This quote seems on point. “The line separating good and evil passes not through states, nor between classes, nor between political parties either – but right through every human heart – and through all human hearts." -Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
The situation regarding the border is evidence to the contrary.
Logistics aside, Republicans are the type of spouse that would empty out all the bank accounts before the divorce, then chainsaw the house in half.
As I recall, it was primarily about contract negotiation.
A lot of people of Latin American ancestry already consider themselves white and/or vote for GOP candidates. And more and more Americans consider themselves mixed race, an indication to me that the one-drop-of-African-makes-you-Black idea may fall apart fairly soon.
I hope that demographics will push the GOP in a more moderate direction after the Trump era ends. Bout that’s a hope, not a prediction. And the idea of there being some reasonable solution, that kills American conservatism, is mistaken.
As already mentioned, India/Pakistan is what needs to be considered when it comes to the OP idea.
You’re assuming that they don’t run you over with their monster truck first.
Stranger
That’s why we mustn’t make Daddy angry.
Even leaving aside the massive geographic and demographic issues being discussed, and even assuming you could end up with two relatively well sorted Red and Blue countries, this doesn’t solve the problem.
You make it sound like an “implosion” would be a satisfactory conclusion. When countries go feral, they don’t just vanish or collapse in on themselves quietly. They collapse into civil war with usually massive problems for their neighbours who get dragged in. Or they turn their anger outward, and attack their neighbours. Or at the least you end up with refugee problems.
The US is best off moderating its problem areas, because tempting as it would be to cut them loose, that would only cause them to create more problems.
I very much doubt that anybody can even pull off thinking critically about everything.
Think about everything you ate last week. Does it help provide the proper nutritional balance for your particular system, state of health, and current activity level? Do you know where all of it came from? Was it raised, caught, produced, packed, warehoused, and/or shipped using slave labor? otherwise abused labor? involving effective torture of any species? involving avoidable environmental damage? involving the money from it going to support politics you despise? Every bite of it?
How about everything you wore? Same questions (except sub something about fit and appearance for the nutritional questions), every piece of clothing you put on. How about all the tools/tech you use in your work? in your amusements?
Does any different store have it cheaper? If so, are there differences in shipping time? are they actually offering the same product, or even if it’s got the same brand name on it is it a smaller container or different ingredients/materials or poorer construction? for the online sources, is it someplace reliable enough to even ship it?
Are you actually going to apply your full critical thinking, or even a fraction of it, to deciding in every instance what to buy, what to use, what to eat?
The time and energy needed to research which candidates on one’s ballot are lying about what, and what their positions actually are on multiple issues; and to research enough about those issues to decide which positions should weight voting decisions how much and in what direction, is not trivial. People should do as much of it as possible anyway. But I’m not astonished that many don’t.
In some ways, the current Republican attitude has simplified my life. That particular simplification isn’t worth the cost, though.
withdrawn
A few questions for split supporters:
-
Would you agree that, except maybe for red state trans people, African Americans in the old south would have the least freedom to remain where they are now living if they expected to have a decent life? And that most whites would find moving unnecessary or, at least, something that they could do at leisure?
-
I’m thinking that the Texas abortion law is one step towards what you want to see in all the red states, with the blue states keeping abortion laws as is. I can’t see how you can deny this, but am I misperceiving?
-
Red America will, if Blue America continues with affirmative action, say that the majority up there is oppressing a minority. Unfair? And even if unfair, do you seriously think that the Blue country can be indifferent to the resulting white flight?
Indeed; one can look at the decade-long series of wars in what was Yugoslavia to see just how horrific such a conflict could be.
I sometimes hear rhetoric from my friends on the left, the more extreme ones anyway, about revolution and I always like to ask them if they really understand what that means. It means dragging your neighbors out of their homes in the dead of night and shooting them in the face. Or worst yet, your neighbors dragging you out in the dead of night and shooting you in the face.
That said, I’m not really word about my friends on the left starting that kind of trouble. I’m more worried about my friends on the right, most of whom deny anything untoward happened this past January 6th or blame Antifa.
In fact, it is vanishingly rare to find in history a violent revolution that does not result in more repression, chaos, destruction, and often exactly the people who you don’t want in power taking charge. From the French Revolution and the English Civil War to the Philippine Revolution and the Taiping Rebellion, these things often go wildly off the rails. Most Americans seem to think in concept of the American Revolution—even though that was less a “revolution” than the accedence of the Crown to releasing a colony that was rapidly becoming a liability anyway, and was much more valuable as a self-governing trading partner—and forget the horrors of the American Civil War which has been nicely papered over as a casual familial disagreement suitable for reenactment and nostalgia.
Stranger
So when the Right implements it’s agenda, will looking away be appropriate, or will participation be required?
We has already determined that resistance is unacceptable.
Who determined that?
Stranger
We should put all the states in a massive continental centrifuge and sort them out.
The problem isn’t so much “red” and “blue” but the point that both are essentially dependent on an economy driven by consumer spending and onerous foreign policies, with one of the effects being soaring debt:
That’s almost $30 trillion in public debt, or over $80,000 per person. For total debt, it’s more than $80 trillion, including $20 trillion in personal debt, or $60,000 per person. There’s also almost $2 trillion in student debt, or around $40,000 per student.
Federal debt has increased to 120 pct of GDP, and total debt to GDP 140 pct.
On top of all that is more than $150 trillion in unfunded liabilities, or almost $500,000 per person.
For savings, it’s an ave. of $20,000 per family.
And all that in a country which is incredibly spendthrift not only in terms of money but also in terms of resource and energy use.
Read the thread.
The inevitable outcome of resistance to the regime’s agenda is either political violence, peaceful separation, or civil war. All of these things have been ruled unacceptable in this thread.
I think you mean individuals here have articulated negatives about each of these things.
Nothing has been ruled or determined.