-39
Could the United States be headed for a national divorce
(www.chathamhouse.org)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 07 Mar 2024
-39 points (13.2% liked)
politics
18601 readers
5086 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
The phrase “national divorce” is irritating but that wasn’t a horrible article, I suppose. Rep. Greene’s idea of “separate by red states and blue states” is ludicrous. I do have to wonder who benefits from spreading such soundly idiotic ideas such as secession, “divorce” or civil war. It sure as fuck would not be the average person or people who benefit from the US being strong or functional. Republicans are suckers for it because, as usual, they have serious intellectual and emotional issues. Conservative states would be completely fucked by being forced to be a separate country. The change in global political power would also be massive and I can only imagine the effects that would have even if the transition was quick and painless, which I doubt.
Anyway, there is not really any such thing as a “red state” or “blue state” and I miss the times before the media popularized those terms. They dramatically overstate the balance of population who support the one side in those states - a “red” state might be one where 60% of voters consistently back republicans, but calling the state “red” ignores the existence of everyone in the minority there. There are also the issues of voter suppression and unequal access to voting, which might make the state not so “red” if not present. So there isn’t any reasonable or fair way to partition the US and I wish people would stop taking such an incredibly stupid idea seriously.
Greene is Putin's lap dog. And Putin is the only guy who would really benefit from a split. He benefits just from Greene talking about a split.
I think China, and many countries in the middle East would benefit as well.
The article was mainly to meet the requirements of the sub. My real question is in the body. What could trump actually do if blue states ingore his orders. And in this case we are talking about the governments of the states, not the people, so blue and red really exist in that way. It seems using the military is highly questionable with a lot of confusing laws and exceptions. Enough that I bet most military commanders would refuse to act without supreme court clarification. So what could trump really do? The blue states could just practice civil disobedience essentially.
Withholding federal funding has historically been the first and only necessary action for states that refuse to follow federal law