If each of the 50 States of the United States (Including The District of Columbia and Puerto Rico.) all became individual and independent sovereign states, which one(s) would thrive economically and culturally? Which one(s) would garner a true sense of community and would have low crime rates? Which would be the freest and which the most well off?
Which would not thrive?
utah could possibly become the theocratic nation of "deseret", as the mormons originally intended. but i feel like so many mormons lack devotion and would prefer staying secular.
in any case, i'm sure utah would thrive from an economic standpoint. utah has plenty of brilliant scientists and engineers, powering the technology and medical industries. and a good amount of natural resources too.
Washington would probably split up after breaking off.
Western washington is the liberal capital of the world with a handful of libertarians while eastern washington is right as fuck.
Would become separate.
No idea how they would fair economically. Eastern has all the exports (grain, cherries, apples etc) so they would be fine. Western would fuck itself over with healthcare and other liberal bullshit
Nevada and Arizona would probably end up forming militias to take control of the Hoover Dam, whoever ended up controlling it would effectively rule the Southwest and make California its bitch. It's probably the single most valuable resource in that entire region.
This is a significant consideration.
The Untied States is home to an interesting cultural dissonance that divides the cities from the rural areas.
Seattle is a particularly arrogant, chauvinistic urban area that is quick to raise it's proverbial bridges. I could actually see them scrambling a coast guard and attempting to become a city state.
These political dissonances between urban and rural would be significant in other areas as well. Southern Illinois has more in common with Kentucky than it does with Chicago and that state might not be able to mend that divide in the wake of a failed Federal union.
Things like this start becoming complicated when it's time to consider railroad property and rights of way or rights of way and juris dictions along the Mississippi and it's ports.
A lot of regions would have to hit the ground running on their plans to make nice and trade.
Currency issues would be interesting to watch play out.
The border states would have a nearly inevitable resolve to form their own union and I think they'd be quick to invite Alaska into that wealthy union.
California would not be annexed into MExico like some here seem to dismiss. It might be in danger of fracturing but Southern California would quickly find a comfortable role among the emerging union of Arizona, New Mexico and Texas. I'd say those states would form a union that would be pretty attractive other states.
Problematic nation states in the former continental 48 would likely be,Northern Illinios and Michigan. If their Federally dependent urban areas began ransoming their routes along important rail lines they would wind up getting invaded by their neighbors who depend on good faith negotiating for interstate shipping. Georgia mgiht be another state that has some civil uhnrest it has to sort through before it can stabilize and trade can normalize.
Water rights issues would come into play as well. Alabama, Georgia and Florida have a water cold war already
>tfw we take over
ALL HAIL THE LOUISIANA EMPIRE
Might not New York depopulate without international banking? Without a nation of 300 million held hostage it would no longer hold the same attraction to international bankers and beyond that I fail to see it's utility. New York would fade into irrelevance. I think the vestiges of global trading would return in the silicon valley, whatever nation state they were a member of. Assuming they didn't become a powerful city state. Shit, Google can field an army of drones. They might not have any interest in joining a small burgeoning nation.
>yfw the federal government fails and the union dissolves only to reunited under the treachery of the Big G.
Texas and Louisiana would be fine. A large part of the South's problems are a result of the feds not letting us do what's necessary to keep the negroes in check (we still do a better job managing our diversity than Yankees and Californians). If Louisiana's whites weren't constrained by the federal government I'm betting that places like New Orleans would become much safer and more attractive places to live (segregating the schools alone would do wonders for the economy since we could attract young people who want to start families).
Hawaii would turn into a shithole, would be at risk of invasion form enwly remilitarized Japan.
I think Florida is a wild card. It seems like it could be a really wealthy little nation state or the next Congo.
Texas probably has the most potential to thrive considering how diverse things are there. Big open fields of nothing, ranches and farms out the ass, major cities, oil rich, Gulf of Mexico and the port of Houston shipping a ton of shit, he'll it even has it's own electrical grid. Most other big states seem to heavily depend on other states in order to make whatever it is they make or do.
California would be the second most likely to succeed in my mind but with the way things are going right now it wouldn't last long, especially with this major drought. They would go poor just by buying water and the major depopulation that would occur/is occurring.
Honestly NJ might
Ports, we get the lowest federal investment /aid to tax paid ratio out of any state so we would have a decent amount of cash all of a sudden, I could be wrong but I think we don't rely on other states for our water, we have fertile land (maybe not enough to feed us though as anymore as we are the most densely populated)
Hell we could also probably annex NYC
Our militia would be armed with sticks though...
If California can remain united (borderline impossible, imo, would require Bismarck-tier bullshit), it would fucking rek everything but Texas. It would face stiff competition from Cascadia (maybe outright invasion), but eventually they'd have to work together to beat Utah/Deseret.
Together, they'd rule the West— provided Texas focused its energies eastward.
>Southern California would quickly find a comfortable role among the emerging union of Arizona, New Mexico and Texas. I'd say those states would form a union that would be pretty attractive other states.
>>34697713 here. Forget what I said. If this happens, Southwest Union becomes the most powerful country in human history. They annex Silicon Valley, reach the Moon in 20 years and eventually collapse in a virtual reality hell.
My greatest dream actually is an independent Georgia. Time and time again I see our representatives go against the national agenda, and we get mocked for it. The only arguement I hear is "But you won't make as much money!", and when I say "So? I'd rather have my culture celebrated and explored rather than minimized for a few dollars".
Free Georgia when.
Minnesota would come under 3M rule with the U of M as its research arm. St. Paul would become a military city.
Most of the states in the south would form a union quick. With all the production and shipping down here we would be fine. If you are by the Mississippi flood plains you will be even better off, no need to import anything food wise.
I have a question, I am about to finish up grad school and I want to move. I was either thinking one or two opitions
Move out west to Washington State and live near Seattle
Move up North to Vermont or New Hampshire for that small town feel.
What is a better idea?
Utah is already self sufficient with water and basically cut off. It would be easy for them to adapt.
California would be screwed as states upstream start sucking all the water out of the Colorado River. Then LA dies.
Puerto Rico would instantly fail, it is too small to function as an independent country. It would just try to find someone else to annex it.
The independent party there is filled with complete retards. Statehood is shit too, property prices would skyrocket. Another commonwealth/colony would be nice, we could keep exporting our worst people, lel.
MN would also be forced to invade Northern Illinois and straighten out Chicago for trying to ransom route access on the Northern Freight lines and the Mississippi.
Minnesota confirmed for Superpower in the North.
if the union came apart, only the most retarded and degenerate of the left (Ex: California) wouldn't go into realist-mode. The end of decadence will wake many up.
The Washington, Oregon, ND, Michigan Alaska would be Canadian
New York would buy New England and survive
Texas conquers NM,AZ, Oklahoma, Kansas, Arkansas, Colorado survives
Nevada, Hawaii teams up with Cali
Porto Rico conquers Cuba, Jamaica, Haiti dies of AIDS
I live in California, and as much as I would love to see us come together under one state, it simply wouldn't happen. In southern California you already have the blacks and the mexicans fighting EACH OTHER, which is weird since they both feel oppressed by white men, but whatever. Then in the north you have asians who have all segregated among their various chingy chongy languages. And surrounding everything is uninhabitable desert. Also, a few pockets of rich white people who could afford to cut themselves off from society. And an ocean -- a fucking ocean -- of liberal college students who have never actually worked a day in their lives.
The other states already hate us. Given the choice, they would probably block trade with us. We have some natural resources, that's definitely true, but it's not enough for all the fucking people we'd have to feed. Once the masses began starving, there would be riots, and you know the rest.
I'd give it a month.
>which one(s) would thrive economically and culturally?
>Most independent as it is (all of Americas agriculture, technology, and entertainment, comes from California)
>Is literally the 9th largest economy on earth by itself
The only challenge to California would be Texas, and Texas is still trailing behind
Seattle is New China, and with Tacoma nearby (Little Somalia) you'll get a daily dose of spearchuckers and rice farmers. Sure there's white businessmen, but there's also the shitty white liberals who crawl out and cumblast you if you're any race but white. Also avoid NWF and Cascadia Now! propaganda you'd see in the city. Both are shit, the difference is one is for a white Cascadian nation, the other is pretty much a SJW Tumblrina run hipster group.
You'll be around a lot nice things though, the water, the malls, all that city shit.
BUT there are plenty of small towns in Washington that are closer to the cascades and away from the cities. I'm talking closer to Mt. Rainier, Mt. Adams, and the rest of the glorious cascades. So pretty much anywhere South of South Hill/Graham and East of Centralia.
Sure you'll be far from the city and stuff (closest small town to anything that slightly resembles a city or town is 30 minutes away), but you'll essentially be innawoods. That means easier access to hunting, fishing, camping, plenty of public access lakes, forest service, and all the good stuff that comes with innawoods.
Over the Cascades it's pretty different. Woods aren't as lush, and it's mostly farming and rolling hills. As for cities Yakima is spic land, but it's still nice, Spokane is your best bet for a city out there. I don't know much about the small towns out East. It's all pretty conservative compared to the Western Cities.
OR you can save yourself the trouble with all that and do whatever you wanted to do in Vermont or New Hampshire, I don't know shit about those states.
I lived in VA for a couple years, pretty shit experience.
tl;dr If you move to Washington stay the fuck away from the peninsula and the Puget Sound area, come to the woods or go out East. I don't know fuck about the East coast apart from VA.
Spokanite here. There's nothing more glorious than being in a 90% white city, with rich farmland to the South, mineral rich wilderness to the North, and natural waterfalls right in the middle of the downtown area, all with an urban area of ~300,000, if you include the various towns that got engulfed by our city.
This shit's been addressed. There are some adversarial urban areas that would be able to field a reasonable defense force and go full nation state. There are others that would sustain a good rapport with their rural areas and keep their state in tact and lend stability to their region and then there are those idiot cities who would crumble under the corruption and piracy of local nigger warlords. These places would be invaded by strong, adjacent states with an interest in keeping ports, rails and highways open and safe for interstate commerce.
Like this guys says, the cities would have to abandon a great deal of their attitude and decadence on day one of a collapse.
Except he's wrong about California. People from outside California usually are wrong about California. There would be numerous wild card states in the wake of California's collapse but one of the strongest new nations would assuredly include a huge portion of the former California. IMO anyway.
Just about any state in the midwest would be the best off.
>Plenty of Oil
>Only places in Americs with any culture anyway
Basically the only thing we wouldnt have is seafood, but we have spoonbill and catfish for that.
In all honesty? Most US states couldn't go it alone for various reasons, mostly related to massively interlinked economies and power grids and so on. I expect that you'd soon see new federations forming, probably roughly along the lines of the Nine Nations of North America:
- New England
- The Foundry
- The Breadbasket
- The Islands
- The Empty Quarter
(Obviously Quebec would be omitted from this since Canada isn't also breaking up)
California is the most succesful state right now
>largest port in the world
>central valley produces 25% of America's agriculture
>Hollywood and tourism bring in billions of shekels
I feel sorry for flyover states that have nothing to offer
NEW HAMPSHIRE WOULD WIN EVERYTHING
>LIBERTARIAN MOVEMENTS all over the state
>MOSTLY WHITE, THEREFORE LOW CRIME AND ACTUALLY WORKING PEOPLE
>TAXES WOULD BE REDUCED TO THE POINT OF ONLY MAINTAINING ROADS AND SCHOOLING
IT WOULD BE A BASTION OF FREEDOM AND PROSPERITY!
But really, yes. If California became a sovereign country right now, it would be a G7 nation. Its GDP (~2 trillion) is greater than that of Canda's. In fact it would displace Canada from the G7 entirely. Either that or it would become the G8 again.
>Texas and Louisiana would be fine. A large part of the South's problems are a result of the feds not letting us do what's necessary to keep the negroes in check (we still do a better job managing our diversity than Yankees and Californians)
Texas has a bigger prison system than California, yet Texas has 10 million less people than the state of California
Los Angeles has a MUCH lower crime rate than Houston, yet Houston has 1.6 million less people than California
Texas is also home to a transnational drug cartel that was responsible for making Juarez the most violent city in the world from 2008 to 2010.
The hispanics have nicely integrated and despite what people seem to think, Florida has a large industrial base as well as a tourism economy and suitable conditions for most crops. I think the Gulf states should start a union, it would be glorious. My guess is that the entire Southeast region up to the Carolinas would form a union due to homogeneity in the region
California alone is responsible for 10% of our entire military, Texas is the only other state with a double digit % contribution to the armed forces
California has tons of military bases all over the state (the Mars rover was partly built at Ames in Silicon Valley and JPL in L.A.), some of the most sophisticated bases are located in San Diego and Coronado
we could invade Arizona, Oregon, Nevada and Colorado if we wanted too
we sustain the economy
the rest of you live off of us
the state of california is highly in debt.
i'm also going to go ahead and take a guess and say that this image your posting doesn't include the fact that the federal government has jurisdiction over certain land in each state where they are getting "tax allotments". similar images have been passed all throughout leftist websites claiming that right-leaning states are a drain on the US, while ignoring the federal assets in each state. doesn't surprise me that leftists don't understand the bigger picture and would rather have a catchy image to defend their perspective
>the state of california is highly in debt.
No its not
what a surprise, the person from commiefornia immediately posted the leftist propaganda! >>34706482
i've posed this challenge many times, can you tell me what usable commodity rhode island produces?
>what a surprise, the person from commiefornia immediately posted the leftist propaganda!
Hate to sound like a fag from "Communistfornia" or whatever, but Cali isn't all Leftist propaganda mang, the truth is that large cities attract liberals, this is true anywhere in the world, there are plenty of Republic places in CA, Orange County has been voting republican for 60 years and we're second in population to LA county, Calis a really big place brosef
i don't disagree that there are different cultures existing in CA that have different views, especially when you compare the rural parts of CA to the more urban areas like los angeles, but the fact is that CA is in more debt than the states in the area that consistently vote red, such as arizona and utah. of course fresno is different than los angeles.
this is not debt^
I know you're enjoying funposting, but you're just cherrypicking and strawmanning, attempting to "inflate" yourself over your state's importance.
>Comparing Fresno to LA
Fresno is nowhere near the size of LA dude
LA, Chicago, New York, all the big players, are all Liberal, its just how cities are
>when you compare the rural parts of CA to the more urban areas like los angeles,
HAHAHAHAHAHA! You're fucking stupid
Who is enforcing collection on this theoretical debt.
All of the states are in varying degrees of debt but that money is bye-bye once the fed collapses and the union dissolves. China will definitely be tempted to come calling for some of that but that's just when the real fun starts. How many of the nation states in the former union are nuclear? Who walks away with all of the insane defense tech? Colorado, California, Massachusetts, Virginia, Nevada. Who am I forgetting?
What new nation states would be problems? Who would be the first one that gets too disruptive and uncooperative and gets it's ass kicked into line?
yet the state of texas is still in less debt than the state of california per capita....
can you tell me what essential commodities that chicago and new york produce? i asked this about rhode island as a response to this image >>34706482 and no one replied.
maybe you can help. what essential commodity are the cities you mentioned known for? while you're at it, what about rhode island? what commodity are they providing with the US?
i'm sure you can answer, since i'm "stupid"
stopped reading there, because you just demostrated that you don't understand the history of debt in the US. nice try though.
>Who walks away with all of the insane defense tech?
south carolina. are you even trying?
>he doesn't know that the federal government owns around 50% of each state in the west
fucking really m8? did you also not know about military assets in each state, notably in the east?
California and Texas have mutual security interests. The idea of them as anything but a coalition that involves Arizona and New Mexico is silly. I'd fiugure Nevada comes along in that union as a diplomatic solution to any contesting over Hoover Dam. Also the fact that they might inherit some legacy war tech makes them an attractive acquisition, but beyond that, not a big asset.
nigger, OC is home to Disneyland, Boeing, and shit it's not even a city, they have miles of farmland and miles of city, you're criticizing shit you don't even bother looking up, typical southerner
>The idea of them as anything but a coalition that involves Arizona and New Mexico is silly
>home of the most secretive federal establishments should be excluded
why exactly do you continuously show off your ignorance?
you're also forgetting that politics in california and texas are vastly different. california is more closely related, politically, to nevada and new mexico, while texas, arizona and utah are generally on the same page. not surprisingly, texas, arizona and utah also have less debt per capita than california. i wonder if there's a correlation...
but keep avoiding the question. i'm sure eventually you'll tell me what rhode island, chicago and new york city produce as a usable commodity that benefits the union, right?
that's bigger in south carolina, not orange county.
sure thing. china has been in debt to the US since WWII, however, they defaulted on the debt and we did not "collect" the debt. after EO6102, when the feds seized gold from american citizens to move away from the gold standard, we gave a fuck ton of it to china to stabilize their economy. not only that, but we also had the federal reserve give the chinese government billions of dollars to help inflate their economy, and american investors also spent a fortune on chinese government bonds to support the war effort. china has repaid $0 of the economic efforts america helped china with. anyone who has followed history knows that china cannot do anything to the US.
sorry, these conversations get heated when leftists tend to think they're more essential to the US, when their only commodity is propaganda.
Bro, you literally just threw buzzwords and asked why nobody answered your questions about Rhode Island and shit, you could be a little less obvious with the samefagging, especially since its literally you vs like 2 other people
>thinking that only one person on /pol/ hates the federal government and leftist propaganda that acts as a parasite on american thought
there are stockpiles of transformers and equipment, as well as places in which these things are manufactured, that would be hotly contested. Their mere existence, however, would allow many more to succeed. even if most states didnt have a largely independent grid, then there would prolly be some form of regional cooperation on that.
also, for the record, since moot added the ability to choose our flags, i would never not use the confederate flag.
fuck off federalists. my family has been at war with you faggots for hundreds of years.
i really don't care what you think, everything i say can be confirmed on your own. the fact is that there is an ideological war in the US, and i've drawn my line in the sand as to where i stand.
Who would be problem states right off the bat? Is it an accurate assumption that there would be some very disruptive, myopic new regimes who make it rougher for the neighbors in their region? Could things get bad enoughy, fast enough to merit military solutions from thos states?
I'm the MNfag retard, and the southern dude made a series of legit points.
btw, as for the RI thing, we make 3/4 of the nations iron, lots of steel, and are about to produce a shit ton of copper/nickel/other metals with the opening of some new mines over the next few years.
arizona is the only state in recent history to threaten to use force against the federal government, but whether or not you consider that "disruptive" or an expression of the freedom of the citizens in the state is up for you to determine.
lel, 19 seconds off, I don't believe you
nice try, samefag
>By all means Nevada will just cut power to your southwest thus crippling California's lower half where most military is stationed.
We'll just use our massive oil reserves to keep us going while our already active massive solar and wind farms take the edge off
We'd annex AZ and NV and the Hoover damn will be ours
are you fucking crazy? what, do you think our borders are meant to keep out fucking mexicans? no, faggot, we don't want to deal with your toxic leftist ideology. arizona would never side with california in a federal crisis where lines in the sand would be drawn. all you have to do is look at the recent political history of each state to realize that arizona and utah would willingly side with TX and would likely be considered "enemies" of CA
California would dominate everything.
>but muh libruls
look at it like this: Califaggots are massive dumbasses that are slavishly loyal to the hand that feeds them. Considering that CA is home to the majority of the air force and the navy, as well as where the NSA launches all of their rockets, California would become an uncontrollable monster that would take over the entire pacific
all jokes aside, FEMA is already deployed in most rural parts of the state and the feds are taking over your typical policing duties because sheriffs have no money. ITS HAPPENINGS
Naw, we're all handling it fine actually, in fact, we're still running at 60 percent of our full reserves, which isn't good, but it isn't bad either, I just bought like several gallons of fresh water from the store, and water prices aren't through the roof, the media loves making things seem bad
North Dakota, if only because 1/3 of the US Nuke arsenal is here, and in an extreme balkanization case like this, we would magically become the second largest nuclear force in the world with only Russia in the lead ( since theres no more US to have to be behind in this scenario).
We promise to use our power for good. Like nuking Detroit then suing Michigan for a peace treaty.
>>WE PRAIRIE PAKISTAN NAO
>thinking texas would give up the opportunity to ally with a state riddled with gold, silver and copper mines that is also filled with farmland which results in cheap produce and meat to the population of said area
you're absolutely fucking insane, leftist. with the resources and labor force arizona has and the general political ideology of each state in question, there's no question AZ would rather side with TX over CA in a civil war, and TX would likely be happy to accept a state with the most lenient gun laws, plenty of farm land and work force providing affordable (and tax free) food to the population, and large resource of precious metals.
if you think TX would just give up their rightful claim to alliance with certain western states, you're absolutely insane, and this is after i consider recent political differences between each state (which arise from federal laws)
>historically low rainfall
>less water than usual
>you must be wasting it
so are you just fucking stupid or what, there simply is no new water like there typically has been
true, maybe it will get worse or maybe not, we're just cautiously optimistic for a little rainfall right now
California exports more fruits and vegetables than any other state, its one of our many keys to our success
you make it sound like California and Texas would fight, at all
both are filled with spics, both rely on defense spending and oil revenues, and both hold spaceports and the infrastructure required to run a space program
they're different sides of the same coin. If the US ever did balkanize, rural Californians and rural Texans would have no issues joining forces against the cosmopolitans inside of Houston and San Francisco
the upper Colorado Rivers states would not thrive, because they would be invaded by California to secure its full water allotment
are you seriously this fucking retarded, PG&E now charges $200+ if you don't cut 20%. Likewise if you're seen as a "high capacity user" you get assraped with fines for not cutting your use
true, but a drought in the west also doesn't mean we have no access to water either, it just means it hasn't rained in awhile and if we run out of reserves then we'll have to spend a little more importing water, no big deal
>rural Californians and rural Texans would have no issues joining forces against the cosmopolitans
i don't doubt this, but, based on recent political trends, it would appear that urban california has more of a voice than rural california, and that the true voice of texas is louder than urban texas. that's what my assumptions are based on.
although you may be right to say that true voice of each state may topple the urban areas, though in california it appears to be unlikely, much like nevada with the vegas influence, which is why i brought vegas up in the same place.
tl;dr $500 monthly fines if you go over your allotment, and it doesn't go down unless you take and pass a two week water conservation class and install low-flow appliances (with an inspection of course)
I rent, so my manager takes care of the apartments water supply, but he never complained about my water usage once, and I use it regularly like a normal person
I think you literally have to be splurging gallons upon gallons of water without giving a shit before PG&E complains
the only place in California where there is "free water" is in the departures area of SFO, but that's after the security checkpoint and it's run by a private company
what makes you think that we don't fence off our reservoirs and rivers here?
>water is cheap and plentiful in places that rain
you mean 2000 miles away? you realize that would fuckin break our rail network, and the price will skyrocket. say goodbye to breadbasket California.
Do the States get to Join together? New England all decides to unite under the MA flag. Northern California, WA, and OR already want to be a state (or some want to) with the Cascadia idea.
Most states would be fucked though. And they are the ones crying to secede the loudest. How about kicking states out? Which ones would get their card pulled first? I could do without FLA.
While not all of them are, a lot of southern states have had their economies in the shitter for decades and this is in spite of far less regulation then the northern states they're always sucking the teat of like parasites. They'd rife with poor people. I think they'd fall apart without the wealthier northern states always bailing them out. Again they already have far like government regulation, oversight, and union stuff and this hasn't helped them one bit.
I'm from Los Angeles and I am not a leftist, am not non-white and I can tell you that Southern California is very confusing to people who aren't from here. There is nuance that can't easily be nutshelled.
California would balkanize. Los Angeles would still maintain it's level of regional influence. It's nothing like your Chicagos and Minneapolis and NYC or any of those leftist metros. Save for blacks (who've actually decreased by over 2% in numbers and been scattered from their former strongholds) and the limousine liberals in Malibu, L.A. is as conservative as Arizona or Texas. Northern California would be left to it's own devices but Southern California, in my opinion would be drawn to any suggestion of an alliance with the Southwest region. It has more in common with the Southwest and Texas than it does with Northern California. Even Central California has more in common with that region than it does with the Bay and the North.
>I can tell you that Southern California is very confusing to people who aren't from here.
i lived in part of the area during the rodney king riots in a wealthy, upper class, white neighborhood. you are right that parts of the area are generally conservative, especially the area i lived in (i had a black man try to break into our neighborhood that had a catholic church and the neighborhood was surrounded by a barbed wire fence, he nearly died during his attempt and my catholic father weened him back to life while he was bleeding to death while all of our neighbors pulled out their arsenal more threatening than the arsenal the SWAT had).
what you say might have some truth to it, but i still cannot deny the overwhelmingly apparent election results of the area. maybe the neighborhood i lived in wasn't a fluke and that all affluent neighborhoods in the area are similar, but i don't buy it. southern california would need to prove itself, like it did up until the 50s in national elections, before i buy that conservative states in the area would ever support the real population of the area.
The south would immediately toss the constitution cuz it was made by a bunch of yankees which wore wigs and such then impose some fundie bible version of sharia law. The northwest and some of northern CA would do fine supplying weed to the rest of the country. Kansa, Iowa, Idaho, the farmlands band together with Colorado in charge of the armed forces and arms manufacture. Mississippi, Louisiana default to niggers.For 90% of FLA nothing changes. The I-95 megalopisis-from Boston to Atlanta including NYC would make an alliance. A lot of politics and infighting but would stand against outside threat. Would make treaties with Europe first.Chicago Detroit Gary and Flint become Nation of Islam. It's decided to let it stand for containment purposes. Tejas goes to war with Mexico. Forever. Population is happy.
Philadelphia probably joins the I-95 alliance. The rest falls into a Dark Ages feudal set-up.
In addition to everything you said, we also have the best tomatoes in the country and are, I believe, the third largest producers of cranberries. Along with leaving us with some food, it should leave us in a position to negotiate with the south for other shit, including the real weapons we'd need to annex New England in Chris Christie's glorious name
Its funny, because I'm positive a blue-pilled state like Massachusetts would murk most red pill states in terms of low crime rates, freedoms and standard of living for the average person
Texas would do well because it is like a whore that will sell her body until it is all used up. That and they have low tax rates and land and politicians are relatively cheap. Texas is a good environment for businesses, but i fear most of the rest of the south is not. /pol/hicks weep red tears at this news
This makes me wanna do a risk thread. Here's an earlier map of what /b/ did. I'm green, got completely destroyed by orange and red who turned out to be the same player.
The former US would look something closer to this Probably
Hawaii is one of the few states that used to be a separate country before the US annexed it. I think they'd do about on-par with the south pacific nations. Not great, but not third world.
Why do people believe that the East Coast is all some monolithic culture? You know New England has next to nothing in common with, say, South Carolina or Georgia, right? Hell, even within New England there are huge cultural divides.
I don't know what part of Florida you're from, but on the south-west part of it, most of the hispanics are day-laborer mexicans who don't speak english. I also lived in Miami for a few years, and the whole county is pretty much either Cubans who either speak no or very poor english, Haitians who only speak French, and nig-nogs. I got discriminated against a lot being a tall aryan who doesn't speak spanish.
Illinois would be fine, and depending on our relations with the neighboring Great Lakes states they would do fine as well.
I feel bad for the poor sons of bitches that we dump our niggers on.
You can actually predict which countries are doing great in the world by the amount of Anglo-Saxons vs amount of whites va everything else.
I am sure you could do the same with whites and the states