Because most states are some level of purple and splitting us up state by state is batshit insane. Not to mention, red states are financially dependent on blue states and would be screwed without their support. It’s also not a clean north and south split like during the civil war. It would be blue coastal states separated by a red middle. Just a geographical nightmare.

Hmmm..While some people believe that splitting the United States into two separate countries would give states more control and cater better to regional needs, many people believe that the United States is stronger when it's UNITED. I don't have to remind anyone that the country has a rich history and tradition that makes it so frigging special, and splitting it up could create conflicts and problems between the new countries - the logistics of splitting up the United States make it a nearly impossible task as it would negatively impact the economy, trade, and relationships with other countries. Therefore, it's important to work together as a single country and appreciate what makes us unique as Americans!

It’s a question of self understanding I think. US states see themselves as states(in a sense of administrative regions) within a union. They do have strong regional identities, but no history as an independent nation or independent ethnic group (Excluding native Americans). So there is no strong drive to be a nation of their own. A strong sense of being “Americans “

Scotland and the UK on the other hand see themselves as states in a sense of nations that have “joined” in a union. Scotland was an independent country before. The ethnic lines have blurred over the centuries, but the Scottish see themselves as Scottish. To a much lesser degree they will refer to themselves as being from the UK.

So there is much greater empathy for a Scottish independence than for the potential Nation of North Carolina.

[removed]

When I was in Scotland during their last independence vote the Scots would ask what we thought and were surprised when we said that we thought they should stay part of the U.K. Since Brexit, my opinion has changed: if they’re going to be separate, the E.U. is a better ideological and cultural home for Scotland than the U.K. (I.M.H.O., anyways). The U.S. is entirely different: red states aren’t really red and blue states aren’t really blue: they’re a continuum of interwoven ideologies that historically leans slightly one way or another with differences that are insignificant in terms of being able to separate one group from another along geographic lines.

The people in the states do not want that. Like, not a single state has a majority interested in leaving. There is no history of oppression of the south, as much as some vocal babies try to pretend that there is.

If the south actually wants to leave, they may do so, but it is not currently that way.

Please read this entire message

Your submission has been removed for the following reason(s):

• Rule #2 - Questions must seek objective explanations

• Subjective or speculative replies are not allowed on ELI5. Only objective explanations are permitted here; your question is asking for speculation or subjective responses (Rule 2).

If you would like this removal reviewed, please read the detailed rules first. If you believe this submission was removed erroneously, please use this form and we will review your submission.

Please read this entire message

Your submission has been removed for the following reason(s):

ELI5 focuses on objective explanations. Soapboxing isn't appropriate in this venue.

If you would like this removal reviewed, please read the detailed rules first. If you believe it was removed erroneously, explain why using this form and we will review your submission.

I've seen a lot of far lefties also hope to split the country away from the "magatards"

I will tell you in terms of India.

So just because it is legal now, the prisons don't open their gates to the prisoners. However, if the prisoner makes an application to the court, saying that the crime for which he has been imprisoned is no longer a crime, then he'll be released immediately. Because once the decriminalization takes place, it essentially means that the act is no longer a crime. The society has changed its view that the act is alright. So there is no sense in keeping somebody inside and punishing them.

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

[deleted]

Are you talking about a new home or pre-existing home?

For a pre-existing home, the purchase price goes to the seller and their mortgage lender. Let’s say the sale is for $400k and they still owe $150k on their mortgage. The seller would receive $250k and their mortgage holder would get the remaining $150k owed to them.

For a new home, the money would go to the developer/builder. They would then pay the construction workers they hired to build the house, pay the loans they used to fund the construction and land purchase, etc.

Typically, a home sale has 5-6% sales commissions paid by the seller. That amount is split between the buyer’s agent and seller’s agent, who them pay a chunk to their brokerage (Keller Williams, Century 21, etc)

I’ll just add more examples for some parts since other people explained it pretty well.

The triple bar for equivalence is especially useful for modular arithmetic. An example of that is on a clock, 4 am and 4 pm are equivalent so comparing 24 hour time to 12 hour time, 4 is equivalent to 16 (mod 12).

A logical biconditional means “if and only if” so the two things necessarily mean the other is true. A shape is a triangle if and only if it has exactly 3 sides. That means that any shape with exactly 3 sides is a triangle and a triangle has exactly 3 sides.

They are punished because they violated the laws and broke a social contract. The punishment is that they are no longer part of the society.

The fact that a law was amended doesn't mean they did not break it in the past.

These are all symbols that assert a relation between two objects. Relationships can include things like equality (=), greater than (>), taller than, heavier than, has more calories than, etc.

= most frequently is used to indicate equality. What equality means depends on the context, but for in the context of numbers, and the sake of simplicity you can take it to mean "numerically equal" (the same number). That's not really what it means, but in order to define the formal definition of equality we'd have to start talking about a particular axiom system, and that's not ELI5.

≡ often means equivalence or congruence, which has different meanings in different contexts. In geometry, you might say two different triangles are congruent to each other—what that means has its own definition. In modular arithmetic, you might say two expressions are equivalent "modulo some integer." Again, the definition of equivalence varies depending on how you're using it.

↔ Often means "if and only if," also known as a biconditional. It is used in logical propositions. I.e., it is part of the vocabulary in the language of making claims or statements that are either true or false. An example is "Bob will eat the ice cream if and only if it is vanilla flavored."

In order to understand biconditionals, it's helpful first to understand the conditional →, which indicates an "if...then" relationship. For example, "If Sparky is a dog, then Sparking has four legs."

⇔ Is very similar, but has to do with logical implication. Implication means one statement follows from another. A two way implication would mean a statement follows from another, and vice versa. The difference is → relates two expressions, and ⇒ relates two statements.

Where does money go when you buy anything? To the seller. They can use that money to pay whoever they need to (like the wages of construction workers) just like any business.

It's just a matter of spending the money before you have it. If someone wants to sell a home, they can take out a loan, buy land, materials, pay workers to build one and it's a gamble that they can sell the home for more than the value of the loan plus interest.

The buyer takes out their own loan (mortgage) to buy the home, the seller gets that money and uses it to pay off their own mortgage.

Businesses often operate in a state of constant debt (not with a deficit) constantly taking out loans to spend money to earn money that they use to pay off the loans. They end up with more money than they started with, and they can use that new money to justify larger loans or to start new projects, and they just grow from there.

Buying a home with a mortgage is really no different from buying groceries with a credit card. You use the credit card, the bank pays the business on the condition that you pay the bank back later. Using credit rather than cash or debit means there's more money free to circulate around the economy as long as you're responsible and don't spend more than you earn.

An equal sign is used to show a value is equal to another. 1+1=2

The equivalence sign is used to define one thing as equal to another. e is defined as (tribar symbol) lim x->infinity (1+1/x)^x

The material biconditional is the same as the equivalence sign.

The logical biconditional is just "if and only if" whatever is on one side must have the same truth value as the other side. It's essentially an equal sign for boolean values.

[removed]

In Mexico... the law operates similar to Canada. Under a legal principle that the law can only be applied retroactively if it benefits the person, not of it affects their rights. This may apply to other countries with laws based on the Roman-french rooots.

Truer words haven't been spoken!

It sounds like you're asking about buying fresh new houses, so I'll give a bit of details about those.

The long and short of it is that your money goes to the one of two things: If it's part of some whole new neighborhood that just opened, some promoter paid a whole bunch of construction companies to build 300 houses and a bunch of other buildings up front, and you're paying them. If it's just a house torn down and rebuilt, you're paying a single construction company that paid for the old house and lot, then paid to demolish and rebuild it, all in advance. Then they make profit once the house is sold.

Howe much everyone involved costs has no real answer because every project and business has their own guidelines.

Generally speaking, the ones paying a couple dozen million for a whole new development up front will expect to make more profit than the workers who did the job. This is compunded by them doing a whole neighborhood, so they have little to no competition, they know everything will sell, and they'll be the ones selling.

The moment there's more promoters, everyone's profit margin will get smaller, but not that much because they'll often collude and get away with it. workers won't get paid a dime more.

In truth, the small nd medium construction companies often go bankrupt because of how many unforeseen problems can baloon up costs after they got locked in to a fixed sale price, or because of their obligation to repair building flaws. So, since they take all the risk, and the workers merely show up, do their job, get a guaranteed paycheck, and find a new job if the company sinks, they don't get as big a piece of the pie as the promoter or construction company.

Cognitive dissonance is when two or more thoughts or feelings you have are in conflict, or a thought/feeling and an action. Our brains like consistency, and our egos especially like self-consistency, so this conflict feels unpleasant. Its like if you pointed out something someone did wrong, and someone said "well you do that too". All of a sudden your brain is like "shit, i think doing that is wrong but i did it", and that feels uncomfortable. Often times the solution is to justify the conflict by pretending there isnt one, for example by saying "its okay when i do it because..."

There's two arguments I can think of for this.

Among whatever other reasons for sentencing someone, there's an almost circular logic element of punishing people for breaking the law. In modern society there's an unspoken agreement that people will follow the law, even if they don't agree with it. Therefor, in essence, breaking the law itself is breaking the law, which doesn't change even if the act they did later becomes legal.

Second is the practical element of a clogged "justice" system. It might be simple to release a person who was convicted of a newly legal act, but it still requires review. Plus what about other cases, where they might have been convicted of multiple counts of different crimes? You'd need to resentence them since it may not be clear how much of the total sentence was derived from each crime. What about people who were only fined? Under the same logic, wouldn't they deserve their fines back? And how far back would you go with these repayments?

And on another practical level, if a change in law results in "criminals" being released and large repayments, voters that would be supportive, or at least apathetic, may come to oppose it.