(09-30-2019 10:52 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I don't think there is any doubt that 1) Trump will be impeached, democrats have simply painted themselves into a corner where they have to do it, and 2) Trump will not be removed by the senate.

If Trump were removed--or possibly if he is not--I think it could trigger a huge split. I am just afraid that the NE and west coast simply do not have enough in common with flyover country to coexist. Interestingly, Canada is experiencing a severe rift between Alberta and the eastern part of the country, with the other prairie provinces leaning toward Alberta. The west has been subsidizing the unholy alliance that was brokered by Ontario to keep Quebec from seceding. Alberta is already entertaining active secession talk, which is legal in Canada. If they leave, then Ontario and Quebec are going to need to partner with somebody who can support their deal financially. I could see a split where:
1) the northeastern US allies with eastern Canada, basically everybody from Maryland north and everybody who borders on the Great Lakes,
2) California, Oregon, and Washington, either ally with 1), or form their own,
3) Heartland, the remaining US states, along with Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Manitoba, join together.

There are a few questions. One, the Canadian provinces in general have more social services than in the US, but in the Canadian system those are pretty much all provincial, and they could keep them. Their big thing is to get away from the money drain of supporting Quebec. Two, there are a few US states that might be questionable which way they go--Virginia, Iowa, Alaska--and some Canadian provinces/territories as well--BC, Yukon, Nunavit, NW Territories. I because of the DC establishment, I would expect VA to go with the NE states, and I would expect IA and AK to go with the Heartland. My guess is that BC would go with CA/OR/WA, Nunavit would go with ON/QB/Maritimes/US northeast, and Yukon and NW Territories would probably go with AB/SK/MB.

I don't want this to happen, but I think it is becoming inevitable. In thinking about it, I think any one of the three would be a better place to live than the US if we remain as divided as we are. Each country would have a major navigable inland waterway--Mississippi/Missouri in Heartland, Great Lakes/St. Lawrence in the NE, and Columbia on the west coast.

In this sort of split and alliance, I can see where the presence of the Canadian provinces would nudge Heartland toward a bigger and broader social safety net, probably along European social democrat lines of basically a capitalist economy with a safety net--I could see a compromise like replacing current welfare with a universal basic income and adding Bismarck health care. I would expect the east and west coasts, independently or together, to move toward a massive redistribution scheme along lines proposed by democrats. If that happens, then over time I would expect to see a migration of wealth to Heartland from the others.

One problem Heartland would have is the lack of a major financial center. That is one big reason why we hear the oft-repeated rhetoric about which states are givers and which states are takers. Money gravitates toward financial centers. I could see several viable candidates--Charlotte (which is already a significant domestic banking center), Atlanta, Miami (with its Latin American connections), Houston (with oil and gas plus international connections), and Dallas or Denver (with connections to mid-continent energy and agricultural sectors). Because so much of the value is created in Heartland, there would certainly be an attraction to create a financial center somewhere.

If 1) and 2) ally, they would have the inevitable problems of geographic split. And if Alaska joined Heartland but Yukon and NWT did not join along with AB/SK/MB, both countries would have that problem.

So what you are saying is the communist invaders in the movie Red Dawn were actually the east and west coast communist invading the heartland.....we win that battle.