What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

SCOTUS 15: Help Us, Ruth Bader Ginsburg! You're Our Only Hope!

Status
Not open for further replies.
FadeToBlack&Gold said:
But if you abolish the Senate, then CA, NY, FL, and TX run the country and wahrrrgarrbl muh rights!!
Click to expand...

Yes, the places where there are more people will have more power. How about that. I'm sure that seems like a hardship to the small states. When you're accustomed to privilege equality feels like oppression. But people are equal -- farmers aren't better because they're whiter.
 
Kepler said:
Ultimately to save democracy we will have to improve it by going to one man one vote, and that means getting rid of the Senate, or making it strictly proportional, which is essentially getting rid of it or by combining states.
Click to expand...

Good luck with that absent a 2nd civil war.

There's no way a constitutional amendment gets passed by the very states who would lose their power, and being that there's no other way to fix it legally, you're looking at extra legal means.
 
unofan said:
Good luck with that absent a 2nd civil war.

There's no way a constitutional amendment gets passed by the very states who would lose their power, and being that there's no other way to fix it legally, you're looking at extra legal means.
Click to expand...

Best plan is to leave and reform, with states divided into roughly equal population. We could also leave the slow kids behind.
 
I often wonder what happens if California decides to stop sending money to the red states because they're sick of financing nazis.
 
dxmnkd316 said:
I often wonder what happens if California decides to stop sending money to the red states because they're sick of financing nazis.
Click to expand...

CA, NY, and New England should just secede and adopt the current constitution (minus the second amendment, plus voting rights). Any othe states want to join - great, welcome aboard! Countries do not need contiguous land in the 21st century.
 
LynahFan said:
CA, NY, and New England should just secede and adopt the current constitution (minus the second amendment, plus voting rights). Any othe states want to join - great, welcome aboard! Countries do not need contiguous land in the 21st century.
Click to expand...

See also, Alaska and Hawaii
 
LynahFan said:
CA, NY, and New England should just secede and adopt the current constitution (minus the second amendment, plus voting rights). Any othe states want to join - great, welcome aboard! Countries do not need contiguous land in the 21st century.
Click to expand...

For that matter we could just join the Scandinavian countries et al.

1. Norway
2. Iceland
3. Sweden
4. New Zealand
5. Canada
6. Finland
7. Denmark
8. Ireland
9. Democratic USA

That's a helluva economy.
 
Last edited:
LynahFan said:
Countries do not need contiguous land in the 21st century.
Click to expand...

I mean, Alaska is kind of a unique case. Hawaii doesn't count because of its isolation. But I honestly can't think of a situation in which it's not a huge disadvantage to not be contiguous. And while I may not be a defense contractor, I have to think a country of California plus New England with Jesusland in between would be somewhat difficult to defend, especially given that it would not be an amicable split.
 
unofan said:
I mean, Alaska is kind of a unique case. Hawaii doesn't count because of its isolation. But I honestly can't think of a situation in which it's not a huge disadvantage to not be contiguous. And while I may not be a defense contractor, I have to think a country of California plus New England with Jesusland in between would be somewhat difficult to defend, especially given that it would not be an amicable split.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but Canada can keep the oil flowing to both (at least via Oregon and western Washington)
 
unofan said:
I mean, Alaska is kind of a unique case. Hawaii doesn't count because of its isolation. But I honestly can't think of a situation in which it's not a huge disadvantage to not be contiguous. And while I may not be a defense contractor, I have to think a country of California plus New England with Jesusland in between would be somewhat difficult to defend, especially given that it would not be an amicable split.
Click to expand...
That’s not how defense works these days. China can barely contemplate invading Taiwan, much less California. Countries are not defended by sprawling physical fortifications along their coasts. They are defended electromagnetically and via missiles and air power that destroy the invading fleet hundreds of miles out at sea. Jesusfuckistan would be too cowardly and too disorganized (states’ rights! Small government!) to invade a Denny’s.

The big concern (if we’re pretending to give this serious analysis) would be ground shipping across the continent. However, without access to the Pacific ports (except possibly Portland, but that is so far up river that it will never have significant deep water capacity), the Democratic US would have Jesusfuckistan by the economic balls. Arrangements would be made.
 
Last edited:
LynahFan said:
However, without access to the Pacific ports (except possibly Portland, but that is so far up river that it will never have significant deep water capacity)
Click to expand...

IINM Portland is actually the best deep water port on the west coast, even better than LA, but it won't matter since WA-OR-CA will be part of the First World US along with NY and NE.
 
LynahFan said:
That’s not how defense works these days. China can barely contemplate invading Taiwan, much less California. Countries are not defended by sprawling physical fortifications along their coasts. They are defended electromagnetically and via missiles and air power that destroy the invading fleet hundreds of miles out at sea. Jesusfuckistan would be too cowardly and too disorganized (states’ rights! Small government!) to invade a Denny’s.

The big concern (if we’re pretending to give this serious analysis) would be ground shipping across the continent. However, without access to the Pacific ports (except possibly Portland, but that is so far up river that it will never have significant deep water capacity), the Democratic US would have Jesusfuckistan by the economic balls. Arrangements would be made.
Click to expand...

An amphibious assault is a whole different animal than simply marching across a land border. If Taiwan weren't an isle, it would've gone the way of Hong Kong decades ago.

And Jesusland would simply expand the gulf ports or potentially invade Baja (and the parts of Mexico necessary to link to Baja) and open ports there on the shipping front.

I'm just saying, contiguous land is still a big advantage.
 
Plus since when do the East and West Coast agree on things? There is no chance they link up. They would be separate nations as would any Blue States in the middle like Minnesota.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top