• TigerAce@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    14
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    7 hours ago

    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.

    • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      5 hours ago

      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