15% of Canadians for Bush

[opebo]

This is one of the strangest threads I've encountered on the Board.  The idea of Canada or Britain joining the US and making it more left-wing makes me think of the converse - what if the US got rid of its more left wing parts?  I know plenty of people in the 'Bush states' (or 'red states' as the media has referred to them since 2000) that would be much happier if places like California and the Northeast would secede.  

I'm interested in the idea that union with Canada or GB would increase GDP.  I'm unconvinced - I think GDP growth is largely allowed/encouraged by right-wing (Liberal) economic policy, and retarded by left-wing policies.  Therefore a smaller, more right-wing country should actually be more prosperous.  For example Hong Kong.

[opebo]

Red is liberal nation, blue is conservative nation, and grey is moderate nation:


Liberal nation actually leads in EV's, with 215 compared to conservative nation's 146 and moderate nation's 177.  

President of liberal nation: Al Gore
President of Conservative nation: George W. Bush
President of moderate nation: Colin Powell

Pretty cool map.. but I'd prefer two geographically contiguous nations.  How would you split up the moderates between the other two?  Id sure  like to see MO on the conservatieve side..

[opebo]

I would post a map of a divided nation, but alas don't know how.

[opebo]

Border controls would be tough...

Yes, probably...considering Florida borders conservative nation, that could flare up, but it really is only dangerous if liberal nations borders conservative nation.  The WV/KY border could be bad, as could he west coast.

Just get rid of the 'moderate nation'.  Its not going to please anyone - its as if the Brits had made Kashmere independent instead of just giving it to one or another of the newly created enemies.

[opebo]

Border controls would be tough...

Yes, probably...considering Florida borders conservative nation, that could flare up, but it really is only dangerous if liberal nations borders conservative nation.  The WV/KY border could be bad, as could he west coast.

Just get rid of the 'moderate nation'.  Its not going to please anyone - its as if the Brits had made Kashmere independent instead of just giving it to one or another of the newly created enemies.

Yeah, you mean a problem-solver that would have avoided a lot of blood-shed, I can see how that is really stupid.

That wouldn't have solved anything - there would've been a war in which one or the other would've seized Kashmere.  There would've been just as much bloodshed.  Its better to recognize reasonable power relationships when creating states - for example Pakistan was big enough to fend India off, but couldn't hang onto Bangladesh.  

[opebo]

Border controls would be tough...

Yes, probably...considering Florida borders conservative nation, that could flare up, but it really is only dangerous if liberal nations borders conservative nation.  The WV/KY border could be bad, as could he west coast.

Just get rid of the 'moderate nation'.  Its not going to please anyone - its as if the Brits had made Kashmere independent instead of just giving it to one or another of the newly created enemies.

Yeah, you mean a problem-solver that would have avoided a lot of blood-shed, I can see how that is really stupid.

That wouldn't have solved anything - there would've been a war in which one or the other would've seized Kashmere.  There would've been just as much bloodshed.  Its better to recognize reasonable power relationships when creating states - for example Pakistan was big enough to fend India off, but couldn't hang onto Bangladesh.  

Ah, but the clever way avoided a war, huh? Perhaps allowing people to create the kind of nations they actually want is a way of avoiding conflicts, instead of letting power hungry chauvinism rule the world?

The point is there was going to be war no matter what - unless of course the British had stayed.

[opebo]

Border controls would be tough...

Yes, probably...considering Florida borders conservative nation, that could flare up, but it really is only dangerous if liberal nations borders conservative nation.  The WV/KY border could be bad, as could he west coast.

Just get rid of the 'moderate nation'.  Its not going to please anyone - its as if the Brits had made Kashmere independent instead of just giving it to one or another of the newly created enemies.

Yeah, you mean a problem-solver that would have avoided a lot of blood-shed, I can see how that is really stupid.

That wouldn't have solved anything - there would've been a war in which one or the other would've seized Kashmere.  There would've been just as much bloodshed.  Its better to recognize reasonable power relationships when creating states - for example Pakistan was big enough to fend India off, but couldn't hang onto Bangladesh.  

Ah, but the clever way avoided a war, huh? Perhaps allowing people to create the kind of nations they actually want is a way of avoiding conflicts, instead of letting power hungry chauvinism rule the world?

The point is there was going to be war no matter what - unless of course the British had stayed.

You don't think there would've been a colonial war if the British had tried to keep India?? *VIETNAM, ALGERIA, KENYA, EVERY OTHER COLONY IN THE WORLD WITH SUBSTANTIAL POPULATION*

Of course there would have been, but it would've been the only thing that would've prevented the muslims from fighting the hindus, India vs. Pakistan, etc.  They could've fought the British, then each other later, assuming they didn't lose.  The point is war is part of human affairs and political development.

[opebo]

Border controls would be tough...

Yes, probably...considering Florida borders conservative nation, that could flare up, but it really is only dangerous if liberal nations borders conservative nation.  The WV/KY border could be bad, as could he west coast.

Just get rid of the 'moderate nation'.  Its not going to please anyone - its as if the Brits had made Kashmere independent instead of just giving it to one or another of the newly created enemies.

Yeah, you mean a problem-solver that would have avoided a lot of blood-shed, I can see how that is really stupid.

That wouldn't have solved anything - there would've been a war in which one or the other would've seized Kashmere.  There would've been just as much bloodshed.  Its better to recognize reasonable power relationships when creating states - for example Pakistan was big enough to fend India off, but couldn't hang onto Bangladesh.  

Ah, but the clever way avoided a war, huh? Perhaps allowing people to create the kind of nations they actually want is a way of avoiding conflicts, instead of letting power hungry chauvinism rule the world?

The point is there was going to be war no matter what - unless of course the British had stayed.

You don't think there would've been a colonial war if the British had tried to keep India?? *VIETNAM, ALGERIA, KENYA, EVERY OTHER COLONY IN THE WORLD WITH SUBSTANTIAL POPULATION*

Of course there would have been, but it would've been the only thing that would've prevented the muslims from fighting the hindus, India vs. Pakistan, etc.  They could've fought the British, then each other later, assuming they didn't lose.  The point is war is part of human affairs and political development.

That's ridiculous, if they would just grow up and start acting like sensible democratic nations, that would prevent a war as well. And wars should be avoided unless there's a good reason for them, imo.

So what's a good reason for war?  For a muslim who wants a theocratic state or hates hindus or other unbelievers, its well worth war.  War happens whenever there is an issue that two well-armed camps cannot compromise over or agree on.  Sounds natural enough to me.  

[opebo]

Opebo, The Atlee Government wouldn't have tried to keep India.
In fact they wanted to get rid of it as soon as possible (same with the Palestine Mandate).

Oh I agree, the British Empire was a lost (but good) cause by that time.  I was just pointing out to Gustaf that whatever the Brits did with India, etc, war and bloodshed was inevitable.