissolution.

Sanghyeok wrote:If my understanding of the US Presidential election system is correct, many millions of votes in California are currently not represented during them.

Where did you hear this? Also, if we didn't have a Senate or some form of equal representation, then California and New York would just decide all of the US elections, which would in turn oppress other states votes by basically not making them matter.

Zveztown wrote:

Sanghyeok wrote:If my understanding of the US Presidential election system is correct, many millions of votes in California are currently not represented during them.

705,000 DCians don't even get to vote in the first place. Also, are you proposing the Independent States of America?

That is this choice:
No, it cannot be saved- Balkanise the United States into many countries based on states

West Reveria wrote:I personally support the US staying as a union. It might not be perfect, but the present world order is extremely dependent on the US being the "big-brother" of all nations. The Pax Americana has kept the world rather stable, and I intend it to continue that way, at least until the world figures out fighting is bad.

I think a strong United States- with competition from EU and China- is one good status. I would personally prefer a Pax EU, but that's probably not possible.

Sanghyeok wrote:

West Reveria wrote:I personally support the US staying as a union. It might not be perfect, but the present world order is extremely dependent on the US being the "big-brother" of all nations. The Pax Americana has kept the world rather stable, and I intend it to continue that way, at least until the world figures out fighting is bad.

I think a strong United States- with competition from EU and China- is one good status. I would personally prefer a Pax EU, but that's probably not possible.

Why would you want a strong US and EU?

Instead of stealing oil from the Middle East, America should join with Canada and Mexico and work for humanity. We shouldn't be divided, we should be united with all people

A dilemma

Hakinda Herseyi Duymak istiyorum wrote:Instead of stealing oil from the Middle East, America should join with Canada and Mexico and work for humanity. We shouldn't be divided, we should be united with all people

(Image)

The US doesn't steal oil from the Middle East.
Also unification good but that flag is atrocious.

Union of Catgirls and Magical Girls wrote:

Sanghyeok wrote:
I think a strong United States- with competition from EU and China- is one good status. I would personally prefer a Pax EU, but that's probably not possible.

Why would you want a strong US and EU?

I personally really like the EU, and if the US can actually become a force for good (instead of bombing foreign countries), I think it would be beneficial for the world.

A dilemma. Tyranny of the minority or tyranny of the majority?

Hakinda Herseyi Duymak istiyorum wrote:Instead of stealing oil from the Middle East, America should join with Canada and Mexico and work for humanity. We shouldn't be divided, we should be united with all people

(Image)

Agree with your sentiment, but I think that flag is something terrible.

Empirical Switzerland wrote:How are Californians not getting enough representation?

California (a state of 40 million) has as much representation in the senate as Wyoming (a state with less than a million people). The whole issues is big populous states typically contribute much more to the nation economically, and get a whole lot less in return. And while California isn't the only example, it is only the most prominent. New York feels the same way, and so does Texas to an extent.

The whole reason for this imbalance is the electoral college. It makes states with small populations (which tend to lean Republican) extraordinarily powerful as per capita they have more votes than large, powerful and frequently Democratic states like New York and California (Texas is the anomaly as it is the largest Republican state in terms of population, though that is changing). The whole system was devised to give smaller states a way to compete politically with larger states. The issues is, the electoral college allows people like Trump to be voted in because they won the electoral college votes, but lost the popular votes.

The point is that the USA is hardly a representative democracy in that it doesn't actually represent it's own people all that well. But this is kind of a tangent from the whole Balklanization point since most of the grievances raised could be solved by getting rid of the electoral college.

Sanghyeok wrote:

Union of Catgirls and Magical Girls wrote:
Why would you want a strong US and EU?

I personally really like the EU, and if the US can actually become a force for good (instead of bombing foreign countries), I think it would be beneficial for the world.

The US doesn't bomb for no reason.

Sanghyeok wrote:I personally really like the EU, and if the US can actually become a force for good (instead of bombing foreign countries), I think it would be beneficial for the world.

The US simply cannot become a force for good.

The EU is literally Germany and France's glorified neocolonialist project. It literally came from a consortium of steel and coal business owners.

Zadorl wrote:A dilemma. Tyranny of the minority or tyranny of the majority?

Are we just adding Tyranny to what we don't like?