Just split the country.

[Egomaniac]

The real question is how do you get the "red" people from the "blue" half and vice-versa?

[Endus]

The real question is how do you get the "red" people from the "blue" half and vice-versa?

The simple explanation is the same as you use for a lot of countries that have split up.

You state that there will be free travel between the countries for a set period (5 years, say) so that citizens have plenty of time to wrap up their affairs and make the transition.

After that point, you stop recognizing their citizenship, so it's a standard immigration process from there on out.

If you don't want to move, you're choosing to accept the new status quo and you don't get to whine about that.

In theory. I'm not suggesting this is a "good idea". The better solution is just to remember why opposing fascism is important.

[Zan15]

That wouldn't work, many conservative areas literally depend on "liberal brainwashing hubs" to even exist and we need the land they carve up for food.

we'd actually make out better cause we wouldn't have to spend 200 billion a year on farm subsidies just import the food from the new countries on the cheap

[PC2]

Why split the country between the two sides? The left and right are social authoritarians who also don't understand economic causation. Our democracy is actually pretty effective at helping each side correct their errors over time instead of living in an echo chamber.

If you're a pessimist about the future of our country then it's not your opinion in my eyes, you're just wrong to think that when most of the stats related to economics and violence clearly indicate we're doing pretty good relative to most all of human history, especially after you account for the current Covid slump.

I believe in democracy though so if 95% of people consent to a split then I'll agree with it even though I don't think it's optimal.

[tehdang]

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

Part of the inspiration of having a peaceful divorce is that some lefty groups are dissatisfied with the current government and rules and unwilling to let things continue. Consider the filibuster, composition of Senate, and electoral college. In a divorce, the side wanting this change in government organization would be permitted to have many more states whose power is always directly tied to population, votes for president directly tied to population, and whatever multiparty voting system they want. Those that enjoy two houses of Congress, one totally neglecting relative populations of states, and the other giving more power to the larger states, but not directly proportional to population, would be allowed to continue in it, and maybe cede more federal power to the states who knows.

My previous comments stand to how unworkable the “idea” is in terms of major hurdles.

Also, majority lefties, plus whoever stays with them, would have their chance to run a balanced budget, and see if righties are actually dependent on them to the point of not surviving without those dense, urban cores.

Anyways, the debate is sort of a philosophical bridge between sentiments of “The US cannot be governed in the current way forever without a major collapse in civility or democracy” and “The system of the United States is so rotten to its core, yet unable to be changed due to minority power, that maximum defeat of a side or breakup must happen.”

[Endus]

Why split the country between the two sides? The left and right are social authoritarians who also don't understand economic causation.

Definitely not true of the left wing in the USA. Not even remotely.

You're lying to manufacture an objectively false "both sides" disinfo thread.

I believe in democracy though so if 95% of people consent to a split then I'll agree with it even though I don't think it's optimal.

1> Democracy doesn't require "95%".
2> If you're demanding that kind of unanimity, you don't "believe in democracy".
3> You're also disavowing political thought and analysis in favor of empty populism, which is kind of shit if you want to be taken seriously.

[Elegiac]

Why split the country between the two sides? The left and right are social authoritarians

You can just say you don't know what left and right actually mean, you know.

[tehdang]

Why split the country between the two sides? The left and right are social authoritarians who also don't understand economic causation. Our democracy is actually pretty effective at helping each side correct their errors over time instead of living in an echo chamber.

If you're a pessimist about the future of our country then it's not your opinion in my eyes, you're just wrong to think that when most of the stats related to economics and violence clearly indicate we're doing pretty good relative to most all of human history, especially after you account for the current Covid slump.

I believe in democracy though so if 95% of people consent to a split then I'll agree with it even though I don't think it's optimal.

Given the total marginalization of people that think “The left and right are social authoritarians who also don't understand economic causation,” I wonder how you can actually understand “ Our democracy is actually pretty effective at helping each side correct their errors over time.” If social authoritarians are an error (authoritarian is usually a negative descriptive), and both sides commit it, then Democracy have done a piss poor job at correcting error over time.

Also, what kind of supermajority is required for major changes is an area of intense debate, and 95% sounds kinda high, and 51% way too low, if we’re talking a highly fractured society that would rather settle its differences in dissolution.

[Zeth Hawkins]

I was expecting this thread to be from the person who periodically makes claims of an inevitable civil war.

In the end, people just need to realize almost nobody is evil. Disagreements do not mean you need to hate each other, and throwing around "ist" labels only makes both sides dig their feet further in the sand. Every argument is reasonable and can be worked through. There is no single left or right; all people are on a spectrum, and are closer to you than you think they are.

[PC2]

Given the total marginalization of people that think “The left and right are social authoritarians who also don't understand economic causation,”

What? They're not marginalized. Capitalist and centrist liberals/conservatives are the dominant political group in our society. Left and right wingers are the marginalized group, as they should be.

then Democracy have done a piss poor job at correcting error over time.

Then why are our democracies the most prosperous socio-economic-political systems to ever exist?

Also, what kind of supermajority is required for major changes is an area of intense debate, and 95% sounds kinda high, and 51% way too low, if we’re talking a highly fractured society that would rather settle its differences in dissolution.

Yeah well it depends on how much you want to coerce people. I was going to put 99% consent that way only 1% of people are coerced into a new system they don't want. But then I figured I should be slightly more flexible.

The fact that a lot of people casually think you can split up a country is absurd, it's way more problematic than the proponents here realize.

[Elegiac]

Also, what kind of supermajority is required for major changes is an area of intense debate, and 95% sounds kinda high, and 51% way too low, if we’re talking a highly fractured society that would rather settle its differences in dissolution.

We're not talking about a highly fractured society, though. We're talking about a society wherein an extremist minority clings to power thanks to an antiquated and undemocratic electoral and administrative system.

Basically: we don't know if democracy in America is effective because we've never had it. It started as an oligarchic tax evasion scheme started by white slaveowners and continues to be an oligarchic tax evasion scheme managed by their descendants.

Disagreements do not mean you need to hate each other

They are when the point of disagreement is over whether or not certain people are people.

This is why centrism is abject nonsense. There's no "compromise" or "middle ground" to be had when it comes to fundamental issues like civil rights, unless of course one is so massively privileged as to not have had the experience of having their rights be in question every 2-4 years.

Centrists treat politics as a spectator sport and should quite rightly be judged for their stupidity.

[tehdang]

I was expecting this thread to be from the person who periodically makes claims of an inevitable civil war.

In the end, people just need to realize almost nobody is evil. Disagreements do not mean you need to hate each other, and throwing around "ist" labels only makes both sides dig their feet further in the sand. Every argument is reasonable and can be worked through. There is no single left or right; all people are on a spectrum, and are closer to you than you think they are.

I don’t know if there’s really a central road to “every argument is reasonable and can be worked through,” after someone gets called a racist, sexist, fascist, transphobic for supporting a side of an argument (immigration, affirmative action, school locker room and bathroom policy, voter ID laws, if you need examples that apply).

Secondly, calling someone far left or far right is frequently a matter of debate on the spectrum and used to perfunctorily dismiss their views or frame an aggressive response as legitimate. I don’t necessarily disagree with you if you think this is also a matter of debate, ie “tehdang is probably closer in ideology to many people on this forum than they personally think based on his posting history” is true even if they label me a far right person.

But I do agree that the “hating each other” part is more restricted to a smaller group than all Americans on a spectrum of political views. Politicians, Internet forums, TV opinion shows, and newspaper articles tend to make the acrimony seem greater.

[tehdang]

What? They're not marginalized. Capitalist and centrist liberals/conservatives are the dominant political group in our society. Left and right wingers are the marginalized group, as they should be.

You said left and right are social authoritarians, and made no separation. So maybe this is clarifying what you mean better than originally stated?

Then why are our democracies the most prosperous socio-economic-political systems to ever exist?

Same question as before. It depends who you mean when you said left and right were both social authoritarians, rather than marginal groups at each fringe.

Yeah well it depends on how much you want to coerce people. I was going to put 99% consent that way only 1% of people are coerced into a new system they don't want. But then I figured I should be slightly more flexible.

The fact that a lot of people casually think you can split up a country is absurd, it's way more problematic than the proponents here realize.

I don’t even think 95% is a view you hold. If you’re in a room with 100 people and only 5 think it’s still worth staying together and getting along to go along, then we better keep the marriage running for the sake of those 5? It’s a pretty extreme yes/no if you ask me. But you’re basically yielding the spectrum so maybe you’re just hedging like you said.

[Edge-]

Yeah well it depends on how much you want to coerce people. I was going to put 99% consent that way only 1% of people are coerced into a new system they don't want. But then I figured I should be slightly more flexible.

Congratulations, you've just killed any form of representative government or any government designed to be accountable to people.

And people wonder why we point out that libertarianism is a non-functioning ideology.

[Elegiac]

Crying about bigoted views being pointed out. Classic tehdang.

Really speaks to privilege if their most pressing political issue is that people are being mean.

[tehdang]

Crying about bigoted views being pointed out. Classic tehdang.

Zeth Hawkins can say I’m an exception (actually evil), or he is having a word with you about having reasonable discussions and the futility of calling others views “bigoted.”

I don’t truly care about your opinion on calling other peoples views bigoted and dismissing them, and what qualifies in that hood.

[Nurasu]

Part of the inspiration of having a peaceful divorce is that some lefty groups are dissatisfied with the current government and rules and unwilling to let things continue. Consider the filibuster, composition of Senate, and electoral college. In a divorce, the side wanting this change in government organization would be permitted to have many more states whose power is always directly tied to population, votes for president directly tied to population, and whatever multiparty voting system they want. Those that enjoy two houses of Congress, one totally neglecting relative populations of states, and the other giving more power to the larger states, but not directly proportional to population, would be allowed to continue in it, and maybe cede more federal power to the states who knows.

My previous comments stand to how unworkable the “idea” is in terms of major hurdles.

Also, majority lefties, plus whoever stays with them, would have their chance to run a balanced budget, and see if righties are actually dependent on them to the point of not surviving without those dense, urban cores.

Anyways, the debate is sort of a philosophical bridge between sentiments of “The US cannot be governed in the current way forever without a major collapse in civility or democracy” and “The system of the United States is so rotten to its core, yet unable to be changed due to minority power, that maximum defeat of a side or breakup must happen.”

I don't believe the second house of Congress was ever intended to wholly neglect relative populations. In 1788, Delaware was the least populated state with Virginia housing 13X more people. Today, California houses 68X more people than Wyoming. I don't believe they ever foresaw such a scenario as far as relative representation goes.

[PC2]

You said left and right are social authoritarians, and made no separation. So maybe this is clarifying what you mean better than originally stated?

Same question as before. It depends who you mean when you said left and right were both social authoritarians, rather than marginal groups at each fringe.

What I ment is that both left and right wingers hold the same value in a democracy. They both think their preferred ideas and policies should apply to other groups of people even if they prefer a different policy. That's all I ment, I didn't mean it in a dramatic sense that every lefty is an authoritarian like Stalin or every right winger is an authoritarian like Hitler.

[Elegiac]

What I ment is that both left and right wingers hold the same value in a democracy.

No, they don't.

Democracy is contingent on egalitarianism which is fundamentally opposed to right wing political ideology.

[Dacia Ultan]

Definitely not true of the left wing in the USA. Not even remotely.

Hell, I'd argue that the U.S. doesn't even have much of a politically significant "left wing."

And accusations of "authoritarianism" as a shield against responsibility are skull-hurtingly asinine.

Really speaks to privilege if their most pressing political issue is that people are being mean.

Indeed.