When was the American nation properly formed? Has it been?

When was the American nation properly formed? Has it been?
How does the European background of most Americans influence USA politics and culture and identity?
And on a more speculatory note: Do you feel Latin background of many Americans will play a big role in the future, or will they all become USA patriots eventually, like most Europeans did (or did they?)?

>American
>nation

Do you prefer the 11 nations model?

never
its still a non nation
they have "blacks" "hispanics" "yanks" "asians" and god know what other made up or real ethnic groups

you see they still havent reached the level of being a nationstate, instead of "we are all americans, make it clear we are united" they either vomit racism or liberal bullshit about diversity

i havent even touched the subject of heritage and collective psychosis they live in

this is possibly the most horrible way to split up the continent, what the hell

are there seriously people who believe that the US as one single nation as it is now isn't the best situation

Austro-Hungary and Tzarist Russia had a similar model, they lasted a whole while.

Yes, because it's a political nightmare. A few states (actually a few cities in those states) dictate the elections and wield too much political influence it places they have no business. Such as California's influence on policies that will effect states like Maine.

There was a big New England/Nova Scotia separatist movement initially, but the 13 colonies fucked up during the revolutionary war and sent privateers there even though Nova Scotia was referred to as the 14th colony. New England separation was still a deal until the war of 1812.

I'm not really sure why, but a lot of the people who immigrated from Europe basically abandoned any attachment they had to their home country, or if not them then their children or grandchildren would. A lot of Mexicans don't for whatever reason.

I think California would benefit from gaining independence and we would benefit from letting them leave, apart from that I think we're okay together. I dont hate all liberal states, but California is way too far left and holds republican states in contempt.

California is a very large amount of the USA's economy, educated people, overall just humans, and agricultural production for some goods. Also its the USA's primary Asia trade port.
It is disproportionally important when compared to other states.

I think we would be fine just trading with them, and that supports the idea that they are self sufficent.

They aren't self sufficient at all, they import water for fucks sake, increasingly large quantities of it.
And if you trade with it, everything will be more expensive, because taxes. And if there's no taxes and free trade, well what does it matter if they are independent or not, same thing.

And does the USA even have enough Pacific ports outside of California?

Obviously it matters because they will have total control of internal affairs and won't be voting on policies that effect other states.

We have two other states on the pacific coast, including the city of Seattle.

It honestly sounds as though you're just against the federal government in general, rather than against a paritcular state, surely it would be more effective to increase the power of state governments and decrease the power of the federal government to ensure the states have less influence over each other through the federal government and more influence within their borders?

There's truth to what you're saying but I'm not a libertarian, I think we need an effective federal government and allowing a state with political leanings that are so different from what everyone else wants (and no real sense of states rights) to command so much influence on it is a problem.

If anything they should command more influence, considering population and economy size. They are not given as much power as they are worth currently, when you do the percentages.

Their influence is exactly what it is supposed to be based on the design of the US government, but I think they think of themselves as separate and it would be beneficial to both entities if they were made officially separate.

>Their influence is exactly what it is supposed to be based on the design of the US government

Right, but they are 15% of the economy, and 12% of the population. They don't have 12-15% of the political power by any means.
That is, despite their very large contribution, and their very many individual persons, they have less power than fractionally appropriate.
The design of the US government is unfair towards them, cutting them short on how well they are represented in the federation.

They have plenty of power in the house and the electoral college, both of which can block everything else and command a lot of power.

The Senate is an important and deliberate part of the system that provides some consolation to people like me who dont want total democracy and recognize that the states are different, and it cant make any laws without approval from the house so it isnt going to oppress california.

California needs to be split up. There are completely different cultures here. The county I live in is one of the few fairly conservative coastal counties and it just does not fit with them damn city folk.

>i am part of a minority in X country, thus the country needs to be broken into parts

Do you realize what you are saying?

Do you? He didn't say break up the whole country

California is the country in this example. He is a minority in California, and feels the majority is oppressing them by being different, so he wants California broken.
I think a comparison to an Albanian ghetto in Switzerland wanting to declare independence is appropriate here.

I'm saying the state as a whole is too mixed in political and cultural views to be entirely represented as one state fairly. How is that a bad thing to say? If a government does not have your counties concerns being addressed, and in fact tries to fuck us over, how is that fair representation. They constantly try to fuck over our farmers and ranchers by hiking property taxes, then they try to take our water and funnel it to LA and SF. It's bullshit.

There are a lot of conservative counties in California but the coastal cities are over represented due to their ridiculous population. The US system was meant to be decentralized to fulfill the needs of local communities.

A government redistributes resources, it will by definition fuck some groups over.
There is a line between workers and employers, for example, and as the government moves one way or the other, it aids one side and harms one side.
That is to say, any money spent on small city concerns is money not spent on big city concerns, and thats the government fucking big cities, as you'd say.
This doesn't mean said big cities should declare independence, or that they will be allowed it.

>the Midwest in in Yankeedom
I guess that's okay, but please don't bring Detroit with you.
T. New Hampshire user

>That is to say, any money spent on small city concerns is money not spent on big city concerns, and thats the government fucking big cities, as you'd say.
And the money used for that small city should only be from that small city, like money used for a larger city is for them. Taking water from a community who needs it for agriculture during a drought is retarded.

>This doesn't mean said big cities should declare independence, or that they will be allowed it.
They don't need to, they get more political representation and suck the resources from underrepresented areas while giving nothing back.

New England and Nova Scotia should be United, no Midwesterners.