Congrats Indiana, you've reached a new low.

In light of the rescent election:

Peacefully grant the State of Indiana to withdraw from the United States of America and create its own NEW government.

It won't ever happen. They wouldn't know what to do with themselves.

But wait, would I need a passport to go to the grocery store now?

Yeah, I wouldn't worry about it. Everyone in Indiana with a computer has already signed it.

I like the idea that a bunch of people from other states have signed it, as if to say, "Yes, we all agree it would be a really good idea if Indiana left the union."

Do they honestly think that even has a snowballs chance in hell of panning out? Or are they just trying to make a statement? Puerto Rico wants to join the union, they want to leave it...

clockbreaker wrote:Do they honestly think that even has a snowballs chance in hell of panning out? Or are they just trying to make a statement? Puerto Rico wants to join the union, they want to leave it...

I think it is comical when States or Provinces try to separate. To me, it is similar to a kid in a decent family running away from home. Just ridiculous.



Quebec has been trying to leave Canada since The late 70's. In 1995 they had a vote with 49.4% wanting to separate. I am not sure what would have happened if they received .7% more of the vote.

God I hope that happens. Then we, the United States, can take our military and invade the new nation of Indiana, of which would have no military, take it back and ship all of the people who live there to Haiti or something.

Talon wrote:God I hope that happens. Then we, the United States, can take our military and invade the new nation of Indiana, of which would have no military, take it back and ship all of the people who live there to Haiti or something.

Can Ohio Be first?

I like how a bunch of the far right wingers think this is news, and may happen.

that's disappointing.

in related news, I recently saw a car with a bumper sticker with Texas on it that said in big bold letters "SECEDE NOW!"

yes, because we didn't learn anything from the Civil War.

This caught my eye yesterday.

Dammit Indiana, we thought you were cool.

I find something odd about US politics....

In the UK, and many other places, the lower echelons of society always vote for the socialists, as you would expect. More free stuff on welfare, and the rich pay for it all, basically.

But in the US, its the other way round??

Pennzoil GT-R wrote:I find something odd about US politics....

In the UK, and many other places, the lower echelons of society always vote for the socialists, as you would expect. More free stuff on welfare, and the rich pay for it all, basically.

But in the US, its the other way round??

I've always found that in the US (and Canada) it's largely geographic as opposed to class based voting. In California, for instance, on the coast and in the big cities the rich and the poor vote towards the left. While towards the central valley / in the rural regions the total vote moves to the right. There being so many more people on the coast and in the cities California usually goes for the Democracts by 15 - 25 percent. In other States, say Texas or the other fly-overs. It's the other way around. Both the poor and the rich vote towards the right. In Canada it's the same thing. Alberta goes to the right - rich, poor, rural urban. Doesn't matter (unless your on / near a University campus).

JaysonAych wrote:

Yeah, I wouldn't worry about it. Everyone in Indiana with a computer has already signed it.

I like the idea that a bunch of people from other states have signed it, as if to say, "Yes, we all agree it would be a really good idea if Indiana left the union."

haha yeah - I seem to recall reading that in Canada, support for Quebec separating was actually just as high in the rest of Canada as it was in Quebec itself. Fantastic.

thewalrus wrote:

Pennzoil GT-R wrote:I find something odd about US politics....

In the UK, and many other places, the lower echelons of society always vote for the socialists, as you would expect. More free stuff on welfare, and the rich pay for it all, basically.

But in the US, its the other way round??

I've always found that in the US (and Canada) it's largely geographic as opposed to class based voting. In California, for instance, on the coast and in the big cities the rich and the poor vote towards the left. While towards the central valley / in the rural regions the total vote moves to the right. There being so many more people on the coast and in the cities California usually goes for the Democracts by 15 - 25 percent. In other States, say Texas or the other fly-overs. It's the other way around. Both the poor and the rich vote towards the right. In Canada it's the same thing. Alberta goes to the right - rich, poor, rural urban. Doesn't matter (unless your on / near a University campus).

I just find it weird. Why would the rich vote for socialists that plan to reduce their wealth and give it to others? Why would the poor vote for someone who wants to make the rich richer?

It's more like the poor white people want to vote for making the rich richer. They tend to vote Republican because their platform has included stripping away government benefits, and poor racist white people think this means those confounded lazy blacks and Mexicans will no longer be suckling off the teat of Uncle Sam and get off their asses and get jobs. Even though more white people actually get government benefits than any of the minority groups. Also, they've been given a snow job for decades that if we'd just let the rich have all the money they'll create jobs, so we have to lower taxes more and cut spending for frivolous things like healthcare and social services. Despite the fact taxes are at some of their lowest rates in modern American history, especially in the upper brackets, and corporations are taking in record profits but still aren't creating jobs.

Short answer: It's fucked up.

I'm sure it's the same in the UK. It's not the poor, it's the rural people who are afraid of change and generally less educated that vote for the conservative parties. They tend to think the country needs protection from more liberal views on progress.
On the other side, inner city rich are generally well educated and won't automatically vote for lower taxes if it means compromising social positions on abortion/minority rights/war etc. There's also an economic incentive for rich people not to vote for a party that is likely to destabilise a country through war or income imbalance.

The only reason the UK may be an exception for voting demographics is that half the rural people are probably from Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales and want independence. For all I know these regions hate the Tories.

Swerve wrote:I'm sure it's the same in the UK. It's not the poor, it's the rural people who are afraid of change and generally less educated that vote for the conservative parties. They tend to think the country needs protection from more liberal views on progress.
On the other side, inner city rich are generally well educated and won't automatically vote for lower taxes if it means compromising social positions on abortion/minority rights/war etc. There's also an economic incentive for rich people not to vote for a party that is likely to destabilise a country through war or income imbalance.

The only reason the UK may be an exception for voting demographics is that half the rural people are probably from Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales and want independence. For all I know these regions hate the Tories.

You can split the groups pretty easily.

Labour (socialist):
People on welfare, who don't want their free stuff taken away.
Low earners, who want tax cuts for the poor (them) and tax hikes for the rich
Students, who think everyone should be equal, until they start having to work for their money and start getting pissed off at paying for the above two categories.
Immigrants, who are allowed a tonne of freedoms that the conservatives try to take away.
People in Unions, because they want to keep their guaranteed pay rises and low pressure jobs.

Conservatives (conservative, funnily enough):
High earners, because they want to pay less tax to pay for the low earners and those on welfare (who in the UK are largely just lazy to work)
Middle earners, because they get annoyed at having to use their not enormous income to pay for the lazy.
Old people, because they still think voting Conservative will keep the immigrants out.


The 2nd point on the Conservatives is a major reason why i left the UK.

so in other words, it's pretty much exactly like it is in the US.

Yo dawg, we put a petition in your petition so we can secede while you secede.

http://jezebel.com/5960413/texas-trying-to-secede-from-union-austin-trying-to-secede-from-texas

Austin Texas continues to suffer difficulties stemming from the lack of civil, religious, and political freedoms imposed upon the city by less liberally minded Texans. It is entirely feasible for Austin to operate as its own state, within the United States, in the event that Texas is successful in the current bid to secede. It is important for Austin to remain in the union as to do so would protect it's citizens' standard of living and re-secure their rights and liberties in accordance with the original ideas and beliefs of our founding fathers.

We would also like to annex Dublin Texas, Lockhart Texas, & Shiner Texas.

It's sad when the Capital of Texas, has had enough of Texas.

Austin is cool.

Austin and Amarillo are really the only parts of Texas I enjoy. the rest of it is either hood or cornfields as far as the eye can see.