Shop Mobile More Submit  Join Login

Details

Closed to new replies
February 1, 2013
Link

Statistics

Replies: 41

Why are people opposed to succession

:icondivine--apathia:
divine--apathia Featured By Owner Feb 1, 2013  Hobbyist Photographer
I'm not an American, so there might be something I'm missing.


There is a rather large divide in America between the left and the right (politically) and the divide itself is causing problems, so why do people want to hold on, instead of letting go? Obviously, there is the whole deal about sorting out where the borders would be, customs and immigration etc, but new countries have been made before, and those things aren't impossible tasks.

So why do people oppose it?
Reply

You can no longer comment on this thread as it was closed due to no activity for a month.

Devious Comments

:icontacosteev:
tacosteev Featured By Owner Feb 3, 2013  Hobbyist
What would start with a peaceful succession would end up in a bloody battle over resources. Alaska and the other oil states are right leaning. If you can't compromise during politics think they'd be nice and divide resources equally?
Reply
:icontempusnexus:
TempusNexus Featured By Owner Feb 3, 2013  Hobbyist Digital Artist
Whatever country you live in, it never ends well to split it in two. Look at every case in history. The American civil war is the one I'm most familiar with, but there are others. And it's not like each state is a single side. People are on both sides even in the same county, or city, or even the same household. Dividing the nation would cause heartbreak and bloodshed, and the country might not even survive, given out current state.
Reply
:icontempusnexus:
TempusNexus Featured By Owner Feb 3, 2013  Hobbyist Digital Artist
Whatever country you live in, it never ends well to split it in two. Look at every case in history. The American civil war is the one I'm most familiar with, but there are others. And it's not like each state is a single side. People are on both sides even in the same county, or city, or even the same household. Dividing the nation would cause heartbreak and bloodshed, and the country might not even survive, given out current state.
Reply
:iconnovuso:
Novuso Featured By Owner Feb 3, 2013
Think of it as a political divorce after a very bad marriage. Sometimes it is best to just walk away. I am ready for it but I pray it is peaceful.
Reply
:iconshidaku:
Shidaku Featured By Owner Feb 2, 2013
Because it's stupid. They are weakening the whole nation for their selfish, petty little squabbles. Letting them leave won't end their stupidity, it'll validate it, which means they'll let their stupidity lead to worse decisions, like war. It happened before. I personally will not tolerate stupidity, and I certainly won't allow stupidity to propagate and be validated.
Reply
:iconstaple-salad:
staple-salad Featured By Owner Feb 2, 2013
I wouldn't really be that upset if the South decided to succeed, though I would be sad about being somewhat cut off from some of my favorite relatives and the Harry Potter themepark. It'd certainly make life easier...

I think it's economic though or something.
Reply
:iconder-freishutz:
der-freishutz Featured By Owner Feb 2, 2013  Hobbyist Writer
"There is a rather large divide in America between the left and the right (politically)"

are you retarded.
are you actually that stupid.
just think about what you just said, stupid.

if you knew anything about politics, you would know that "left" political veiws are ofton alot different to "right" political veiws.

thats like asking why is there such a divide between the shades black and white.
Reply
:iconstaple-salad:
staple-salad Featured By Owner Feb 2, 2013
Most other countries that aren't in the middle of civil wars have opposing parties who don't try to completely screw over and block all help to the people in a bid to refuse cooperation.

IE most other countries aren't governed by toddlers.
Reply
:iconder-freishutz:
der-freishutz Featured By Owner Feb 3, 2013  Hobbyist Writer
the opposing party usually give alternative veiws to things as they are, the fucking oppostion and as they are different wings with different political veiws. We dont pick our political party on the colour of tie in england you know.
Reply
:iconstaple-salad:
staple-salad Featured By Owner Feb 3, 2013
In the US it's not like that. Ideally the parties would offer different perspectives on the same issue so that a compromise benefiting the majority of the people could be reached (rather than just playing to one side). In the US you have one party with no spine and another party that will literally do anything, ANYTHING, including screwing over their base, screwing over as many people as possible, destroying the economy, etc. to make sure that no compromise on any issue is ever reached.

Recently our "Party of No" has tried to cripple our economy just about every year. And it's not just a difference of policy and me saying "oh well their ideas all suck". Take for example their refusal to send aid to one of our biggest population centers that was hit by a superstorm. This area was even governed by one of their own.

And that's why secession could actually be a good thing for our country. Then we could get stuff done to HELP the people instead of screwing them over just to avoid compromise or letting the other side look effective.
Reply
:iconder-freishutz:
der-freishutz Featured By Owner Feb 3, 2013  Hobbyist Writer
i cant help it if your political system is retarded, here in england and europe we do quite well.
Reply
:icondivine--apathia:
divine--apathia Featured By Owner Feb 2, 2013  Hobbyist Photographer
Are you retarded? There are other democratic nations out there that have right and left parties without the massive divide between, that will actually work together and get things done :|
Reply
:iconder-freishutz:
der-freishutz Featured By Owner Feb 3, 2013  Hobbyist Writer
they are centerist then. Besides, whats the point of having the opposition like in england when they just agree with eachother all the time?
Reply
:iconjeysie:
Jeysie Featured By Owner Feb 2, 2013  Hobbyist Writer
I have no idea why people want to hold on, honestly.

About the only real reason I can think of to hold on is that the ideological divide doesn't match geography enough this time around to avoid having a lot of logistic problems in getting resources and population shuffled around.
Reply
:iconsonrouge:
sonrouge Featured By Owner Feb 1, 2013
You mean secession?

And that would be because the government doesn't want any challenges to the idea that it's god almighty. If states could just leave whenever they don't like what big brother is doing, big brother suddenly looks very foolish and harmless...and people start to question it very, very seriously.
Reply
:iconamanda-graham:
Amanda-Graham Featured By Owner Feb 1, 2013  Professional Writer
succession - 1
a : the order in which or the conditions under which one person after another succeeds to a property, dignity, title, or throne
b : the right of a person or line to succeed
c : the line having such a right
2
a : the act or process of following in order : sequence


secession - 1
1: withdrawal into privacy or solitude : retirement
2: formal withdrawal from an organization


We are quite good, so far, at succession

Like the Balkans eventually we will be proficient at the second
Reply
:iconincandescentinsanity:
IncandescentInsanity Featured By Owner Feb 1, 2013  Student General Artist
Because it's a reaction of adult sized babbys crying because they're not getting their way
Reply
:iconnokari:
nokari Featured By Owner Feb 1, 2013
Just because I disagree with someone politically, doesn't mean I hate them and don't ever want to be around them. Also, people don't grow or change by running away from problems. People may disagree strongly, but that doesn't mean they want to break up an entire country to get what they want. The average citizen doesn't want that at all.
The way I see it, the only good reason for trying to secede is if a whole region is being legitimately denied legal rights. But for something nebulous as reds vs. blues, there's no clear region that won't involve a large number of one side being kicked out of their homes. And if you go around asking people what they think they're being denied, you're going to get a whole slew of different answers. I think the problem, though, is really how could a state (or several disconnected states) survive on their own without our federal government? There would be at least a long period of public service suffering, clumsy transitions, and halting negotiations between the former state and the US government.
Reply
:icongallery-of-art:
Gallery-of-Art Featured By Owner Feb 1, 2013  Professional Traditional Artist
United we stand.
Divided we fall.

That is the USA.

We were far more divided back during the Civil War than we are now, and we got through that crap and kept the country together and became the greatest nation on God's green earth. Because of such, we have a high standard of living and amazing military might with weapons that could destroy any foe.

No.
There is no need for succession. That's silly. We are not a give-up type of nation. We don't fold under pressure, we rise above it.

Besides, that would mean another civil war, and we are far too advanced as a culture and a woven united country to do that again. There is no North & South difference in ideals. What states would be grouped with what states? And never mind the issues that would need to be figured out concerning jobs, currency, taxes, property, military, family, Constitution RIGHTS.. etc. How would such a thing even work? It is impossible in this era.

The government can't even pass a budget. What makes you think they can figure out splitting the country into two governments?

Anything worth anything must be worked for. We go through growing pains just like any country, but we are not the kind of country that forgets where we came from. Our founders would roll in their graves if such a moronic thing were to happen.

These are The United States of America, and we will weather the storm just fine. When the dust clears, we will emerge stronger and mightier than ever.

We are an exceptional country. There has never been anything like it. Most of us still know what we got, and are not going to let disagreements destroy us.

Emotions are high, but it will take a decade or more for it to simmer down is my guess, because people are going to have the same attitude for years to come.

Also, the media are making more out of this than there is. The country has been very divided on many issues long before any of us were born. This isn't new, it's just trumped up by 24-7 news outlets looking for ratings.

This country is still UNITED. We just have strong disagreements on issues.

We all live work and enjoy life together every single day, liberals, conservatives and all in between.
When we discuss politics, we have strong disagreements, but it isn't obvious unless you go on line or you watch t.v., in other words, everyday life in the US is just that, everyday life. We're not out fighting each other in the streets or in the marketplaces.

Only a freakish small few would even be interested in your proposal.

We are not some lesser country.

We are the USA.
Reply
:iconcrotale:
Crotale Featured By Owner Feb 1, 2013
It is spelled secession, not succession.

Today's American political and social landscapes are not as geographically defined as they were in the 1850s. Also, seeing how each is less internally funded more now than in previous history, secession makes little sense.
Reply
:iconmclandis:
Mclandis Featured By Owner Feb 1, 2013  Hobbyist Photographer
Allowing secession would call the legitimacy of the government into question and would open a huge Pandora's Box of legal questions. Hence, no government is willing to allow their core territories to just leave because they don't like how things are going.
Reply
:iconamanda-graham:
Amanda-Graham Featured By Owner Feb 1, 2013  Professional Writer
hmm the Soviet Union did a fair job of it for about 15 years ...
Reply
:iconcailst:
Cailst Featured By Owner Feb 3, 2013
The Soviet Union also ceased to exist.
Reply
:iconcreamstar:
Creamstar Featured By Owner Feb 1, 2013
It kind of defeats the purpose of creating a democratic, republican system of government if you can just opt out to make your own country whenever you want to. There'd be no reason to compromise or work together if either side could just leave at any moment to create their own rules.
Reply
:icondivine--apathia:
divine--apathia Featured By Owner Feb 1, 2013  Hobbyist Photographer
No one is working together, tough, anyway.
Reply
:iconcreamstar:
Creamstar Featured By Owner Feb 1, 2013
But separating isn't going to encourage it any better. Democracy has no purpose if people are unable to resolve their issues together.
Reply
:icondj0hybrid:
DJ0Hybrid Featured By Owner Feb 1, 2013  Hobbyist Writer
In terms of Texas, they are actually economically doing well compared to everyone else on average. So it would be pretty similar if Germany or France, two of Europe's currently strongest economies, just left the European Union. That and it didn't work well the last time.
Reply
:iconchakatblackstar:
ChakatBlackstar Featured By Owner Feb 1, 2013
Well, while many areas lean one way or the other, many areas still have significant numbers of the other side in their state too. My state for instance is a northern state that tends to lean left thanks to the larger cities, but we also have a near even number of conservatives especially in the more rural parts of the state. With everyone mixed in like that, especially in swing states like mine, it would be difficult to decide which country the state would want to be a part of.

Then you have issues with dividing lines. Many left states would be cut off from each other because of the way the right states are positioned. It makes defending satellite parts of the left country a very difficult task. That also brings up other issues, like deciding up the military for example. Then there's the issue of many families living in different states. It's not uncommon these days for family members to be living in different parts of the US even temporarily, thus potentially trapping someone on the wrong side of the metaphorical wall that would be formed from this division. Or even dividing up things like the capital. Both sides undoubtedly want the symbols of their national heritage and government to be on their side of the fence, and it's not like you can just put up a wall in the middle of the capital anyway. That would be silly.
Reply
:icondanceandmakeromance:
DanceAndMakeRomance Featured By Owner Feb 1, 2013
well my friend, this is why Ive given up on politics. I used to want to be part of the system. But then I learned the system is broken. So I'm just waiting for some sort of revolution to come from the people.
Reply
:iconsiegeonthorstadt:
siegeonthorstadt Featured By Owner Feb 1, 2013
political variety is a sign for democracy, not division. but a dual hegemony of opposing political parties is the opposite of democracy. its just a matter of solving it beurocratically you know.
Reply
:icondivine--apathia:
divine--apathia Featured By Owner Feb 1, 2013  Hobbyist Photographer
Do you really think the the fundamental right will ever be able to work with America's far left? and vis versa? I don't see it happening.
Reply
:iconsiegeonthorstadt:
siegeonthorstadt Featured By Owner Feb 1, 2013
cant* at the jewish sentence
Reply
:iconsiegeonthorstadt:
siegeonthorstadt Featured By Owner Feb 1, 2013
thats the beauty of it! they can disagree! in my country everybody has to agree with the governing party after they have been elected by "democratic" means. when the members of two opposing parties clash hundreds of people get wounded. but in america if youre a socialist under bush regime all you will get is a scorn or a curse or insult. thats the difference. sure, there are political frictions, like no president can get elected without the approval of the jewish lobby etc but at least the average citizen doesnt suffer from the threat of imprisionment etc when they take a political side.
Reply
:icondivine--apathia:
divine--apathia Featured By Owner Feb 2, 2013  Hobbyist Photographer
There is a difference between being allowed to disagree and working together, and being spiteful and cutting off your nose to spite your face
Reply
:iconsiegeonthorstadt:
siegeonthorstadt Featured By Owner Feb 2, 2013
I also did watch a woman on the american tv who was talking about the healthcare bill. she was a right winger. she actually said that her child was chronically sick, they had already spent tens of thousands of dollars for his treatment and they would spent much more, and probably a similar disease will also be found at her and her husband, but she said she choose to have things this way! she didnt want to get rid of her costs! she actually said that things like the healthcare bill were socialist (she went red while trying to pronounce this devilish word) stock and she just didnt want it. she stood for romney (the battle of pre-elections) and all his crap, because it was her choice!

so yeah i see your point. but i dont think people like this can even organize a division either.
Reply
:iconcenaris:
Cenaris Featured By Owner Feb 1, 2013
Because it was a stupid idea that destabilizes the country. Remember when all those slave owning states decided they wanted to do the same thing back in the 1800s?
Reply
:iconswordofscotland:
SwordOfScotland Featured By Owner Feb 1, 2013
Yeah, like the slave owning states that remained in the Union, too.
Reply
:icondivine--apathia:
divine--apathia Featured By Owner Feb 1, 2013  Hobbyist Photographer
Having two sides who'd rather cut off their nose to spite their face ruins the country too. It basically puts the country into a state of strange limbo. You're a land of contradictory extremes. You can't say 'christmas' or 'easter' in schools, but Christianity controls who is allowed to get married.
Reply
:iconswordofscotland:
SwordOfScotland Featured By Owner Feb 1, 2013
I would go out of my way to say "Christmas" or "Easter" if I were on school grounds.
Reply
:iconcenaris:
Cenaris Featured By Owner Feb 1, 2013
That's a real bugger, isn't it? Removing religion from politics would be an ideal start though.
Reply
:icondivine--apathia:
divine--apathia Featured By Owner Feb 1, 2013  Hobbyist Photographer
It's a vicious circle, really. People don't like Christianity controlling their lives, so they try to pass any law that will remove Christianity's choke hold, even if it's a stupid, little thing that's more cultural than christian. But the Christians feel threatened by this, and so they hold on tighter to their traditions, and more concrete (IE, in laws). This leads us straight back to the start, with people feeling like they are being controlled by Christians.

I really can't see how it's going to get better. The anti-religious will put in more anti-religious laws, so the Christians will put in more pro-christian laws, and it just will build and build and build
Reply
Add a Comment: