zlacker

Maybe its time...we consider separating? We seem to be evenly divided, with neither side making any ground in more unifying the American people. Trump leans into division (he has never been a unifier, and screws up any chance he has to call for unity rather than going after his enemies), the Democrats seem to either have moribund leadership or leadership that are taking lessons directly from Trump and won't be unifiers either. Both sides are getting more angry, maybe we just shouldn't be one country?

>>seanmc+(OP)
The economic engine that powers everyone's lives depends on being one country, and even in heavily R/D districts there are people on the opposite side of the fence. It's never going to happen.

>>fullsh+V3
No it really doesn't. You have rich countries that are much smaller with less diverse industries than a blue or red America. I get that the red parts of the country still wants wealth transfer payments from the richer blue parts, but that is just hypocrisy on their part.

It looks like Trump's term is going to end in either the end of America as we know it or a constitutional convention anyways. Anything is on the table given how America is currently being torn apart anyways.

>>seanmc+(OP)
There would never be an agreement of terms. Talk about separation is generally based on the fantasy that states would just each go their own way, which is both absurd and a terrible precedent to set, do you think California would agree to part with much of its wealth? Because I don't, and something like that would be a basic requirement.

>>seanmc+(OP)
Separating across what lines? Within group difference might be more severe than between group differences even. Most people identify as independents, there are more than two sides, and even if there were two sides, we're geographically intertwined. Conservatives threaten conservatives and liberals threaten liberals all the time, maybe even moreso! and that's not to mention religious conservatives vs libertarian conservatives, lefists, centrists, etc et. al.

I actually think it’s possible a national divorce makes the problem worse. Lots of these killers have not had clear motives or “sides”

>>seanmc+(OP)
How are you going to split the country up? Because it certainly doesn't make sense to do it by state. Rural California is as conservative as urban Texas is liberal.

>>techpi+Da
The natural breakaway candidates would be.. California, Bigger NY (including other Yankee states and DC), Texas, and the Confederacy.

Leaving a Midwest rump state run from.. Chicago?

>>techpi+Da
Blue states and welfare states maybe?

>>Hikiko+oh
Welfare like cost-plus aerospace and defense contracts? Farm subsidies? Tax credits?

Assuming welfare as in healthcare and food subsidies, money to low-income individuals.

>>seanmc+(OP)
How? If we split by political grouping all the major population centers go Blue everywhere else goes Red? Unless we have a very polite split (unlikely in this case) the Blue side is just signing up to starve to death.

>>pjc50+We
California other then LA, SF, and SD is as Red as it comes. If stuff starts getting cut up 80% of California is going to the "red" side.

>>Hikiko+oh
That’s like the absolutely highest conflict separation.

>>tick_t+Uw
Blue population centers have a lot of money, and though expensive, importing food from other countries is always an option.

>>tick_t+Uw
You may not know this, but you can buy food. You don't have to grow it yourself.

>>tick_t+Uw
There are plenty of places to buy food from if you do t have a xenophobic anti-trade president running your country.

>>waters+Sl
Most red states receive more federal money than they pay in.

>>seanmc+bO
No there really isn't, especially not in the timeline needed to prevent a city from starving. Seriously New York, Chicago, LA are all 2 weeks of supply chain disruption from foot riots. It takes a nation to supply mega cities like those.

>>mfkp+qH
But not in a timeline fast enough to prevent them from starving.