The American experiment is a failure

Succession would favor Red States more than Blue. All Blue states have to do is wait for FL or TX to turn and then the Red States are done for.

If they did split up, of course the Blue States would have more economic power, but the Red States would do fine as well. Both would end up being each others main trading partners anyway.

Nyet.

Nothing Boris-y about this thread.

The Boris troll is tedious.

Russia does not care nearly about the US as much as you trolls imagine.

Dividing the country is impossible because the problem is rural versus urban. Some places in upstate NY are as Trumpy as anywhere else in the country. Those people aren’t going to be happy living in a blue country. Likewise people stuck in cities are going to be miserable behind the red curtain.

Oh ....

Nothing is impossible.

Upstate NY can be part of a group with other like minded places and NY city can be it's own country. Maybe like the EU there are things they could cooperate on.

This is the most literal, obvious division troll I've ever seen.

R7.

What a sad statement you make. My fear is that if the US does not divide it will end in civil war. You worry discussing it will cause division. Look around the division is already there and we must discuss it.

I would bet my life on OP not having read the article they linked.

If we hadn't had this discussion 12 million times before it might be interesting. As it is, it is divisive, trollish and tired.

I don't worry about you at all, r8. You posted this obvious troll post at 4:00AM, we all know what you're doing.

As we discovered while DL was down, the vast majority of people on DL are trolls, not even real people, so your trolling doesn't even matter. It's wasted time on your part. No skin off my nose.

No the only experiment that was a failure was social media. We need to break that up, not the country.

Thread Closed

This OP troll has been here forever! He's literally at the top of my ignored list.

Given the geography of the US, a split along ideological lines would be a fucking disaster for everyone involved. The fighting between various states would never cease, and costs of everything would skyrocket as states instituted tariffs against one another. No. No. No.

No, and I hope the ghost of Daniel Webster haunts you.

THREAD CLOSED!

Someone brought this up in college. And the professor said, there's a way in to the union. There's no way out. We gotta learn to live together. The country is more united that people realize.

The country should be divided into 4 separate nations geographically. Each nation would have a prime minister, but the entire union of nations would appoint or elect a president on a rotating basis. There would be common currency and a common military, but everything else would be determined by the 4 separate nations. Kind of like Europe with a twist.

OP is an idiot and clearly DIDn'T read the article she posted

This thread is closed.

The United States has become too overpopulated, too unwieldy to successfully administer. With little understanding of how the rest of the world survives, Americans take so much for granted, are ignorant to indifferent to contemptuous of their history and all that they have, have abrogated or lost the ability to look further than their own nose/needs, are neither interested much less invested in anything that passes for social cohesion. This is evident from the increased social anarchy, the woeful lack of leaders/leadership, and what should be most alarming, the cultural imperative to scapegoat others for social dysfunction and ills.

The best thing America can do to save itself is to break up into more manageable entities, which, if nothing else, will re-establish the social cohesion necessary for future existence, as well as greatly increase the administrative abilities for greater quality of life for all.

What about the cats?

This thread is OPEN for business and discussion baby~~

I think if anything, it’s simply the death of the two party system in the US. Between Trump and Biden and the extremism on the left and right, people aren’t identifying with the madness anymore.

If anything there are probably enough moderates to launch a successful third party.

I don’t want to live in a white right wing Christian country where things like abortion is banned and white is right. I also don’t want to live in a country where I walk into a public restroom and it looks like the maze from The Shining to make a handful of trans people comfortable (Google the bathroom at the MFA in Boston! Holy shit that can’t be the future!)

So it’s like I’m in the middle and I feel like there’s enough people for it.

IMHO, we need two political reforms in the US.

Here's the first one. In many other countries, the government funds elections. A candidate who can show X number of supporters (petitions, signatures, etc.) gets X amount of money from the government to run a campaign -- but no more. Everyone running gets the same amount of money to run a campaign and no more. There are no private contributions. That way candidates aren't beholden to special interests and lobbying groups. Representative should have no financial distractions that keep them from representing the people.

Secondly, we need a more parliamentary system of government. We need to have more than two political parties. The Founders abhorred the idea of political parties (see "the evils of faction" in The Federalist Papers). Sadly, before the Constitution was even ratified, we already had two factions, or, if you will, political parties: the Federalists, who were in favor of ratifying the Constitution, and the Anti-Federalists, who were against it. These were (yes, I know, only roughly) the ancestors of our current two-party system. We must now actively encourage the formation of more political parties, or, as James Madison said, "Ambition must be made to counteract ambition." That will serve to encourage compromises the way the Founders originally envisioned.

Just my two cents.

[Quote] The country should be divided into 4 separate nations geographically.

Five. Name them.

If there was a division of the United States, I fear it would make the partition of India look like a picnic.

That moron Sarah Silverman suggested this not long ago. She said we should have a US 1 and US 2. What people like her don't realize is that conservatives are for states rights and liberals want big government and to federalize the police.

If this happened, both countries will turn on each other. The blue one will destroy itself first.

R27: Northeast (elitists - progressives); Southeast (hillbillies = conservatives); Midwest (flyovers = moderates); Southwest (wanna-be's = conservatives), and West (loonies= progressives)

The split is one of geography (urban vs rural) and economics (upper class elites vs the working class). Not sure how a divorce would work.

[quote] The split is one of geography (urban vs rural) and economics (upper class elites vs the working class). Not sure how a divorce would work.

That's correct. It's not simply a split between rich and poor because there is a whole lot of poor who are dependent on the government.

I remember Mad Magazine's eloquent description of "the Angry Super Patriot" ~40 years ago: they LOVE America, and simultaneously hate 98% of their neighbors.

America's parties are way overdue for a shakeup. NEITHER major party is what it used to be anymore, and the people slinging the angriest vitriol at the other party just haven't realized it yet.

The Chinese characters for "crisis" combine "danger" with "opportunity". IMHO, the final straw will be if the Democrats manage to pull off a slightly larger majority in 2022... big enough for the Progressive wing to dig in and make bolder demands the Party's centrist wing won't support, and for centrist Republicans (Romney, Collins, etc) to start to tiptoe across the aisle to give the Democrats enough votes to pass more tolerable bills WITHOUT Progressive support.

At that point, Republican Party leaders will go nuclear & threaten them with hellfire, damnation, and shunning for daring to "break ranks". If they go through with it, the Democrats will make them a deal too good to resist:

1. It'll give them roles with real power in Congress, nominal party labels be damned. They can still say they're Republicans, even if the RP itself disavows them.

2. The DP quietly sets itself up to officially "lose" to its "partner Republicans"... limiting its own involvement in their races, withholding financial support, and generally looking for young "loyal soldiers" to honorably carry the DP's flag & gracefully concede defeat, with promises of a bright future later. See #3.

3. If the Republican wins the primary, they agree to become 'Independent' shortly after their new term begins (probably with their nominal Democratic opponent ending up as a high-ranking staffer). If they lose the primary, they immediately quit the RP, and run as an independent with the DP's full financial support (and their nominal Democratic opponent expected to gracefully tolerate it). In Florida, the logistics are more complicated due to the "Charlie Crist Rule" (passed by angry Republicans after he lost the primary, quit the party, ran as an Independent, and won anyway), but I'm sure they'll figure something out.

4. Post-election, the Republican minority shrinks as centrists quit to become Independents & take positions in the Democratic coalition. The RP goes certifiably nuts, full-on Deplorable Fascist, and the defections begin at the state level, too. Past Republican governments made it almost impossible for non-Republicans to win elections, but didn't account for the Party fracturing from within between 4-year election cycles.

5. The Greens & Progressives get mad about being kicked to the curb by a now firmly center-right coalition of centrist Democrats & Independents, take their ball & go home, and start a new party.

6. The Democrats retain their majority by 1 or 2 votes, as well as their name & Party infrastructure, and go into high gear to both convince more Republicans to defect and coalition with them as Independents, and invite some of the original defectors to officially become the face of the DP's new, more center-right "Jeb Bush Friendly" brand.

...

By the next election, America has 3 parties:

* A radicalized, utterly insane & unelectable (at least, for any nonlocal office) rump Republican Party that proudly EMBRACES its new image as the "Deplorables".

* A loud, noisy, obnoxious, and equally-impotent GreenProgressive party that throws tantrums & gets made fun of by almost everyone.

* An undefeatable (for a few years, anyway) center-right Democratic Party that has a slim majority of its own, and supermajority when you add the ex-Republican Independents. The DP's size remains mostly stable... as it drifts rightward, it loses members to the GreenProgressives at approximately the same rate it gains ex-Republican converts.

We are already divided into 50 states. If we divided into 2 countries, the right wing would still find a way to meddle in our blue US. They want blood; they don’t care about boundaries.

R17 DL doesn't go for booze and all caps.

More Countries have broken up in the past century than have combined. .

The USSR, Yugoslavia and a few African Countries very recently. China is held together by military force and India remains poor purely because of the centralized government structure.

r34, continued...

What happens next is anybody's guess.

In one scenario, the Independents remain 'independent' enough (and nostalgic for a respectable Republican Party) to eventually re-band as Libertarians or "Lincoln Republicans", the Democrats drift back leftward, increasingly coalition with GreenProgressives, and we're mostly back to where we started.

In another scenario, the DP keeps drifting rightward until it becomes the new de-facto Republican Party, while the Green Progressives become the new de-facto Democrats. The more things change... well...

Before discounting this whole thing as a meaningless exercise, it WOULD serve one useful purpose: for a few years, at least, it would defuse the toxic us-them mentality that's making America impossible to govern. For a generation or two, nearly EVERYONE would have a past or present association with the "Democratic Party", and the whole concept of party discipline would be severely weakened as coalitions in Congress became more fluid.

I personally blame much of today's partisan toxicity on early-90s Republicans who experimented with British-style party disciplinary tactics... passing laws with one-vote majorities, bullying party members to toe the line "100%", and encouraging a perpetual atmosphere of "us vs the enemy" (instead of viewing the Democrats as honorable adversaries who occasionally had a good point).

R31 Bingo. You may marry me if you get down on both knees.

R38 I see Republicans like Bush and Romney more closely aligned with the current Democratic party than with Republicans. Neither party wants populists in its ranks yet the populists from both parties will only assume greater power with the masses.

Go die R9.

OP here and I read the article contending that divorce is not possible. I am disagreeing with the author but still sharing the words. Can I have your stuff?

Dear idiot at R11.

not everyone lives on your timeline.

[Quote] Bush and Romney more closely aligned with the current Democratic party

Because the Dems are right-wing. Just not as far right as the Cons.

The splintering is happening in real time.

As others have noted, it is a class issue.

The bet explanation I've seen is that in an ARISTOcracy, you are born into your position, But in a MERITocracy, you get it because you're smarter and more competent.

So the rise of the meritocracy tells Deplorables that they are failing because they are stupid.

To go back to Paul Fussell, many Trumpists are "upscale blue collar" -- they own small businesses or they are the old money families in small cities like Yakima or Chattanooga where they own a factory or five car dealerships and are often millionaires but do not have the same tastes as the upscale meritocrats--many of whom make less money--in places like NYC, LA, SF and DC.

But they feel they are looked down on by the meritocracy, what Richard Florida calls "The Creative Class" (so as to include doctors, lawyers, accountants, consultants and i-bankers/hedge funders) for being "stupid" and "crass".

They found a hero in Donald Trump who was also looked down on for being stupid and crass.

But it's basically one group of people with power (Meritocrats) fighting another group with power (Upscale Blue Collar/Small City Old Money)

It's what I call evolution not devolution.

R44, that's hardly new news, and only applies to state-funded travel.

The GOP is changing faster than the Democrats.

College educated suburbanites in big cities, the old school "Country Club Republicans" would rather cut off their arms than be associated with the Party of White Trash

And our best hope for 2022 and 2024 is that hardcore MTG style Trumpists will prevail in the GOP primaries and manage to lose otherwise safe seats because they are too crazy even for more mainstream GOP voters.

I am not the OP and realize we do have some divisive trolls here who plunk on that same key over and over.

But I do think the US is in for some kind of substantial shift. Others have done a good job of explaining why.

The collapse of the middle class and the virtual disappearance of manufacturing has been pretty much a part of my life since the start. I grew up in an area synonymous with steel and manufacturing and I don't think either party did a great job of trying to plan for economic changes. Reaganomics swept many of the upper middle class and wealthy GOPers into one corner and Clinton era/early aughts tech boom swept a lot of Dems into another camp. Both are, in their own ways, seen as elite by the average Joe, and in the absence of any sort of initiatives, economic expansions or support of any kind, most of the folks excluded from those two camps have latched on to the divisive, scapegoating energy. In other words - if we can't have any good stuff, we'll just shitpost while it all collapses.

The total takeover of corporations has played a role too.

Agree R49

The disappearance of the middle class is seismic.

We have allowed ourselves to be distracted by talk of "The One Percent" when in reality the gap is between "The Fifteen Percent" - the upper middle class and its offspring and "The Eighty-Five Percent" -- everyone else.

Just culturally, take politics out of it, the gap between the lives of the children of the 15% and the children of the 85% is enormous and reminds me of the gap between the "gentlefolk" and "common people" in Jane Austen and Dickens novels.

Which is crazy because just 50 years ago, the gap had closed considerably.

R50 The middle class whose median income makes 75k to 200k a year is 30%. Only 10% make more than 200k a year. Where did you come up with the 15% figure? 75K is still a livable wage in most parts of the country.

Not sure where you came up with $75K to $200K R51

There are several books on the topic, most notably Dream Hoarders (he calls it the top 20%)

Or many sociologists , as cited by this Wikipedia article

"According to sociologists such as Dennis Gilbert, James M. Henslin, Joseph Hickey, and William Thompson, the upper middle class constitutes 15% of the population.[2]"

It's the dream of most Americans to become part of the middle class. Part of the reason that wealth is unattainable to so many is the higher cost of assets such as real estate which is driven by speculation and foreign investments. One day that bubble will burst. According to this map, the American dream is still attainable for those in the lower middle class.

Concern trolling. America should break up Facebook instead, the number one source of modern day loony propaganda. USA will be doing the whole world a favor because the poor countries have no power over this shitstain facebook.

Let the red states go and see how well they do without blue state tax revenue. Just get ready for the mass migration of those in red states who are disadvantaged by the separation.

If Red America somehow becomes independent, there would be non-stop clammoring in Red America to liberate the blue states. It'd be like Europe pre-WWI.

The idea is lunacy because the USA isn't drawn on neat ethnic lines like the old USSR which made it very easy to break up. For a "national divorce" to really work you'd need to have massive population transfers. And conservatives are beyond delusional if they think liberals in Austin or Atlanta will just learn to love their new President Josh Hawley and finally mellow out.

No one is really talking about separation. Maybe old Karen's on Facebook. But regular folks are doing fine.

You could devolve more power to the individual states?

It's not been entirely successful in the UK as the English people have figured out that we support, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales with vast subsidies.

Plus they all get free prescription meds (Rx) and England doesn't.

We need a civil war, that's the only thing that will solve these problems.

We tried the civil war, you eejits. THAT didn't work. Try reading a history book. Better yet, try reading, instead of copying and pasting the woke detritus of some oxygen starved anarchist living in his auntie's basement, jacking off to bootleg Onlyfans.

And advocating war is fucking sick. You're so fucking yellow you'd be texting your mental health counselor five minutes into boot camp claming IT'S LITERAL VIOLENCE! I will have none of it.

I'm going to both sides it here. I will never ever vote Republican, but I'm also getting really sick of the progressive wing of the Democratic party. Not enough that I would not vote for them, but they aren't helping matters.

I can understand why. Most of them are young, and they grew up in an age with extreme party divisions and increasingly rancid rhetoric. So they're participating.

As for breaking up the country, it's a stupid idea. As has been noted up threat again and again, it is a rural versus urban divide. Ohio would be shunted off to the Red country, yet both Columbus and Cleveland are extremely blue, and Cincinnati isn't far behind.

New York has very red areas, as does California. What of those?

We all need to tone down the rhetoric. I blame the right wing for amping it up in the 90s (Fox, Rush, and so on), but now both sides of elements that are pushing it. And they're getting rich from doing it. Calm the fuck down, everybody.

Covid passports will break the country. Covid visas to be issued at state borders and entry points. The separate countries will work them selves out plus lives are saved and medical costs contained.

Win win. Try this.

Maybe we only need more political parties since Dem vs Republican doesn’t seem to work?

Of course. It was a big topic in the late 20 th century. There was a time when the Dems sold themselves as the lesser evil in a two party system. Yeah evil, but lesser.

Before Trump I honestly thought any sort of Civil War would be a Class Warfare situation. I could see years ago the rich pillaging tax breaks and endless freebies. States used to give tax breaks to companies who would relocate to them. Then the taxbreaks became FOREVER. Then Trump showed it was okay to be racist again. The GOP Senate literally stole the Supreme Court in broad daylight, and if anyone thinks Biden will ever be allowed to appoint a seat they are wrong. The Trump Cult tried to attack lawmakers and the lawmakers STILL voted to keep Trump.. We are doomed. Our Democracy ends on November 5, 2024. Read the Link...The GOP will not certify any election unless a Republican "wins". They are saying it out in the open. Do not wonder what will happen in 2024. The GOP is telling you what they are going to do.

R61 you're a stupid retard, this next civil war and I do think it will happen, will not be like the first. Its going to be in the streets, and there will be mass poisoning of water supplies, power and gas will be cut off, dams blown up, communications cut etc. How stupid to think it will be a bunch of people shooting each other from behind trees.

There won't be a civil war, for all the reasons mentioned above.

That said, if the GOP fractures, I think it's going to fight dirty, pass new laws, and pursue every extreme experimental legal theory in court that it can to try and save its grip on power.

Expect to see state legislatures still controlled by the GOP pass laws stripping elected officials of the remainder of their term if they leave the party they were affiliated with on Election Day. They'll be worded neutrally, of course... but it'll be obvious by that point that the defections are going in only one direction.

Once those laws are in place, expect to see a second round of legislation granting state parties the right to expel members, and giving the GOP a new weapon allowing them to unseat "disloyal" Republicans mid-term. Such tactics would probably backfire if they tried using them against Romney, Murkowski, or Collins... but would probably be VERY effective at keeping STATE representatives and senators in line... at least, for a little longer... by effectively holding them hostage to the Party's leadership. Basically, they'll take a page from the old Soviet Union Communist Party Playbook... you might be an elected official, but the Party leaders pull the strings, and can effectively "fire" you at will if you don't obediently play along.

As bad as that sounds, it's not the worst of it. If the GOP gets bad enough, I think its grip on power will eventually get pried away. The bigger question is what will happen once the new DEMOCRATIC PARTY finally ends up as the beneficiary of those dying-gasp laws. It's nice to think it would immediately take the initiative to get those laws nullified... but I'm cynical enough to think it'll be more than happy to just enjoy them once IT'S the beneficiary. Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. I think the initial sentiment will be, "yeah, we really need to change those laws... someday... but for now, we need to undo all the evil things (besides fuck with democracy) those naughty Deplorables did, and we need a solid supermajority to do it, so we'll just leave them on the books a little longer. It's ok, we're the good guys... we won't abuse it...

R68 = Your own words "I think its grip on power will eventually get pried away"...........And how many YEARS and DECADES will YOU be waiting?....You sound like a complete idiot.. Are we allowed to use the word Retarded on DL?...There are NO "disloyal" Senate GOP members except 3 of them--2 of whom can't be touched because they have their state loyalty. . You really are STUPID!!

Incidentally, non-Americans should be aware that in most/all states, there are two sets of rules for political parties.

In most states "mainstream" political parties (read: the Democrats and Republicans) have an effective duopoly. In exchange for allowing anyone who wants to affiliate with the party to do so upon little more than filing a form with the Elections Department, and agreeing to follow rules set by the legislature governing the way primary elections are conducted, the winners of their respective primary elections are guaranteed the right to appear on the ballot on election day.

In contrast, "third party" parties (read: pretty much everyone else) have an uphill battle that's borderline-insurmountable unless they agree to play by the same rules as the Republicans and Democrats.

I think there ARE some parties, like the Communist Party in a few states, that explicitly decline to play by those rules so they can expel members at will, require dues, etc, and do the whole "Marxist dictatorship of the proletariat" thing... and that's part of the reason why they're almost never on the ballot in any state (besides the fact that there aren't many of them to begin with, and in the past, even associating with them would usually result in the FBI opening a case file with your name on it to "monitor" you).

Some states vary the rules a bit. For example, California has an open "jungle" primary. As I understand it, ANY California voter (regardless of party affiliation) can vote in ANY Party's primary election (I'm not sure whether you can choose the party on an office-by-office basis, or have to pick a single Party for the entire election). If the top two candidates from a major party (ie, the Democrats) get more votes than the top candidate from "another" major party (ie, the Republicans), all three are guaranteed placement on the ballot.

The rationale is that, at least for positions like Governor and US Senator, a Republican has almost no chance of winning, and the Democratic Primary IS the election, so allowing primary elections to be closed would effectively disenfranchise Republicans from having any say in who holds those offices. The downside is, because nearly every election ends up splitting votes between two Democrats and a Republican, there's almost always a follow-up runoff election between the top two... and from a strategic point of view, the worst thing that can happen to California Republicans is for a Republican to come in second, because in a runoff election between a Democrat and a Republican (vs a liberal Democrat and a conservative Democrat), the Democrat is almost guaranteed to win. From what I've heard, the California Republican Party tends to endorse NOBODY for Governor or US Senate... it just lets redneck loonies run without endorsement or financial backing, and leaves it up to the PACs to quietly shovel lots of Republican money behind the most acceptable conservative Democrat.

r3 really is an easily manipulated whorepawn who wouldn't know when Russian mafiarchs are dictating the beliefs he circulates with blind marching orders from corrupt Republican officials unless he were important enough to meet with the mafiarchs bribing Trump, etc. himself.

Sadly, he's not important enough to meet with the men behind the curtain.

Sucks to be an empty vessel and blind bitch for crooked authorities like the Republican Party and Catholic Church.

r69, the GOP has spent literally decades shoring up its power, but the one "zero-day exploit" those elaborate plans all fail to account for is a scenario where the party tears itself apart from the inside out within a relatively short window of time between elections... the scenario where "everyone" in power is nominally a Republican, but a large number of Republicans themselves decide they've had enough & push back before the rest of the Party can react and stop them.

.,.,

The only people who genuinely think the US will break up are either:

a) Russians, or

b) Americans who've been successfully trolled by Russians

Russians think the US will break up, because THEIR country broke up, and they don't understand America well enough to grasp that America is nothing like the former Soviet Union.

The FSU was arguably a cabal of Russia, Belarus, Georgia, and Ukraine that dragged everyone else along for the ride. In the US, tiny states like Delaware & New Jersey have more federal power relative to California, Texas, and Florida than ANY of the *-stan regions EVER had compared to Russia/Ukraine/Belarus/Georgia, and compared to the cultural gulf between, say, Khazakhstan & Leningrad, rural Louisiana, Anchorage, Miami, Compton, Manhattan, and Pittsburgh are practically indistinguishable by comparison.

Again, while DLers tend to be Eeyores, do not discount the very real possibility that Trump will single-handedly destroy the GOP by ensuring that completely batshit crazy candidates win the GOP primaries over less batshit crazy opponents and then go down in the general election, even in relatively safe districts.

Trump's True Believers are not a majority and many who otherwise vote Republican will vote for a centrist Democrat over a crazy Trumpist.

R72 = You learned nothing from the Trump Presidency. Waiting on the GOP to splinter and "tear itself apart" didn't happen in 4 years--quite frankly we saw them come together--Lindsay Grahams Trump bootlicking is a perfect example.. Democracy (and the Democratic Party) are toast on November 5th, 2024. Life will be hell except for the rich. And you can believe either Trump will be on the ticket or he will get Junior on the ticket (as Veep)..Without a doubt.

The Atlantic is Ground Zero for Doom and Gloom articles that appeal to their liberal reader base.

They've done an excellent job reviving the brand that way.

#DLEeyiores

R77 = Hitler used to say the same thing about the media he didn't like...ANOTHER LINK!!!

From the Huff Post?

Really you can do better than that.

It's a click bait factory.

#DLEeyores

R79 = Enjoy the Ghettos....You are a lost cause.

“ Trump's True Believers are not a majority and many who otherwise vote Republican will vote for a centrist Democrat over a crazy Trumpist.”

False. Republicans are tribalist and actually come out and vote when it matters most. Witness the last election. Record Republican turn out. Trump did better than just about any other President in election history. Our side just happened to do slightly better enough (when you look at electoral college).

The ONLY thing we may have going for us is Covid wiping out a substantial number of Republicans. That could help tilt the scales.

This situation would never happen but I would like to see what would happen to the red state country once they are deprived of the tax revenue from the heathen west and east coast. It's a well-known fact that places like Kentucky and Mississippi receive more money from the federal government than they contribute. What would happen if they had to support themselves? I think they would become a developing country with a quality of life close to what you'd find in South America. The rich would live in walled compounds and drive around in armored SUVs, the poor would live in corrugated metal shanty towns because bootstraps, sorry no social services and minimum wage for you. I wonder if people like Ted Cruz look at obscenely unequal societies like Brazil or South Africa and get hard at the thought of recreating that type of system in the US.

Why would trying to heal lead to a civil war? South Africa managed a truth and reconciliation commission ffs!

I'm not American but the only problem I can see is that you're all too fucking spoiled to sit down and actually listen to each other like adults.

Steve Bannon is the OP.

R4 never mind the fact that almost all the food production would happen in red states... wonder who'd win that war? Hmm?

“ I'm not American but the only problem I can see is that you're all too fucking spoiled to sit down and actually listen to each other like adults.”

Oh, here we go with the both sides-ism.

If that’s what you really think the problem is then I have a bib and a jar of applesauce for you, 1/2 wit.

R86 I'm being childish for proposing a non mass-murder solution to your problem?

You are a pathetic people in some ways but I think you can actually achieve a peaceful end to your idiotic culture war, which isn't a real fucking war by the way. Just a national tantrum.

Try living somewhere with actual problems.

R83 clearly doesn't follow the news in the US. It's the only way he could maintain such a stupid opinion. The republicans are terrified of democracy and are doing everything they can to limit it. Anyone who pays attention knows that group is a major threat. Both sides-ism is a big cover for being an uninformed ignoramus.

R88 don't be silly. America is not now, and has never been, a real democracy. You'll never escape the two party system. Big business owns your politics. It really doesn't make a difference who gets in. The only difference is that the Ds are happy with an illusion of democracy and a puppet as head of state while the Rs are happy with an insane emperor.

One things for sure. None of you are gonna survive an actual war because you're all far to precious.

R87 - We have one party that has gone absolutely batshit insane and is doing it’s damndest to usher in a new age of fascist rule that will gut our republic and will pose a myriad of threats globally. Including to third world countries like yours (clearly that’s where you’re from).

So if you don’t think that’s a “real problem” then not only will I offer you the apple sauce but a diaper to go with it.

R90 Your government has proven to be a consistent threat to other countries no matter who is in power ever since the 50s. Ask a Libyan what they think of Obama turning their country into a smoking crater.

The only good thing about Trump is that he fucked up the states more and the rest of us less than his predecessors. Not that that's saying much. Unfortunately internal conflict for you means a safer world for the rest of us. Always has.

[quote]The United States has become too overpopulated, too unwieldy to successfully administer.

North America in general is much more thinly populated than the other continents. Do you idiots live under a rock?

Civil War? Can't get off your ass to save your life. Why you want young men to die for an old man's idea?!

“ Unfortunately internal conflict for you means a safer world for the rest of us. Always has.”

Which is why general milley had to keep assuring Congress and our foreign allies that Trump wasn’t going to bomb Iran or China in order to declare war and keep himself in office. Like he was threatening to do.

If you think the US couldn’t become the villain in the global theater, you are really naive.

What does Miss Lindsey know, and when did she know?

R94 Did he do it though? Posturing and bullshit and everyone knew it. The others (Bush, Clinton, Obama) actually followed through.

Sorry to break it to you. You already ARE the villain in the global theatre. Trump was a brief respite in having to take the USA seriously. I still think the idea of another civil was is laughable. But if there were one it might be a good thing globally if only because it distracts your generals.

I think if this latest cluster fuck has proven anything it's that the average American is too crazy and unhealthy to fight for much. At least not in an organised or competent way.

Hell most of them are so tied to the Internet they can't even walk down the block. Half of them are so sensitive they can't survive the real world without medical help and the other half are so belligerent they can't survive the real world without guns. Imagine what actual hardship would do to them?

"Did he do it though? Posturing and bullshit and everyone knew it. The others (Bush, Clinton, Obama) actually followed through."

Try to stay on point. You said: "Unfortunately internal conflict for you means a safer world for the rest of us.” And you are wrong. So so wrong. Your logic seems to be that since it hasn't happened yet under those circumstances it never will. One thing we have learned these past few years is to never discount the outrageous. It was outrageous to think Trump would even win.

And "everyone" knew it was bullshit? Are you psychic? I can assure you not "everyone" knew it. What an absurd notion.

"Hell most of them are so tied to the Internet they can't even walk down the block." HA. Like this is unique to the United States. You know what else isn't unique? The rise of white nationalism and right wing ideology.

It's funny that you think our problems are our problems alone.

The more effective trolls actually do some digging and figure out DL's archaic quoting system R81

Try Harder

[quote] Witness the last election. Record Republican turn out. Trump did better than just about any other President in election history.

That is correct. I don't understand those who say that Trump's base is the minority. Look at how badly Romney, Cheny, and Kinzinger are doing with their constituents.

[quote] Once those laws are in place, expect to see a second round of legislation granting state parties the right to expel members, and giving the GOP a new weapon allowing them to unseat "disloyal" Republicans mid-term.

Will they also harass them in public bathrooms?

The US (and in fact, any country without some variant of proportional representation) INEVITABLY ends up as a 2-party duopoly... occasionally, with a third party that acts as an occasional spoiler or kingmaker that might (or might not) occasionally trade places with one of the other two.

As one of my political science professors put it, in a country with PR (Italy, Israel, etc), the elections happen, then the coalitions are formed. In a 2-party country, the coalitions are formed, then the election occurs. The main difference (and why 2-party tends to prevail over multi-party PR) is, with a 2-party system, you go into election day knowing what you're likely to end up with if either party wins. With PR, there's more uncertainty.

multi-party pluralities rarely work for long, because you inevitably end up with a mainstream center party that ends up with slightly less than absolute majorities, surrounded by comparatively extreme parties that either refuse to work with the almost-majority party, or make demands that would force the almost-majority party to choose between bad, worse, and armageddon.

In the UK, the two parties (historically) were the Liberals & Conservatives (sound familiar?). In the 20th Century, Labour displaced the Liberals in Commons (and eventually re-branded as the Liberal Democrats, or "LibDems"), but due to life peerages, held a robustly large percentage of the House of Lords prior to reforms ~20 years ago. Today (in Commons, at least) the LibDems are almost a single-issue (anti-Brexit) party, flanked by other single-issue parties (SNP, Cymru, UKIP, and a few socialist parties with zero elected officials).

In the US, a splintered GOP would temporarily give a huge boost to the Democrats & drag the party as a whole to the right, but it's absolutely inevitable that the deck would eventually get shuffled and create two new centrist parties.

Whether the present-day Democrats would end up on the left or right side depends partly upon how badly the GOP tarnishes its image. My personal theory is that the Democrats, as the remaining Establishment Party, will expand to fill the vacuum left by the GOP, and a new party (probably with much younger voters & leaders) will coalesce on the left to oppose it. In this scenario, what's left of the GOP will end up kind of like the 1960s "Dixiecrats"... possibly, even polishing their own image a bit, grudgingly joining the Democrats (as "Deploracrats?") to oppose the Green Progressives, and lingering on for a few more years until fading away.

Before writing off "Deploracrats" as "unthinkable", consider their realistic alternative... being an embittered, angry, powerless fringe... with a powerful Democratic Party to the left, and a growing GP Party to the really, REALLY FAR left that's vowing to do things not even AOC & Bernie would dare to whisper in private.

Most real-world Americans are now to the left of the GOP (even many lifelong Republicans, if they're truly honest to themselves), but most DEMOCRATS are solidly rightward of the Progressive wing, and will go along with "green" causes only as long as it merely involves spending anonymous borrowed tax dollars & not actual sacrifice.

Today's Democrats throw cookies to the Green Progressive wing because they must, but would be a lot happier if they could replace them with Sinema-like nuDemocrats. Today's centrist Republicans grudgingly humor the Religious Right, Deplorables, and Trumpians, but would happily step towards Democrats like Sinema if they thought it would give them what they want, without giving "to much" to the Greens/Progressives.

The task for Pelosi & Pals is to engineer a strategy to court Republicans like Romney/Collins/Murkowski (and Kinzinger & others) without offending their sensibilities, or forcing them to show their cards too soon.

r99, Trumpians ARE a majority of today's GOP, but if you think of BOTH parties as coalitions of "shadow" parties, the Democrats wouldn't HAVE to siphon away more than the centrist few percent to cement a majority that doesn't depend upon GreenProgressive support, and leave the Trumpians crippled & truncated.

"Before writing off "Deploracrats" as "unthinkable", consider their realistic alternative... being an embittered, angry, powerless fringe."

Interesting analysis and projection r100. But here's a thought experiment/question. You don't think there's a scenario where the radical right is able to entrench and consolidate power via voter suppression, gerrymandering and dirty pool on the state level - effectively creating an authoritarian state country-wide? So much editorial ink has been spilled over that being more and more a quite likely scenario if things arent course corrected ASAP.

Much simpler than all that R100

The parties are switching dance partners.

The Democrats have become the party of the educated coastal elites, the Meritocrats while the GOP has become the party of the white working class.

The Democrats have driven away many of the white working class "union voter" types they used to take for granted while the GOP has drive away all the suburban "country club Republican" types they also used to take for granted.

Winning for both sides will depend on who can do the best job of courting the non-white working class, Latinos in particular, who make up an increasingly larger segment of the population.

The Midwest is not "moderate," it is very conservative except for the big cities.

“ The Midwest is not "moderate," it is very conservative except for the big cities.”

The Midwest is deceptive that way because most of the moderate to liberal people in that region live in or near the cities. That’s where the density and the population majorities are. Though in effect the states are conservative because there are more rural counties regardless of population. Most of those old rust belt towns are dying on the vine including the people who live in them. Yet they have an outsized impact in elections.

r102, I have no doubt they'll try. I don't think they'll succeed.

The GOP's biggest looming crisis is the loss of its status as the party of America's respected Establishment. 25 years ago, in most parts of the country (even New York and California), being a Republican carried with it a certain aura of respectability and upward-mobility, whether Democrats cared to admit it or not. The GOP is rapidly losing its last shreds of respectability, and is basically 6 years or less away from losing it completely. Once it loses that, and even REPUBLICANS come to the uncomfortable realization that the GOP is now associated with white-trash redneck Deplorables, the Party of Reagan & Lincoln will be SEVERELY and RAPIDLY marginalized.

For elected officials, the day of reckoning will come when they go to campaign rallies & realize the "nice" voters who boost their public image have largely evaporated, and what's left is an army of white trash waving Confederate flags and worshiping Donald Trump as their strongman. ESPECIALLY any elected Republican who aspires to statewide and national office someday. Even if they force a smile and swallow their pride to win the next election, they're going to be working out their extraction plan to save their own ass and political future... and they won't be alone.

Think back to the Reagan Revolution in states like Georgia and Texas, when there was a brief period where Democrats change to Republicans almost WHOLESALE once the floodgates opened. In many of those states, the Democrats were as entrenched as the Republicans are today. The flip happened anyway, because the officials THEMSELVES changed their affiliations.

I think that's a key point to keep in mind. The PARTY might lose its grip on those states, but ultimately, more or less the same PEOPLE will be in charge... just under a new & improved brand name, and a few slight tweaks to the coalitions in Washington and state capitals. Florida and Texas might very well be solid blue by then... but 10 years from now, blue will be the new red, because the new battle lines will be "blue vs Green", and talk about "cyan" states like New York & Colorado. Marco Rubio & Dan Crenshaw might both have (D) after their names, but their ideologies won't be much different than they are now... they just won't feel duty-bound to automatically oppose anything and everything Pete Buttigieg or Beto O'Rourke propose, because the metaphorical plexiglass panel once separating them will have shifted a few feet further left.

[quote] The GOP's biggest looming crisis is the loss of its status as the party of America's respected Establishment. 25 years ago, in most parts of the country (even New York and California), being a Republican carried with it a certain aura of respectability and upward-mobility, whether Democrats cared to admit it or not. The GOP is rapidly losing its last shreds of respectability, and is basically 6 years or less away from losing it completely.

Fuck them. Bush and Reagan were epic disasters. The Democrats who embraced Bush after he wrecked the country are also part of the problem. And especially hypocritical of Democrats who supposedly champion the underdog. The change in the Republican party is much needed and overdue.

Just to add, don't underestimate the impact of Republican state officials with national aspirations. If, in 2024, we end up in a situation where one or more state legislatures are in a position to invalidate the votes of a winning Democrat, remember... a lot of those Republicans will already be on revision #2 or #3 of their personal post-election extraction plan... and they'll know that being an elected official who votes to cast aside the election result will pretty much INCINERATE any future possibility of escaping to the Democrats with their political future intact.

I'm not saying a lot of them will necessarily vote AGAINST casting aside the election results and appointing a slate of Republican electors... but I think enough will ABSTAIN from voting AT ALL to cause the Republican's motion to fail.

Remember, at this point, they're going to see the long-term writing on the wall. And frankly, lots of the long-term career politicians are going to be pissed as hell at Party leaders for PUTTING them in that untenable position in the first place. I think you're going to see the deepest divide between first-term Republicans (like MTG), and multi-term Republicans (like Adam Kinzinger) who've literally invested their careers in politics, and will ultimately do whatever it takes to save their own political future, party be damned.

Just to remind everyone, NO American political party is a monolith. Internally, the Republicans are every bit as polarized and divided as the Democrats are, and nowhere is this more visible than state legislatures that are overwhelmingly dominated by one party or the other. California's Democrats fight like cats and dogs with each other, the same way Florida's Republicans do.

[quote] the Republicans are every bit as polarized and divided as the Democrats are, and nowhere is this more visible than state legislatures that are overwhelmingly dominated by one party or the other. California's Democrats fight like cats and dogs with each other, the same way Florida's Republicans do.

Republican leadership is not the base. Kinzinger represents only a tiny fraction of the people he's serving.

r107, you're making a big assumption... that the majority of Democrats DO want to actively champion underdogs.

I'd argue that a large plurality, if not a majority, are content to simply refrain from actively beating up and shitting upon underdogs... or at most, will "be nice" and give them a hand to stand up, but draw the line at digging into their own pockets to pay those underdogs reparations and let them move into the house next door.

It's not a binary either/or thing... there's a whole continuum from "raise them up" -> "help them up, then walk away and forget about them" -> "ignore them" -> "beat them up and shove them down" -> "shit in their mouths while they're passed out after you've beaten them up".

Democrats tend to span from "raise them up" to "ignore them". Republicans tend to span from "ignore them" to "shit in their mouths". The main difference is that BOTH tend to start at one extreme while young, and converge towards the center as they get older. Young Democrats want to lift everyone up, and are naive enough to think it's actually possible. Older Democrats get burned out from compassion fatigue. Young Republicans eagerly want to shit on the unfortunate. Older Republicans feel less invulnerable, and start to feel a twinge of shame and compassion.

Why is it that whenever somebody posts an unpopular opinion on DL they must be a troll?

> Republican leadership is not the base. Kinzinger represents only a tiny fraction of the people he's serving.

Maybe, but Kinzinger clearly has aspirations that go beyond today's base. He has enough skin in the game that he's not going to burn his entire political future for the sake of scraping one last win as a Republican. That's the key difference between someone like MTG and someone like Kinzinger... she's riding the wave, he's watching in horror from his beachfront house.

I really hope you all are right - cuz everything I see points to a golden age of neo-fascism in the not too distant future.

Great new opinion piece in the NYT today. Too long to cut and paste, so I hope you can read it. It's definitely worth reading.

r113, it's good to be vigilant to the possibility that the GOP might finally go over the edge and become full-on fascist, but I think the Democrats are FINALLY taking the threat seriously, and have been literally playing out "wargames" to brainstorm ways the GOP could try to pull it off so it can be ready and head them off at the pass.

That said, I wouldn't lose sleep over it. Conservative judges might be chomping at the bit to overturn Roe v. Wade, but blatantly overturning the results of an election is almost guaranteed to be a bridge too far that THEY won't cross, either. They don't want to open Pandora's Box either, because they know that whatever they do is likely to establish precedents for future elections, and they don't want to go down in history vilified as the judge who almost destroyed American democracy.

Some people like to scream, "Florida 2000!" without knowing the whole story. Most people have no idea that Florida's legislature was completely willing to re-do the election... as long as ALL registered Florida voters were allowed to vote, and not ONLY those confirmed to have voted the first time around. Why? Because the only reason the election was so close in Florida to begin with was because Florida was so overwhelmingly Republican, Bush was expected to win Florida by a landslide... and a HUGE number of Republicans didn't bother to go vote. The Republicans knew that if they held a repeat election open to ALL Florida voters, close to 100% of Republicans would have turned out on election day #2, and it would have been numerically IMPOSSIBLE for Gore to win, even if 100% of Democrats and a numerically-implausible percentage of Independents went and voted for Gore.

Simply put, Gore had too much honor and respect for American democracy to pursue a strategy that offended everything he believed was sacred and right. He didn't want to win the Presidency by "pulling a fast one" in Florida and squeaking out a win on the narrowest-possible technicality. And he was absolutely right in doing so. Bush ended up not being a great president, but as was discussed here a few weeks ago, it's not a sure thing that a Gore presidency would have turned out much differently... and, had 8 years of Gore set America up for McCain to beat Obama (after 16 years of presidents who were Democrats), the second decade of the 21st Century could have arguably turned out much... MUCH... worse than it did. If 8 years of Bush was the price we paid to have Obama from 2008-2016 (when America, and arguably the world, needed him the most), IMHO it was totally worth it.

That said, part of Gore's willingness to gracefully concede WAS due to a perception that FAR worse things could happen than a Bush presidency. I think it's safe to say that if Gore's opponent in 2000 had been 2020 Donald Trump (2000 Donald Trump was still mostly just a harmless celebrity fame-whore), the Democrats and Gore would have pulled out all the stops and done anything necessary to defeat him, precedent-setting be damned. Context matters.

Bringing my point full-circle about the role of courts, I honestly think that if one or more GOP state delegations tried to invalidate its own election results and appoint a slate of Republican electors, even Alito and Thomas would draw a line in the sand and scrutinize it harshly... particularly if the election were LITERALLY between Trump and pretty much ANY halfway reasonable Democrat. Even if they have their own personal agendas, NO USSC Justice wants to venture into overturning the result of an election.

(... continued...)

(continued from r115)

How do I know? Because they've all unequivocally said at one point or another that the US Supreme Court will NEVER enforce Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 (the one that says you must be "a natural born citizen" to be President). Period, full-stop, end of story. They won't go there, despite it being listed as an explicit requirement, because even strict-constructionists recognize that common law tradition matters, too. Now, if a state refused to allow someone who failed to satisfy A2S1C5 to appear on its ballot, they'd unquestionably uphold the state's right to do so. But changing an election outcome is seen as something different, and far more serious.

I genuinely believe that the House of Representatives will NEVER allow itself to exercise the state by state roll call if there's any perceived risk that it will throw the election to the losing party, even IF that party is itself in power. Once again, career politicians care about more than just the next election or their party. I really think that if push came to shove, the House -- after much argument and fighting -- would find a way to order the contested state(s) to redo their election properly, and would allow the Speaker to temporarily assume the Presidency in the meantime. Yes, that could mean that a Republican could still end up in the White House (at least temporarily) despite a Democrat winning a contested victory... but at least the Republican wouldn't be Trump, and would almost certainly be someone who was painfully aware that their own brief tenure in the White House would never be viewed as fully-legitimate by anyone... and that their tenure as Acting President would probably be the end of their political career.

Please, it was democrats who planted the seeds of election fraud with the whole Russian disinformation thing that they went on about for 4 years. You don't think something like that doesn't have consequences do you?

Perhaps conservatives deserve representative government just like liberals do. Look at the whole shitstorm with Manchin and Sinema. They may not be popular nationally but they are serving their own constituents. That's democracy.

Someone needs a blog.

[quote] worse than it did. If 8 years of Bush was the price we paid to have Obama from 2008-2016 (when America, and arguably the world, needed him the most), IMHO it was totally worth it.

Yes, Bush committed the worst foreign policy of all time but it was totally worth it.

No someone doesn’t. Your ADHD is not anyone else’s problem but your own.

Thank you r115, 116 for your thoughtful, intelligent responses. It’s a terrifying time and you rarely read anything right now that ISNT about the impending destruction of our democracy. So this is good balance. (And again, I hope you’re right).

R83 = You said it yourself = YOU are NOT American. You have no fucking idea what you are talking about. It's like when Katty Kay was an idiot MSNBC political "analyst". Go fix Brexit if you want to stick your nose someplace it doesn't belong..

Things change, when you live in a country that views history in millennia (1000's of years) it's really obvious.

Anyone that expects the US to remain in it's current static state is going to be very disappointed.

Where the fuck is R83 from and who the hell does he think he is to be a lecturing little ninny?

r120, Bush's foreign policy was bad, but it's not like Gore's would have been any better. If anything, Clinton was an even BIGGER warmonger than either Bush was.

I mean, Jesus Christ, Clinton dragged us into a literal shooting war with white people who blogged about our attacks in English. That doesn't excuse Bush, but it highlights the sheer absurdity of thinking Clinton was somehow anti-war. Serbia might or might not have deserved it, but it was unquestionably the weirdest & creepiest war we've ever been in.

Republicans might get us dragged into utilitarian wars for profit, but at least they've never dragged us into "humanitarian" wars and pretended they were somehow righteous & noble for doing it.

Let's not forget that in 1968, the Boomers weren't protesting in front of the REPUBLICAN national convention... they were protesting against the very, very pro-war DEMOCRATS.

The Democrats have generally been preferable to the Republicans, but let's not kid ourselves & pretend they're rainbow-sharting unicorns.

[quote] Serbia might or might not have deserved it, but it was unquestionably the weirdest & creepiest war we've ever been in.

I would say that Serbia's acts of genocide probably put it firmly in the they deserved it category.

Well, a better way to put it might be, "what compelling interest that an average American was likely to give even the slightest fraction of a shit about did the US have in going to war against Serbia?" At least in Iraq, we theoretically could have ended up with cheaper oil (even though we didn't).

The main culprit, though, is the US State Department, whose bureaucracy transcends BOTH parties. The main difference seems to be that the Democrats genuinely believe you can bomb a country into democracy, while the Republicans are cynical enough to know it's horseshit.

Break up Facebook and get rid of Faux News. All problems solved. The GQP is comprised of the geriatric and uneducated. They spend their days drooling in front of the TV and perusing conspiracies on their tablets. They know their days are numbered, which is why they stacked the Supreme Court and continue to gerrymander with ferocity.

R128 And then what...keep MSNBC which just ran a segment about concerned parents being domestic terrorists? Go outside and get a fucking clue.

Great post r129. These DLers don’t realize what a bubble they’re in.

As opposed to Kyrsten Sinema cuntlickers like you no doubt, R130.

r18 - that's the Roach Motel Effect. They check in but they don't check out!