CreateDebate


Debate Info

2
4
Yes No
Debate Score:6
Arguments:6
Total Votes:8
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Yes (2)
 
 No (3)

Debate Creator

Grenache(6053) pic



Should there be a Bluexit?

Bluexit is the Blue voting (Democrat/Liberal) US states looking out for themselves instead of the nation as a whole.  It is not about total physical secession, but more endorsing the small government and low/no taxes push of the Red voting states and then using Blue state resources to help themselves thrive as hypothetically the Red states are on their own. 

Yes

Side Score: 2
VS.

No

Side Score: 4
0 points

https://newrepublic.com/article/140948/bluexit-blue-states-exit-trump-red-america

Despite the misinformation campaigns claiming the poor and the immigrants in the big blue cities are where all our money goes it's actually red states which absorb the most federal assistance. The bill of goods to cut taxes to the bone and make government as small as possible will actually hurt the red states more. Don't agree? Well, you don't have to. Basically the argument is we give you what you want and then we use our states rights to run our blue state worlds they way they should, and we'll have more resources because we can keep it in our own neighborhoods. Sounds good. We don't even have to physical separate. No civil war is necessary. We just let you do your thing and see where it all ends up in 10 years.

Hey, by the way, where is all of Trump's property located? Blue land. As he gets his and brings it home and starts to spend it where do you think he's going to spend it? Do you think he is opening a luxury hotel in Topeka? Nope

Side: Yes
2 points

I love the idea of localism, though I would suggest it be done on a state by state level so that greater diversity of opinion can be represented. It still necessitates a common army though, in addition to interaction between police forces.

The only problem with the idea of doing this based on political alignment is that liberals and conservatives prop each other up. A liberal is more likely to be a company's founder, but a conservative is more likely to be a CEO. As such, the interplay between these individuals does help society as a whole. In addition, while liberals generally innovate improvements for society, conservatives keep the extant society stable. If we had only conservatives society would progress slowly, but if we had only liberals society wouldn't be stable. These differences stem from temperamental differences between conservatives and liberals. For example conservatives are higher in trait conscientiousness (industriousness) and liberals are higher in trait openness (creativity).

As such, I believe the interplay between liberals and conservatives produces a better society than one consisting merely of one or the other. I do however believe more localized government is a good thing, allowing greater representation.

Side: No
0 points

Agreed, and I'm not really even trying to make this a Liberal vs Conservative thing. It takes all kinds to balance and run a place. What I reject is the total lack of balance in the extreme conservative policy points. But hey, if they want to go there, ultimately those policies favor the blue states more than the red anyway.

Side: No
Grenache(6053) Clarified
1 point

Just adding a source on which states are propped up the most financially...

https://wallethub.com/edu/states-most-least-dependent-on-the-federal-government/2700/

Looks like Maine is just about the only blueish state in the top half of the biggest recipients.

Side: Yes
1 point

And yet another source showing Blue states benefit more from Trump plans than the Red, and giving solid rationale for why that is.

http://www.insidesources.com/blue-state-tax-reform-gop-plan/

Side: Yes

If the blue states were to resend their obligations to the rest of the country then the red states would implode. California alone accounts for 13% of federal funds. The red states would fall into third world status if there was a Bluexit.

Side: No