Separating urban and rural America.

[The Conez Imperium]

Want to flee poverty? Show the world that you don't deserve to starve. Show your talents and your usefulness. But if you can't even speak the language of the country you wish to move into, well, it's not that country's worry that you will starve.

No one deserves to starve. You do not need to prove why starvation is bad...

[Nouveau Yathrib]

Want to flee poverty? Show the world that you don't deserve to starve. Show your talents and your usefulness. But if you can't even speak the language of the country you wish to move into, well, it's not that country's worry that you will starve.

No one deserves to starve. You do not need to prove why starvation is bad...

Absolutely no one deserves to starve, especially not in a developed country that generates as much wealth as the US. That being said, it's a lot easier to care about other people starving when you aren't at risk of doing so yourself.

[Liriena]

Yeaaaaah, bad idea OP. "Cutting off" rural areas of the United States to spite them for voting Trump is a surefire way of dooming those regions to perpetual far right control, and nobody wins from that. Besides, there is an argument to be made that it's not necessarily the rural working class that are the problem (in terms of being the source or the core demographic of Trumpism), but rather primarily white suburban areas.

If anything, those who oppose Trump should make an effort to directly help the rural working class and offer them an alternative. Find your inner populist and make them part of your common cause.

[The Conez Imperium]

Yeaaaaah, bad idea OP. "Cutting off" rural areas of the United States to spite them for voting Trump is a surefire way of dooming those regions to perpetual far right control, and nobody wins from that. Besides, there is an argument to be made that it's not necessarily the rural working class that are the problem (in terms of being the source or the core demographic of Trumpism), but rather primarily white suburban areas.

If anything, those who oppose Trump should make an effort to directly help the rural working class and offer them an alternative. Find your inner populist and make them part of your common cause.

If you could solve the question of how to re-vitalise American's rural working class without it costing an enormous amount of money or political capital, you'd be the darling of any presidential candidate.

[Liriena]

Yeaaaaah, bad idea OP. "Cutting off" rural areas of the United States to spite them for voting Trump is a surefire way of dooming those regions to perpetual far right control, and nobody wins from that. Besides, there is an argument to be made that it's not necessarily the rural working class that are the problem (in terms of being the source or the core demographic of Trumpism), but rather primarily white suburban areas.

If anything, those who oppose Trump should make an effort to directly help the rural working class and offer them an alternative. Find your inner populist and make them part of your common cause.

If you could solve the question of how to re-vitalise American's rural working class without it costing an enormous amount of money or political capital, you'd be the darling of any presidential candidate.

*blush*

I think it costing an enormous amount of political and economic capital is kind of inevitable. You're pretty much swimming against the current of many decades.

[Liriena]

Show the world that you don't deserve to starve.

But why though? What sort of abusive household mindset is that?

[Conserative Morality]

"Politicians keep forgetting about Rural America!"
-Said by politicians in every election.

It's easy to tell rural American that their suffering is unique and that they're the special snowflakes that are the only real America.

[Conserative Morality]

Yeaaaaah, bad idea OP. "Cutting off" rural areas of the United States to spite them for voting Trump is a surefire way of dooming those regions to perpetual far right control, and nobody wins from that. Besides, there is an argument to be made that it's not necessarily the rural working class that are the problem (in terms of being the source or the core demographic of Trumpism), but rather primarily white suburban areas.

If anything, those who oppose Trump should make an effort to directly help the rural working class and offer them an alternative. Find your inner populist and make them part of your common cause.

White suburbs tend to be pretty split. We've tried pulling the rural working class into our coalition - they aren't interested so long as they have someone on the other side ready to suck their dicks and tell them it was the 'urban' folk who were the source of their trouble all along.

[The East Marches II]

Yeaaaaah, bad idea OP. "Cutting off" rural areas of the United States to spite them for voting Trump is a surefire way of dooming those regions to perpetual far right control, and nobody wins from that. Besides, there is an argument to be made that it's not necessarily the rural working class that are the problem (in terms of being the source or the core demographic of Trumpism), but rather primarily white suburban areas.

If anything, those who oppose Trump should make an effort to directly help the rural working class and offer them an alternative. Find your inner populist and make them part of your common cause.

White suburbs tend to be pretty split. We've tried pulling the rural working class into our coalition - they aren't interested so long as they have someone on the other side ready to suck their dicks and tell them it was the 'urban' folk who were the source of their trouble all along.

Lets fix that

"We gutted rust belt with one way free trade and union busting"

"Why do they hate us????"

[Sovaal]

So obviously the only solution is to punish them for thinking wrong by making their situation worse, huh?

Goddamit what ever happened to "eye for an eye and the whole world goes blind"?

When did i call for punishment? Its Republicans who believe in punishing those who dont vote for them.

Did you not read a single of the OPs posts?

[Sovaal]

So obviously the only solution is to punish them for thinking wrong by making their situation worse, huh?

Goddamit what ever happened to "eye for an eye and the whole world goes blind"?

Republicans voted for a guy who smeared people crossing the border to flee poverty as a bunch of rapists. It's FAR too late for de-escalation.

Fuckigb really. So the only sane reaction to widespread over general isolation of millions of powerless is to over generalize millions of people?

[Sovaal]

Well one's more important than the other really. If the supply of manufactured goods, petrol etc. got cut off farmers would have to turn Amish and that would be pretty fucking annoying. But if food got cut off...

Vertical farming in urban areas.

The infrastructure isn’t in place for that.

[The of Japan]

White suburbs tend to be pretty split. We've tried pulling the rural working class into our coalition - they aren't interested so long as they have someone on the other side ready to suck their dicks and tell them it was the 'urban' folk who were the source of their trouble all along.

Lets fix that

"We gutted rust belt with one way free trade and union busting"

"Why do they hate us????"

One way free trade is an abomination that should have been halted decades ago.

[Conserative Morality]

Lets fix that

"We gutted rust belt with one way free trade and union busting"

"Why do they hate us????"

So what you're saying is that we should've went all the way and ignored their complaints since they were never going to be on our side to begin with? I didn't know you were such a fan of unlimited free trade TEM.

[The East Marches II]

Lets fix that

"We gutted rust belt with one way free trade and union busting"

"Why do they hate us????"

So what you're saying is that we should've went all the way and ignored their complaints since they were never going to be on our side to begin with? I didn't know you were such a fan of unlimited free trade TEM.

>Should have went all the way

But you did, you became RepublicanLite :^)

[Conserative Morality]

>Should have went all the way

But you did, you became RepublicanLite :^)

Clearly we didn't go far enough. I'm sure we could learn a few tricks from you folks in Illinois.

[The East Marches II]

>Should have went all the way

But you did, you became RepublicanLite :^)

Clearly we didn't go far enough. I'm sure we could learn a few tricks from you folks in Illinois.

The secret to raising the dead is a secret held very closely by the Lords Daley of Chicago. I would caution you against inquiring about such knowledge.

[Galima]

Well one's more important than the other really. If the supply of manufactured goods, petrol etc. got cut off farmers would have to turn Amish and that would be pretty fucking annoying. But if food got cut off...

You could buy your food from other countries.

Also, food doesn't do you much good if you need medication manufactured by city-dwellers to survive. And given the abuse rampant in the Amish community, I'd say it's more than a mere "inconvenience" to go Amish.

Also, many city-states would be militarily weak, with no space for proper bases.

If the part of America responsible for the lion's share of the bad foreign policy decisions were removed, would people even WANT to attack the city-states?

Let me break down the... obvious lack of understanding on how the world works.

"buy food from other countries" this statement assumes that whatever citystate government is going to be able to produce enough money to BUY this food. unless it's a reallllly industrial city (which we don't have so much in the U.S. anymore) then it's gonna have a bitch of a time funding itself. it's going to rely on what little manufacturing it has to produce goods that are exportable. that's not even beginning to tackle logistical problems like, materials to MAKE the goods (which come from rural areas) or the sheer VOLUME of food neccesary to feed 8 million people (using NYC as a reference) which would cost... obscene amounts of money.



"would people want to attack city states"... would people want to attack a militarily inferior micronation with no support from the country that literally ENGULFS them for ostracising them and cutting them off from the valuable trade hubs that they are. either the Rural States are gonna invade with their guns and actual military almost immediately, threaten the city states into submission because ALL of the nukes i know of are in rural areas, or let some other authoritarian nation stomp what pitiful militia the city states can muster into the ground and rule them with an iron fist. that last one is an admittedly bad idea because now said nation has a foothold to take EVERYTHING.

[Myrensis]

Does he also know the Urban America would be screwed if it weren't for Rural America and their vast amounts of farm and ranch land? but seriously another poster coped together and idea similar to this and it was stupid very stupid same goes for this idea you have.

Please. Most of the farms in America are owned whole or in part by big corporations, and they're not raking in their profits by selling all that food to 'rural America'.

But sure, I'll make you deal.

Rural farmers can stop selling their food to us elitist city folks, we'll only buy from whatever handful of corporations we can convince to continue selling to the places with all the people and the money and import whatever else we need.

In return, 'urban' America will completely cut off rural America from all economic and infrastructure support.

We'll see who blinks first.

Rural America is in an irreversible decline, and yet thanks to a Constitutional Anachronism feels entitled to declare that it is the only 'real' America and demand that the entire rest of the country bend over back word and pay whatever cost necessary, suffer whatever consequences necessary, to preserve and restore their way of life.

The same people who sit and smugly mutter about those lazy city folks who want the government to do everything for them and give them handouts, the same people who march dutifully to the polls to vote repeatedly for the Republican party that openly vows to slash the programs they depend on and to oppose infrastructure spending and other things they desperately need to maintain some kind of quality of life...but it's okay because they promise that the FWEE MAWKET is just aching to throw piles and piles of money and jobs at sparsely populated rural areas with little wealth, low education, and poor infrastructure, but those darn big city liberals with their taxes and regulation are holding them back!

The greatest trick the Republicans ever pulled was convincing rural Americans that the free market could solve all their problems, when most of rural America might as well be the far side of the moon for all the value it has to said market.

[Galima]

TIL the Capitol and the Pentagon are located in the countryside.

The voters who put Bush AND Trump in office are located in the countryside. The USA could've had competent leaders if not for the rural vote.

Terrible idea these "city-states" would bankrupt themselves feeding their citizens and be a risk of famine from embargoes and such. And good luck getting food to the interior cities.

Okay, the interior cities might be stuck with rural America. (There are rivers, though.)

Famine from embargoes? There's a whole wide world out there. The rest of the world isn't going to boycott American city-states... though they might boycott rural America once they can do so without harming urban Americans in the process.

you seem to think the rest of the world cares as well... which... realllllly, they don't. if anything they would support rural america just because there's more goods to be bought from them... textiles, mineral wealth, if nothing else they can just sell excess crops.

keep in mind, i'm a moderate, i don't neccesarily like trump in office. as a caveat to that, i DO think between him and hillary he was a (VERY) marginally better choice. he wears his heart on his sleeve, and he's not quite devious enough to do any damage. Clinton was... well disturbingly adept at lying her way out of things. so of the two... trump is the one i'm less displeased about. if i had my way both parties would be abolished and their beurecrats scattered to the four winds and then new members would be elected with the previous parties being banned from running. is this ever gonna happen? fuck no. the current system just wouldn't even consider allowing that to happen. it's costly, it loses them political clout, and it greatly weakens the nation while it's happening... admittedly the last one they seem not to care about if they make money from it... but my political views aside, i think that this concept is poorly thought of and would result in a second civil war, this time with the rural's likely winning. they won't be able to field as many men, but a lot of military vets are from the south, midwest, etc. only about 14% of recruits come from big cities. and a whopping 40% come from the american south alone. so assuming the draft is instituted during the war, a metric ton of troops, already trained and capable, are going to go into whatever army is amassed. whereas the cities are going to have to 1) train troops. 2) train them as quickly as possible. 3) find space TO train them. 4) somehow get the industry and infrastructure to provide a military capable of defending it's nation enough shells, food, guns, ships, uniforms, planes, etc etc etc.

Tl;DR this idea is so misinformed on how the world and infrastructure works that i actually want to cry.

[Trotskylvania]

The voters who put Bush AND Trump in office are located in the countryside. The USA could've had competent leaders if not for the rural vote.



Okay, the interior cities might be stuck with rural America. (There are rivers, though.)

Famine from embargoes? There's a whole wide world out there. The rest of the world isn't going to boycott American city-states... though they might boycott rural America once they can do so without harming urban Americans in the process.

you seem to think the rest of the world cares as well... which... realllllly, they don't. if anything they would support rural america just because there's more goods to be bought from them... textiles, mineral wealth, if nothing else they can just sell excess crops.

keep in mind, i'm a moderate, i don't neccesarily like trump in office. as a caveat to that, i DO think between him and hillary he was a (VERY) marginally better choice. he wears his heart on his sleeve, and he's not quite devious enough to do any damage. Clinton was... well disturbingly adept at lying her way out of things. so of the two... trump is the one i'm less displeased about. if i had my way both parties would be abolished and their beurecrats scattered to the four winds and then new members would be elected with the previous parties being banned from running. is this ever gonna happen? fuck no. the current system just wouldn't even consider allowing that to happen. it's costly, it loses them political clout, and it greatly weakens the nation while it's happening... admittedly the last one they seem not to care about if they make money from it... but my political views aside, i think that this concept is poorly thought of and would result in a second civil war, this time with the rural's likely winning. they won't be able to field as many men, but a lot of military vets are from the south, midwest, etc. only about 14% of recruits come from big cities. and a whopping 40% come from the american south alone. so assuming the draft is instituted during the war, a metric ton of troops, already trained and capable, are going to go into whatever army is amassed. whereas the cities are going to have to 1) train troops. 2) train them as quickly as possible. 3) find space TO train them. 4) somehow get the industry and infrastructure to provide a military capable of defending it's nation enough shells, food, guns, ships, uniforms, planes, etc etc etc.

Tl;DR this idea is so misinformed on how the world and infrastructure works that i actually want to cry.

Leaving aside the ridiculousness of the whole scenario, how are the rurals going to support any army at all?

Armies are expensive institutions. Agriculture and resource extraction are not great sources of wealth to begin with. And all of the vital industrial capacity is going to be in urban areas. Concentrations of capital require concentrations of people, and that means cities. Oil refineries are all clustered near urban areas. Industry, from the most basic machine tools up to high technology manufacturing, are all concentrated in cities. Chemical production is concentrated in cities, vital to the production of munitions.

Rural America may provide the soldiers, but they can't provide anything else that makes armies function.

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

The greatest trick the Republicans ever pulled was convincing rural Americans that the free market could solve all their problems, when most of rural America might as well be the far side of the moon for all the value it has to said market.

I have a new signature.

[Galima]

Armies are expensive institutions. Agriculture and resource extraction are not great sources of wealth to begin with. And all of the vital industrial capacity is going to be in urban areas. Concentrations of capital require concentrations of people, and that means cities. Oil refineries are all clustered near urban areas. Industry, from the most basic machine tools up to high technology manufacturing, are all concentrated in cities. Chemical production is concentrated in cities, vital to the production of munitions.

Rural America may provide the soldiers, but they can't provide anything else that makes armies function.

but rural america will have the bulk of the Food, actual Mineral wealth required to produce weapons. I can also tell you from experience, Appalachia is pretty industrialized. i live in Knoxville, i can name 4 major manufacturers near me. ACR Auto, DENSO, and Omega Plastics, Hubell Concrete. all these within 30 miles of each other. if you go to maryville, and that's just the ones a know by NAME. is it the same level as the north? no. on top of that, you can always... build more factories. that's comparitvely easy to do if you have the materials. rural states by nature have more trees, more access to metals, more access to local oil. and on that note... where does knoxville lie in this arguement? it's a red city, so does it stay with this odd coalition of city states? does it remain rural? where does it and other cities like it lie?

edited out redundant info

[Shofercia]

"Politicians keep forgetting about Rural America!"
-Said by politicians in every election.

The problem is that they then forget about Rural America. They talk the talk, but they don't walk the walk. The recovery hasn't been directed at Rural America.

Famine from embargoes? There's a whole wide world out there. The rest of the world isn't going to boycott American city-states... though they might boycott rural America once they can do so without harming urban Americans in the process.

And if that were to happen, the food price would be high enough for Rural America to thrive.

The voters who put Bush AND Trump in office are located in the countryside. The USA could've had competent leaders if not for the rural vote.

Clinton's Wilsonianism is not really anymore competent than Bush's neoconservatism.

It's less competent, because Bush's Neoconservatism destroys a few countries thoroughly, but Clinton's Wilsonianism hurts quite a few countries a bit, so the US ends up with more enemies as a result. Also, Wilson was a miserable failure.

Why does everyone think it’s just rural areas voting Republican? Ever hear of suburbs?

Or cities like Fort Worth and Jacksonville.

Or all those urban industrial areas won by Trump.

Or people making over $50,000, a majority of whom voted for Trump.

[Arumbia67]

Yeah no rural areas did not elect trump. Never mind that his biggest gains were in cities like Detroit and Flint, or that there's only two states that are majority rural, the math simply doesn't add up. Getting 90% of the vote in Madison county Idaho gets him what five thousand votes? The paltry 21% he received in cook county would of given him four hundred thousand.