At this point it seems completely insane to pretend that there is enough of a shared national identity for the U.S. to remain a single nation. Insisting on acting like a whole when the nation is divided and fragmented is a waste of time and effort. And besides, if the so called fly-over states are so afraid of being overruled or dismissed by coastal states they should get the chance to make their own rules. Break the U.S. up into separate countries, it doesn't have to be 1 state = 1 country, but if people were forced to cooperate in order to achieve their goals, such as importing or exporting goods, traveling, arranging infrastructure, they might realize that they take a whole lot for granted.This isn't new. When Obama was president some idiots down here in tx were talking about seceding, there is a group up in Oregon that wants to break off and join Idaho since Oregon is too liberal for them. This is something that always crops up on the fringe with idiots talking about taking a state out when things don't go their way, it tends to be the right that does this the most, I think people who were talking about California seceding were actually just right wing sites saying it should.
What they should do is break up the US so all the cities are one country and all the rural areas are another. Cause the problem with saying things like we aren't enough of a shared national identity is that cities tend to have similar morals and rural tends to have similar morals regardless of what part of the country it is.At this point it seems completely insane to pretend that there is enough of a shared national identity for the U.S. to remain a single nation. Insisting on acting like a whole when the nation is divided and fragmented is a waste of time and effort. And besides, if the so called fly-over states are so afraid of being overruled or dismissed by coastal states they should get the chance to make their own rules. Break the U.S. up into separate countries, it doesn't have to be 1 state = 1 country, but if people were forced to cooperate in order to achieve their goals, such as importing or exporting goods, traveling, arranging infrastructure, they might realize that they take a whole lot for granted.
Now that's what we need, an American Brexit (Amexit? USexit? The Purge?) from ourselves. I'm sure that would go well.At this point it seems completely insane to pretend that there is enough of a shared national identity for the U.S. to remain a single nation. Insisting on acting like a whole when the nation is divided and fragmented is a waste of time and effort. And besides, if the so called fly-over states are so afraid of being overruled or dismissed by coastal states they should get the chance to make their own rules. Break the U.S. up into separate countries, it doesn't have to be 1 state = 1 country, but if people were forced to cooperate in order to achieve their goals, such as importing or exporting goods, traveling, arranging infrastructure, they might realize that they take a whole lot for granted.
So would a number of other states when they realise how subsidised agriculture is by the government to keep prices low for both production and transportation to help supply them.At this point it seems completely insane to pretend that there is enough of a shared national identity for the U.S. to remain a single nation. Insisting on acting like a whole when the nation is divided and fragmented is a waste of time and effort. And besides, if the so called fly-over states are so afraid of being overruled or dismissed by coastal states they should get the chance to make their own rules. Break the U.S. up into separate countries, it doesn't have to be 1 state = 1 country, but if people were forced to cooperate in order to achieve their goals, such as importing or exporting goods, traveling, arranging infrastructure, they might realize that they take a whole lot for granted.
Remember last time you tried making this argument? I remember. California still produces the most agriculturally and there is absolutely not the negative correlation of population and agricultural output that you think there is.So would a number of other states when they realise how subsidised agriculture is by the government to keep prices low for both production and transportation to help supply them.
Also if you google it most of the data is per $ of produce sold which would mean non subsidised crops would be selling for higher amounts.
Actually flyover states get more subsidies then California.Edit: oh, you added in some bullshit this time about subsidies. Well, I’m not going to waste my time checking dairy subsidies vs corn, but agricultural subsidies are large for California’s dairy and Iowa’s corn. It’s not like only the flyover states get subsidies.
While that's true, there's been a few things that haven't happened in umpteen years going around recently. Not saying this isn't a big deal, but it'd have seemed a much bigger deal last administration.Once again, I'm talking about an event that hasn't happened on American Soil for an untold number of years. Decades. Generations. Who knows. I've mentioned that a number of times.
Oh sure, I get that, but they seemed to have been waiting for someone suitably evil to latch onto, he didn't seem to need to work very hard. He has no talent for leadership, they've got a real talent for being led.He didn't just turn up, he tapped into a disturbingly large percent of the american population that are hateful, violent fuckwads, who have been simmering on the sidelines for years, and slowly getting worse.
I stand corrected. Still not enough to change that “flyover” states don’t deserve extra representation on the basis of agricultural output.Actually flyover states get more subsidies then California.
EWG's Farm Subsidy Database
EWG's Farm Subsidy Database put the issue on the map and is driving reform. Just ten percent of America's largest and richest farms collect almost three-fourths of federal farm subsidies; cash payments that often harm the environment.farm.ewg.org
Over 1995-2020 Cali got 13 billion in subsidies, but Iowa got 35 billion, Nebraska got 24 billion, Kansas got 24 billion. TX was the largest receiver of subsidies at almost 40 billion.
Oh I did.Remember last time you tried making this argument? I remember. California still produces the most agriculturally and there is absolutely not the negative correlation of population and agricultural output that you think there is.
Edit: oh, you added in some bullshit this time about subsidies. Well, I’m not going to waste my time checking dairy subsidies vs corn, but agricultural subsidies are large for California’s dairy and Iowa’s corn. It’s not like only the flyover states get subsidies.
Pretty sure that was either because I got banned or something. And you didn’t mention, cite, or emphasize subsidies at the time.Oh I did.
I brought up the exact same point about it being by $ and that not taking into account subsidies and then you went very quiet and didn't actually counter it but went off on a tangent instead.
No. It’s nuts and fruit, but dairy is a significant thing for California, also beef.Oh and the major things California was making money on for output weren't milk or corn lol
You didn't seem banned at the timePretty sure that was either because I got banned or something. And you didn’t mention, cite, or emphasize subsidies at the time.
No. It’s nuts and fruit, but dairy is a significant thing for California, also beef.
That is pretty much my point, smaller nations tend to be more culturally homogenous, and people tend to identify, primarily, by their nationality. As opposed to the U.S. where people tend to identify by state. Of course a texan is going to be displeased about a californian making decisions on his behalf. Now, Texas might not be as culturally homogenous as where I live, but it is far easier to accept the opinions of "city folk" as long as they're texan, and not californian, because that adds on another identity.Can people who live in countries smaller than Montana just shut the fuck up about "flyover states" please? Driving across your country and back is a day trip
My point, as you put it, is that y'all are so "culturally homogeneous" that you've got no idea what you're talking about when you talk about US rural areas and flyover states, so please stop trying. You're just fucking wrong about so, so much. Barring a handful of our stupidest, mainly Texans, we're all Americans first over here before states factor in.That is pretty much my point, smaller nations tend to be more culturally homogenous, and people tend to identify, primarily, by their nationality. As opposed to the U.S. where people tend to identify by state. Of course a texan is going to be displeased about a californian making decisions on his behalf. Now, Texas might not be as culturally homogenous as where I live, but it is far easier to accept the opinions of "city folk" as long as they're texan, and not californian, because that adds on another identity.
Also, if we're talking about size, does that mean that people from flyover states need to shut up about coastal states since they tend to have smaller populations?
I don't think that's true. I think it's actually kind of the opposite of true, and I think that's the problem with the "flyover state" rhetoric. The US is actually quite homogenous. Each state is effectively its own small country, with its own urban and rural areas and culturally distinct communities, the same as any small country. Some states might have a slightly different urban or rural balance, or a slightly different economic focus, or a slightly different demographic makeup, but that's largely a generalization. The political tensions within the US aren't between states, they're also within states.That is pretty much my point, smaller nations tend to be more culturally homogenous, and people tend to identify, primarily, by their nationality.
I dunno and I don’t care. Your argument still sucks ass as your obsession with “flyover” agriculture ignores the massive agricultural centers outside of the Midwest and agriculture still isn’t votes. We also need other resources than food, like wood, oil, fish, ports, etc., y’know, other things that the most disproportionately affected state by the electoral college has in abundance.You didn't seem banned at the time