Is a "national divorce" a pragmatic solution at this point?

[GuessTheAltAccount]

We now have tens of millions of Americans alleging that the top Democrats are involved in child sex trafficking rings. Even if they're faking the belief, the willingness to fake it is alarming on its own. The closest thing to this I can think of on the left are those who smear teachers as pedos for enforcing dress codes, but even that is not alleging the rot runs to the top.

I'm not sure one could ever reason with these people. At this point, can we just give them their own country so they can wallow in their own ignorance and leave the rest of the United States alone? Obviously we should offer an opportunity for people who want out of red states to claim refugee status in blue states before the national divorce, but apart from that, is it really worth risking harm to 300 million Americans in 2024 when you can at least save the blue states by cutting the red states loose?

[New Astri]

girl what. no. no that would do nothing and would be impossible to execute. not to mention that democrats and republicans are both equally shit for the country. where did you even get this idea from did you forget how badly the last time america tried to split in two went

[Hispida]

man

[The Jamesian Republic]

What does one mean by red state or blue state?

Is it the party of the governor?
Is it the party of the majority in Congress? (State and National)
Is it the party that the state mostly votes for?

Because what you are proposing can inadvertently cause the rise of one party states. If we divide the country by conservatism and liberalism well unless you ban one or the other a red state can turn blue and vice versa.

[Bistritza]

What a wild idea this is!
Political elites, whose assumed incentive is power, may be the same demographic involved in international abuse of power on a [NSFW] scale.
Why does this completely irrational idea apply only to the party we support? Because..........Orange man bad! Remember?
He was a close friend of a suspected [redacted] who was a Democrat? That was years ago!!

[Washington Resistance Army]

No, it'd cause mass violence and some mad lad would probably try and go nuclear at some point.

[Necroghastia]

What a wild idea this is!
Political elites, whose assumed incentive is power, may be the same demographic involved in international abuse of power on a [NSFW] scale.
Why does this completely irrational idea apply only to the party we support? Because..........Orange man bad! Remember?
He was a close friend of a suspected [redacted] who was a Democrat? That was years ago!!

...Gesundheit.

[Stellar Colonies]

no

[GuessTheAltAccount]

What does one mean by red state or blue state?

Is it the party of the governor?
Is it the party of the majority in Congress? (State and National)
Is it the party that the state mostly votes for?

Because what you are proposing can inadvertently cause the rise of one party states. If we divide the country by conservatism and liberalism well unless you ban one or the other a red state can turn blue and vice versa.

I'm pretty sure the Dems would splinter into progressive and centrist parties if they had their own states.

By red states I mean the former confederate states, even if it was the Dems who were the confederates back then, as they've switched sides now, but the role of geography in politics remains more similar, except with a diminished ability to recognize when they are losing. If they win for real next time, that's as much a threat to blue states as to red states. I'd rather cut the latter loose if it means the former can be saved. I would hope it can be done in a way that allows red state refugees into blue states, but better to save one crop of people than to try to save everyone and wind up saving no one. :/

[SOUTH OLPEN]

No, however, eventually it might be more pragmatic to go back to articles of confederation or EU, where the only thing uniting the states is mutual defense and foreign policy.

[The Jamesian Republic]

No, it'd cause mass violence and some mad lad would probably try and go nuclear at some point.

You have Ron DeSantis saying there will be a Cold War between Georgia and Florida if Stacy Abrams gets elected. Now if we divide the states between Republicans and Democrats and have said Republican in charge of nuclear arsenal and the Democrat as well with a nuclear arsenal.

[Uiiop]

Blues state have a lot of reds in them who actually do contribute to infrastructure and the economic. Gerrymandering and the EC lie to people about what form our division takes.

That being said we're just shit creek without an paddle so if there's an proper execution i would like to hear it but that involves detailed and it being actively pursued. There are still things we can do that have an wider margin of error than this.

[Dzuungalmygia]

No, getting rid of the current two parties would be a far better idea.

[Picairn]

Partition of the US would lead to violence and conflicts on the level of the infamous Indian partition. "Red state" and "blue state" are a misnomer, Democrats are concentrated in the cities while Republicans are spread out in rural areas. How do you propose partition like that? Wall off the cities and form an archipelago of a nation?

[The Jamesian Republic]

What does one mean by red state or blue state?

Is it the party of the governor?
Is it the party of the majority in Congress? (State and National)
Is it the party that the state mostly votes for?

Because what you are proposing can inadvertently cause the rise of one party states. If we divide the country by conservatism and liberalism well unless you ban one or the other a red state can turn blue and vice versa.

I'm pretty sure the Dems would splinter into progressive and centrist parties if they had their own states.

By red states I mean the former confederate states, even if it was the Dems who were the confederates back then, as they've switched sides now, but the role of geography in politics remains more similar, except with a diminished ability to recognize when they are losing. If they win for real next time, that's as much a threat to blue states as to red states. I'd rather cut the latter loose if it means the former can be saved. I would hope it can be done in a way that allows red state refugees into blue states, but better to save one crop of people than to try to save everyone and wind up saving no one. :/

Okay, I guess that makes sense although I can’t see it ending well. But you do realize not all of the former confederacy has Republican majorities right?

[Bistritza]

No, however, eventually it might be more pragmatic to go back to articles of confederation or EU, where the only thing uniting the states is mutual defense and foreign policy.

Yes, let's go back to an EU structure, who more heavily monitors the monetary policies of member-states than the federal US government monitors it's own states.
Wait I don't know what I'm talking about why did I mention this at all

[Jedi Council]

No, however, eventually it might be more pragmatic to go back to articles of confederation or EU, where the only thing uniting the states is mutual defense and foreign policy.

Or it might be more pragmatic to redesign the US constitution wholesale. Its looking very much its age these past several decades.

[GuessTheAltAccount]

Partition of the US would lead to violence and conflicts on the level of the infamous Indian partition. "Red state" and "blue state" are a misnomer, Democrats are concentrated in the cities while Republicans are spread out in rural areas. How do you propose partition like that? Wall off the cities and form an archipelago of a nation?

Or just let "red state refugees" move from the red states' cities into blue states so that the red states can try to run their own cities themselves and everyone else can have a separate country.

[Uiiop]

Partition of the US would lead to violence and conflicts on the level of the infamous Indian partition. "Red state" and "blue state" are a misnomer, Democrats are concentrated in the cities while Republicans are spread out in rural areas. How do you propose partition like that? Wall off the cities and form an archipelago of a nation?

Or just let "red state refugees" move from the red states' cities into blue states so that the red states can try to run their own cities themselves and everyone else can have a separate country.

With the caveat I'm vaguely still open-minded about this in general despite my personal misgivings with you: How does not not wreck farming and trade while this happens? Also what makes you think red and blue wouldn't just get pissed at mutual denial of people's refugee status and accusations of corruption?

[Space Squid]

Partition has historically worked out so well.

[GuessTheAltAccount]

Or just let "red state refugees" move from the red states' cities into blue states so that the red states can try to run their own cities themselves and everyone else can have a separate country.

With the caveat I'm vaguely still open-minded about this in general despite my personal misgivings with you: How does not not wreck farming and trade while this happens? Also what makes you think red and blue wouldn't just get pissed at mutual denial of people's refugee status and accusations of corruption?

While the south is a bit better for growing peaches and oranges, I seriously doubt the north's climates would end in people starving. They could always trade with Canada or even with countries from other continents as a whole if push came to shove.

Yeah it'd be a messy process, but better than letting the red states' current mish-mash of QAnoners, Trump-worshippers, and theocrats take over the entire country would be. :/

[Czardas]

I'm not really sure how balkanizing the United States of America, something which when attempted in the past caused a major war that killed a sizeable percentage of the country's population, counts as a "pragmatic" solution. You may as well propose sending the whatever % of Americans support [insert politician here] to re-education camps for "vocational training" or whatever; that's equally likely to work.

[Senkaku]

Divorces where there’s a lot of money at stake and divorces where the parties’ assets are extremely intertwined each tend to be difficult on their own, but a divorce that involves splitting up by applying HRE-tier border gore to most of North America would be some next level shit

If you want partition just do it the Indian way, the short term casualties from the resulting migrations will probably be lower than if you try to create nations with tentacular panhandles shaped like interstate highway buffer polygons; or just split things up into multiple geographically defined regions to begin with instead of trying for just two, since that’s where this is headed long term

[Free Algerstonia]

all the people in this thread still thinking the united states is a country. the united states renounced all governing authority it had in the district of columbia organic act of 1871, which turned the united states into a corporate business. there is no national divorce to do in the first place

[The Two Jerseys]

I'm pretty sure the Dems would splinter into progressive and centrist parties if they had their own states.

By red states I mean the former confederate states, even if it was the Dems who were the confederates back then, as they've switched sides now, but the role of geography in politics remains more similar, except with a diminished ability to recognize when they are losing. If they win for real next time, that's as much a threat to blue states as to red states. I'd rather cut the latter loose if it means the former can be saved. I would hope it can be done in a way that allows red state refugees into blue states, but better to save one crop of people than to try to save everyone and wind up saving no one. :/

Okay, I guess that makes sense although I can’t see it ending well. But you do realize not all of the former confederacy has Republican majorities right?

And it also ignores all the non-Confederate states that are majority Republican.