The question has been framed in the streets: is a government that impoverishes healthcare and nutrition, flouts the law, enriches its officials, imprisons babies, and kills its citizens worth the money it collects, much less the respect and obedience it demands?

Democrats have nothing to lose by shutting down the government to force the majority party to respond to these questions and the one that looms over all: what, if any, is the political and moral future of the US?

  • JennyLaFae@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    45
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 day ago
    1. Shut down the US government.
    2. Each state puts forth a new constitution elevating themselves to country status.
    3. Form a new North American Union (like the EU) with Canada as Daddy
    4. ???
    5. Profit
    • Drusas@fedia.io
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      1 day ago

      2 would mostly only happen in red states. The rest mostly know how to cooperate.

      And you know that California doesn’t need Canada, even less when you consider the rest of the US west coast in with it.

    • Sabata@ani.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      24 hours ago

      Each state puts forth a new constitution elevating themselves to country status.

      I hope my state can successfully wage war against every state to the south of it.

    • in4apenny@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      24 hours ago

      While my theory is based on various sci-fi so should be taken with a mine of salt, my guess is that USA will split into three different countries: NUSA (lol Cyberpunk) which will comprise of the original 13 colony states and the upper North East, The California Republic which will essentially be the West and NW and in good relations with NUSA but with different legislature, and the South which might be called anything from Texas, New Texas, Republic of Texas, or New Louisiana Territory, which will essentially be a war-torn area full of religious extremists not unlike Middle-Eastern areas after the West had their way with them. It will be full of forever wars by religious factions funded by the MIC shareholders of various other countries but in the public face it’ll be covered by the media as religious extremism and/or patriotic fanaticism while ignoring the material reality and history of the situation.

      • kreskin@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        12 hours ago

        The south could bring slavery and cousin/sister shagging back like they have always wanted. I say let them have their theocracy. We build a wall around the enture south and make it into a reality tv show for the world. and, profit.

        When season 45 ends we can then just give whatever rubble is left to cuba to figure out.

      • Triasha@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        24 hours ago

        In the American Civil War the North had the advantage in Navy, population, wealth, and industrial power.

        Now those advantages in population and industrial capacity are flipped. In the scenario you project the south could devolve into infighting and hollow out, but a single charismatic figure could unite them, and that would pose a terrible threat to the NEUSA and the Cali Republic. Have you read Rurtledove’s American Front?

        • in4apenny@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          23 hours ago

          I have not read that, no. I have heard of the series before though.

          Does the South really have those things flipped? Does the South really have more of a population that the East and West coasts combined? More land area sure, but aren’t they currently at the economic mercy of the East and West coasts?

          • Triasha@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            12 hours ago

            The red states are net takers compared to federal. Taxes paid. In this hypothetical civil conflict all sides are materially worse off but the south would be worst by a margin. Material deprivation by the general populace can end a war, but it doesn’t always.

            See Russia in Ukraine for an example.

            Where the lines are matters, whether Ohio and Michigan are in the NEUS or the south makes a big difference in population and industry.

        • Taldan@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          22 hours ago

          It really depends on what type of war this hypothetical civil war would be, and who would be included in each side. North Dakota has nukes, is in the North, but also is very conservative. Opposite scenario for New Mexico

          Realistically, a conventional war isn’t possible these days. In digital warfare, tech hubs like NYC, DC, Cali, and Washington become the most important locations

    • SuiXi3D@fedia.io
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 day ago

      Some states have proven that, without federal intervention, they cannot effectively govern themselves. Texas, for instance…

      • Triasha@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        24 hours ago

        Texas would last long enough to be dangerous to it’s neighbors. I would not want to be in New Mexico if federal power breaks down.

    • vaultdweller013@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 day ago

      Probably better to form an analogy to the old European Coal and Steel Community rather than to jump directly into an EU equivalent, also bring Mexico in since without the US being a thing they’ll end up with the largest population on the continent.

        • vaultdweller013@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 day ago

          Prolly. Doesn’t mean I shouldn’t point out viability, fate has a strange way of twisting and if it so decides I would rather have the idea spread than for it to not. Who knows perhaps someone will read my comment and spread it further or be in a position to enact.

    • ferretfacefrankburns@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      23 hours ago

      Canada doesn’t want to babysit you guys. Seriously, every time a yankee doodle dipshit proposes Canada to take over some US states, it just sounds like immature fuckups who don’t want to take responsibility for yourself and move out of your parent’s basement.