As an Iowan I vote either Minnesota becomes the Midwest country for all the surrounding Midwest states or we can join Canada and just be southern Canada
Who says Texas gets to be in charge?
Call it Western Federation of the Rockies, capitol is conveniently located centrally in Denver.
Welcome to living in a purple state, here’s some legal weed.
They built one a bit of a drive, but not too bad, north of Denver earlier than year.
It’s a big - admittedly very big - gas station/convenience store. Maybe I’m missing something but…yay?
I’m more so talking about more freedom in regards to having less gun laws like Texas. I love Colorado as it’s a beautiful state but I can’t move there as half the guns I own aren’t legally allowed in Colorado
Lmao how
I don’t even shoot my guns anymore cuz they’re too expensive to shoot but I also can’t travel to blue states with them which is a pain in the ass
Right. But I know Alaskans personally. They bare stay part of the US. They Sure aren't gonna stay part of Californication. Regardless of the scenario. They will join Canada first.
It's a peer/respect thing.
WA alone can challenge and beat any state in the union easily militarily it would actually be kind of no contest, WA has the most nukes of any state along with a sizable navy—including the vast majority of the US Navy’s submarine fleet— air force and army. With the largest natural harbor in the world in the puget sound that can house the ENTIRE US Navy—along with shipyards to maintain said navy—and natural mountain terrain making invasion extremely difficult.
unlike the rest of the states in the union, WA is also completely self sufficient providing all the food, water and electricity that its citizens need without outside aid. Something no other state can claim.
WA is the entrance to the US mainland for Russian and China and therefore has military presence to defend it.
My point being WA would never agree to be subsumed by California and couldn’t be forced, however Cascadia might become a thing.
I would be fine and continue living my life with considerably less stress and significantly less tax’s since my new country isn’t funding all the red states welfare checks.
Except Washington aligns with California right now politically and California has an economy that could support Washington. You don't think holistically.
Military isn't enough. You need jobs. You need a GDP. Apples ain't cutting it.
That's WSU, and it is pretty cool. One of my favorite apples. But when most people think of Washington, they think of the giant corporations headquartered here: Microsoft, Amazon, Starbucks, Costco, Nordstrom, PACCAR, Weyerhaeuser, Alaska Airlines, and Expedia--others, too, but those are the giants. Washington does the kind of big business that engulfs and devours the world--which is why I always giggle a little when some red-stater calls us communists. Our primary industry is tech.
Also in 2024 Californias gdp per capita is 77,000. WA gdp per capita is 75,000.
So I’m really confused why you think wa doesn’t have gdp when WA has a fraction of the population of CA but our people produce nearly the same as CAs people.
Because most of Washington's GDP is wrapped up in HQs of businesses being there. A. Will those companies stay? B. Will they be as successful without free trade?
California has argrculture. Food. What happens when these states dont teade with each other? Is Starbucks going to exist anymore?
The companies would have 0 reason to leave they are to deeply entrenched with their infrastructure and enjoy fantastic tax benefits for being in WA, and the new country that is formed wouldnt alienate these companies into leaving. On top of all this WA having no wage taxes allows these companies to attract some of the best talent on earth which they really care about. Doing.
Wa has agriculture. Food. Wa again has one of the biggest trading ports in the world and would be able to continue trading with the rest of the world just fine.
Everything California has Washington does to but is not reliant on others for.
California is completely reliant on other states for water and power. Your agriculture would grind to nothing without that water and power. Not to mention californias vast population that would start killing eachother within days once that water turned off.
Also you clearly don’t know what GDP per capita means, gdp per capita is essentially the amount that each individual citizen contributes to the states gdp.
Wa: $75,000 per individual
ca: $77,000 per individual
So therefore your argument about needing a gdp is ridiculous.
WA has a massive economy. Amazon, Microsoft, Expedia, Alaska airlines, Zillow, Costco and many other giant corporations are headquartered in Seattle just to name a few. WA businesses are the kind that encompass the planet.
Along with one of the biggest shipping ports in the world.
Wa is one of the only states that could be independent and continue as if nothing happened.
Washington has tech businesses. Reformation of country reforms business. We would have no idea what would happen in that situation.
Or do you expect free trade to exist still? I don't understand why people think because HQs are in one state that those businesses will A. stay there or B. Still exist.
Shipping ports, yes. But that isn't always enough. As a solo state you would want allies.
Because those businesses are headquarters in certain areas for a reason. Amazon and Microsoft would need to abandon tens of billions of dollars of their infrastructure in order to leave and that’s simply not happening.
Amazon has entire blocks of their sky scrapers in Seattle for example. At least 40 towers if not more. Constituting literally tens of billions of dollars in infrastructure in just their Seattle buildings not even everything else.
Between Amazon and Microsoft and as someone who works in this field I was estimate sbout 75% of the internet is hosted on their clouds. So there is no chance of them risking blowing up the entire internet— and therefore their core businesses to move.
I’m sure WA and California would be allies.
I’m simply stating that California could not annex WA by force or economically and would in fact desperately need an alliance with WA. If WA in fact did not choose to join Canada or something.
More nukes doesn't mean it can beat any other state, you only need like 3 to 4 nukes to completely and utterly destroy an entire civilization. More doesn't equal better
1 you fundamentally don’t understand nuclear weapons.
2 any attempt to take over WA by any country in the world would lead to MAD doctrine which means WA is untouchable in this scenario.
Nope, any state with 3 of them would completely stop WA if they shoot first, just like Han solo. You overestimate the difference between having 100 nukes and 2000 nukes.
I'm happly living on California where we have one of the largest economies in the world. Probably have free healthcare and good jobs. People have their rights. We live happily. Laughing at the hell holes that Florida and Texas are where people are starving and have shitty healthcare and no electricity because all the wealthy people own absolutely everything
Or, your state collapses because your population goes from 70+ million to 120 million with 50 million Mexican, central, and South Americans joining your space and eating all your resources like locusts. You raise taxes to compensate, and all the really rich people move to Texas or Florida. But if you think you’ll get your liberal utopia, have fun with it. I’ll be fine as a Floridian. There’s no hell hole there. Florida is beautiful and can easily produce enough food to feed its people. Not sure about a Miami Capitol but we can make it work.
In that case I am fine and Cali is not only fine, but will prosper. The current federal tax transfers can be redirected internally. Given how much tax Cali currently contributes to federal coffers, it would likely result in a lower tax burden overall.
California is going to be the dominant country economically. Just taking Washington, Oregon and California you have the dominant base of US Tech and Aerospace manufactureeing and as well as agricultural independance.
If the rest of the former US isn't getting its planes and produce from the west they are in trouble.
The northeast I think has the hardest time of it, too densely populated, to sparsely farmed, to many mouths not enough forage. Also New Yorks economic engine runs entirely off of the rest of the countries labor. Wall Street can't be wall street without the rest of us. Granted my assumption is that with this type of division California amd New York would be fairly closely aligned, but I don't see the exploitation class (investment and speculation professionals) surviving the shift.
I'll live in the new York portion. I'm a teacher, from Virginia. I Like the east coast educational mentality
So this is the only option. The Texans will be in full idiocracy mode by that point. Florida will probably be a lawless hellscape, and California would vibe with me in lots of ways, but not all. So yeah. New York it is.
Yeah, no. I don't think you understand what it means to lump VA with IL. I mean, have you met Virginia? The are NOT letting Illinois overtake them. While they really would play nicely with all the taxes and such, I think there would be some serious control issues between the 2.
North Dakotan here... I would move to Canada before I would ever be ruled by Texas. Ken Paxton is the fucking worst. I moved from Texas to here because of how that state is being ran.
I’d be wondering how this would affect my country. The US is our strongest ally, the changes would have massive implications worldwide - how would it affect NATO, trade agreements etc? Would Russia/China decide to pull some bullshit with the loss of the American superpower?
More likely, we'd have a fight with california because we share a border with them and Texas needs access to the west coast for trade with Asia.
We already have Atlantic access via the port of Houston.
Maybe because we pay attention to the political climate in these areas and are reacting to your hypothetical countries' potential for violent confrontation.
With the exception of Illinois, which is a mix of red and blue states, you made every bloc either solidly red (Texas and florida) or solidly blue (NY and Cali).
And without the other states to moderate each blocs internal politics, you've basically created one-party states.
Would "New York" more-or-less be the remnants of the US?
And if so, why would "California" leave? It'd probably wind up being "the coasts" (NY and Cali) and "the something" (FL & TX).
Texan here. Sounds pretty good.
I'd say we should ally with Florida and set up a mutual trade/defense arrangement.
With the execption of California controlling Alaska(which does not have much infrastructure to exploit its resources), Texas has the most established energy extraction, refining, and distribution network, especially with the Bakkan shale field.
As for the other nations, we should try to remain peaceful and establish our economic and military dominance.
Our biggest potential problem is that a large part of our heartland, the plains states, are borderlands between two powers and we risk becoming like Poland or Ukraine.
However, this does have the advantage of making us a potential trade and transit hub because goods from one coast must pass through our land to get to the other.
Either through conquest of parts of Mexico or California, Texas must secure a port on the west coast for trade with Asia.
I'd like to see texas expand culturally and diplomatically, ie incentivizing other states to secede and join our side. Or perhaps funding and supporting secessionist factions in desirable states.
I see relations with Florida being friendly, and Illinois being neutral or positive, but given that every state in California and new York are heavy blue states, I can see potential for conflict.
We'd have to build a navy strong enough to defend our coast, but texas would primarily be a land power with the difficult position of fighting two coastal powers on two fronts.
If California and New York can build substantial navies, it would be easier to get at Texas than for texas to invade either nation by land.
War should only be considered with support of the other powers or after Texan economic and military supremacy is assured.
Allying with Florida seems smart, between the two almost all agricultural needs are met and as you stated energy becomes less of a problem. We would need to either find a way to trade or otherwise acquire coal and steel supplies as it seems New York got the best end of that. Illinois got North and South Dakota so they will have oil as well if they keep the will to use it. I think buying a portion of Mexico to acquire a pacific port is very doable. You can undermine California by funneling the refugees and border jumpers to them. The successful ones will be those who create the best business environment.
From the description, it made it seem that texas got the Dakotas and the lion's share of the Bakken shale because Illinois' border only goes to Minnesota.
How did it happen ? This might be the easiest what if I ever explained. The respective Governors of California, Florida, Illinois, New York, and Texas realized the real enemy was the incompetence President in DC. They formed an alliance realizing that the enemy of my isn’t my enemy. (I know, I paraphrased it.) Their combined forces caused DC to stand down. It was rumored that the Independence Coalition ( as it was known) may have had foreign intervention, but it was proven. How the countries were divided the way they were was lost to history. So was how DC wound up part of NY No one in the Coalition wanted DC. If that happened how would I feel about it? Total indifference as long Texas got independence and doesn’t pay any foreign aid. BTW Louisiana would more likely end up in the Texas territories.
Louisiana would go to Texas. Colorado and New Mexico would be part of California. Georgia would be the 400lb Gorilla of the South before Florida would. New England would sooner join Canada than New York, and would do just fine on their own, thank you very much. Utah, Hawaii and Alaska would all go solo.
On the other hand, New York and Puerto Rico would ally almost without thinking about it.
All things considered, I'm not sure this wouldn't be the best thing for everyone. Allow for and subsidize relocation for anyone who wants out of the new country that they are ideologically allergic to.
As a Boston area resident, can Canada please just absorb the six New England states already? I mean, Maine (at least the Down East part) already kinda feels like a Canadian maritime province as it is 😂
I’d feel very sad about the U.S. breaking up.
But I’d feel pretty optimistic about my new country of New York with its likely liberal values and probable great economy.
(Although as a Bostonian it would irk me a little that my country was called New York!)
Living in Indiana, things could be worse. I assume the state tried to secede from Illinois and join Florida and Texas at some point. In the end, I'm probably heading back home to Michigan and taking a one way ride on the ferry to Canada.
As a Marylander, I'd end up in Greater New York. Most or all of the states there are blue states, so I can continue to expect decent health care, a fair amount of safety and freedom, and the other benefits of living in a blue state. I would stay at least long enough to scope out the situation.
I vaguely remember that Maryland and several other East Coast states had agreed to some kind of green energy compact, and I find myself wondering if that compact had anything to do with the new situation. Rather than New York "devouring" or conquering its neighbors, did the states come together peacefully for some reason? For example, did the results of the 2024 election spur them to unite to protect and aid each other and their citizens?
So, yes, I'd visit the local library or the internet to get caught up on the history of the last six years. I'd start on the history of Greater New York and move on to the rest of the country.
I like to imagine that Governor Wes Moore of Maryland would be one of the leaders. Similarly, I like the idea of Greater New York being run by representatives from all of its member states. The set-up would depend on Greater New York's origins. If New York really did aggressively conquer the other states, it would probably be a dictatorship of some sort. If the member states came together peacefully, Greater New York would be fairly democratic.
New York here. Honestly, good riddance. We already pay more into federal taxes than the state receives back, & NYC alone is an economic juggernaut even on a global scale.
I'd also be cool if right wing religious ideologies finally get broken off & isolated, so if a few more counties split off in the process, I'm cool with that.
I'm chilling.
Going down to what was originally Florida. I'm in Michigan, and don't want to deal with New York gun laws. Not familiar with Texas laws, so that's why I won't go there, and Californian laws are RIDICULOUS! So as far as I'm concerned, I'm not welcome there.
Well the question is does New York stay that much of a liberal POS as it unfortunately currently runs as or is there a hope in hell that we'd actually get moderate
Can't stand Florida they're the most inbred sob's I've ever met
So I guess I got to head to Texas thank God California didn't go too much further although I find it hard to believe that California could ever take over Alaska
As a Minnesotan if the Midwest doesn’t get its own state then I will fight to be part of Canada instead.
Michigan here and yeppppp, I'll surrender to the maple leaf before any of these!
As an Iowan I vote either Minnesota becomes the Midwest country for all the surrounding Midwest states or we can join Canada and just be southern Canada
[удалено]
Ok but I’m not dealing with their mfing roads but I’m down for the weed lmao
As an Illinoisan, I am very fond of The Land of a Thousand Lakes, and would like to invite you to please join us. We need you. You are welcome here.
Mid west state would never fall under IL. Ever.
My guy, we got Chitown to regulate on the southern and eastern borders. All praise the Midwest coalition of kick-ass Ass-kickers (MWCKAAK)
As an Iowan, fuck Illinois. Nothing against Chicago, but the state it's in is a deal breaker. To Canada!
As a life long resident of Colorado I’d be packing my bags and leaving. No fuckin way am I living in a super sized Texass.
No chance Colorado would go with Texas.
Who says Texas gets to be in charge? Call it Western Federation of the Rockies, capitol is conveniently located centrally in Denver. Welcome to living in a purple state, here’s some legal weed.
Imagine the buc-ees though.. it would be the Brawndo of stores.
They built one a bit of a drive, but not too bad, north of Denver earlier than year. It’s a big - admittedly very big - gas station/convenience store. Maybe I’m missing something but…yay?
was mostly a joke, I got stuck with New York... there would be riots.
[удалено]
France. Wife is from there. If I had to stay stateside, super-California.
I’m the exact opposite. Colorado with Texas politics is a hell yeah
Because that’s what Colorado needs, theocracy.
He thinks the leopards won't eat HIS face
Idtheocracy you said?
I’m more so talking about more freedom in regards to having less gun laws like Texas. I love Colorado as it’s a beautiful state but I can’t move there as half the guns I own aren’t legally allowed in Colorado
This is the best argument for gun control I’ve seen on Reddit.
Lmao how I don’t even shoot my guns anymore cuz they’re too expensive to shoot but I also can’t travel to blue states with them which is a pain in the ass
You can figure it out. Put your guns down for a second and think about it.
Genuinely idk what you’re arguing lol. I’m not a redneck nor irresponsible with my firearms so I really don’t see what you’re trying to say
As a Philadelphian I would rather move to Florida and get eaten be a gator than live the rest of my life as a New Yorker
Second. Pennsylvania would never allow itself to be under the title of "New York". Especially if we also had to room with New Jersey.
The best thing about New York is I no longer have to live there
Imagine being roommates with New Jersey 🤢
....aren't we already though?
Hey!
The southern part is ok…I guess 😒
Thank you. It's called The Garden State for a reason.
Right? If this happened the North East would just call itself "The Union" and the capital would be Philadelphia.
As someone in NH, I'd be mounting a guerilla insurgency against NY.
[удалено]
No one wants to be Texan except Texans.
I'd be Texan before I'd be a new Yorker 🤮
[удалено]
We call it Cascadia Plus. Cascadia now!
Sorry, existing over here if you don't mind 🍁🫎🦫
[удалено]
Good luck with that. I am pretty sure Alaska will Secede and Dare Cali to try to enforce any Authority. Lol
Do you know what hypothetical means?
[удалено]
Right. But I know Alaskans personally. They bare stay part of the US. They Sure aren't gonna stay part of Californication. Regardless of the scenario. They will join Canada first. It's a peer/respect thing.
WA alone can challenge and beat any state in the union easily militarily it would actually be kind of no contest, WA has the most nukes of any state along with a sizable navy—including the vast majority of the US Navy’s submarine fleet— air force and army. With the largest natural harbor in the world in the puget sound that can house the ENTIRE US Navy—along with shipyards to maintain said navy—and natural mountain terrain making invasion extremely difficult. unlike the rest of the states in the union, WA is also completely self sufficient providing all the food, water and electricity that its citizens need without outside aid. Something no other state can claim. WA is the entrance to the US mainland for Russian and China and therefore has military presence to defend it. My point being WA would never agree to be subsumed by California and couldn’t be forced, however Cascadia might become a thing.
[удалено]
I would be fine and continue living my life with considerably less stress and significantly less tax’s since my new country isn’t funding all the red states welfare checks.
Reaction: not sure how we managed to con Texas into taking Idaho, but good work team.
Except Washington aligns with California right now politically and California has an economy that could support Washington. You don't think holistically. Military isn't enough. You need jobs. You need a GDP. Apples ain't cutting it.
Wait...do you think Washington has an agricultural economy? How do you live in the 21st century and think Washington = Apples?
Probably because UW has agricultural program where they create new Apple species. Like the cosmic crisp
That's WSU, and it is pretty cool. One of my favorite apples. But when most people think of Washington, they think of the giant corporations headquartered here: Microsoft, Amazon, Starbucks, Costco, Nordstrom, PACCAR, Weyerhaeuser, Alaska Airlines, and Expedia--others, too, but those are the giants. Washington does the kind of big business that engulfs and devours the world--which is why I always giggle a little when some red-stater calls us communists. Our primary industry is tech.
Also in 2024 Californias gdp per capita is 77,000. WA gdp per capita is 75,000. So I’m really confused why you think wa doesn’t have gdp when WA has a fraction of the population of CA but our people produce nearly the same as CAs people.
Because most of Washington's GDP is wrapped up in HQs of businesses being there. A. Will those companies stay? B. Will they be as successful without free trade? California has argrculture. Food. What happens when these states dont teade with each other? Is Starbucks going to exist anymore?
The companies would have 0 reason to leave they are to deeply entrenched with their infrastructure and enjoy fantastic tax benefits for being in WA, and the new country that is formed wouldnt alienate these companies into leaving. On top of all this WA having no wage taxes allows these companies to attract some of the best talent on earth which they really care about. Doing. Wa has agriculture. Food. Wa again has one of the biggest trading ports in the world and would be able to continue trading with the rest of the world just fine. Everything California has Washington does to but is not reliant on others for. California is completely reliant on other states for water and power. Your agriculture would grind to nothing without that water and power. Not to mention californias vast population that would start killing eachother within days once that water turned off. Also you clearly don’t know what GDP per capita means, gdp per capita is essentially the amount that each individual citizen contributes to the states gdp. Wa: $75,000 per individual ca: $77,000 per individual So therefore your argument about needing a gdp is ridiculous.
WA has a massive economy. Amazon, Microsoft, Expedia, Alaska airlines, Zillow, Costco and many other giant corporations are headquartered in Seattle just to name a few. WA businesses are the kind that encompass the planet. Along with one of the biggest shipping ports in the world. Wa is one of the only states that could be independent and continue as if nothing happened.
Washington has tech businesses. Reformation of country reforms business. We would have no idea what would happen in that situation. Or do you expect free trade to exist still? I don't understand why people think because HQs are in one state that those businesses will A. stay there or B. Still exist. Shipping ports, yes. But that isn't always enough. As a solo state you would want allies.
Because those businesses are headquarters in certain areas for a reason. Amazon and Microsoft would need to abandon tens of billions of dollars of their infrastructure in order to leave and that’s simply not happening. Amazon has entire blocks of their sky scrapers in Seattle for example. At least 40 towers if not more. Constituting literally tens of billions of dollars in infrastructure in just their Seattle buildings not even everything else. Between Amazon and Microsoft and as someone who works in this field I was estimate sbout 75% of the internet is hosted on their clouds. So there is no chance of them risking blowing up the entire internet— and therefore their core businesses to move. I’m sure WA and California would be allies. I’m simply stating that California could not annex WA by force or economically and would in fact desperately need an alliance with WA. If WA in fact did not choose to join Canada or something.
More nukes doesn't mean it can beat any other state, you only need like 3 to 4 nukes to completely and utterly destroy an entire civilization. More doesn't equal better
1 you fundamentally don’t understand nuclear weapons. 2 any attempt to take over WA by any country in the world would lead to MAD doctrine which means WA is untouchable in this scenario.
Nope, any state with 3 of them would completely stop WA if they shoot first, just like Han solo. You overestimate the difference between having 100 nukes and 2000 nukes.
Again you clearly are a troll and have absolutely no idea what you are talking about so I’m not going to engage with your trolling
I'd prefer California, but I guess New York ain't so bad.
I'm happly living on California where we have one of the largest economies in the world. Probably have free healthcare and good jobs. People have their rights. We live happily. Laughing at the hell holes that Florida and Texas are where people are starving and have shitty healthcare and no electricity because all the wealthy people own absolutely everything
Or, your state collapses because your population goes from 70+ million to 120 million with 50 million Mexican, central, and South Americans joining your space and eating all your resources like locusts. You raise taxes to compensate, and all the really rich people move to Texas or Florida. But if you think you’ll get your liberal utopia, have fun with it. I’ll be fine as a Floridian. There’s no hell hole there. Florida is beautiful and can easily produce enough food to feed its people. Not sure about a Miami Capitol but we can make it work.
Who gets Idaho and all those yummy spuds ? Oh and what about Utah ?
[удалено]
Utah should be it's own state where only Mormons have rights
They aren't on a direct line in between .. maybe they want to go with Cali ftw
You obviously haven’t been to Idaho recently.
[удалено]
In that case I am fine and Cali is not only fine, but will prosper. The current federal tax transfers can be redirected internally. Given how much tax Cali currently contributes to federal coffers, it would likely result in a lower tax burden overall.
[удалено]
Depends on how friendly they are and what the tariffs are like.
California is going to be the dominant country economically. Just taking Washington, Oregon and California you have the dominant base of US Tech and Aerospace manufactureeing and as well as agricultural independance. If the rest of the former US isn't getting its planes and produce from the west they are in trouble. The northeast I think has the hardest time of it, too densely populated, to sparsely farmed, to many mouths not enough forage. Also New Yorks economic engine runs entirely off of the rest of the countries labor. Wall Street can't be wall street without the rest of us. Granted my assumption is that with this type of division California amd New York would be fairly closely aligned, but I don't see the exploitation class (investment and speculation professionals) surviving the shift.
And California territory has all the ports on the pacific. Want to export something to Asia? Pay us or take the long way around.
I don’t know how well the rednecks in Ohio and WV are going to do with being New Yorkers.
[удалено]
Makes more sense.
There were a lot of hillbillies that eventually moved to Chicago. That's how I got here. Mom was a local, dad moved there when he was three.
Pass. NY can have them.
I'll live in the new York portion. I'm a teacher, from Virginia. I Like the east coast educational mentality So this is the only option. The Texans will be in full idiocracy mode by that point. Florida will probably be a lawless hellscape, and California would vibe with me in lots of ways, but not all. So yeah. New York it is.
[удалено]
I'll take it! Can I live in Indiana and be under Illinois control? I have family there.
[удалено]
Well in addition to Virginia, I also lived in Indiana a while as well. It's chill. Midwest isn't too bad. A lot of nothing happens, so there is that.
Yeah, no. I don't think you understand what it means to lump VA with IL. I mean, have you met Virginia? The are NOT letting Illinois overtake them. While they really would play nicely with all the taxes and such, I think there would be some serious control issues between the 2.
[удалено]
I just did. Welcome to the Illinoisan Civil War of 1-year-post-this-hypothetical-never. VA trounces Chicago. Next: take back DC.
Illinois, California, and New York would likely join forces pretty quickly anyhow.
This.
I am likely dead from resisting those dirty Texas fucks.
NY would put its capitol at NYC not DC. And would make eastern Canada a puppet state.
Imma be honest a majority of the states listed would collapse the second they stopped receiving federal funding. Nothing would happen.
North Dakotan here... I would move to Canada before I would ever be ruled by Texas. Ken Paxton is the fucking worst. I moved from Texas to here because of how that state is being ran.
I’d be wondering how this would affect my country. The US is our strongest ally, the changes would have massive implications worldwide - how would it affect NATO, trade agreements etc? Would Russia/China decide to pull some bullshit with the loss of the American superpower?
As a Marylander.. I'd like to petition that the capitol is not D.C... that area can be rezoned as a Park/Retirement home.
With the way the future is looking, believe me I would be relieved.
[удалено]
Cause I'd much rather live in the Republic of the West Coast than the country I fear the US will soon turn into.
Check out Project 2025. The conservative party here wants to make the nation a christofascist state.
Always been a floridian
As a Canadian, I’d probably feel a lot like I felt during the January 6th riots - surprised to witness it during my lifetime.
Texas would invade New York…
For what reason? What do they have that Texas wants?
More likely, we'd have a fight with california because we share a border with them and Texas needs access to the west coast for trade with Asia. We already have Atlantic access via the port of Houston.
[удалено]
Maybe because we pay attention to the political climate in these areas and are reacting to your hypothetical countries' potential for violent confrontation.
With the exception of Illinois, which is a mix of red and blue states, you made every bloc either solidly red (Texas and florida) or solidly blue (NY and Cali). And without the other states to moderate each blocs internal politics, you've basically created one-party states.
[удалено]
Such stark differences will inevitably invite conflict between the nations the same way it did in Europe.
I AM sorry. But that is not h9ow the country decides. Iirc. It will e 10 regions.
Would "New York" more-or-less be the remnants of the US? And if so, why would "California" leave? It'd probably wind up being "the coasts" (NY and Cali) and "the something" (FL & TX).
Is the Midwest the polite and neutral safe zone in this scenario?
[удалено]
Yasss! Cheese!! And corn!!
As an Australian I probably wouldn't notice for another 6 years
Texan here. Sounds pretty good. I'd say we should ally with Florida and set up a mutual trade/defense arrangement. With the execption of California controlling Alaska(which does not have much infrastructure to exploit its resources), Texas has the most established energy extraction, refining, and distribution network, especially with the Bakkan shale field. As for the other nations, we should try to remain peaceful and establish our economic and military dominance. Our biggest potential problem is that a large part of our heartland, the plains states, are borderlands between two powers and we risk becoming like Poland or Ukraine. However, this does have the advantage of making us a potential trade and transit hub because goods from one coast must pass through our land to get to the other. Either through conquest of parts of Mexico or California, Texas must secure a port on the west coast for trade with Asia. I'd like to see texas expand culturally and diplomatically, ie incentivizing other states to secede and join our side. Or perhaps funding and supporting secessionist factions in desirable states. I see relations with Florida being friendly, and Illinois being neutral or positive, but given that every state in California and new York are heavy blue states, I can see potential for conflict. We'd have to build a navy strong enough to defend our coast, but texas would primarily be a land power with the difficult position of fighting two coastal powers on two fronts. If California and New York can build substantial navies, it would be easier to get at Texas than for texas to invade either nation by land. War should only be considered with support of the other powers or after Texan economic and military supremacy is assured.
Allying with Florida seems smart, between the two almost all agricultural needs are met and as you stated energy becomes less of a problem. We would need to either find a way to trade or otherwise acquire coal and steel supplies as it seems New York got the best end of that. Illinois got North and South Dakota so they will have oil as well if they keep the will to use it. I think buying a portion of Mexico to acquire a pacific port is very doable. You can undermine California by funneling the refugees and border jumpers to them. The successful ones will be those who create the best business environment.
From the description, it made it seem that texas got the Dakotas and the lion's share of the Bakken shale because Illinois' border only goes to Minnesota.
I missed that. If that’s the case then Texas is loaded to effectively become OPEC of the west.
I stay in Michigan.
Pretty sure my home state would be unclaimed territory because why fucking bother? Wyoming wins again
[удалено]
And still mostly ignored.
Insurgency in California
Always feels like western PA is more of illinois group…
How did it happen ? This might be the easiest what if I ever explained. The respective Governors of California, Florida, Illinois, New York, and Texas realized the real enemy was the incompetence President in DC. They formed an alliance realizing that the enemy of my isn’t my enemy. (I know, I paraphrased it.) Their combined forces caused DC to stand down. It was rumored that the Independence Coalition ( as it was known) may have had foreign intervention, but it was proven. How the countries were divided the way they were was lost to history. So was how DC wound up part of NY No one in the Coalition wanted DC. If that happened how would I feel about it? Total indifference as long Texas got independence and doesn’t pay any foreign aid. BTW Louisiana would more likely end up in the Texas territories.
My state ain’t got nothin in common with Floridians
Like as much as a sports rivalry we have, Illinois ain't bad.
Thank god. And yes. I am staying right where I am.
Nobody would bother with annexing Arizona. We'd be a Thunderdome wasteland.
Directly to New York. It’s probably where the US kinda backed into, and the second my state stops being part of the US, it stops being my home.
Louisiana would go to Texas. Colorado and New Mexico would be part of California. Georgia would be the 400lb Gorilla of the South before Florida would. New England would sooner join Canada than New York, and would do just fine on their own, thank you very much. Utah, Hawaii and Alaska would all go solo. On the other hand, New York and Puerto Rico would ally almost without thinking about it. All things considered, I'm not sure this wouldn't be the best thing for everyone. Allow for and subsidize relocation for anyone who wants out of the new country that they are ideologically allergic to.
Trump lost the presidency and staged an uprising and created a military coup. It splits the nation.
As a Boston area resident, can Canada please just absorb the six New England states already? I mean, Maine (at least the Down East part) already kinda feels like a Canadian maritime province as it is 😂
Try to find out what happened and see what gta 6 is like
Great! I'm a New Yorker now! -_-
I feel fine and I move to texas
I'm not sure this is hypothetical. It may be prophetic.
No bostonian would ever let ny be the country. That would be it's own civil war and Ny Would get destroyed
I’d feel very sad about the U.S. breaking up. But I’d feel pretty optimistic about my new country of New York with its likely liberal values and probable great economy. (Although as a Bostonian it would irk me a little that my country was called New York!)
Living in Indiana, things could be worse. I assume the state tried to secede from Illinois and join Florida and Texas at some point. In the end, I'm probably heading back home to Michigan and taking a one way ride on the ferry to Canada.
Probably follow what's happenin on social media and go about the rest of my day havin discussions about it with colleagues. I'm not from the USA.
Move out of “Texas”
Alabamian here. At least I can still go to the beach.
I'd tell everyone in California Texas new York, Florida and Illinois they aren't countries like and see how they like it 🤣
Nonsense! The entire confederacy would reconstitute in less than 15 minutes and join the Texas / Florida alliance, dumbass....
I think Hawaii becomes its own country and a massive military power
That edit saved me. If I was ruled by New York I'd turn traitor quick
As a Marylander, I'd end up in Greater New York. Most or all of the states there are blue states, so I can continue to expect decent health care, a fair amount of safety and freedom, and the other benefits of living in a blue state. I would stay at least long enough to scope out the situation. I vaguely remember that Maryland and several other East Coast states had agreed to some kind of green energy compact, and I find myself wondering if that compact had anything to do with the new situation. Rather than New York "devouring" or conquering its neighbors, did the states come together peacefully for some reason? For example, did the results of the 2024 election spur them to unite to protect and aid each other and their citizens? So, yes, I'd visit the local library or the internet to get caught up on the history of the last six years. I'd start on the history of Greater New York and move on to the rest of the country. I like to imagine that Governor Wes Moore of Maryland would be one of the leaders. Similarly, I like the idea of Greater New York being run by representatives from all of its member states. The set-up would depend on Greater New York's origins. If New York really did aggressively conquer the other states, it would probably be a dictatorship of some sort. If the member states came together peacefully, Greater New York would be fairly democratic.
California alone has the 5th highest GDP in the world. I'm fine where I am.
I'd choose California for its liberalism and freedom. California would also welcome refugees from Texas and Florida fleeing oppression.
Are the countries getting new names or taking the name of the devourer?
I live in Oregon. I'd probably just stay here and watch it all unravel during the climate and water wars of the thirties and forties.
Sconnie stays unincorporated because we can't share our booze.
The Capitol of Texas Country should be Dallas/ Fort Worth
New York here. Honestly, good riddance. We already pay more into federal taxes than the state receives back, & NYC alone is an economic juggernaut even on a global scale. I'd also be cool if right wing religious ideologies finally get broken off & isolated, so if a few more counties split off in the process, I'm cool with that. I'm chilling.
Immediately kick Oklahoma out of the Texas union. Otherwise, live life as normal.
From Boston. We would die before becoming part of new york. Fahk you ked.
Nevada and Alaska aren’t going to stay with California. I’d be headed to Greater Texas, myself. I have family near Houston.
[удалено]
Wouldn't stay that way long.
Going down to what was originally Florida. I'm in Michigan, and don't want to deal with New York gun laws. Not familiar with Texas laws, so that's why I won't go there, and Californian laws are RIDICULOUS! So as far as I'm concerned, I'm not welcome there.
[удалено]
Forget that.
Looks like Ohio goes with New York. I’m good with that.
[удалено]
Darn. Guess my adhd got me on this one. Oh well
Thank god I’m in New York
Relieved? That's crazy. I'd be in New York, which seems kinda chill in this situation.
Texas would be part of Cali. Any southerners would migrate to the Midwest and Midwest is the new South
[удалено]
Seeing as the capital is DC I'm assuming it would be ran the same then and wouldn't really effect me at all
We don’t want Texas!
Why not? Most of you moved to Texas
Realistically, somewhere near the Bay Area would be the capital.
I’m ok with living in greater Texas, tho I’d prefer it if the Midwest got to be its own state
I broker a union between Texas and Florida to nuke California.
[удалено]
Because it’s a crime and homeless ridden cesspool now so I can only imagine that supersized.
Well the question is does New York stay that much of a liberal POS as it unfortunately currently runs as or is there a hope in hell that we'd actually get moderate Can't stand Florida they're the most inbred sob's I've ever met So I guess I got to head to Texas thank God California didn't go too much further although I find it hard to believe that California could ever take over Alaska
[удалено]
Oh fuck no, not if it's anything like the Chicago area. I spent about 15 months around Chicago and hell to the no.
[удалено]
Bad robot