Just split the country.

[xmirrors]

How do you propose we split up the country? It's pretty much impossible.

There is more to it than "blue" vs "red", too...Texas, for example, might historically vote red but it relies heavily on some of its bigger cities for income, which are blue.

[Lenonis]

Oh goodie...this thread again.

It ain't going to happen.

Which conservatives should be grateful for because their poverty stricken states are only held up by the blue ones.

[Dacia Ultan]

It ain't going to happen.

Which conservatives should be grateful for because their poverty stricken states are only held up by the blue ones.

Shhhh. Disabuse them of the notion that blue states are hellholes, and they'll double down on the sabotage attempts.

[Fugus]

If we were to split into red and blue nations and the populace moved to match it, what would happen is the blue nation would have a balanced budget with a representative government where the majority of the Democrats left them for the red state as well since most seem to only PRETEND they want to do what is needed.

The red nation would quickly go bankrupt and then try and wage war and steal from the blue nation blaming them rather than admit they were wrong and their policies were what caused their issues.

The only way the Red/Blue nations would work is if we could also muzzle them so they can’t wage war against the other either via direct warfare or the psychological stuff that Russia and Fox has been waging.

[Endus]

Why are people such babies when it comes to politics? Disagreement is normal in politics, especially in representative systems. If you want to live in a totalitarian, one party state then just move to one. There's plenty of them around.

This isn't "disagreement". "Disagreement" necessarily entails the idea that both sides have equal merit, and it's simply a difference of opinion. When one side's position is evidence-based, and the other is cruelty-based, this isn't "disagreement", and fighting it is literally the attempt to stave off a totalitarian state's emergence.

[Shalcker]

Just split the parties instead; then you could have several where differences wouldn't be quite as "irreconcilable".

[Mihalik]

Just split the parties instead; then you could have several where differences wouldn't be quite as "irreconcilable".

Electoral reform would be required first.

The stupidity of our first past the post system makes a multi party system practically non viable. And there's no incentive for an electoral reform for existing parties.

[downnola]

This isn't "disagreement". "Disagreement" necessarily entails the idea that both sides have equal merit, and it's simply a difference of opinion. When one side's position is evidence-based, and the other is cruelty-based, this isn't "disagreement", and fighting it is literally the attempt to stave off a totalitarian state's emergence.

Plotting sedition and murder is not "disagreement".

I should have made it clearer in my post, but American "conservatives" who reacted to lost elections by trying to overturn the election by force and are now pushing to split up the country are the babies I was addressing in my post. Politics is divisive by definition so they need to grow up and accept reality.

And I'm certainly not trying to imply that their conduct is normal in politics and is just one side of a political disagreement. If they cared at all about their country like they claim they would produce a political platform with more substance than just hatred and appeals to more than just WASPs instead of trying to turn it into a totalitarian shit hole.

[Yadryonych]

Split the US? Sure. Which side gets to keep the nukes though? I hope both so that they would threaten each other while the rest of the world would finally be able to rest easy

[tehdang]

The only people suggesting 'splitting the country' or 'civil war' are the conservatives crying about losing the 2020 elections and don't have full control to essentially implement a one-party fascist state.

This is a bit rich telling a person complaining about masking and police violence that the only people arguing for a divorce are far right types. Like, is he not a person, or is he far right? Something needs some reconciliation here.

I hear it more from people on the right side of the spectrum than the left, for what it’s worth.

There’s always the problem of heavily populated urban centers surrounded by a sea of red. The logistics of such a national divorce would certainly be fraught. I’d like to also see more polling on the subject among Americans not online on message boards or talking politics on social media. I’m mildly in favor of a peaceful divorce as a potential solution to the current acrimony, but I think it’s about as problematic as the issues of urban vs rural state governance and the chafe against the Senate and electoral college. It’s no easy win should such a thing be sought out and eventually accomplished.

[downnola]

There’s always the problem of heavily populated urban centers surrounded by a sea of red.

There is no "sea" of red.

[Endus]

There is no "sea" of red.

They'd really like you to believe that land should vote and will also potentially threaten you physically if you don't do what the land wants.

Rather than people.

Because then they'd have to admit that rural spaces don't hold any particular electoral strength.

[uuuhname]

They'd really like you to believe that land should vote and will also potentially threaten you physically if you don't do what the land wants.

Rather than people.

Because then they'd have to admit that rural spaces don't hold any particular electoral strength.

or do anything but use said empty space as a cudgel while leaving the actual people there to rot and be forgotten.

there are plenty of reasons to do basic public service for people in rural areas but wouldn't you know it, that would mean the government does something, and not some scalping private middle man.

[Kathranis]

I mean, how would you divide up the country? Would you give both halves a chunk of the farmlands?

Would the Democrats keep control of the economic centers and the Republicans keep control of the food and fuel resources? If that were the case, they'd be so dependent on each other that nothing would change materially anyway. We're already heavily divided by state lines as it is, literally have different laws from state to state, different economies, costs of living, etc.

Like, look at Alabama, it's standard of living is close to a third world country, while states like Texas and California would be able to operate as first world nations in their own right.

[Fugus]

@Kathranis

Actually, agriculture makes only needs a small portion of the population now thanks to how highly automated it is.

Even if they split with the conservative farmers going over, those farmers are welfare queens whether they admit it or not.

So, on the blue side they could be easily replaced while the red side would have their farmers become highly unstable when all the socialist policies that help maintain them are removed.

The small portion of the population that are farmers moving wouldn’t be the end of the world, it isn’t like all the land itself would be moving over too.

[D3thray]

Yea, the problem with splitting is...well, it won't stop at red/blue. Oh sure it'll buy time, but we always find something else...another excuse to hate your neighbors.

Until people realize their opinions are just that. Not holding my breath. I blame the internet.

[Kathranis]

@Kathranis

Actually, agriculture makes only needs a small portion of the population now thanks to how highly automated it is.

Even if they split with the conservative farmers going over, those farmers are welfare queens whether they admit it or not.

So, on the blue side they could be easily replaced while the red side would have their farmers become highly unstable when all the socialist policies that help maintain them are removed.

The small portion of the population that are farmers moving wouldn’t be the end of the world, it isn’t like all the land itself would be moving over too.

I was talking about ownership of the land itself, you can always train new farmers. A lot of that land has natural resources, too.

[Fugus]

I was talking about ownership of the land itself, you can always train new farmers. A lot of that land has natural resources, too.

Agreed on the land part. Except that much of that land isn’t even personally owned anymore either. My mother lives in Minnesota and I remember a few years ago her telling me about how a good deal of the farms out there have sold themselves to companies.

And even if they did manage to get that farm land, there is plenty more to use.

The nation as a whole would take a loss being split either way you put it. But the overall would still have the blue portion thriving even with the fewer resources while the red portion going bankrupt due to lack of tax revenue combined with lack of worker protections and all and might regress back to the gilded age or full on slavery given the policies they push.

Edit: Assuming we do something to keep the red portion from invading other places.

[Rasulis]

The farm land factor is not as critical as some might think. More than 70% of US farm lands are being used for livestock crops. Less than 30% are being used for direct human consumption. Most urban areas can easily cover the majority of their nutrition need with high yield and high efficiency indoor vertical farming. Also, what are the rural areas planning to use with all the extra crop and meat that they produce? Use them all for domestic consumption?

[Nurasu]

I'd prefer to split California into 20 new Gerrymandered states and put an end to this post-reconstruction / minority rule bullshit.