Anyone else find it really jarring that MTG has some good takes here and there lately? First Gaza, now this? I mean, she’s still clearly the same awful hag as always, but the cynic in me wonders if she’s trying to rehab her image or something after all the heinous shenanigans.
For once, I agree with her. Please let us leave.
only downside is throwing all the minorities in red states under the bus.
if that happens, I hope they get to flee to safety
honestly, they’re already under the bus.
Lol, saying this as if red states won’t turn into a third world country as soon as they’re cut off from federal aid.
And as if they would even be content with their own land and wouldn’t continuously try to spread their nonsense in every possible direction regardless of whether people want to hear it or not.
Source: am in Canada
We need to build… a wall
/s
In Republican’s fever dream scenario, they’d consider splitting the nation up to be marooning 200 million people at gunpoint stranded to die standing room only on a military embargoed Puerto Rico. They’d call that perfectly fair and not mass murder.
Get your logic out of here as to why that isn’t possible.
Mtg like when pond scum catches the sunlight at golden and hour and just kind of completes the scene.
It’s weird that this woman has said, four things I agree with lately, but in the light of full day pond scum is still pond scum.
Not safe for whom? Is there a split that would divide Kirk and the shooter?
Dead/living
I’m glad she doesn’t feel safe anymore
Yeah… because of you…
Sounds like a scam.
Anyway, I don’t think we should tolerate red states letting kids grow up hungry or get bullied to death.
That’s what federation was for.
NGL, everyone here who is ready to throw the browns, gays, and neurospicies, and 70% bottom earning sapiens from half of u.s. states under the bus instead of slaying the gerrymander that’s choking everyone to death…?
Idk. Sounds kind of like “If I sacrifice the other family to the face eating jaguar the face eating jaguar won’t eat my face and my family next month.”
Sounds too familiar. We all know how that goes.
Tbf blue states would let us emmigrate
Red states would probably let you emigrate, blue states would almost certainly let you immigrate. Your typo however, was an awesome mix of both words
As much as many of us would welcome it, the reality is that the new MAGA country would declare war on us immediately.
Lol, just using the same language where they justify bombing any other country. We have to kill them so they can have our freedoms.
Sounds like a win-win situation to me.
bingo
Agree, lets all stick the politicians and billionaires on an island in the pacific. Then America will be safe again.
There’s an island many of them have visited frequently already…
Tap for spoiler
Epstein island
I feel sorry for the Pacific.
Does this mean they think they are going to lose it again and wants to ensure they get to keep half?
Lol sure
As a show of good faith, call back ICE from all the blue states and never send them back
Indeed, with the Nazi-US GeStaPo roaming and randomly arresting, the USA is no longer safe. The MAGA States of America can keep them, so that normal people can live in peace.
Anyone under the delusion that splitting a country can be peaceful should research any split since the idea of nationalism took hold. India and Pakistan are still the odds on favorite to kill us all with a nuclear winter.
This reminds me of the spike in cellular biophoton emissions during mitosis.
Biophoton emissions, basically a faint glow of light emitted by living cells due to metabolic processes, increase sharply at the moment a cell replicates into two cells. It appears as a flash if observing these emissions.
There is a lot to learn about our ideal society by observing our biological processes. The human body is a good example of a functioning mass-scale social substrate. The representative sample that guides the body is billions of neurons. Considering a human body has around 37 trillion cells, and roughly 170 billion brain cells (86 billion neurons + 85 billion non-neural brain cells), that gives us around a 200:1 representative sample. For every 200 cells, there is 1 representative.
Fascinating, isn’t it? Dunbar’s number states humans can only keep track of a limited number of relationships. That number is a cognitive limit of around 150 stable relationships that we can keep track of. The limit’s range has been stretched to 100 - 250 stable relationships.
In other words…the ratio of brain cells to other cells is nearly the same as Dunbar’s number. It is reasonable to conclude, then, for a functioning society (because human bodies are far more functional than our planetary society), we need to have a ratio limit on representation. That limit is 200:1. For every 200 people, we need 1 representative.
For the US, for example, with 347 million people, a stable government would need 1.7 million representatives. Sounds crazy, doesn’t it, compared to the ass backwards mechanism at play now? But think about it for a bit, and you will find why it is so stable.
That is too many people for an elite to control. It is too many to be corrupted. It adds redundancy. It adds direct accountability, each rep would have a personal relationship with their people, because it is within the Dunbar limit of what they can keep track of.
Something to think about.
Very interesting. The problem then is how 1.7 million people can do politics. How can they debate? How can the decide anything. I guess multiple levels? The 1.7 million are represented by 8500 and they are by 42.
Any level with a low number can be controlled by elites. Debate can be done on forums. Good ideas go up, bad ideas go down in flames.
I’m not aware of any major strife between Czechia and Slovakia. I may have missed it. It would obviously be harder in the US, where the divide is more urban vs. rural than regional, but I wouldn’t say it’s never been done.
To add to the other response the leaders of both nationalities were veterans of the Prague Spring. They had no appetite for more violence. Could you truly say the same of the US?
Congratulations on finding a split I missed though.
I’m not aware of any major strife between Czechia and Slovakia
Czechoslovakia was a combination of two historically distinct ethnic groups, so there was relatively little “sorting” during the partisan in the wake of the USSR’s collapse.
Compared to the break up of Yugoslavia or the “Two State Solution” in Israel, it was utopian. But that’s a hold over of the pre-WWs ethnic make up of these regions. You don’t have anything like this in the much more internally diverse and mixed populations of the US.
Furthermore, over the last five years, the high rate of undocumented immigration and smuggling has lead to Czechnia tightening its border. We may see a rise in ethnic nationalism create friction in the future.
States would have to be split as well, and random chunks of states. And soon as anyone says, “how do we split up the national debt” people would say huh, impossible to split.
I don’t think that’s such a bad idea. The richest states are blue, the poorest states are red. The entire country is a failed state already, might be good to start with a clean slate. And doing that without the need of a bloody revolution sounds good to me.
The richest states are blue, the poorest states are red.
But the richest parts of the bluest states are bankrolling this administration. California’s Silicon Valley is awash in fascism. New York’s Staten Island has an enormous base of Trump support. Washington’s Amazon, Microsoft, and Beoing C-levels are all in the tank for this administration.
Also, there are plenty of wealthy red states - Texas, Florida, Ohio, and Georgia are all in the top 10 by GDP. There are plenty of poor communities in these big red states that are disproportionately liberal.
There are plenty of purple states that can’t be divided by trivially. What do you do with a Pennsylvania or Virginia or Wisconsin, with a divided government and regular partisan swing?
The entire country is a failed state already, might be good to start with a clean slate
This wouldn’t be any kind of clean slate. Everyone would still be carrying their political baggage with them.
And much of the economy of these states is interdependent. Water rights from the Mississippi and Colorado run through divided turf. California and New York both need access to ports along the Gulf Coast to operate solvently. “Fly Over” states like Iowa and Nebraska produce giant food surpluses. We still need all our transcontinental rail networks, highways, and airlines to function as state level economies.
This isn’t a baby you can just split down the middle
So what alternatives would you suggest? All out civil war, or nuclear war with China or something?
Or just do nothing. Huff through it like we’ve been doing for the last 250 years.
That’s far more likely than any radical geopolitical reorganization. Nobody in the US government with enough authority to affect a real secessionist movement actually wants a secessionist movement to exist. They all think they’ve got the next bite at the White House apple.
Hell, even in the OG Civil War, the first thing the Confederates did was march on Washington. The CSA never intended to be permanently divided. They were going to conquer and subjugate the north just as they’d subjugated Florida and Cuba and Texas and California in decades prior. The momentum among nations has always been consolidation. We only see break ups - like in the Balkins - when the central leadership of the domestic government is decapitated and a foreign country needs to divide in order to conquer.
nuclear war with China
Everyone wants to wave their fists at China. Nobody actually wants to stand up in that fight.
Douglas MacArthur learned that lesson far too well for any modern military leadership to seriously want to repeat it.
Doing nothing really helped during the 1930s in Germany. /s
Back then there were the mighty Soviet Union on one side and the massive war industry of the US on the other. Together, with other allied forces, they were able to fight back the nazis.
Right now, the fascists have the mightiest army. The largest and second largest airforces in the world (the airforce and the navy airforce). 11 mega carriers, military bases all over the globe.
Who’s going to stop them? Euro forces are fragmented as everyone has their own materiel. China could stand up, but who wants them to win. I mean come on, it’s China. Russia is depleted by Ukraine, plus fuck Russia. India couldn’t care less.
Back then there were the mighty Soviet Union on one side and the massive war industry of the US on the other. Together, with other allied forces, they were able to fight back the nazis.
That’s a highly abbreviated view of history.
Germany wasn’t just magically fascist one day during the 1930s. The country was heavily split between Soviet aligned KDR and Western aligned Conservatives, with Nazis playing both sides against the middle.
Americans like Ford and Prescott-Bush were very friendly with the German and Italian fascists before the war. Hoover was friendly with the Nazis straight into the first full FDR term. The Winter War heralded as a victory for capitalism in many corners of the Western world.
It wasn’t until Germany invaded Poland that mainstream public sentiment turned. Even then, you needed Pearl Harbor to galvanize the US to enter a conflict the Soviets had been fighting for half a year.
Right now, the fascists have the mightiest army.
They always did. US/UK have been fascist at least since McKinley. We were the bad guys during the Cold War. And while we won most of our battles, we ultimately suffered the same fate as our Soviet adversaries - corruption, insurrection, and capture by foreign intelligence services.
Who’s going to stop them?
The worst enemy of the Nazi state was it’s own leadership. They’d destroyed themselves from within before the first boots left German soil.
The country just took a decade to fall apart and killed 80M people as it came crashing down.
