We would also be taking applications from interested states. And any MAGA transferee would need months of deprogramming and score above a 90 on a civics test. Will cut out a lot of the riffraff.
Well, that's not entirely true: https://www.uscis.gov/citizenship-r.../study-for-the-test/2008-civics-practice-test
People who watched Schoolhouse Rock know more about how Congress is supposed to work than many members of Congress.
I got them all right, apart from one about the 'selective service' which is something we don't have. I've never been asked the question myself and nobody's ever mentioned to me... more bigsoccer failure IMO We get what Spike Milligan called a 'cunningly worded invitation to take part in the latest war' when necessary which, fortunately, isn't that often.
Just on that specific point, (and with no comment about the US or the rest of the list), brexit was undoubtedly a breakup between a state and another area of which it had previously been a part. I can't claim it was without acrimony but it didn't involve bloodshed... unless you're including inside the tory party. There have been several other examples such the czechs and slovaks... but they were two states before they were formed into one anyway. Obviously, both of those are completely different to the USA but that's another matter.
This would be irresponsible. The 3 states bordering Mexico should ascend to Mexico while the remainder could become a UN Trust territory until the time they become ready for self-government. https://www.un.org/en/about-us/un-charter/chapter-12
Fair enough. But it still has to make sense. I don't get the "leadership must leave them with more to keep them from exiting." You are precisely the kind of person that Trump and his cronies are happy to see go: articulate, passionate and cranky. I fail to see how your absence weakens the regime. Same with Sounders, whose very existence is anathema to them. You've said that the figure is 3.5% of the population that has to be out marching. What is the percentage of the population that has to leave? What proportion of capital has to leave? Well, that's what I'm doing, what many of us here are doing. Just Tuesday I was out standing in the cold for a little over an hour for a women's day protest. I vote, I organize (though I am crap at it,) I protest. Every time I have heard that ICE (well, both times) is in my little burg, I have rushed out to try and confront them. Heck, I even had seven gallons of water sloshing in the car to try the frozen ice trick... Both times the notice I got was three hours old and so nothing there. No one is mad at you for leaving, or actually having left prior and refusing to come back. That's fine, you do what you have to do for your family. And I'm sure you would be extremely helpful for anyone choosing to leave. But to piss all over those of us who have not made the choice to flee, while you presume to say we're sleepwalking, is arrogant and rude and downright shitty.
1) Learn to live with the criticism. Everyone all over the world is hurling it at you. I'm not the only person making this exact argument; I just happen to be someone you dislike. 2) Consider the possibility that you might need to read the articles I'm linking before dismissing them. It might make sense then.
Well, I read what you wrote: Hmmm... or I could ask a bright guy who knows... So, I'll ask you again. How much wealth has to exit? And how do you have leverage?
Thought of you when I saw a murder-suicide in this neighborhood. (AI) Spuyten Duyvil is a residential neighborhood in the Bronx, NYC, known for its scenic waterfront views where the Hudson and Harlem Rivers meet, offering a mix of housing, parks, and convenient Metro-North train access to Manhattan. Its name comes from a Dutch legend about a trumpeter who vowed to swim the creek "in spite of the devil" ("spijt den duivel"). The area features diverse housing, parks like Henry Hudson Park, and is served by the Spuyten Duyvil station, making it a quieter, suburban-like part of the city with urban amenities.
If only we had a Western United States we could exit to. Instead we have two oceans, Mexico and Canada.
Protests can work, but only if there is massive commitment to get involved, and if they are succesful in targeting the power groups that support the regime. Just going to the street angry and annoying regular folk (by blocking traffic, etc.) is going to get people to hate you even if your cause is righteous. My experience is that for protests to become massive, you need large segments of the population to be suffering. In Iran we are seeing massive protests over human rights, and we've seen them sporadically in the past, but they became massive only when the economy tanked to the extent that people started truly suffering, and so they spread. But the question remains whether they can shame the powers that support the regime into doing something. My experience in Argentina was that protests were mostly limited while the economy was doing relatively well, but when the economy tanked, and regular folk started suffering, large numbers of people finally joined the protestors in massive rallies. The protests worked in descrediting the Junta, because they targeted groups that were supporting the junta. Also, the Mothers of Plaza de Mayo, by focusing on the stolen children of the dissapeared were able to strike a nerve. In spite of the regime's control of the media, they could not be silenced. And their efforts not only brought international condemnation for the Junta, shaming the leaders of nations that were supporting it, but internally it also exposed the leadership of the Catholic Church, as well as business leaders, and even some leaders within the armed forces into doubting whethet they could continue supporting what was happening. The stolen children became a rallying cry, partly because people were pissed off because the economy was tanking, and by shaming the nation's leaders who were either supporting or turning a blind eye to the Junta's actions, it became very difficult for the Archbishops, the CEOs and top military figures to continue their tacit support of the regime. The constant protests led to both internal and international pressure, and as the regime lost support it became desperate. It turned against its international supporters and invaded the Malvinas. But to show how fickle people are, when the Junta went to war, it received an injection of popular support. This is one thing fascists can do when they get in trouble, find an external enemy. Of course after they were defeated, they completely lost support and Democracy came back. It wasn't an easy path, and I do think that the protests played a big role in toppling the regime. But it took time to get going. Frankly I don't know if the US is ripe yet for something like that. I think the majority of people are still too comfortable with their every-day life to want to get involved.
We are approaching powder keg status though. The more pressure that builds, the bigger the explosion. Despite our exceptionalist pretensions, the US doesn't have a strong culture of protest (or much tolerance for it). The resistance has very little organization and no real national figurehead outside of politicians who are limited in various ways. It's anyone's guess what will finally set it off, but so far nothing has really stuck. The junta has lost a little steam, but that's it. The list of atrocities has gotten so long that the voices of the oppressed have gone from cacophony to white noise. If I'm just using my crystal ball, I think that the likely ineptitude of the response to the coming mountain states fire season being a big factor. Maybe not directly, but giving the spark.
Great post. One comment though: you don’t need an external enemy when you’ve already created internal ones…minorities and liberals