this would be better for everyone. libcucks in the west get what they want. south gets what it wants. jew yorkers can continue bending over for schlomo away from everyone.
is everyone ok with this?
>>72586361
>muh federation
No
>>72586361
Yes, let's amputate the cancerous regions and heal the body of the country.
>>72586500
>muh federation
doesnt have to be a federation faggot.
what reason would you have to not want this?
>>72586676
just let them create their liberal/socialist paradise and the other regions can watch it burn. that way they dont take the whole country with them. everyone would be happy since they can always move to an area they agree with. rather than bitch about a right or left wing federal government.
>>72586361
Why go into so much trouble dividing it like that? Split on the civil war boundary all the way to the Mississippi. Kentucky gets to be part of the south. Draw a line up the Mississipi, though Minnesota gets to be part of the North. The entirety of the plains states go to the South, but California, Washington, and Oregon go with the North.
Cuts off everything that is embodied by the South; the poverty, the poor education, the shitty industry, leaving only states that can actually do some shit to work together.
>>72586790
It's not really a socialist vs. capitalist problem, it's more of a race problem.
>>72586361
We have autonomous regions. It's called a State. There are 50 of them. The problem though is that historical state boundries can't serve us well because they are inefficently divided.
>>72586931
>Cuts off everything that is embodied by the South; the poverty, the poor education, the shitty industry, leaving only states that can actually do some shit to work together.
No, that's blacks. You go to a 1/3 jig highschool and see what you think.
>>72586361
absolutely yes it would be. we are far too large and inefficient with a massively corrupt system that doesn't serve anybody except the outrageously wealthy. why does a california senator get to have a single breath of influence over the low country of South Carolina?
>>72586361
Thanks to the internet...
>>72586934
>socialist vs. capitalist problem, it's more of a race problem.
yeah i get that. alot of people would move around though and most nonwhites would want the liberal areas.
like for example. autonomous south gets rid of welfare. bam. now you've got millions of nogs going north for gibs me dat.
>>72586987
>We have autonomous regions. It's called a State. There are 50 of them
thats the problem m8. people used to identify with their state more than "america" before the civil war. but at this point state lines dont represent cultural boundries. new england prob wouldnt mind being one region. same goes for the deep south.
>the South becomes autonomous
>abolishes welfare
>a gigantic brown tidal wave floods the North
>>72587182
Let's just make a place in the south for them so they can build pyramids and shit. New kemet
>>72587182
>>72586987
i should have clarified. states are supposed to have alot of power on paper. but in reality they've lost most of it. if a state goes against the federal government they get blackmailed. the feds will threaten to cut federal income for them. case and point: the drinking age.
>>72586361
What the fuck is that map? That is not what the USA looks like.
>>72587331
I see. Fair point.
>>72586361
A house divided cannot stand you Dixie faggot
>>72588984
>implying this has anything to do with dixie
yanks be butthurt though. this is for every major region in america. and im not talking about becoming seperate countries, just autonomous.
besides any american that says "a house divided cannot stand" is being an ironic faggot.
>>72586361
we already are
check the federal reserve
>>72589510
can you elaborate? what does the fed reserve have to do with this
This is retarded. Enjoy watching everything south and west of St Louis be annexed by Russia, China, and Mexico in 20 years.
I don't want to be in the same country as Chicago.
>>72589820
>This is retarded. Enjoy watching everything south and west of St Louis be annexed by Russia, China, and Mexico in 20 years.
you're the retard. americas military is still unified. regions just get more control over themselves.
and even if they become completely independent countries. you realize texas alone has the GDP of Russia? California has more than that, and more population than Canada and most European nations.
>>72589716
they have regions
go look up the federal reserve site and their regions and youll enlighten yourself you lazy fuck
>>72590065
>they have regions
no shit moron. that doesnt mean anything. the thread is about them having control on their laws and polices, separate from the nation as a whole. (states are supposed to fill that role but they've lost most power)
the federal reserve regions do not represent the cultural regions that want to be together either. there was no reason for you to bring it up other than you being an autist.
>>72590311
they appoint a chairman for each region and that chairman decides the economy for his/her region
>>72590411
>they appoint a chairman for each region and that chairman decides the economy for his/her region
you're overestimating their control of their areas. the work load is simply divided up because its a big ass country. the federal reserve regions mean nothing.
they dont control the policies anyway. so again, "muh reserve" means jack shit.
>>72590737
>chairmans don't control policy
>>72586361
Autonomous regions like states? Sure.
>>72591391
ok kike whats your point? that doesnt mean we have autonomous regions defined by culture. which is what i made the thread about. you're autistic chairman reports the federal reserve just like the others.
>>72586361
The Oklahoma City, Tulsa blob doesn't even touch the Texas blob but we are considered a part of it. I see a whole bunch of grey in there that stays unaffiliated.
>Emerging
>Great Lakes Region
Pick one
Your divide and conquer tactics wont effect me!
>>72586361
The US is too large in my opinion. It covers vastly different area with different political climates. We'd be better off with more autonomous states.
>>72592262
in this case it would be beneficial.
look at the EU. its obviously shit for europe. UK is better off without it. is that supposed to be divide and conquer?
>>72591712
>reports
>he doesn't understand what monetary policymakers are responsible for
My point is too big to explain to you on a Brazilian Wax Shop.
>>72593087
you're trying to derail the topic over and over again.
>My point is too big to explain to you on a Brazilian Wax Shop.
no you autist i dont care about your off topic arguments. go back to watching alex jones.
chicago would instantly become judge dredd world
>not wanting a confederacy
>not handing over the flood states to niggers
>>72593355
I just can't fathom how retarded you are. They are autonomous.
>>72586361
The Confederation didn't work for a reason, you fucking cuck.
The Union stays as is, in fact, the federal government should probably have more power.
The federalists were right, the states can't even be trusted enough as semi-autonomous regions; better they just be downgrade to provinces or principalities rather than proper states.
>>72594181
>I just can't fathom how retarded you are. They are autonomous.
keep saying retard ironically m8, yet again. your comment is off topic.
>>72594311
>The Confederation didn't work for a reason
states had more autonomy prior to the civil war. people used to identify more with their state than the "USA".
>The Union stays as is, in fact, the federal government should probably have more power.
The federalists were right, the states can't even be trusted enough as semi-autonomous regions; better they just be downgrade to provinces or principalities rather than proper states.
and you call me the cuck. lets see how wonderfull that idea is when you get assfucked by shillary in the general election.
we're going to keep ending up with the same kikes running everything because morons defend their power at every level.
>>72594953
>states had more autonomy prior to the civil war. people used to identify more with their state than the "USA".
And this was (and is) 100% absolutely pants-on-head Bad. Like I said, there's a reason the Articles of Confederation were dropped almost immediately.
>we're going to keep ending up with the same kikes running everything because morons defend their power at every level.
Because corrupt individuals can easily enter and have some-semblance of power at the state and local level. I don't know if you've noticed, but people generally don't care, at all, who their city council is or who their state legislature is. People only care about the federal level, and allowing for there to be any amount of autonomy beyond structural necessity only opens a gap for corruption to get into the system.
It's easier to defend the system from corruption at one supreme level, the federal level, with everyone's eyes focused on it, than it is to spread power around and increase our vulnerability to corruption.
You paint-sniffing retard.
>>72586361
thats called states rights.
this is why we want a smaller federal government so faggot states can be faggots by themselves.
>>72587045
>influence over the low country of South Carolina?
You mean the welfare state of South Carolina sucking off the tit of the feds? Why should any of the welfare redstates get a say in anything? How would they even survive with out the wealth of California and other so called "bad" states supporting them?
We can't split shit up being the bulk of the mid-west can't even feed it self never mind support it self with out federal help. Money that is ONLY there due to better more powerful states generating it.
Different areas would even cut down on free open transport etc of good with in the USA. Ya know, as in how California grows most of the veggies etc that feed all of us.
>>72589868
>tfw grew up in Chicago but in a white suburb
It really is a beautiful city, if it weren't for nogs making half of it uninhabitable. It serves as my excuse when people ask my why I don't like inner city black folks(niggers)
>>72586361
How America should look under President Trump.
But Muh Flooding
>>72595355
>And this was (and is) 100% absolutely pants-on-head Bad. Like I said, there's a reason the Articles of Confederation were dropped almost immediately.
it wasnt bad. articles of confederation were over 70 years before the civil war moron. you are pretending all that time between didnt exist.
>Because corrupt individuals can easily enter and have some-semblance of power at the state and local level. I don't know if you've noticed, but people generally don't care, at all, who their city council is or who their state legislature is. People only care about the federal level, and allowing for there to be any amount of autonomy beyond structural necessity only opens a gap for corruption to get into the system.
thats my fucking point. they only care about federal elections because they hold the power. people WOULD care if power was localized.
decentralized power would much harder to control rather than our current politcal system which is hardly a democracy.
>It's easier to defend the system from corruption at one supreme level, the federal level
thats just simply not true. its corrupt as shit right now and its been getting worse as we've become more centralized.
>than it is to spread power around and increase our vulnerability to corruption.
dude you're talking out of your ass. in what way is that true? corruption is always easier with more centralization. there is a reason dictatorships are not preferred to democracy (or representative democracy like we have)
>>72595952
>it wasnt bad. articles of confederation were over 70 years before the civil war moron. you are pretending all that time between didnt exist
It was absolutely bad, division of any kind amongst a people is bad you fucking shill.
>people WOULD care if power was localized.
Except they wouldn't, because local power ultimately only affects them. Now you just have corrupt individuals spread out all across the states, without the bulwark of like-minded individuals across the nation to defend against them.
>decentralized power would much harder to control rather than our current politcal system which is hardly a democracy.
It would be just as hard to control, but easier to corrupt, alongside with a systemic reduction of efficacy on the part of America as a whole.
>thats just simply not true. its corrupt as shit right now and its been getting worse as we've become more centralized.
Because corrupt individuals are given a springboard by which to launch their assault into federal power via local and state positions!
>dude you're talking out of your ass. in what way is that true? corruption is always easier with more centralization. there is a reason dictatorships are not preferred to democracy (or representative democracy like we have)
The reasons dictatorships are not preferred is because all the power rests with a single man by his own appointment; there is nothing about a democracy or representative democracy that intrinsically makes it centralized or decentralize you ass-retarded faggot.
>>72586500
Your idiocy just about made me puke.
America is a federation as it fucking is. States come together to form a country, the country isn't divided into states.
Ho-ly shit.
>>72587216
>welfare dindus
>LITERAL economic mobility
>>72596322
>It was absolutely bad, division of any kind amongst a people is bad you fucking shill.
oh right and you think UK should stay in the EU? canada is similar so why dont we just annex them for "muh unity" fucking moron. the regions and people are different. thats why they should be more independant. i dont like sharing a country with libcucks who force liberal legislation on my town that doesnt want it.
>Except they wouldn't
your logic here is astonishingly retarded jokes and memes aside. you're saying that a centralized government which guarantees total corruption in our system is preferable to a system with possibly some corruption. not everything would be corrupt. by your logic every country in europe should be corrupt because they have localized EU states instead of having the EU control everything. because fuck poland for refusing refugees right?
>It would be just as hard to control, but easier to corrupt, alongside with a systemic reduction of efficacy on the part of America as a whole.
this is based on nothing. refer to my comment about the EU. im not going on assumptions. the EU is essentially the level of federal - state control we had prior to the civil war.
>The reasons dictatorships are not preferred is because all the power rests with a single man by his own appointment
it puts the power in the hands of the few. more centralized.
>there is nothing about a democracy or representative democracy that intrinsically makes it centralized or decentralize
strawman. i never implied that.
Instead of doing "autonomous regions" stuff, what we need to do is take the major metropolitan regions and split them off into separate states. Surprise, conservatives and rednecks suddenly have more electoral college power.
Map coming up.
>>72598613
bad map,the south needs north florida. south florida is its own.
texas would just be texas.
northern california would be part of oregon and washington, named cascadia.
the rest can sort it out i guess. the midwest could form a few regions too.
>>72586361
I always see "Piedmont" broken out into this own thing on maps like this. The Piedmont is not a strong enoufe geological thing to be called out. Also the land they give to it is way to diverse to be lumped together.
>>72600215
>enoufe
Meant enough
>>72586676
>muh rural paradise meme
Balkanization will occur in an energy collapse scenario. When we run out of easy to get oil, the globalist corporations and governments which is fueled by cheap energy will lose their worldwide control.
When the happening happens, the race who is able to plan ahead and has the most skills will win whatever geographical location they are in.
Most of the US state borders don't fit in well with geography. If you want a good idea on what natural borders look like, look at watersheds.
>>72601510
Fuck natural borders.