What do you think about the idea of the United States splitting up based on political beliefs? One thing I forgot to bring up in the video: Blue states and red states CHANGE. For example, Georgia was reliably a red state until 2020. Indiana was a blue state in...2008. California was a red state in...the 1980s.
Considering Texas has more democratic voters than most states and California has more Republican voters than most states Is a prime example of why this wouldn’t work.
How is it even logically possible? California always votes blue but has most Republican voters??? And Texas gas more democratic voters and barely counts as purple state/mostly red???
When living in italy and taking an Italian culture class I heard a great line, " All the regions like to act like they're so different, but we all eat pasta"
Not really comparable. The United States is more like 50 different countries, which all have their own individual state regions. The US is way more diverse than the small country of Italy.
@@Chaoitcme Actually you'd be surprised. Italy's regions grew their identities for millennia during times before easy travel. Each region has its own dialect that they speak. Traveling from one region to another can easily feel like being in a different country. America might have a lot of geographic diversity but we all eat McDonalds
The dumbest thing about the whole "national divorce" is ignores the history of demographics as states have shifted supported between the two parties. Also furthering divide is definitely not better for the country.
As a black man, I disagree that furthering division is not better. I'm tired of living in the same country as people that don't think black people should have rights. I'd prefer if the country split apart (I don't care how) and black people were able to live in one and racists were able to live in the other.
@@kenowens7272 The people that think black people shouldn't have rights are like, less than 1% of people, seems like you're giving a bigger voice to racists than they actually have
Why did you say "blacks and racists" as if those two are opposites? It's better to say racists and non-racists. Or better yet, how about you don't advocate for people being forcibly moved into a specific place against their will?
Urban areas are Democratic, rural areas are Republican, suburbs are mostly Democratic, and exurbs are mostly Republican. If we divorced along Blue/Red lines, we would have a collection of isolated city-states surrounded by a vast territory of conservative lands. This "national divorce" would fall apart immediately after it was formed.
The irony of MTG's tweet about red states requiring prayer and the pledge of allegiance at school and blue states requiring pledges to BLM and the trans flag at school is that both of those scenarios would violate the 1st Amendment.
Would the post-divorce countries even keep the current US constitution? In the unlikely event of such a divorce, even if all goes perfectly without any military coups, powergrabs, revolutions, etc, I can't see the red states forming anything other than an explicitly Christian nation without freedom of religion.
Only because of the metro areas like craplanta. Most all of the rural areas like where I live vote conservative or in this case republican. We have a rino governor and the two senators were installed most likely.
@@darryladams519 as a Georgian we can’t claim you. If you genuinely thought Walker was better for GA and the Nation than Warnock you need to put down that sweet georgia meth.
@@darryladams519 As the cat in the hat once said "You're not just wrong, you're stupid." You literally only voted for Walker because big orange daddy told you to. You probably voted for Purdue in the primaries because big orange daddy told you to. Get out of my state, we do not want you here. Bye bye.
This is the first time I've heard someone else (and especially coming from you) say that Americans agree on most political issues and it's just the media and politicians who make us believe we are divided. I really appreciate hearing that.
The people with any perspective AT ALL saying that Americans agree on most things tend to get drowned out. Anyone who’s spent time abroad quickly realize that most foreigners can’t tell any difference between the American left/right. To our foreign friends, all Americans are equally annoying!
The key question is, why? Why would it benefit the media to divide us? The answer is: money. The more extreme, outlandish, and terrifying they make the other side look, the more likely their viewers are to click and watch those videos and read those articles, gaining them add revenue. They will take an example of the most extreme right and radical left wing individuals and scare the other side into thinking that all democrats are anti military and support killing infants, and all republicans are racist monsters who want to kill democracy. Neither is true, and we almost always agree on the basics, but it is the media taking advantage of the fragility of democracy that is pushing us to the brink.
Complains about “being forced to practice ideologies against our will” Describes being forced to repeat the pledge of allegiance as a positive… Not just she’s a hypocrite, but she really doesn’t care about free speech. Why do we elect fools into office ?
@@tessareynolds8377 Oh yeah, the crazy possibly racist wackos whose solution to everything is to "shoot it". I'm talking more about the people that got off on her ad where she was firing that one gun I don't know what it's called. Speaking of which, I think it's retarded that we have lawmakers that think background checks to own a gun are unconstitutional while others that don't know shit about guns want to pass gun laws.
Fun trivia: only four states do not have state level laws requiring the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools. Two are “red” states and two are “blue states”.
I know my high school in Mississippi didn't/still doesn't do the Pledge of Allegiance. K-8 does but it just stops. And my hs doesn't have nay US flags on the walls like the k-8 schools do XD
If more people would actually live by those words and treat the other side as if we are actually more alike, we might not have to have these conversations.
Wouldn't it be nice if the US had an electoral system that meant that congress actually represented the diverse opinions of American voters so that people didn't feel that separation was the only way to have their voices heard.
@@eifbkcn Lets be real. The people complaining wish for the US to cease to be a democracy while lining their pockets with saudi, russian, and chinese money.
@@eifbkcn not true. The foundation of our current system is fueled by corruption and supporting the oligarchs. There's valid ideas that would improve how our "democracy" currently works such as ranked choice voting. Or getting money out of politics so not everything has to be funded by blood money. Defaulting to authoritarianism and "strong men" is the lazy coward's way of organizing the government.
@RanStuff Its the opposite. The more people there are the less democracy works as there become to many people and to many ideas clashing. And rhe uses has like 10x the population of any other democratic nation ON TOP OF being more diverse than any other nation. The US isnt a Democracy and was never intended to be. Democracy is never even mentioned in the constitution or bill of rights. The US is a constitutional federalized republic with the electoral collage.
@@eifbkcn But if the country got along better politically, then fewer people would tune into Fox News to get their fix of outrage!! Then how will Tucker Carlson afford to put his kids through private school? Have a heart!! 😢😢😢
I like how social media makes it even more obvious that politicians are mostly just normal if not dumb people, and thanks to that we get videos like this
no. REPUBLICANS are dumb people dude 🙄🙄🙄 show me an elected liberal thats says ANYTHING as half as stup!d as what trump greene or desantis spew on the daily in the past DECADE
As a person who traveled across the US for 6 months, the determining difference seems to be the city and not the state. If the US map was actually separated to the blue and red areas it would look like an absolute mess.
Take Washington for example. Nearly half the state's population is in and around Seattle. That is a very blue area, while the vast majority of the rest of the state is pretty darn red.
@@gloriouslumi nor should 1 city dictate how the 100s of other towns should operate.. especially when its a conflict of interest like water.. where farmers would like to have access to but city folk voted to keep it in corporation hands
@@FEDEXLuchs Of course, it's in the very best interest of everyone to have rivers run completely dry. Drinking water is completely overrated. Here's a deal - you let farmers do what they want without relying on city folks. As in no artificial fertilizers matched to soil composition, no motor-powered pumps, no motor vehicles, no medication, neither for animals nor for humans. Like in the good old days where cutting yourself on your plow could result in losing your leg to infection. After all, research is nonsense and no city dweller could possibly know what's best for you. Grandpa's anecdotes will last for eternity and grandma's chicken soup beats antibiotics any day.
@@FEDEXLuchs The problem is you just made the exact same argument that you claimed was the problem. I know its fun to blame city folk and all but the vast majority of our issues is due to legislation created by "Rural Folk". Look at your example farmers would suck the state dry to make their next crop and then inevitably blame the "city folk"
9:31 _"I don't think she's talking about the Bureau of Land Management, there."_ It was so dry and so well delivered out of nowhere that I died laughing. Well played, Mr. Beat.
The end part when Mr. Beat said its profitable to keep us divided and that's why we clicked the video is pretty accurate. I turned off ad block and rewatched it so that he'd get paid lol
I am a musician who tours all over the country from big cities to little towns. I think most Americans would be surprised on how much we truly agree on things. There's a reason the same issues are brought up over and over again. Those are the minority of things where our differences really show and it's a way to keep us divided so we can re elect the same people over and over again. Most Americans are reasonable people, go out and talk to your fellow Americans and you'll be surprised on how well we get along and agree. To quote the great Maya angelou, we are more alike my friends than we are unalike
Most people want human rights and access to social services and to be paid living wages. Republicans stroke this culture war divide to keep us peasants distracted and angry.
Believe you me if you sound reasonable to me I'd vote for you over any democrat corrupt slimeball like Biden or Kamala. I'd rather have an incompetent joe off the street even conservatives than a corrupt mofo dem
@Night Raven I get that. Point I'm making is that when you listen to politicians and media they make it seem like there's no way we can live with one another based on our difference of opinions. In my opinion. It's very easy to talk to someone without bringing up different of opinions on Healthcare or abortion because I have plenty of other enjoyable conversations to have with them. I wouldn't know that if all I did was take my senator's (who is trying to be elected again) word
*But here's the thing:* Enough of our able-minded fellow Americans thought it prudent to vote for Ms Marjorie, "Jewish Space Lasers exist," Taylor Greene to be one of our members of *Congress,* so she could help write *LAWS* for us. And then to ensure it was not perceived as an anomaly & after seeing the "great" work she had done while in Congress, the same folks chose to re-elect her in 2022. All of which partly explains where we are at today as a nation.
@@mark-rm6kj she got elected and then re-elected because of Republican gerrymandering of her district. In both elections she ran for the most part unopposed in a district that is comprised of almost 90% registered Republicans
Well, comedy anyways. The biggest joke is this guy pretending he's actually discussing the issue when he's so obviously biased in favor of the Left. A discussion of the REAL issues, without sarcasm, cheap shots and bias, would be refreshing.
@@t.j.mcfadden7993 Exactly. "Let me list in a supremely biased way every single way blue states are better than red states" (even though he pointed out earlier why that is a terrible line to draw sand on)
@@t.j.mcfadden7993What are you talking about? How did you come to that conclusion? He did an objective analysis based on data and the conclusion is that the notion of "blue states" vs "red states" is not an accurate portal of America, which is far more varied even in states that have a majority rep and a majority dem. And even in those states, the majority is barely more than 50%. If you don't have a factual basis to back up your claim that he is "obviously biased in favor of the Left" then you're just being a troll.
@@seraphimconcordant LOL, that's NOT what he said - and that's NOT what he did. What are you basing that on??? He did an objective analysis based on data and the conclusion is that the notion of "blue states" vs "red states" is not an accurate portal of America, which is far more varied even in states that have a majority rep and a majority dem. And even in those states, the majority is barely more than 50%. Try thinking.
@@joshuawadsworth6417 The GOP are an increasingly great example of fascism. The only reason their brand of fascism has been ineffectual is due to their lack of complete control. But like any good fascist regime, that is exactly what they seek.
I clicked on this video wondering if you would discuss how Americans don't easily divide red/blue by state borders, and was happy enough that you did so early on that I stayed to watch the entire video. Very well made! I appreciate the amount of research you did, and enjoyed how you kept it serious yet entertaining.
It was foolishness. Not a single way he described the states being divided would ever be a real world solution. Never, ever would they simply go by voting record or political affiliation. Do you believe that the civil war was divided up by such a method? Each state made the decision themselves on if they wanted to stay in the union or not. Nobody was told they had to be in the north or the south. Honestly I thought this guy was supposed to be smart and understood history.
I hope not!.. Even though my politics are a lot different than my grandparents, I still wouldn’t want a U.S. Civil War in between Democrats and Republicans!.. Fuck no!.. I love my grandparents!..
The biggest problem in America IMO, is that we are stuck with this two party political system that is totally controlled by corporate interests. Both parties have deep ties to the corporate media that controls basically all of TV and radio.
@@painvillegaming4119 Try doing that with the SCOTUS we have now. Or the fact that most of the politicians we have in control of our government are banana repubs and corporate dems.
One dichotomy that you did not mention is that while red states are supposed to be against national spending, they receive a disproportionate amount of it. While blue states contribute a disproportionate share of federal revenue. Also, such a divorce would almost have to be by counties, see Oregon, I would like to see that broken down as to how a national map would look if we divorced along county lines.
Oregon would probably end up with the state of Jefferson proposed again. It almost happened… then Pearl Harbor got bombed and people had other things to worry about.
What do you mean? Both parties are currently in favor of spending a lot more than they should. They just differ on where that spending should go, such as the Democrats preferring to spend more on social programs, while the Republicans prefer to spend more on the military. We haven't had a true fiscal conservative in the White House since Clinton, and he's a Democrat.
Splitting along county lines just gives more land to the red states, and it is a distorted view of reality. Seven million more people voted for Biden than Trump. There is a pervasive idea in Conservative media that pushes the narrative that LAND is the important thing in elections, not people. You see this every time they purport to show a map that a majority of America voted for Trump - they're just showing land area. Unless you buy into the idea that LAND is the important thing in an election, and that the more land area you own the more important your vote should be, this is a terrible way of dealing with democracy. For example, billionaire founder of CNN Ted Turner owns around 2 million acres of land in the US. That's larger than either Rhode Island or Delaware, both home to one million people. Is Ted Turner's vote more important than 1 million people? No, of course not - that's a silly idea to entertain.
I've heard that many of the blue and red states are really purple. Based on the 2020 presidential election, they leaned red or blue only by slight margins: like 49% to 51%. If that's the case, the difference between many red and blue states wouldn't be all that pronounced.
Crossing the border between Oregon and Idaho is scarcely noticeable. Crossing the border between rural Oregon and Portland is like going from Texas to Neptune. The divisions really aren't at State boundaries, for the most part. It's the urban/rural thing.
There's only one blue state: Vermont. All the rest are high-population blue cities inside of red states. If the states had an electoral colleges like the federal government (which was created such that high population states couldn't rule over low population states, which is exactly what cities do to rural counties), our politics would be entirely different. Both parties would hate it of course: democrats because they wouldn't exist, republicans because they'd actually have to do something for once.
I remember when I drove to Idaho from Seattle, and honestly Washington "felt like Idaho" when I was in the right/rural half of the state. Probably the main difference is rural or urban.
@@DSArmageddon666 Atlanta, Augusta and Savannah alone hold over 60% of the entire population of the state of Georgia. Why exactly should these millions of people be held hostage by the decisions of the couple dozen people in Bumfuck, GA? Cause that's what happens in an electoral college system, however you want to spin it: the majority is held hostage by the minority just bc of where they happen to live: a voter in Idaho has five times the strength of a voter in California, proportionately, even though it has 1/10 of the population and contributes 1/15 as much to the nation.
@@clusterflick6333 India, China, and Indonesia have over 50% f the world's population. Should they set the rules for everyone else? Just like you don't want to spend your life ruled by the high-population countries, people in rural areas don't want to spend their lives ruled by the high population cities.
@@DSArmageddon666 Do we live under a One World Government? Last I heard, we don't, so that's a completely irrelevant example. But if you ask me, should the 32 million citizens of New Delhi have more of an impact in the direction of the country than the 3,200 Indian villagers living in the middle of nowhere - then yeah, the answer would be an unequivocal YES. " people in rural areas don't want to spend their lives ruled by the high population cities." -- and the answer to this is to go in the opposite direction, having the great population centers be held hostage by the small towns, even though THEY (the big cities) are the capital, THEY are the majority, and THEIR citizens will be the ones most impacted by said decisions? In other words, the only *true* democratic system, in your view, is a MINORITY government where the majority of the population has no say whatsoever in the decisions that impact them directly? Is that the point you're making?
I’ve thought about it a lot… I changed my mind because I was kind of open minded to this. It would be more trouble than it’s worth honestly. It would set a dangerous precedent and could be a slippery slope.
I don't know how young the audience is, but I remember the Partition of India happening in my father's time and reading about it. The idea that two sides hate each other so much that they just need to go their own separate ways, ending peacefully, is not going to happen. You know what happens when the lines are drawn and there are people living on the wrong side? I'll you what happened when India saw that scenario, 2 million dead and 20 million displaced, and it's currently the most likely place in the world to start a nuclear war because the two sides hate each other that much. Oh what's that, you think it doesn't count? Ok then Yugoslavia, how's a little ethnic cleansing seem to you? Not west enough in europe for you and needs to be more political than ethnic? Ok, the Years of Lead in Italy. Still not west enough and it needs to have happened in your lifetime or it doesn't count? The Troubles in Northern Ireland. You can narrow down the criteria all you want and I'm going to keep finding examples where the only result is people getting killed. Learn to sort shit out with the people you live among, or you're going to end up like them, and you're not going to like how it turns out. And anyone who wants that scenario, are the ones who need to be shot more than anyone else.
Best comment I've seen here. The idea of basically going "fuck cooperation" and just splitting the country by party is such a stupid idea and saying you support something like a "national divorce" but don't want to cause a Civil War is like saying you want to run a marathon but don't want to get sweaty
@@Professor-fc7vc More importantly, India resulted in 2 million dead despite being a relatively unarmed nation in 1947. The US has more guns than people, that's a nightmare scenario. Forget civil war, anyone who says a national divorce won't result in something on par with an ethnic cleansing, is kidding themselves.
Wow actually pulled out scenarios I have rarely scene referenced, bravo 👏 I often have to explain these events to my fellow Americans when discussing potential outcomes to civil war, only to be met with blank stares and confusion.
@@svenrio8521 The Years of Lead is probably the closest parallel you can find to America today in terms of politics and that's scary because that resulted in politicians, business leaders, military officers etc being murdered by extremists from both sides, but people calling for a national divorce is something akin to the Partition of India and really don't understand how much of a shitshow your world becomes when you say "this is X state now, this is Y state now", and people who should be in X state are living in Y and told they don't belong, are either forcibly removed, or worse killed when they say "no, I like living here, I don't want to move".
As a Maine citizen, I think many more states should start adopting the congressional district method other than just us and Nebraska. It would be best if the electoral college was abolished of course, but that is highly unlikely to happen, so I think this would be the next best thing. We also have ranked choice voting, but it's only used for national elections, not statewide or local elections.
The issue with that is that it requires the government in power in each state to voluntarily give up power. Take California for example. It is guaranteed 54(?) electoral votes. Implementing electoral district apportionment would require democrats to weaken their own position in the electoral college. The reverse goes for Texas. It works fine in Maine and Nebraska because so few electoral votes are on the line.
That certainly could help even things out, but allocating electors by district would have problems with gerrymandering. I’d take this a step further and require that all states allocate electors proportionally to the state-wide popular vote.
All hypotheticals aside its a damn shame that a sitting congresswoman is stirring so much division to the point she is calling for a “divorce”, the fact they have been tolerant of this anti American rhetoric has completely turned me away from the party tbh
What shes saying id in no way anti American. If anything its MORE American than trying to clump everyone together just because they live in the same country. Its suppose to be 50 states.
Love the way you ended the video. I definitely agree that there are people trying to keep us divided because they personally benefit or profit from it. As an independent voter in a swing state, I didn't click on this video out of a hatred for "the other side", but I did click out of a certain amount of fear. I'm glad you reminded us that this is probably all talk, politicians stirring up attention for themselves to win points with certain voters, while the majority of the people in the country do want to remain united. I appreciate your (comparatively) unbiased take.
In the last 40 years liberals have used the government to advance their ideas , when Americans were United most of liberals ideas weren’t a thing like gay marriage or mass migration. All changed
Exactly what I was going to say. Attention wh(ummm) seekers are always going to say silly things for the 24hr news networks to obsess over while most people will roll their eyes. And even though MrBeat gave Green even more attention for her bananas tweet, I'm glad he illustrated the idea from the perspective of someone using critical thinking skills.
I don't know. I think Greene is of a kind who would overthrow everything so that they can have absolute power somewhere. They want to be the king (or queen) cockroach over their patch of the resulting trash pile.
Like stated in the video, this is mostly a urban/rural divide. Atlanta is trending blue, but Georgia is fairly red. California is solidly in the blue camp for presidential elections, but this doesn't reflect the rural California population.
She represents the district just northwest of mine, and my mom and I like to talk about how absurd it is that she’s still in office (her district is so red that they wouldn’t vote her out unless she was forcibly removed)
A lot of Blue States and Red States aren't as Blue and Red as we think they are. For example, I'm from New York. Most outsiders might associate the state as being very Blue but the reality is that New York City and the surrounding suburbs are Blue while the majority of the rest of the state is actually Red. And even in New York City, Staten Island is Red while the other four boroughs are Blue and New York City has elected fiscally conservative Republican candidates as Mayors in the recent past such as Michael Bloomberg and Rudy Giuliani. Even current Democratic mayor Eric Adams has right leaning tendencies when it comes to areas such as law enforcement. Overall, reality of politics are far more complicated than the idea of a two party binary. The two parties rarely act like just two parties.
Same here in Illinois. Chicago and its suburbs are solidly blue. The rest of the state, however, is very red with only dots of blue. But we also have the same kind of population imbalance New York does.
I live in California and the situation there is very similar, the state is blue because the most populated areas lean that way. The urban and coastal areas tend to dominate while the rural and inland areas rarely have much influence. Situations like this are one of the many reasons why national divorce is becoming increasingly mainstream. I live in San Diego county which until recent years was a Republican stronghold, especially the part of San Diego county (called North County) that I live in. For the last 10 years or so it has become more of a swing county, back in 2018 I got a Democratic congressman for the first time I can remember. He won re-election in 2020 and 2022 fairly easily.
The southern tier is pretty red. But also, we got other cities and counties in upstate that are blue. Cuomo won upstate two out of the three elections. And since bush in 88, upstate has voted for a democrat in presidential elections until 2016, when trump narrowly won upstate by 2 points. But in 2020, Biden took it back and won upstate nearly 3 points. Technically, upstate would be more like Michigan or Pennsylvania. It’s considered more purple than red. But yeah, I get what you’re saying about NYC.
3:51 Fun Fact about Nebraska, Omaha’s (metro) population (≈ 1 Million) is about half of the state’s population (≈ 2 Million) So about half of the population lives in those 2 (blue ish) counties.
“We should have a national divorce! Not secession, but just where the states that disagree with the federal government should leave!” Ms. Greene, that _is_ secession. Calling for secession is a very bad idea.
It's a great idea when two polar opposite sides can't come to any compromise. Compromise is impossible. Compromise to the left is total capitulation to their side. The only thing left is divorce. Irreconcilable Differences.
@@tessareynolds8377 I don’t think there are any real liberal or left-wing politicians calling for a national divorce. Certainly none as prominent as Greene. Terminally online, one or two like Twitter users don’t count. You can find political advocates on any political argument on Twitter. In fact, to prove this point, I searched up “Restore the Persian Empire” and found a couple people advocating just that.
The whole thing is absurd. My favorite part of the whole rant is that Rep Greene’s home state could be considered a blue state, despite her claim the blue states are close to the end of the world
She is aware, lol. They whine on and on about how GA is being "sillified" by "woke Hollywoodism" (GA is attracting a lot of movie and TV work including in MtG'S district which is where I live).
@Anthony Landrum Tyler Perry is filming in Rome, Cedartown, etc as we speak. Right in her district. Georgia is going to be blue for national elections in 2024 too
Exactly. Democrats aren't leftists, they're just moderate right wingers while Republicans are far right. Thanks to the Red Scare, there are no genuine left wing politicians in the U.S. Even people like Bernie Sanders and AOC are center left at best.
One thing I find interesting about her whole "national divorce" idea is that she still wants the blue states to provide services to the road states like road maintenance and such, which doesn't make sense at all.
Probably because she is not advocating for dissolution of the union, only a weekend federal government, federal government will still collect taxes and do what their original intended to do to handle anything is not related to state, such as interstate highways, and disaster relief. Everything should go to the states or local government.
That's not a divorce with that condition. She wants to have her cake and eat it too. Honestly Margarine Tater Greens ideas bottom barrel stupid to begin with and keep getting dumber.
No, it makes perfect sense for her worldview, which is just "give me everything I want, and you get nothing you want". She's a malignant narcissist, it doesn't have to make sense to anyone else.
@@KingBobXVI The narcism is on the side of people who want to shove their ideology on a population that doesn't want it. What is wrong with localism, with more power to state and local government.
I absolutely LOVE that you made a video out of this. It’s as fascinating as when I took a crack at a hypothetical situation in which elected US presidents stayed in office until they died (since that idea was floated when the Constitution was being created). Good one, Mr. Beat, as always.
@@iammrbeat You’re welcome. I welcome seeing you take a crack at the idea. I’m very curious what rules you would use for this alternate scenario. I had to use a few specific ones for my scenario, as there’s quite a bit of “well this could go a few ways” that I noticed in my research.
@@iammrbeat Nice explanation on this video. When I heard Marjorie Taylor Greene ranted about a National Divorce, my first reaction was this is rife with Russian Propaganda and it's going to be about Putin. I had to look at this from the angle of Mr. Putin gain over this.
I think the biggest problem with trying to divide into 2 nations (one red, one blue or right & left, however one chooses to put it) is how thoroughly integrated the populations are. Even the reliably red states that typically go red every election are not as red as you'd think. When I look at the vote breakdown by district in my state, I see the Republicans often win with approx 60% of the vote in many districts, Democrats reliably win a couple districts, and only one is consistently over 75% Republican vote. How does one fairly break up into Redland and Blueland with a population so mixed? Seems to me that any arbitrary line on a map is going to trap people in the wrong country. I also suspect that a national divorce would not make Redland and Blueland as happy as they think. Right now, we each have our scapegoats. Democrats blame Republican obstruction and Republicans paint Democrats as cartoon supervillains determined to destroy the nation. Without those scapegoats, the flaws of each set of policies would become more readily apparent. It may also make it harder for the corporate purses that heavily influence both parties to stay hidden.
Break by county lines, not state lines. Also, start out by offering tax deductions and other incentives for people to relocate to places more to their liking. As for ther corporate purses - that is best counteracted with a proportional voting system. Many parties in the parliament, not just 2. All parties are relatively small and internally politically coherent. Therefore, no party can realistically hope for becoming a majority party, all of them must do coalitions. Also, when parties are internally coherent, any donor who wants to change the voting pattern of a party must do so for all its parliamentarians - quite the task. Also, if the donor manages to do so, the voters still have lots of other parties to choose from. In a 2-party state, donors and lobbyists can pay off 2 parties, and voters who want something else are out of luck. A bit harder to do that in a 10-party country.
"Democrats blame Republican obstruction and Republicans paint Democrats as cartoon supervillains determined to destroy the nation. Without those scapegoats, the flaws of each set of policies would become more readily apparent. It may also make it harder for the corporate purses that heavily influence both parties to stay hidden." That's the main argument FOR national divorce. See how well Trump fare without democrats to blame and federal subsidies. See how long corporate democrats stay in power without the constant threat of Republicans preventing them from voting Progressists.
Exactly. It's how pinheads like MTG imagine the split would occur that always makes me shake my head. For example, in 2016 the majority of Bernie Sanders supporters listed Donald Trump as their second choice. How exactly would THOSE people fit into MTG's great plan?
@@LA2047 That was more because people were so pissed at the Democrat party for pushing Sanders campaign to the side, or even actively trying to destroy his campaign. He would've possibly won if treated party by the DNC. Its not so much they support trump as it is they hated the DNC. and the people who voted sanders in the primaries and trump in the national election were still 1/15
It’s an asinine idea but there’s any number of practical ways it could feasibly work, but in reality it be so much easier to re-align the party structure and take more power at the state and local levels if you’re on the conservative side and for Democrats to accommodate people who disagree with them without smearing them as uneducated bigots and Nazi’s
Hell no this guy is way too biased and leans way too left. Wtf did he just make fun of a Republican and not a democrat. I could’ve found thousands of worse things and dumb shit said by a democrat then the shit he pulled out his ass.
My country (Canada) almost had a national divorce a few times, but it was always over language, culture and political representation. Partisanship would be the stupidest thing to divide nations by.
The United States is divided by regions. A Southerner and a Midwesterner are culturally different. They have different representation, and if you listen to regional dialects they are several forms of English in this country if you don't include the Spanish speakers.
@@als3022 Sure, but the degree of separation is on a different scale. English accents in the US are very different, but mutually intelligible. Culture can vary from state to state (or urban to rural), but you all celebrate the 4th of July and sing the same anthem. Spanish is a good example though. Imagine if Puerto Rico were the size of Texas and had the same economy. They would probably want to separate rather than remain a territory. That is how it's like between Quebec and the rest of Canada.
@@ingaman No we don't. There are LOTS of leftists who have never once sang the national anthem. And they may have a picnic on the 4th, but they do not celebrate it's meaning. You are confusing the outward actions of a person with inward meaning, and that is unrealistic.
@@tomspriggs9478 The inward meaning is irrelevant. It can even change from person-to-person. What matters is that every American identifies as an American. What one American (or group of Americans) wants their country to be may be different from another American. Many Québécois do not even see themselves as Canadians.
@@ingaman Just like the Quebecois I do not see myself as an American the way leftists do. I do not identify with them, and what they want America to be like is a threat to me and my people's well-being. We have spent the last 20 years saying "Not my President" based on which side won the election. Do you not see this? We are not united by being "Americans" anymore, and I withdraw my consent to being governed by them.
We need more people like Mr beat in politics, tired of the politicians only interested in division and not being civil servants. Bad things happens when good people do nothing about it.
The problem isn't division, the problem is half of our politicians are far-right politically and won't compromise on any of their ideals for the sake of progress. The Republican party. They say no to everything.
@@ThunderTheBlackShadowKitty yeah we don't need compromise along the political isle, we need compromise across the working class to take back our country from this corporatocracy
@@ThunderTheBlackShadowKittyExactly. People are always like "why can't they just get along" as if one side isn't systemically trying to wipe out a portion of the population and are also buddy buddy with big corporations and deny losing elections... Why should we "compromise" with that?
Unfortunately, all the rich paying people are friends with the older men, because they are all ex business buddies. Honestly, having MGT go against AOC would be funny, as a lot of the republicans don't like MGT too
It is UNdemocratic and absolutely disgusting for MTG to talk about a divorce like this. I can’t stand some policies but It is a core democratic principle to agree to disagree. You should NOT assume everyone will think like you. We should all be able to agree that we are trying to make the country a better place, come together on our shared beliefs of Freedom, Life Liberty, etc. and that should be the core of our national unity and what makes us American.
Tbh it seems like a borderline treasonous comment. It's one thing for a random citizen to say something like that, but an elected representative of the national legislature? Don't they take an oath to preserve the constitution and the current government?
@@liamsweeney4754 pretty sure Europe's gradual process towards federalization via the EU is a good thing in terms of reducing armed conflict I don't think abolishing federalism, creating 50 independent nations, and allowing each to determine its foreign policy would be a good thing. I'm pretty sure that without the federal regulation of commerce, we wouldn't even have the freedom of travel between the 50 states as it stands
for all intents and purposes, merely *talking* about a divorce is not "undemocratic". It is exactly democratic- a person voicing their opinion to the public forum and the majority of people disagreeing. Now if you start calling for and planning for violence, then you've lost the ship and are being trecherous.
I don't really remember when this was but I also believe this sentiment in Argentina increased around 2020/2021during the pandemic quarantines at least what I remember, and partly due to the appearance of the libertarian movements in the USA, the whole 'don't thread on me' and 'plandemic' going around social media , then more libertarians started to gain more notoriety in Argentina and also I remember how a bunch of argentinians brought up a separation influenced after some idiots expressed that the state of florida and other republican states from the south should separate from America lol
How funny that MTG should mention the Pledge of Allegiance. There's a little word in that Pledge, INDIVISIBLE. Makes me wonder if she actually paid attention to what she was saying.
Even if politicians somehow hammered out a deal for a peaceful "national divorce" there would still be grave consquences. The partition of India with Pakistan and Bangladesh was in theory one of those done on religious lines. But even in heavily Muslim or heavily Hindu areas, it was not 100%. Millions were displaced in mass migration and it led to a lot of conflict and death. Possibly killing more than a million people.
I kind of saw that as the failures of the people being goodwill. Remember the miraculous failure in the middle east when the British and French empire drew arbitrary lines?
Yeah but they were dirt poor and carried all their stuff for miles on donkeys. Theoretically you could just draw up the red/blue state borders and have a projected date of divorce allowing people a few years to move, buy/sell homes, and seek employment elsewhere. It wouldn't really be that hard if people were patient and cooperated.
She probably means traditional Christian tenants Plus a few new things; Anti-homosexuality Anti-transgender Anti-abortion Anti-women A state bias towards Christianity State bias towards white people Segregation And whatever bullshit Trumpies spew from their mouth.
Here's a good hypothetical to ponder: If at least 95% of every state's voting age population (18+) were to vote in every election available every year, and if every state had statewide ranked choice voting, which states would flip red and which states would flip blue? What do you think would happen? In my personal humble opinion, I think a lot of states would swing either Independent or Democratic. To give a great example, Democrat Mary Peltoa won the 2022 House race in Alaska by 10% over Republican Sarah Palin despite Alaska typically being a red state. This is because of ranked choice voting. It more accurately reflects the political beliefs of Alaska residents, who are majority Independent.
No. Palin lost because she's Republican. I was a Republican until they lost their collective mind and decided "woke" is the biggest issue we have to face and Capitol riot was a guided tour. They have lost. Their fucking. minds. Now I have to vote democratic just to exist as a trans woman. The midterms was America rejecting the insanity and they just doubled down.
Higher voter turnout is almost always a D win these days. Voter suppression is the R’s best tactic to win elections - it’s a form of voter fraud, of course, not that they care when they bellyache about voter fraud.
"It's quite profitable to keep us divided. That's why you clicked on this video, isn't it?" I'm glad there's someone out there trying to have others understand each other.
Yep, their state services would collapse. Their vulnerable citizens would suffer greatly....somehow tho, Im sure they would have enough to give their rich people tax breaks
You realize the dollars they receive are largely for policies the Federal government mandates, right? e.g. you can't count things like welfare, since those are things mandated by Federal law.
States With Highest GDP California - $3.5 trillion. Texas - $2.1 trillion. New York - $1.9 trillion. Florida - $1.3 trillion. Illinois - $973 billion. Pennsylvania - $874 billion. Ohio - $765 billion. Georgia - $713 billion. You are patently wrong. The states with the larger economies would carry the rest...but that's happening now anyway so not much would change...other than the people in both red and blue states would be much happier.
She's only saying that because we have a Democratic president in office, I can bet you my entire two week paycheck that in two years if a Republican President wins, namely Trump or DeSantis she would definitely change her rhetoric.
Very true. If the US were to get a divorce, it should be between the vast rural areas of the country and the "Singapores" and their suburbs that ring it.
I'm in Georgia, and the idea of being in a different state than MTG is a nice one. Different country is downright exciting. If the differences were truly at the state level and clumped into neat regions, I'd consider giving it go. But the rural/urban divide is tricky. How would you make it work. Atlanta is very liberal. The rest of the Georgia is very conservative. Not sure how people would cross such non-contiguous borders all the time. Think of the nightmare trying to get from say Miami to Chicago in this scenario.
Also if/when a national divorce happened that would make Atlanta the target of Insurrections like Washington DC. That would mean places like the Georgia State Capital and Atlanta City Hall would face January 6th type events all so Marjorie Taylor Greene can make Georgia Conservative. However that cannot work like that though because the State of Georgia sent Rafael Warnock to the Senate.
Thank you Mr. Beat for making great informative content! Ever since I kid I have loved history, I wish I had you as a teacher when I was younger hahaha Keep up the great work!
@@edwinamendelssohn5129 Great way to redirect attention from your favorite party by bringing up a completely unrelated quote that you find stupid made by someone who neither this video nor this comment you replied mentioned once.
@@minneelyyyy nations/territories, etc splitting into one or more other nations is historically normative. Democrats act shocked like it's unprecedented. I was giving an example of actual stupidity.
“If we had a national divorce, red states and blue states would handle their police completely differently.” She… does know that states could do all of that with the police right now if they wanted to. Police are almost entirely funded and managed by state and local agencies.
There really is no such thing as a "red state" or a "blue state", the electoral college just really makes it appear that way. I live in a super conservative county of California (McCarthy's district), and there are likewise many progressive counties in Republican-run states. Unless people have enough wealth and have no work/family/life ties to where they live, they can't just move to the nearest state that agrees with all of their politics.
@@Violent_Wolfen CA's 20th district, when he said McCarthy he means Kevin McCarthy, the current Speaker of the House and thus the leader of the House Republicans
Mr. Beat, I have been watching your videos for awhile and I have to say that you really present good factual material and you are a very good storyteller. There where a few videos that I saw a bit of bias, but to be fair it would be very difficult not to show some bias with the amount of content you put out. I couldn’t believe some of the topics that you shared that were either omitted or glossed over in American History books. I was fortunate to go to a school (1 thru 12) that did not omit those things. Keep up the good work, we need more excellent teachers like you. Keep up the good work.
All I remember from my lifetime is the American people being lied to to get into a war with Iraq and Afghanistan only to discover that the money was totally corrupted and the country was handed right back to the Taliban. So all the money, all the families, all the injuries and death were for absolutely nothing. Now the US gives weapons to other countries to fight on our behalf. Most Americans don't want their money going to war. Most Americans wouldn't fight for unity in a civil war today. They'd let everyone go their separate ways because it's better than tyranny by any party, which shouldn't exist in the first place. History is history. It matters but not as much as moving forward. The world won't stop turning.
A few things to point out. 1. If we needed to split up it would likely not be based on politics at all, but based on regions. There are already interstate partnerships, and during Covid for instance you saw nearby states often coordinate policies with one another. This even translates to some extent to international politics, as you have groups like New England who annually summit with eastern Canadian leaders (NEG-ECP). Furthermore, traditional secessionist theory says that a claim to land is necessary for secession, and the states have a lot stronger a claim to land than counties or your neighbor does. That is why people are mostly talking in terms of states when they rig up secession. 2. There are certain states that could easily break off without anyone really noticing. Hawaii and Alaska especially are already so distant from the rest of the country that it would not be worth fighting them if they tried to break off. As seen from Alaska's recent senate coalition consisting of 9 democrats and 8 republicans, it is also reasonable to expect that when a state becomes removed enough from the rest of the country, the national political divide doesn't matter all that much. 3. This is not the first time that secession has been talked about by sitting representatives. Who can forget when former president John Quincy Adams brought a pro-secession petition (the Haverhill petition) to the floor of Congress, and fought off a censorship vote for it. He himself once said (albeit not while in congress)/ "If the day should ever come, (may Heaven avert it,) when the affections of the people of these states shall be alienated from each other; when the fraternal spirit shall give away to cold indifference, or collisions of interest shall fester into hatred, the bands of political association will not long hold together parties no longer attracted by the magnetism of conciliated interests and kindly sympathies; and far better will it be for the people of the disunited states, to part in friendship from each other, than to be held together by constraint". There is a long history of politicians advocating for a national breakup dating back hundreds of years 4. The general idea of letting states mostly govern themselves didn't go away after the Civil War. States rights debates have been a staple of politics throughout the 20th century into the 21st century. furthermore, state autonomy was basically what Reagan advocated for with his "new federalism", even if that label was less provocative than MTG's "national divorce". Hell, even today you have states decriminalizing marijuana and in so doing challenging the federal government's authority. This is just a more extreme version of that.
@@eifbkcn implying america would not fight if a state left, especially one like alaska which has huge reserves of oil and resources. that was the only comment i took issue with
We did though? The modern country isn't 200 years old. It was founded through overwhelming force in the 1860's, when the Union failed for not the first time. Some states weren't even added until the 1900's. Factor in the pre-revolutionary years and the geographic US has spent more time disunited than united.
@@tessareynolds8377 It's not unworkable or irreconcilable. Ignoring all the factors that make a split totally unrealistic, we've faced bigger problems in our history and pulled through. There is nothing America can't do
I like this channel because it comes from a mostly unbiased perspective. Even though you are open to sharing your opinions, you also portray information through an objective lens, rather than spewing all your opinions over it, which being honest, I would probably do. Good work, Mr. Beat.
As a resident of Mississippi, the new red-state country would collapse if it weren't for the HUGE economic support of Texas and Florida. Every other state aside from Texas and Florida would heavily lean on those two, just as the blue-state country would heavily lean on California. Like Mr. Beat said, as intertwined as the country is now, a divide like this would be catastrophic for both sides. There's literally more cons than pros
Based on what he shared, financially there would be no comparison for how poor the red states would be. California alone has the 5th largest economy in the world. But add in NY, CO, MASS, Wash, etc…the wealth of the blue states would be unmatched. And as far Mississippi, I’m sure what it contributes to the US. Not sure why it exists anymore. It’s an awful, awful state. All of it.
@@classicist17 Most of the religious people I know have awful morals and all the atheists I know have good or decent morals. They help people more so than modern day religious people, and don't hate on the LGBTQ community or immigrants, you know, like so many of the churches do.
@@classicist17 I am also Agnostic but having met too many Christian Nationalists who use religion to justify their hate, I prefer sticking to "Faith", which has nothing to do with religion.
It is not illegal for an individual to pray in a school. A person can pray anywhere they want. That person might run into problems if they are encroaching upon someone else's rights by being extremely loud or forcing others to participate. That whole "can't pray in school" nonsense comes from a unified group with the idea that school teachers must be made to lead the students in their class in prayer out loud.prayer
....So the separation of church and state is just an idea that's purpose is to prevent anyone in the government from forcing religion onto any citizen. It does not take away any rights. It preserves an individual's freedom of choice by barring the government entrance into that personal space. Any American is free to pray anywhere, to whomever they believe without reprisal.
The idea came from numerous kids across the country getting in trouble for praying in class, or saying they prayed in sxhool and somebody heard. In America it's not a problem really and it's people being jumpy. But it happens farely often in Canada, and Republicans do look and see any sign of that encroaching as a threat. They're not completely right, but they ain't completely wrong either which is why it's not going to keep them quiet to just brush them off. That simply increases the divide.
@Created for the moment No, you are wrong. The idea is hundreds of years old or more. Freedom of Religion was a founding principle that predated the formation of the United States and would be enshrined in the US Constitution [1789] and Bill of Rights. The First Amendment guarantees us freedom of speech and religion, where each citizen decides what and how they worship or say unimpeded by the government. In addition to our freedom of speech, we are also constitutionally protected from indoctrination by our government tyrannically imposing a state religion upon its citizens. The story of children telling on themselves for praying all across the country is really dumb. I bet I could guess where you picked up that nonsensical propaganda. Republicans always try to make themselves out to be victims. The truth is that they don't care about the prayer. They only want to indoctrinate the next generations with capitalism and greed.
@@TheRealcdawg22 actually no. I got it from a few different sources. Including NBC and ABC, as well as a few indepedent agencies for the canadian part. And sure there are peotections, doesn't mean people aren't trying to change those protections. While you sound like a republican throwing around tyrany and indoctrination on things you don't like, you are somewhat right about there being protections. And Canada has been decided it's acceptable to suspend students for praying in public for the last 20 years. Both Christians and Muslims have been threatened with legal actions for preaching or praying. All im saying is just because you can't see the problem with your limited view, doesn't mean there isn't one. Just like if I can't see a problem, doesn't mean I should ignore people who say they can. That kind of stubborness has led to problems all across the world again and again.
Yeah. I've never heard of a bill to restrict prayer, but I have seen bills to force prayer into schools. If anyone is coming for your religious freedom, it's the right. The left doesn't care. As ex. the 1st commandment (no false gods before me) directly conflicts with the 1st Amendment (freedom of religious choice).
@@iammrbeat There is tons of proof that countries like Russia, China, and Iran use propaganda and psyops to provoke hatred and separatism within the US. I wish politicians would fight those forces instead of exploiting them for short-term gain
I don’t think we need a divorce but ranked choice voting would be nice and maybe changing the Executive Branch to more of a Parliamentary approach to help break the two-party stranglehold we’re suffering from?
nah i dont think we need to switch to a parlimentary system, i think we should however get rid of the ec and use ranked choice voting to elect the president. we should also use the proportional version of rcv for the house. also we should regulate how much ppl can spend on campaigns and shit like that.
One could argue that the creation of “slave states” and “free states” in the 1800s was a “National divorce” and it most certainly led to the Civil War, so you are completely right.
If our federal government wasn’t so overbearing and powerful and states could be more independent like originally intended it wouldn’t be as big of a problem.
@@heitorpedrodegodoi5646 not as much as we should. Different places have different customs and political views so they should be able to have their state laws reflect that. 🤷♂️
@@heitorpedrodegodoi5646 it wasn’t like that for 50 years, that just happened. And it is still regulated federally. The federal government does not have the authority to make law laws outside of the constitution. It has way to much power right now. Anything not in the constitution is under the authority of the states.
The irony for Marjorie Taylor Greene is (and I don't know if she knows what "irony" means) is that using the 2020 Presidential results as our criteria for splitting up, her home state of Georgia would be joining the blue states.
The one-sentence summary to this incredible video: a "national divorce" is ridiculous, impossible, & causes far more problems for Americans (or whatever we'd become) overall. Also as an NYC native, I can promise I know plenty of people who'd be furious at ideas like getting rid of the anthem. You can have pride in your country regardless of political beliefs (which is something that I feel shouldn't have to be said...).
I would love to have a reason to have pride in my country but the far right religious conservative nonsense coupled with the fact we really have nothing to be proud of makes that rather impossible.
Pride is a strong word. Reading history, there is nothing to be proud of. Every inch of our so-called good deeds in the world were balanced against the country getting what it wanted, by any means necessary.
I think you're all still missing that I said you CAN have pride. That doesn't mean you must, should, etc. It simply means someone is capable to feel pride. However, just in exploring these comments further, while everyone is entitled to think and feel as they do, there is something else to consider. Yes, this country had always had some horrendous, problematic thoughts/actions within it. We definitely still do. However, that doesn't mean everything about this country is terrible. The US is a first-world country. We have a lot here that a lot of places don't. I've been to countries where access to food, shelter, education, and any form of employment is difficult if even possible to come by. We can dress as we want, citizens (in general) are allowed to vote every year, we don't have regular bombs or physical wars happening here everyday. Women are allowed to read, yet alone have our own bank accounts and have independence in their lives. Journalists don't get thrown in jail (yet alone executed) for solely speaking the truth/problems in the country. We have access to UA-cam, yet alone the internet. While we without any question have a number of massive problems here (including with some of the things I've stated), I'm grateful that I don't need to worry about starvation; yet alone for being able to eat in my preferred lifestyle. I'm grateful that I, as a female-bodied person, can walk anywhere, unescourted, and wear pants/not have my hair covered without men thinking I'm a wh*re. I'm grateful that I have an education along with a career in my chosen field. That's only a starting list. Maybe it's sad, but the fact is being in America is a privilege in itself. For me personally, my pride in this country stems from the combination of being grateful for the good things we have here AND in the continued fight to make this country a better place- being grateful for the positives while being aware of/wanting to change the negatives. To be extra clear: I'm only speaking for myself, no one has to agree. I'm also only providing context to things I've personally seen/experienced while visiting other countries. None of that lessens the problems here, but it's noting that things could be significantly worse. We just need to keep the fight going to continue making it a better place for all. Sorry for the long comment that, ironically, can't cover everything. This comment also isn't meant to be defensive or combative in anyway. My intent is solely to provide a different perspective (again, doesn't mean you need to change yours).
I'm a big fan of hers being a gun owner I feel she represents my anger towards an even bigger embarrassment that is Joe Biden when he targets the law abiding and felonizes them for practicing their 2nd Ammendment rights, wish we had someone like her where I live, I might just run for congress, I hear Brandon Herrera is running, we Hispanics need to fight back against Big Government trying to dictate how I live life and how I protect my family, if you know anything about Hispanics, you don't mess with the Familia!!!
What do you think about the idea of the United States splitting up based on political beliefs?
One thing I forgot to bring up in the video: Blue states and red states CHANGE. For example, Georgia was reliably a red state until 2020. Indiana was a blue state in...2008. California was a red state in...the 1980s.
Mid
Not a fan
It would suck...
Dumb.
Terrible idea
Considering Texas has more democratic voters than most states and California has more Republican voters than most states Is a prime example of why this wouldn’t work.
Exactly
Yup
Why don’t we just take the (insert political party here) and push them somewhere else?
How is it even logically possible? California always votes blue but has most Republican voters???
And Texas gas more democratic voters and barely counts as purple state/mostly red???
@@jinxedjosie5934 ^^^^ THIS
When living in italy and taking an Italian culture class I heard a great line, " All the regions like to act like they're so different, but we all eat pasta"
As an Italian, I confirm
Then we all shall unite under the glorious Italian flag, Forza Italia - former Dane newly made Italian
Not really comparable. The United States is more like 50 different countries, which all have their own individual state regions.
The US is way more diverse than the small country of Italy.
@@Chaoitcme Actually you'd be surprised. Italy's regions grew their identities for millennia during times before easy travel. Each region has its own dialect that they speak. Traveling from one region to another can easily feel like being in a different country. America might have a lot of geographic diversity but we all eat McDonalds
@@EddieChamoyeah, but italy Is not as ethnically diverse
The dumbest thing about the whole "national divorce" is ignores the history of demographics as states have shifted supported between the two parties. Also furthering divide is definitely not better for the country.
I should have brought this up in the video!
As a black man, I disagree that furthering division is not better. I'm tired of living in the same country as people that don't think black people should have rights. I'd prefer if the country split apart (I don't care how) and black people were able to live in one and racists were able to live in the other.
@@kenowens7272the racist country would be pretty small
@@kenowens7272 The people that think black people shouldn't have rights are like, less than 1% of people, seems like you're giving a bigger voice to racists than they actually have
Why did you say "blacks and racists" as if those two are opposites? It's better to say racists and non-racists. Or better yet, how about you don't advocate for people being forcibly moved into a specific place against their will?
Urban areas are Democratic, rural areas are Republican, suburbs are mostly Democratic, and exurbs are mostly Republican. If we divorced along Blue/Red lines, we would have a collection of isolated city-states surrounded by a vast territory of conservative lands. This "national divorce" would fall apart immediately after it was formed.
Suburbs are mixed between republican and democrat though I would say. Everything else I agree with.
Not really
I think a national divorce would be pointless because in the next few years, blue states and red states will be different due to the election.
Yeah like what the hell would swing states do during a national divorce
@@Gage_Brumley 2-2-5-5 schedule
@@Gage_Brumley shared custody is always an option
@@Gage_Brumley the swing states would be split between red and blue counties.. and swing counties would be split between red and blue cities/towns
That's kinda of the point
The irony of MTG's tweet about red states requiring prayer and the pledge of allegiance at school and blue states requiring pledges to BLM and the trans flag at school is that both of those scenarios would violate the 1st Amendment.
Would the post-divorce countries even keep the current US constitution? In the unlikely event of such a divorce, even if all goes perfectly without any military coups, powergrabs, revolutions, etc, I can't see the red states forming anything other than an explicitly Christian nation without freedom of religion.
Yep
Yet it happens
Where's the irony? For there to be irony, she would actually have to know some shit. You assume too much of her.
@@bryanice3313 At most, the pledge of allegiance is heavily encouraged but that’s about it
What I found funny about her idea of a national divorce is that by most metrics, her own state of Georgia would be a blue state!
Let her found out the hard way
Only because of the metro areas like craplanta.
Most all of the rural areas like where I live vote conservative or in this case republican. We have a rino governor and the two senators were installed most likely.
@@darryladams519 as a Georgian we can’t claim you. If you genuinely thought Walker was better for GA and the Nation than Warnock you need to put down that sweet georgia meth.
Not if figured by the Counties.
@@darryladams519 As the cat in the hat once said "You're not just wrong, you're stupid." You literally only voted for Walker because big orange daddy told you to. You probably voted for Purdue in the primaries because big orange daddy told you to. Get out of my state, we do not want you here. Bye bye.
Government: hey are you a democrat or republican?
3 year old toddler: huh
Both parties are both corrupt and the news is fake!
This is the first time I've heard someone else (and especially coming from you) say that Americans agree on most political issues and it's just the media and politicians who make us believe we are divided. I really appreciate hearing that.
The people with any perspective AT ALL saying that Americans agree on most things tend to get drowned out.
Anyone who’s spent time abroad quickly realize that most foreigners can’t tell any difference between the American left/right.
To our foreign friends, all Americans are equally annoying!
The key question is, why? Why would it benefit the media to divide us? The answer is: money. The more extreme, outlandish, and terrifying they make the other side look, the more likely their viewers are to click and watch those videos and read those articles, gaining them add revenue. They will take an example of the most extreme right and radical left wing individuals and scare the other side into thinking that all democrats are anti military and support killing infants, and all republicans are racist monsters who want to kill democracy. Neither is true, and we almost always agree on the basics, but it is the media taking advantage of the fragility of democracy that is pushing us to the brink.
Most issues.
Not all, though, and that’s important to remember.
There are some things where we are very divided.
You people are being to coy about this. It's treason plain and simple.
First time? Yikes it's common knowledge if you filter out the Angertainment.
Complains about “being forced to practice ideologies against our will”
Describes being forced to repeat the pledge of allegiance as a positive…
Not just she’s a hypocrite, but she really doesn’t care about free speech.
Why do we elect fools into office ?
The American education system is defunct and the proof is in the electorate
Her constituents like her, that is what matters.
@@tessareynolds8377 Oh yeah, the crazy possibly racist wackos whose solution to everything is to "shoot it". I'm talking more about the people that got off on her ad where she was firing that one gun I don't know what it's called.
Speaking of which, I think it's retarded that we have lawmakers that think background checks to own a gun are unconstitutional while others that don't know shit about guns want to pass gun laws.
Georgia
Plurality voting gets us these extreme politicians.
Fun trivia: only four states do not have state level laws requiring the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools. Two are “red” states and two are “blue states”.
What are those four?
I know my high school in Mississippi didn't/still doesn't do the Pledge of Allegiance. K-8 does but it just stops. And my hs doesn't have nay US flags on the walls like the k-8 schools do XD
@@kingMT514 yeah, I only recall doing the pledge in elementary school myself.
@@IloveRumania Wyoming, Vermont, Hawaii, and Nebraska
@@williamshinn1319 Thanks!
Thank you for pointing out how alike we are, mostly agree and need each other.
If more people would actually live by those words and treat the other side as if we are actually more alike, we might not have to have these conversations.
Wouldn't it be nice if the US had an electoral system that meant that congress actually represented the diverse opinions of American voters so that people didn't feel that separation was the only way to have their voices heard.
How is that possible in a country that spans an entire continent? The US is too large for democracy
@@eifbkcn Lets be real. The people complaining wish for the US to cease to be a democracy while lining their pockets with saudi, russian, and chinese money.
@@eifbkcn not true. The foundation of our current system is fueled by corruption and supporting the oligarchs. There's valid ideas that would improve how our "democracy" currently works such as ranked choice voting. Or getting money out of politics so not everything has to be funded by blood money.
Defaulting to authoritarianism and "strong men" is the lazy coward's way of organizing the government.
@RanStuff Its the opposite. The more people there are the less democracy works as there become to many people and to many ideas clashing. And rhe uses has like 10x the population of any other democratic nation ON TOP OF being more diverse than any other nation. The US isnt a Democracy and was never intended to be. Democracy is never even mentioned in the constitution or bill of rights. The US is a constitutional federalized republic with the electoral collage.
@@eifbkcn
But if the country got along better politically, then fewer people would tune into Fox News to get their fix of outrage!! Then how will Tucker Carlson afford to put his kids through private school? Have a heart!! 😢😢😢
I like how social media makes it even more obvious that politicians are mostly just normal if not dumb people, and thanks to that we get videos like this
They are corrupt criminals. Not normal people. They are crooks. And they prove it regularly.
i think they are dumb and not normal lol
no. REPUBLICANS are dumb people dude 🙄🙄🙄
show me an elected liberal thats says ANYTHING as half as stup!d as what trump greene or desantis spew on the daily in the past DECADE
yeah
As a person who traveled across the US for 6 months, the determining difference seems to be the city and not the state. If the US map was actually separated to the blue and red areas it would look like an absolute mess.
Take Washington for example. Nearly half the state's population is in and around Seattle. That is a very blue area, while the vast majority of the rest of the state is pretty darn red.
@@petergreening4810 Land doesn't vote.
@@gloriouslumi nor should 1 city dictate how the 100s of other towns should operate.. especially when its a conflict of interest like water.. where farmers would like to have access to but city folk voted to keep it in corporation hands
@@FEDEXLuchs Of course, it's in the very best interest of everyone to have rivers run completely dry. Drinking water is completely overrated.
Here's a deal - you let farmers do what they want without relying on city folks. As in no artificial fertilizers matched to soil composition, no motor-powered pumps, no motor vehicles, no medication, neither for animals nor for humans. Like in the good old days where cutting yourself on your plow could result in losing your leg to infection.
After all, research is nonsense and no city dweller could possibly know what's best for you. Grandpa's anecdotes will last for eternity and grandma's chicken soup beats antibiotics any day.
@@FEDEXLuchs The problem is you just made the exact same argument that you claimed was the problem. I know its fun to blame city folk and all but the vast majority of our issues is due to legislation created by "Rural Folk". Look at your example farmers would suck the state dry to make their next crop and then inevitably blame the "city folk"
9:31 _"I don't think she's talking about the Bureau of Land Management, there."_
It was so dry and so well delivered out of nowhere that I died laughing. Well played, Mr. Beat.
You are such a nice good person, I wish you good health & long life. Bless you.
@@erkl8823 ah, they edited their message
you have a good one, too.
@@erkl8823butthurt much?
@@erkl8823who hurt you
@@erkl8823 uh oh negative nancy
As someone in an Antarctic state, I am absolutely appalled and offended that you didn’t mention us
Please forgive me. What Antarctic state are you refurring to?
is McMurdo blue or red or just frosty?
The end part when Mr. Beat said its profitable to keep us divided and that's why we clicked the video is pretty accurate. I turned off ad block and rewatched it so that he'd get paid lol
I am a musician who tours all over the country from big cities to little towns. I think most Americans would be surprised on how much we truly agree on things. There's a reason the same issues are brought up over and over again. Those are the minority of things where our differences really show and it's a way to keep us divided so we can re elect the same people over and over again. Most Americans are reasonable people, go out and talk to your fellow Americans and you'll be surprised on how well we get along and agree. To quote the great Maya angelou, we are more alike my friends than we are unalike
Most people want human rights and access to social services and to be paid living wages. Republicans stroke this culture war divide to keep us peasants distracted and angry.
Believe you me if you sound reasonable to me I'd vote for you over any democrat corrupt slimeball like Biden or Kamala. I'd rather have an incompetent joe off the street even conservatives than a corrupt mofo dem
well said ! 🎶
Those "minority of things" are kind of a big deal. It doesnt matter if we agree on a bunch of small things when we dont agree on the fundamentals.
@Night Raven I get that. Point I'm making is that when you listen to politicians and media they make it seem like there's no way we can live with one another based on our difference of opinions. In my opinion. It's very easy to talk to someone without bringing up different of opinions on Healthcare or abortion because I have plenty of other enjoyable conversations to have with them. I wouldn't know that if all I did was take my senator's (who is trying to be elected again) word
Here's the thing: MTG has never put this much critical thinking into anything she's ever said.
*But here's the thing:*
Enough of our able-minded fellow Americans thought it prudent to vote for Ms Marjorie, "Jewish Space Lasers exist," Taylor Greene to be one of our members of *Congress,* so she could help write *LAWS* for us.
And then to ensure it was not perceived as an anomaly & after seeing the "great" work she had done while in Congress, the same folks chose to re-elect her in 2022.
All of which partly explains where we are at today as a nation.
@@mark-rm6kj she got elected and then re-elected because of Republican gerrymandering of her district. In both elections she ran for the most part unopposed in a district that is comprised of almost 90% registered Republicans
Lol. You put MTG and Critical Thinking in the same sentence.
Mark Yes it sure does.. it shows that even bad republican candidates are STILL better than ANY democrat candidate.
@@Johnfisher12345 um, "Joey", you completely missed that Mark's comment was completely sarcastic. That's what happens in EASL situations
She later later “clarified” that we don’t need World War III, but Civil War II. Her Twitter is a nightmare.
Man, I wish I had teachers like Mr. Beat when I was in school. These videos are total comedy and educational at the same time
Well, comedy anyways. The biggest joke is this guy pretending he's actually discussing the issue when he's so obviously biased in favor of the Left. A discussion of the REAL issues, without sarcasm, cheap shots and bias, would be refreshing.
@@t.j.mcfadden7993 😂
@@t.j.mcfadden7993 Exactly. "Let me list in a supremely biased way every single way blue states are better than red states" (even though he pointed out earlier why that is a terrible line to draw sand on)
@@t.j.mcfadden7993What are you talking about? How did you come to that conclusion? He did an objective analysis based on data and the conclusion is that the notion of "blue states" vs "red states" is not an accurate portal of America, which is far more varied even in states that have a majority rep and a majority dem. And even in those states, the majority is barely more than 50%. If you don't have a factual basis to back up your claim that he is "obviously biased in favor of the Left" then you're just being a troll.
@@seraphimconcordant LOL, that's NOT what he said - and that's NOT what he did. What are you basing that on??? He did an objective analysis based on data and the conclusion is that the notion of "blue states" vs "red states" is not an accurate portal of America, which is far more varied even in states that have a majority rep and a majority dem. And even in those states, the majority is barely more than 50%. Try thinking.
The core of MTG`s stupid divorce idea is simple - she wants a one-party state.
Damn right.
@@SamSepiolTheHeretic LOL you're not gonna get your wish fascist. 💥
@@SamSepiolTheHeretic It won’t help despite the antagonistic fervor building in this country.
@@CenkZappa Do you even know what a fascist is?
@@joshuawadsworth6417 The GOP are an increasingly great example of fascism. The only reason their brand of fascism has been ineffectual is due to their lack of complete control. But like any good fascist regime, that is exactly what they seek.
I clicked on this video wondering if you would discuss how Americans don't easily divide red/blue by state borders, and was happy enough that you did so early on that I stayed to watch the entire video. Very well made! I appreciate the amount of research you did, and enjoyed how you kept it serious yet entertaining.
It was foolishness. Not a single way he described the states being divided would ever be a real world solution. Never, ever would they simply go by voting record or political affiliation. Do you believe that the civil war was divided up by such a method? Each state made the decision themselves on if they wanted to stay in the union or not. Nobody was told they had to be in the north or the south. Honestly I thought this guy was supposed to be smart and understood history.
@@ScottCleve33 Exactly
I hope not!.. Even though my politics are a lot different than my grandparents, I still wouldn’t want a U.S. Civil War in between Democrats and Republicans!.. Fuck no!.. I love my grandparents!..
All I want is a divorce from the two party system.
This is more than just a party difference, this is a basic , profound difference of values, morality and worldview. No reconciliation.
Relatable.
@@tessareynolds8377 found the person who want to divide us.
@@kevinaguilar7541 we are already divided. It isn’t a person , it is half the country.
@@tessareynolds8377 no were not. The media makes it seem like it is.
The biggest problem in America IMO, is that we are stuck with this two party political system that is totally controlled by corporate interests. Both parties have deep ties to the corporate media that controls basically all of TV and radio.
Indeed, it's a false choice to begin with. Red vs. Blue is just political theater.
this is we should put a law agaisnt corporate donations
@@painvillegaming4119 Try doing that with the SCOTUS we have now. Or the fact that most of the politicians we have in control of our government are banana repubs and corporate dems.
Yep, if the media portrayed things fairly, the ruling class would no longer be in power
@@painvillegaming4119 Problem is, the people who receive corporate donations are the ones who create the laws.
One dichotomy that you did not mention is that while red states are supposed to be against national spending, they receive a disproportionate amount of it. While blue states contribute a disproportionate share of federal revenue. Also, such a divorce would almost have to be by counties, see Oregon, I would like to see that broken down as to how a national map would look if we divorced along county lines.
Oregon would probably end up with the state of Jefferson proposed again. It almost happened… then Pearl Harbor got bombed and people had other things to worry about.
What do you mean? Both parties are currently in favor of spending a lot more than they should. They just differ on where that spending should go, such as the Democrats preferring to spend more on social programs, while the Republicans prefer to spend more on the military.
We haven't had a true fiscal conservative in the White House since Clinton, and he's a Democrat.
Why are we even talking about such nonsense. The woman should be removed from Congress.
Another one Blue States have to deal with State level laws and taxes to fund social services not covered on the federal level.
Splitting along county lines just gives more land to the red states, and it is a distorted view of reality.
Seven million more people voted for Biden than Trump. There is a pervasive idea in Conservative media that pushes the narrative that LAND is the important thing in elections, not people. You see this every time they purport to show a map that a majority of America voted for Trump - they're just showing land area.
Unless you buy into the idea that LAND is the important thing in an election, and that the more land area you own the more important your vote should be, this is a terrible way of dealing with democracy. For example, billionaire founder of CNN Ted Turner owns around 2 million acres of land in the US. That's larger than either Rhode Island or Delaware, both home to one million people. Is Ted Turner's vote more important than 1 million people? No, of course not - that's a silly idea to entertain.
I've heard that many of the blue and red states are really purple. Based on the 2020 presidential election, they leaned red or blue only by slight margins: like 49% to 51%. If that's the case, the difference between many red and blue states wouldn't be all that pronounced.
the GOP is losing their base the younger generations don't support the outdated ideology of the right
Crossing the border between Oregon and Idaho is scarcely noticeable. Crossing the border between rural Oregon and Portland is like going from Texas to Neptune. The divisions really aren't at State boundaries, for the most part. It's the urban/rural thing.
There's only one blue state: Vermont. All the rest are high-population blue cities inside of red states.
If the states had an electoral colleges like the federal government (which was created such that high population states couldn't rule over low population states, which is exactly what cities do to rural counties), our politics would be entirely different. Both parties would hate it of course: democrats because they wouldn't exist, republicans because they'd actually have to do something for once.
I remember when I drove to Idaho from Seattle, and honestly Washington "felt like Idaho" when I was in the right/rural half of the state.
Probably the main difference is rural or urban.
@@DSArmageddon666 Atlanta, Augusta and Savannah alone hold over 60% of the entire population of the state of Georgia. Why exactly should these millions of people be held hostage by the decisions of the couple dozen people in Bumfuck, GA? Cause that's what happens in an electoral college system, however you want to spin it: the majority is held hostage by the minority just bc of where they happen to live: a voter in Idaho has five times the strength of a voter in California, proportionately, even though it has 1/10 of the population and contributes 1/15 as much to the nation.
@@clusterflick6333 India, China, and Indonesia have over 50% f the world's population. Should they set the rules for everyone else?
Just like you don't want to spend your life ruled by the high-population countries, people in rural areas don't want to spend their lives ruled by the high population cities.
@@DSArmageddon666 Do we live under a One World Government? Last I heard, we don't, so that's a completely irrelevant example. But if you ask me, should the 32 million citizens of New Delhi have more of an impact in the direction of the country than the 3,200 Indian villagers living in the middle of nowhere - then yeah, the answer would be an unequivocal YES.
" people in rural areas don't want to spend their lives ruled by the high population cities." -- and the answer to this is to go in the opposite direction, having the great population centers be held hostage by the small towns, even though THEY (the big cities) are the capital, THEY are the majority, and THEIR citizens will be the ones most impacted by said decisions? In other words, the only *true* democratic system, in your view, is a MINORITY government where the majority of the population has no say whatsoever in the decisions that impact them directly? Is that the point you're making?
A "divorce" is what other southern politicians called for, right before they seceded from the nation.
A national divorce is not the same thing as a civil war. An example would be Czechoslovakia which separated into the Czech Republic and Slovakia.
"Oh no we gotta stop the racist Republicans errybody! They're going to take our rights and they hate minorities too!"
@@Novusod TOTALLY different situation.
@@vipermad358 not really.
@@Novusod it actually is
I’ve thought about it a lot… I changed my mind because I was kind of open minded to this. It would be more trouble than it’s worth honestly. It would set a dangerous precedent and could be a slippery slope.
I agree with you
Besides, the issue of secession was solve permanently in 1865…
@@iammrbeat mr beat agreeing with the slippery slope argument?? Blasphemy
Honestly even if it worked having two different federal governement would just increase cost of running those government
@@appleman1333 and Texas v. White in 1869.
Mr.Beat you really remind me of my history professor last year. Even after 3 hours of talking he always wanted to add more
I don't know how young the audience is, but I remember the Partition of India happening in my father's time and reading about it. The idea that two sides hate each other so much that they just need to go their own separate ways, ending peacefully, is not going to happen. You know what happens when the lines are drawn and there are people living on the wrong side? I'll you what happened when India saw that scenario, 2 million dead and 20 million displaced, and it's currently the most likely place in the world to start a nuclear war because the two sides hate each other that much.
Oh what's that, you think it doesn't count? Ok then Yugoslavia, how's a little ethnic cleansing seem to you? Not west enough in europe for you and needs to be more political than ethnic? Ok, the Years of Lead in Italy. Still not west enough and it needs to have happened in your lifetime or it doesn't count? The Troubles in Northern Ireland. You can narrow down the criteria all you want and I'm going to keep finding examples where the only result is people getting killed. Learn to sort shit out with the people you live among, or you're going to end up like them, and you're not going to like how it turns out. And anyone who wants that scenario, are the ones who need to be shot more than anyone else.
Best comment I've seen here. The idea of basically going "fuck cooperation" and just splitting the country by party is such a stupid idea and saying you support something like a "national divorce" but don't want to cause a Civil War is like saying you want to run a marathon but don't want to get sweaty
@@Professor-fc7vc More importantly, India resulted in 2 million dead despite being a relatively unarmed nation in 1947. The US has more guns than people, that's a nightmare scenario.
Forget civil war, anyone who says a national divorce won't result in something on par with an ethnic cleansing, is kidding themselves.
Thanks for bringing those events up. Those are more examples of why learning history is so freaking important.
Wow actually pulled out scenarios I have rarely scene referenced, bravo 👏
I often have to explain these events to my fellow Americans when discussing potential outcomes to civil war, only to be met with blank stares and confusion.
@@svenrio8521 The Years of Lead is probably the closest parallel you can find to America today in terms of politics and that's scary because that resulted in politicians, business leaders, military officers etc being murdered by extremists from both sides, but people calling for a national divorce is something akin to the Partition of India and really don't understand how much of a shitshow your world becomes when you say "this is X state now, this is Y state now", and people who should be in X state are living in Y and told they don't belong, are either forcibly removed, or worse killed when they say "no, I like living here, I don't want to move".
As a Maine citizen, I think many more states should start adopting the congressional district method other than just us and Nebraska. It would be best if the electoral college was abolished of course, but that is highly unlikely to happen, so I think this would be the next best thing. We also have ranked choice voting, but it's only used for national elections, not statewide or local elections.
The issue with that is that it requires the government in power in each state to voluntarily give up power.
Take California for example. It is guaranteed 54(?) electoral votes. Implementing electoral district apportionment would require democrats to weaken their own position in the electoral college. The reverse goes for Texas. It works fine in Maine and Nebraska because so few electoral votes are on the line.
As a non-American, the «first past the post/winner takes all» system looks completely undemocratic to me. Go Maine and Nebraska!
You are asking states to voluntarily give up power with this approach. Not chance it will ever happen
That certainly could help even things out, but allocating electors by district would have problems with gerrymandering. I’d take this a step further and require that all states allocate electors proportionally to the state-wide popular vote.
I wish every state had ranked choice voting for every election.
All hypotheticals aside its a damn shame that a sitting congresswoman is stirring so much division to the point she is calling for a “divorce”, the fact they have been tolerant of this anti American rhetoric has completely turned me away from the party tbh
oh, and she's calling on a war with our neighbor, vows to divulge confidential government secrets, and sides with Russia
What shes saying id in no way anti American. If anything its MORE American than trying to clump everyone together just because they live in the same country. Its suppose to be 50 states.
@@GiRR007 United
@@ghostramen7002 United does not mean same
@@GiRR007 That's what a union is.
Love the way you ended the video. I definitely agree that there are people trying to keep us divided because they personally benefit or profit from it. As an independent voter in a swing state, I didn't click on this video out of a hatred for "the other side", but I did click out of a certain amount of fear. I'm glad you reminded us that this is probably all talk, politicians stirring up attention for themselves to win points with certain voters, while the majority of the people in the country do want to remain united. I appreciate your (comparatively) unbiased take.
Thank you, Shannon.
In the last 40 years liberals have used the government to advance their ideas , when Americans were United most of liberals ideas weren’t a thing like gay marriage or mass migration. All changed
Exactly what I was going to say. Attention wh(ummm) seekers are always going to say silly things for the 24hr news networks to obsess over while most people will roll their eyes. And even though MrBeat gave Green even more attention for her bananas tweet, I'm glad he illustrated the idea from the perspective of someone using critical thinking skills.
I don't know. I think Greene is of a kind who would overthrow everything so that they can have absolute power somewhere. They want to be the king (or queen) cockroach over their patch of the resulting trash pile.
Like stated in the video, this is mostly a urban/rural divide. Atlanta is trending blue, but Georgia is fairly red. California is solidly in the blue camp for presidential elections, but this doesn't reflect the rural California population.
Then why did the majority of rural California vote blue
@@poshmalosh14 Look at a country map of California for the 2016 or 2020 presidential election. Almost half of California is red by area.
its also worth noting urban areas will be dirty, overpopulated, crimeridden, drug infested, expensive, etc.
@@DJ_Force *county
@@ChrisJones-ij3xp Yes, you are correct. I meant county.
She represents the district just northwest of mine, and my mom and I like to talk about how absurd it is that she’s still in office (her district is so red that they wouldn’t vote her out unless she was forcibly removed)
and she knows it
@@leenonymous5592 it's easier for a republican to win in Texas than in Georgia.
@@leenonymous5592 Whose your rep? Mine is McCormick
They probably bring down the local school funding in the area with their test scores
A less crazy Republican needs to primary her, I know a Dem winning is almost impossible
A lot of Blue States and Red States aren't as Blue and Red as we think they are. For example, I'm from New York. Most outsiders might associate the state as being very Blue but the reality is that New York City and the surrounding suburbs are Blue while the majority of the rest of the state is actually Red. And even in New York City, Staten Island is Red while the other four boroughs are Blue and New York City has elected fiscally conservative Republican candidates as Mayors in the recent past such as Michael Bloomberg and Rudy Giuliani. Even current Democratic mayor Eric Adams has right leaning tendencies when it comes to areas such as law enforcement. Overall, reality of politics are far more complicated than the idea of a two party binary. The two parties rarely act like just two parties.
It's only the cities that are deep blue and hold most Congressional/political power, if Chicago succeeded from ilinois then it would be red all over.
Great point to bring up!
Same here in Illinois. Chicago and its suburbs are solidly blue. The rest of the state, however, is very red with only dots of blue. But we also have the same kind of population imbalance New York does.
I live in California and the situation there is very similar, the state is blue because the most populated areas lean that way. The urban and coastal areas tend to dominate while the rural and inland areas rarely have much influence. Situations like this are one of the many reasons why national divorce is becoming increasingly mainstream. I live in San Diego county which until recent years was a Republican stronghold, especially the part of San Diego county (called North County) that I live in. For the last 10 years or so it has become more of a swing county, back in 2018 I got a Democratic congressman for the first time I can remember. He won re-election in 2020 and 2022 fairly easily.
The southern tier is pretty red. But also, we got other cities and counties in upstate that are blue. Cuomo won upstate two out of the three elections. And since bush in 88, upstate has voted for a democrat in presidential elections until 2016, when trump narrowly won upstate by 2 points. But in 2020, Biden took it back and won upstate nearly 3 points. Technically, upstate would be more like Michigan or Pennsylvania. It’s considered more purple than red. But yeah, I get what you’re saying about NYC.
We already tried that once as a country, and everyone knows how well that worked out 🙄
A National Divorce is not a Civil War, if anything a National Divorce would prevent a Civil War.
@Henry The Cocaine-Sampler yeah Georgia flipped to the blue so Marjorie Taylor wouldn't even be in her own state
@Henry The Cocaine-Sampler Yea, one crazy US hater is declaring this.
@Henry The Cocaine-Sampler
Do you actually have citations in MLA or APA format to back your claim of contrast?
In italy is difficult second chat gpt the country can split north-south italy because we are in european union
3:51 Fun Fact about Nebraska, Omaha’s (metro) population (≈ 1 Million) is about half of the state’s population (≈ 2 Million)
So about half of the population lives in those 2 (blue ish) counties.
“We should have a national divorce! Not secession, but just where the states that disagree with the federal government should leave!”
Ms. Greene, that _is_ secession. Calling for secession is a very bad idea.
It's a great idea when two polar opposite sides can't come to any compromise. Compromise is impossible. Compromise to the left is total capitulation to their side. The only thing left is divorce. Irreconcilable Differences.
So guerilla war would be better ??
@@Marconius-SPQRWar only happens to make people rich. And there’s more money in a union.
No it isnt. Time to cut ties with this deep state apparatus that controls our country
What? A politician being a hypocrite?? COULDNT BE
How Marjorie keeps getting elected is beyond me. The only “house” she should be allowed in is the one with the padded walls.
There are many people that support the National Divorce, both Conservative and Leftist. It is growing in acceptance.
Torterra is the best gen 4 starter
Lol
@@tessareynolds8377 based on what
@@tessareynolds8377 I don’t think there are any real liberal or left-wing politicians calling for a national divorce. Certainly none as prominent as Greene.
Terminally online, one or two like Twitter users don’t count. You can find political advocates on any political argument on Twitter. In fact, to prove this point, I searched up “Restore the Persian Empire” and found a couple people advocating just that.
The whole thing is absurd. My favorite part of the whole rant is that Rep Greene’s home state could be considered a blue state, despite her claim the blue states are close to the end of the world
She is aware, lol. They whine on and on about how GA is being "sillified" by "woke Hollywoodism" (GA is attracting a lot of movie and TV work including in MtG'S district which is where I live).
@Anthony Landrum Tyler Perry is filming in Rome, Cedartown, etc as we speak. Right in her district. Georgia is going to be blue for national elections in 2024 too
except the people around Macon are so stupid they keep voting for her.....
To someone from the Uk, MTG referring to to left and right is bizarre. The 2 us political parties are just different levels of right wing.
Fr america so right wing
Your strand of logic just shows how cucked the UK is tbqh.
Exactly. Democrats aren't leftists, they're just moderate right wingers while Republicans are far right. Thanks to the Red Scare, there are no genuine left wing politicians in the U.S. Even people like Bernie Sanders and AOC are center left at best.
One thing I find interesting about her whole "national divorce" idea is that she still wants the blue states to provide services to the road states like road maintenance and such, which doesn't make sense at all.
Probably because she is not advocating for dissolution of the union, only a weekend federal government, federal government will still collect taxes and do what their original intended to do to handle anything is not related to state, such as interstate highways, and disaster relief. Everything should go to the states or local government.
Yeah like they don't tell you that Dem states bail out Republican states all the time simply due to tax difference from gdp
That's not a divorce with that condition. She wants to have her cake and eat it too. Honestly Margarine Tater Greens ideas bottom barrel stupid to begin with and keep getting dumber.
No, it makes perfect sense for her worldview, which is just "give me everything I want, and you get nothing you want". She's a malignant narcissist, it doesn't have to make sense to anyone else.
@@KingBobXVI The narcism is on the side of people who want to shove their ideology on a population that doesn't want it. What is wrong with localism, with more power to state and local government.
I absolutely LOVE that you made a video out of this. It’s as fascinating as when I took a crack at a hypothetical situation in which elected US presidents stayed in office until they died (since that idea was floated when the Constitution was being created). Good one, Mr. Beat, as always.
Woah that other idea might make a great future video? And thank you!
@@iammrbeat You’re welcome. I welcome seeing you take a crack at the idea. I’m very curious what rules you would use for this alternate scenario. I had to use a few specific ones for my scenario, as there’s quite a bit of “well this could go a few ways” that I noticed in my research.
@@iammrbeat Nice explanation on this video. When I heard Marjorie Taylor Greene ranted about a National Divorce, my first reaction was this is rife with Russian Propaganda and it's going to be about Putin. I had to look at this from the angle of Mr. Putin gain over this.
I think the biggest problem with trying to divide into 2 nations (one red, one blue or right & left, however one chooses to put it) is how thoroughly integrated the populations are. Even the reliably red states that typically go red every election are not as red as you'd think. When I look at the vote breakdown by district in my state, I see the Republicans often win with approx 60% of the vote in many districts, Democrats reliably win a couple districts, and only one is consistently over 75% Republican vote. How does one fairly break up into Redland and Blueland with a population so mixed? Seems to me that any arbitrary line on a map is going to trap people in the wrong country.
I also suspect that a national divorce would not make Redland and Blueland as happy as they think. Right now, we each have our scapegoats. Democrats blame Republican obstruction and Republicans paint Democrats as cartoon supervillains determined to destroy the nation. Without those scapegoats, the flaws of each set of policies would become more readily apparent. It may also make it harder for the corporate purses that heavily influence both parties to stay hidden.
Break by county lines, not state lines. Also, start out by offering tax deductions and other incentives for people to relocate to places more to their liking.
As for ther corporate purses - that is best counteracted with a proportional voting system. Many parties in the parliament, not just 2. All parties are relatively small and internally politically coherent. Therefore, no party can realistically hope for becoming a majority party, all of them must do coalitions. Also, when parties are internally coherent, any donor who wants to change the voting pattern of a party must do so for all its parliamentarians - quite the task. Also, if the donor manages to do so, the voters still have lots of other parties to choose from. In a 2-party state, donors and lobbyists can pay off 2 parties, and voters who want something else are out of luck. A bit harder to do that in a 10-party country.
"Democrats blame Republican obstruction and Republicans paint Democrats as cartoon supervillains determined to destroy the nation. Without those scapegoats, the flaws of each set of policies would become more readily apparent. It may also make it harder for the corporate purses that heavily influence both parties to stay hidden."
That's the main argument FOR national divorce.
See how well Trump fare without democrats to blame and federal subsidies.
See how long corporate democrats stay in power without the constant threat of Republicans preventing them from voting Progressists.
Exactly. It's how pinheads like MTG imagine the split would occur that always makes me shake my head. For example, in 2016 the majority of Bernie Sanders supporters listed Donald Trump as their second choice. How exactly would THOSE people fit into MTG's great plan?
@@LA2047 That was more because people were so pissed at the Democrat party for pushing Sanders campaign to the side, or even actively trying to destroy his campaign. He would've possibly won if treated party by the DNC. Its not so much they support trump as it is they hated the DNC. and the people who voted sanders in the primaries and trump in the national election were still 1/15
It’s an asinine idea but there’s any number of practical ways it could feasibly work, but in reality it be so much easier to re-align the party structure and take more power at the state and local levels if you’re on the conservative side and for Democrats to accommodate people who disagree with them without smearing them as uneducated bigots and Nazi’s
America is too big we definitely need a national divorce of some kind. People forget but during the founding of the country America was far smaller
We could shrink the country a whole lot by giving back the stolen land.
One thing all Americans should agree on is that Mr. Beat is awesome.
I thought all Americans did agree on that. Oh well, shows what I know.
All Americans do agree, and that’s the common consensus upon which we are united.
@@hismajesty6272 That's like saying we are united because we all breathe in air. No, we are not inherently united as americans that "agree."
What about Kurt Cobain?
Hell no this guy is way too biased and leans way too left. Wtf did he just make fun of a Republican and not a democrat. I could’ve found thousands of worse things and dumb shit said by a democrat then the shit he pulled out his ass.
My country (Canada) almost had a national divorce a few times, but it was always over language, culture and political representation. Partisanship would be the stupidest thing to divide nations by.
The United States is divided by regions. A Southerner and a Midwesterner are culturally different. They have different representation, and if you listen to regional dialects they are several forms of English in this country if you don't include the Spanish speakers.
@@als3022 Sure, but the degree of separation is on a different scale. English accents in the US are very different, but mutually intelligible. Culture can vary from state to state (or urban to rural), but you all celebrate the 4th of July and sing the same anthem. Spanish is a good example though. Imagine if Puerto Rico were the size of Texas and had the same economy. They would probably want to separate rather than remain a territory. That is how it's like between Quebec and the rest of Canada.
@@ingaman No we don't. There are LOTS of leftists who have never once sang the national anthem. And they may have a picnic on the 4th, but they do not celebrate it's meaning. You are confusing the outward actions of a person with inward meaning, and that is unrealistic.
@@tomspriggs9478 The inward meaning is irrelevant. It can even change from person-to-person. What matters is that every American identifies as an American. What one American (or group of Americans) wants their country to be may be different from another American. Many Québécois do not even see themselves as Canadians.
@@ingaman Just like the Quebecois I do not see myself as an American the way leftists do. I do not identify with them, and what they want America to be like is a threat to me and my people's well-being. We have spent the last 20 years saying "Not my President" based on which side won the election. Do you not see this? We are not united by being "Americans" anymore, and I withdraw my consent to being governed by them.
We need more people like Mr beat in politics, tired of the politicians only interested in division and not being civil servants. Bad things happens when good people do nothing about it.
That is the wisely thing I ever heard.
Thank you! This is treason plain and simple. She should be expelled from Congress immediately.
The problem isn't division, the problem is half of our politicians are far-right politically and won't compromise on any of their ideals for the sake of progress. The Republican party. They say no to everything.
@@ThunderTheBlackShadowKitty yeah we don't need compromise along the political isle, we need compromise across the working class to take back our country from this corporatocracy
@@ThunderTheBlackShadowKittyExactly. People are always like "why can't they just get along" as if one side isn't systemically trying to wipe out a portion of the population and are also buddy buddy with big corporations and deny losing elections... Why should we "compromise" with that?
We just need politicians from the younger eligible generations that are more in touch with today's problems.
Unfortunately, all the rich paying people are friends with the older men, because they are all ex business buddies. Honestly, having MGT go against AOC would be funny, as a lot of the republicans don't like MGT too
*Vivek Ramaswamy just made a whole bunch of money from a 25% stake in Pfizer, for vaccines, and has entered the chat*
It is UNdemocratic and absolutely disgusting for MTG to talk about a divorce like this. I can’t stand some policies but It is a core democratic principle to agree to disagree. You should NOT assume everyone will think like you. We should all be able to agree that we are trying to make the country a better place, come together on our shared beliefs of Freedom, Life Liberty, etc. and that should be the core of our national unity and what makes us American.
Tbh it seems like a borderline treasonous comment. It's one thing for a random citizen to say something like that, but an elected representative of the national legislature? Don't they take an oath to preserve the constitution and the current government?
How on earth is it undemocratic?Federalization is what's undemocratic, people should make laws that affect them and their state.
She’s the most outspoken, hateful, divisive person in congress. She’d would have been a dedicated Nazi!
@@liamsweeney4754 pretty sure Europe's gradual process towards federalization via the EU is a good thing in terms of reducing armed conflict
I don't think abolishing federalism, creating 50 independent nations, and allowing each to determine its foreign policy would be a good thing. I'm pretty sure that without the federal regulation of commerce, we wouldn't even have the freedom of travel between the 50 states as it stands
for all intents and purposes, merely *talking* about a divorce is not "undemocratic". It is exactly democratic- a person voicing their opinion to the public forum and the majority of people disagreeing. Now if you start calling for and planning for violence, then you've lost the ship and are being trecherous.
Marjorie Taylor Green is what happens when your aunt who posts too much on Facebook somehow gets elected to office.
In Argentina, the last presidential election map was divided between yellow states and blue states, many people started to talk about a divorce too.
Yellow states and blue states? more like, Boquita pasion states 😎
Which is a stupid idea honestly, cuz everybody would be passing each other the responsibility to pay the IMF and who inherits the inflation lmaoo
This Balkanization, unfortunately, is now a global phenomenon.
I don't really remember when this was but I also believe this sentiment in Argentina increased around 2020/2021during the pandemic quarantines at least what I remember, and partly due to the appearance of the libertarian movements in the USA, the whole 'don't thread on me' and 'plandemic' going around social media , then more libertarians started to gain more notoriety in Argentina and also I remember how a bunch of argentinians brought up a separation influenced after some idiots expressed that the state of florida and other republican states from the south should separate from America lol
13 southern states tried this little 'divorce' in 1861 and it failed miserably.
How funny that MTG should mention the Pledge of Allegiance. There's a little word in that Pledge, INDIVISIBLE. Makes me wonder if she actually paid attention to what she was saying.
She's the kind of person who loudly says "UNDER GOD" while staring daggers at some guy called Ahmed.
Lunatics tend not to get bogged down in details.
@@PlatinumAltaria which is stupid, bc Ahmed’s god and Jesus’s dad are the same person
Even if politicians somehow hammered out a deal for a peaceful "national divorce" there would still be grave consquences.
The partition of India with Pakistan and Bangladesh was in theory one of those done on religious lines.
But even in heavily Muslim or heavily Hindu areas, it was not 100%. Millions were displaced in mass migration and it led to a lot of conflict and death. Possibly killing more than a million people.
I kind of saw that as the failures of the people being goodwill. Remember the miraculous failure in the middle east when the British and French empire drew arbitrary lines?
Yeah but they were dirt poor and carried all their stuff for miles on donkeys. Theoretically you could just draw up the red/blue state borders and have a projected date of divorce allowing people a few years to move, buy/sell homes, and seek employment elsewhere. It wouldn't really be that hard if people were patient and cooperated.
Both turned out alright
Wonder if MTG’s “traditional values” include her marital divorce?
Well, if we wanted to really properly bring traditional values back then we definitely shouldn't even allow women to be in Congress
She probably means traditional Christian tenants Plus a few new things;
Anti-homosexuality
Anti-transgender
Anti-abortion
Anti-women
A state bias towards Christianity
State bias towards white people
Segregation
And whatever bullshit Trumpies spew from their mouth.
She cheated on her husband at a CrossFit gym. She’s an ogre whor
As a child of divorce and a Georgian i dont want to be separated from my family again😢
The family disagrees to the point of violence. It is time to seperate. Both sides definitively do not like each other .
Spot on, loved the conclusions you came to. 10/10 content from Mr. Beat yet again, can't wait for your next lecture!
Here's a good hypothetical to ponder: If at least 95% of every state's voting age population (18+) were to vote in every election available every year, and if every state had statewide ranked choice voting, which states would flip red and which states would flip blue? What do you think would happen?
In my personal humble opinion, I think a lot of states would swing either Independent or Democratic. To give a great example, Democrat Mary Peltoa won the 2022 House race in Alaska by 10% over Republican Sarah Palin despite Alaska typically being a red state. This is because of ranked choice voting. It more accurately reflects the political beliefs of Alaska residents, who are majority Independent.
No. Palin lost because she's Republican. I was a Republican until they lost their collective mind and decided "woke" is the biggest issue we have to face and Capitol riot was a guided tour. They have lost. Their fucking. minds. Now I have to vote democratic just to exist as a trans woman. The midterms was America rejecting the insanity and they just doubled down.
I live in Alaska and that is very true
@@christopherhardy8937 Glad to hear it, best of luck to Alaska & Mary's time in office. I hope you guys are happy with ranked choice voting.
Yes this would shift things a lot. I'd argue there's an attempt from one side to not have a young vote turnout.
Higher voter turnout is almost always a D win these days.
Voter suppression is the R’s best tactic to win elections - it’s a form of voter fraud, of course, not that they care when they bellyache about voter fraud.
"It's quite profitable to keep us divided. That's why you clicked on this video, isn't it?"
I'm glad there's someone out there trying to have others understand each other.
Southern states wouldn't last a month without the federal dollars they receive.
Check out blue NM if you want to see total Federal dependence.
Right!! You take away California, New York and Hawaii and the US economy fails
Yep, their state services would collapse. Their vulnerable citizens would suffer greatly....somehow tho, Im sure they would have enough to give their rich people tax breaks
You realize the dollars they receive are largely for policies the Federal government mandates, right? e.g. you can't count things like welfare, since those are things mandated by Federal law.
States With Highest GDP
California - $3.5 trillion.
Texas - $2.1 trillion.
New York - $1.9 trillion.
Florida - $1.3 trillion.
Illinois - $973 billion.
Pennsylvania - $874 billion.
Ohio - $765 billion.
Georgia - $713 billion.
You are patently wrong. The states with the larger economies would carry the rest...but that's happening now anyway so not much would change...other than the people in both red and blue states would be much happier.
It's incredibly scary that the majority of people in her district voted for Marjorie Taylor-Greene.
She's only saying that because we have a Democratic president in office, I can bet you my entire two week paycheck that in two years if a Republican President wins, namely Trump or DeSantis she would definitely change her rhetoric.
My in laws live in her district and the feeling I get when visiting makes me completely understand how she got so many votes if you catch my drift.
Much to the annoyance of Suris, who has the misfortune of having her as his member of congress.
its scary how many people blindly voted for biden
I live in a state that just elected Fettermen as senator. Electing losers isn’t a one sided issue in this country
Southern and northern cities have more in common than rural and urban parts of the same state (as a New Yorker I know this first hand!)
That’s interesting 🤔
oh for sure. i lived in the major city near me and also 30 minutes outside of it. pretty different viewpoints
Very true. If the US were to get a divorce, it should be between the vast rural areas of the country and the "Singapores" and their suburbs that ring it.
That ChatGPT response is incredible.
Almost as incredible as the ChatGPT voice
9:51 ahem... Police need to act and 'be seen' as _Public SERVANTS,_ not "heroes."
The oath says "...Protect and Serve." Not "revered as a hero."
I'm in Georgia, and the idea of being in a different state than MTG is a nice one. Different country is downright exciting. If the differences were truly at the state level and clumped into neat regions, I'd consider giving it go.
But the rural/urban divide is tricky. How would you make it work. Atlanta is very liberal. The rest of the Georgia is very conservative. Not sure how people would cross such non-contiguous borders all the time. Think of the nightmare trying to get from say Miami to Chicago in this scenario.
Also if/when a national divorce happened that would make Atlanta the target of Insurrections like Washington DC. That would mean places like the Georgia State Capital and Atlanta City Hall would face January 6th type events all so Marjorie Taylor Greene can make Georgia Conservative. However that cannot work like that though because the State of Georgia sent Rafael Warnock to the Senate.
Personally I'd rather be on a different planet from MTG, but you take what you can get.
I read that a couple of times wondering what Magic The Gathering ever did to you.
And then I realized.
Yeah I feel the same about Lauren Boebert.
@@kamikeserpentail3778 I don't.
In Wisconsin, it's pretty much the Milwaukee-Madison axis versus the rest of the state.
Thank you Mr. Beat for making great informative content! Ever since I kid I have loved history, I wish I had you as a teacher when I was younger hahaha
Keep up the great work!
Love how the video turned from talking about a national divorce to an epic hammering of Greene's stupidity 😂
"We have low unemployment because everyone has two jobs."- AOC
@@edwinamendelssohn5129 Great way to redirect attention from your favorite party by bringing up a completely unrelated quote that you find stupid made by someone who neither this video nor this comment you replied mentioned once.
@@minneelyyyy nations/territories, etc splitting into one or more other nations is historically normative. Democrats act shocked like it's unprecedented. I was giving an example of actual stupidity.
It's impossible not to--unless you've regularly drunk the Kool-Aid.
@@minneelyyyy There's nothing wrong with seeking a balance of stupidities, left and right.
“If we had a national divorce, red states and blue states would handle their police completely differently.”
She… does know that states could do all of that with the police right now if they wanted to. Police are almost entirely funded and managed by state and local agencies.
For local police forces, federal police is paid for by federal taxes
Examples of federal police are the FBI and the RCMP (canadian)
She doesnt know anything, she is an imbecile
@@brandoncampanaro7571 The FBI, CIA and other three-letter agencies will always be funded by both parties
There really is no such thing as a "red state" or a "blue state", the electoral college just really makes it appear that way. I live in a super conservative county of California (McCarthy's district), and there are likewise many progressive counties in Republican-run states. Unless people have enough wealth and have no work/family/life ties to where they live, they can't just move to the nearest state that agrees with all of their politics.
Which county?
@@Violent_Wolfen CA's 20th district, when he said McCarthy he means Kevin McCarthy, the current Speaker of the House and thus the leader of the House Republicans
Notice how I'm always secretly advocating for reforming or abolishing the Electoral College? ;)
Ugh. McCarthy. 😒🤮
@@iammrbeat Secretly advocating?
That prompt from Chat GPT genuinely changed the way I think about freedom. Incredible.
Some Americans support the freedom of all people to pursue happiness. Some Americans support the freedom to not pay taxes and shoot people.
it sounds way to much like a human's words for me to be comfortable
Mr. Beat, I have been watching your videos for awhile and I have to say that you really present good factual material and you are a very good storyteller. There where a few videos that I saw a bit of bias, but to be fair it would be very difficult not to show some bias with the amount of content you put out. I couldn’t believe some of the topics that you shared that were either omitted or glossed over in American History books. I was fortunate to go to a school (1 thru 12) that did not omit those things.
Keep up the good work, we need more excellent teachers like you. Keep up the good work.
This question was asked and it was answered in the blood of 618,222 americans
Pretty sure more than one of my ancestors was one of them.
All I remember from my lifetime is the American people being lied to to get into a war with Iraq and Afghanistan only to discover that the money was totally corrupted and the country was handed right back to the Taliban. So all the money, all the families, all the injuries and death were for absolutely nothing. Now the US gives weapons to other countries to fight on our behalf. Most Americans don't want their money going to war. Most Americans wouldn't fight for unity in a civil war today. They'd let everyone go their separate ways because it's better than tyranny by any party, which shouldn't exist in the first place. History is history. It matters but not as much as moving forward. The world won't stop turning.
A few things to point out.
1. If we needed to split up it would likely not be based on politics at all, but based on regions. There are already interstate partnerships, and during Covid for instance you saw nearby states often coordinate policies with one another. This even translates to some extent to international politics, as you have groups like New England who annually summit with eastern Canadian leaders (NEG-ECP). Furthermore, traditional secessionist theory says that a claim to land is necessary for secession, and the states have a lot stronger a claim to land than counties or your neighbor does. That is why people are mostly talking in terms of states when they rig up secession.
2. There are certain states that could easily break off without anyone really noticing. Hawaii and Alaska especially are already so distant from the rest of the country that it would not be worth fighting them if they tried to break off. As seen from Alaska's recent senate coalition consisting of 9 democrats and 8 republicans, it is also reasonable to expect that when a state becomes removed enough from the rest of the country, the national political divide doesn't matter all that much.
3. This is not the first time that secession has been talked about by sitting representatives. Who can forget when former president John Quincy Adams brought a pro-secession petition (the Haverhill petition) to the floor of Congress, and fought off a censorship vote for it. He himself once said (albeit not while in congress)/ "If the day should ever come, (may Heaven avert it,) when the affections of the people of these states shall be alienated from each other; when the fraternal spirit shall give away to cold indifference, or collisions of interest shall fester into hatred, the bands of political association will not long hold together parties no longer attracted by the magnetism of conciliated interests and kindly sympathies; and far better will it be for the people of the disunited states, to part in friendship from each other, than to be held together by constraint". There is a long history of politicians advocating for a national breakup dating back hundreds of years
4. The general idea of letting states mostly govern themselves didn't go away after the Civil War. States rights debates have been a staple of politics throughout the 20th century into the 21st century. furthermore, state autonomy was basically what Reagan advocated for with his "new federalism", even if that label was less provocative than MTG's "national divorce". Hell, even today you have states decriminalizing marijuana and in so doing challenging the federal government's authority. This is just a more extreme version of that.
You make some very good points. Thank you.
Half of what this guy said is nonesensse.
@@AL-lh2ht I disagree. Thought he made insightful comments.
@@AL-lh2ht what parts in particular are nonesensse [sic]
@@eifbkcn implying america would not fight if a state left, especially one like alaska which has huge reserves of oil and resources. that was the only comment i took issue with
You cannot tear up a 200 year marriage just like that...
Yes you can
I don’t get how one can argue “a divorce” isn’t separation.
Why not? If it is toxic, unworkable and has irreconcilable differences ? We split from Britain and that worked out pretty well.
We did though? The modern country isn't 200 years old. It was founded through overwhelming force in the 1860's, when the Union failed for not the first time. Some states weren't even added until the 1900's. Factor in the pre-revolutionary years and the geographic US has spent more time disunited than united.
@@tessareynolds8377 It's not unworkable or irreconcilable. Ignoring all the factors that make a split totally unrealistic, we've faced bigger problems in our history and pulled through. There is nothing America can't do
I like this channel because it comes from a mostly unbiased perspective. Even though you are open to sharing your opinions, you also portray information through an objective lens, rather than spewing all your opinions over it, which being honest, I would probably do.
Good work, Mr. Beat.
This site is not Unbiased. Not even slightly. He has a left leaning bias for sure.
It’s biased
@@Floridamanhomesteading prove jt
@@Floridamanhomesteadinghella biased to libertarians in my centeral red opion
@@brianstabile165 Nah watch the majority of his videos
EXCELLENT VIDEO !! Lots of info and thorough thinking.
As a South American, it makes me laugh that they think there is a "left" in the United States
Small small bit, it’s growing slowly.
there definitely is. how are they “center right” or “moderate” when supporting genital mutilation of children (the T in LGBT).
As a resident of Mississippi, the new red-state country would collapse if it weren't for the HUGE economic support of Texas and Florida. Every other state aside from Texas and Florida would heavily lean on those two, just as the blue-state country would heavily lean on California. Like Mr. Beat said, as intertwined as the country is now, a divide like this would be catastrophic for both sides. There's literally more cons than pros
Based on what he shared, financially there would be no comparison for how poor the red states would be. California alone has the 5th largest economy in the world. But add in NY, CO, MASS, Wash, etc…the wealth of the blue states would be unmatched. And as far Mississippi, I’m sure what it contributes to the US. Not sure why it exists anymore. It’s an awful, awful state. All of it.
@@TrumanStalls18 california is going through a massive deficit and the most federally dependent state is new Mexico.
@@sebastienholmes548 what is your point? I honestly don’t get it
@@TrumanStalls18 I wouldn't be so confident.
As a Louisianan, I 100% agree. We’d still have political disagreements, but as separate states stuff like sanctions could make it get even worse.
Red states, after the divorce, get custody of MTG and I am OK with that.
Question: Do Traditional Values include having extra marital affairs, or does that fall under religion/faith?
Republicans cheat way less than democrats according to stats.
Im agnostic btw but i do support relegion bcz it makes ppl better in general and pressures them to have better morals.
@@classicist17 Most of the religious people I know have awful morals and all the atheists I know have good or decent morals. They help people more so than modern day religious people, and don't hate on the LGBTQ community or immigrants, you know, like so many of the churches do.
@@classicist17 I am also Agnostic but having met too many Christian Nationalists who use religion to justify their hate, I prefer sticking to "Faith", which has nothing to do with religion.
Simple answer. No extra marital affairs at all.
That callout at the end looking straight into my soul was such an own - thanks Mr beat - great video
Yeah. I felt a little called out on that too.
It is not illegal for an individual to pray in a school. A person can pray anywhere they want. That person might run into problems if they are encroaching upon someone else's rights by being extremely loud or forcing others to participate. That whole "can't pray in school" nonsense comes from a unified group with the idea that school teachers must be made to lead the students in their class in prayer out loud.prayer
....So the separation of church and state is just an idea that's purpose is to prevent anyone in the government from forcing religion onto any citizen. It does not take away any rights. It preserves an individual's freedom of choice by barring the government entrance into that personal space. Any American is free to pray anywhere, to whomever they believe without reprisal.
The idea came from numerous kids across the country getting in trouble for praying in class, or saying they prayed in sxhool and somebody heard. In America it's not a problem really and it's people being jumpy. But it happens farely often in Canada, and Republicans do look and see any sign of that encroaching as a threat.
They're not completely right, but they ain't completely wrong either which is why it's not going to keep them quiet to just brush them off. That simply increases the divide.
@Created for the moment No, you are wrong. The idea is hundreds of years old or more. Freedom of Religion was a founding principle that predated the formation of the United States and would be enshrined in the US Constitution [1789] and Bill of Rights. The First Amendment guarantees us freedom of speech and religion, where each citizen decides what and how they worship or say unimpeded by the government. In addition to our freedom of speech, we are also constitutionally protected from indoctrination by our government tyrannically imposing a state religion upon its citizens.
The story of children telling on themselves for praying all across the country is really dumb. I bet I could guess where you picked up that nonsensical propaganda. Republicans always try to make themselves out to be victims. The truth is that they don't care about the prayer. They only want to indoctrinate the next generations with capitalism and greed.
@@TheRealcdawg22 actually no. I got it from a few different sources. Including NBC and ABC, as well as a few indepedent agencies for the canadian part. And sure there are peotections, doesn't mean people aren't trying to change those protections.
While you sound like a republican throwing around tyrany and indoctrination on things you don't like, you are somewhat right about there being protections. And Canada has been decided it's acceptable to suspend students for praying in public for the last 20 years. Both Christians and Muslims have been threatened with legal actions for preaching or praying.
All im saying is just because you can't see the problem with your limited view, doesn't mean there isn't one. Just like if I can't see a problem, doesn't mean I should ignore people who say they can. That kind of stubborness has led to problems all across the world again and again.
Yeah. I've never heard of a bill to restrict prayer, but I have seen bills to force prayer into schools.
If anyone is coming for your religious freedom, it's the right. The left doesn't care.
As ex. the 1st commandment (no false gods before me) directly conflicts with the 1st Amendment (freedom of religious choice).
I'm like 95% sure that the dialogue about a "national divorce" is a Russian psyop
Correctomundo!
You could be right
@@iammrbeat There is tons of proof that countries like Russia, China, and Iran use propaganda and psyops to provoke hatred and separatism within the US. I wish politicians would fight those forces instead of exploiting them for short-term gain
You might be right about that
Fun fact: The top 9 most obese states in the US are all red states and the top 8 least obese states in the US are all blue
I don’t think we need a divorce but ranked choice voting would be nice and maybe changing the Executive Branch to more of a Parliamentary approach to help break the two-party stranglehold we’re suffering from?
Agreed
nah i dont think we need to switch to a parlimentary system, i think we should however get rid of the ec and use ranked choice voting to elect the president. we should also use the proportional version of rcv for the house. also we should regulate how much ppl can spend on campaigns and shit like that.
I agree 100%
That will only give the left all the power.
Ranked choose voting has been a disaster in Alaska.
I like to eat apple
Let’s go Alexander Hamilton
Thank you Alexander Hamilton
I love too eat apples
An apple a day keeps Aaron Burr away.
Noooo :(
Any "national divorce" will most certainly include an incredibly bloody civil war, which I for one would like to avoid.
I have a hard time imagining the average city dwelling liberal signing up for a war. So I don't think it would be that bloody.
One could argue that the creation of “slave states” and “free states” in the 1800s was a “National divorce” and it most certainly led to the Civil War, so you are completely right.
Nor necessarily. If the poorer conservative states wanna leave the US, I'm down for it.
@@Vampirecronicler Yes and then you can buy your food from Russia.
@L P or Ukraine, or Canada, or maybe, even from the rural areas of blue states like New York, Virginia and Pennsylvania
If our federal government wasn’t so overbearing and powerful and states could be more independent like originally intended it wouldn’t be as big of a problem.
My man your country has a mess of laws because you already have state freedom.
@@heitorpedrodegodoi5646 not as much as we should. Different places have different customs and political views so they should be able to have their state laws reflect that. 🤷♂️
@@LukeKirk1113 And they dont? In some of states abortion/wee is legal in others inst, we can go on and on.
@@heitorpedrodegodoi5646 it wasn’t like that for 50 years, that just happened. And it is still regulated federally.
The federal government does not have the authority to make law laws outside of the constitution. It has way to much power right now. Anything not in the constitution is under the authority of the states.
The irony for Marjorie Taylor Greene is (and I don't know if she knows what "irony" means) is that using the 2020 Presidential results as our criteria for splitting up, her home state of Georgia would be joining the blue states.
The irony of conservatives suggesting a divorce is strong.
Underrated comment
The one-sentence summary to this incredible video: a "national divorce" is ridiculous, impossible, & causes far more problems for Americans (or whatever we'd become) overall.
Also as an NYC native, I can promise I know plenty of people who'd be furious at ideas like getting rid of the anthem. You can have pride in your country regardless of political beliefs (which is something that I feel shouldn't have to be said...).
Maybe not if you're anarchist, or recognize that both world wars were caused by nationalism that couldn't exist without nations.
I think you missed the word “can.”
I would love to have a reason to have pride in my country but the far right religious conservative nonsense coupled with the fact we really have nothing to be proud of makes that rather impossible.
Pride is a strong word. Reading history, there is nothing to be proud of. Every inch of our so-called good deeds in the world were balanced against the country getting what it wanted, by any means necessary.
I think you're all still missing that I said you CAN have pride. That doesn't mean you must, should, etc. It simply means someone is capable to feel pride.
However, just in exploring these comments further, while everyone is entitled to think and feel as they do, there is something else to consider. Yes, this country had always had some horrendous, problematic thoughts/actions within it. We definitely still do. However, that doesn't mean everything about this country is terrible. The US is a first-world country. We have a lot here that a lot of places don't. I've been to countries where access to food, shelter, education, and any form of employment is difficult if even possible to come by. We can dress as we want, citizens (in general) are allowed to vote every year, we don't have regular bombs or physical wars happening here everyday. Women are allowed to read, yet alone have our own bank accounts and have independence in their lives. Journalists don't get thrown in jail (yet alone executed) for solely speaking the truth/problems in the country. We have access to UA-cam, yet alone the internet.
While we without any question have a number of massive problems here (including with some of the things I've stated), I'm grateful that I don't need to worry about starvation; yet alone for being able to eat in my preferred lifestyle. I'm grateful that I, as a female-bodied person, can walk anywhere, unescourted, and wear pants/not have my hair covered without men thinking I'm a wh*re. I'm grateful that I have an education along with a career in my chosen field. That's only a starting list. Maybe it's sad, but the fact is being in America is a privilege in itself. For me personally, my pride in this country stems from the combination of being grateful for the good things we have here AND in the continued fight to make this country a better place- being grateful for the positives while being aware of/wanting to change the negatives. To be extra clear: I'm only speaking for myself, no one has to agree.
I'm also only providing context to things I've personally seen/experienced while visiting other countries. None of that lessens the problems here, but it's noting that things could be significantly worse. We just need to keep the fight going to continue making it a better place for all.
Sorry for the long comment that, ironically, can't cover everything. This comment also isn't meant to be defensive or combative in anyway. My intent is solely to provide a different perspective (again, doesn't mean you need to change yours).
As a Georgian, Greene is an embarrassment for our state and the cities here that I’m from. Really can’t speak for all of us.
I'm not going to lie, all politicians are embarrassing. That really goes for all states.
@@turtlesarecool but be honest, some of them take it to a whole other level.
I'm a big fan of hers being a gun owner I feel she represents my anger towards an even bigger embarrassment that is Joe Biden when he targets the law abiding and felonizes them for practicing their 2nd Ammendment rights, wish we had someone like her where I live, I might just run for congress, I hear Brandon Herrera is running, we Hispanics need to fight back against Big Government trying to dictate how I live life and how I protect my family, if you know anything about Hispanics, you don't mess with the Familia!!!
Mr Beat. You are one of my favorite UA-camrs. Thank you for taking your time to make this video :)