332
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 16 Sep 2025
332 points (96.9% liked)
politics
31022 readers
465 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles. Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to US politics and contain quality and original content. Social Media adjacent hosts like Substack are allowed, but ONLY if they tie back to a company/subsidiary. No personal or friend group blogs and no self-promotion. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and re-hosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing other users of being bots or paid actors.
- No memes, trolling, misinformation, or low-effort posts/comments (including reposts). If you see posts like this that anger you, do not engage. Report, block, and live a happier life than they do. Any slap-fight is subject to comment removals. Fights full of rule violations will result in temporary bans to cool off.
- No manipulating votes via bots or alt accounts; this will result in permanent bans. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in an account ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be permanently banned.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules and use critical thinking when reading, posting, and commenting. Users that repeatedly have comments or posts removed, weaponize reports, or violate the code of conduct, will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users. The reason(s) behind moderator action(s) are publicly available through the Modlog.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
Financially, culturally, technologically... no. We don't need red states. But we do need food.
Food is one of those ”strategic reserve” things, because you can’t just build farms and have them immediately start cranking out staple foods like a factory. The fed keeps strategic reserves of things that take time to create, but which have major short-term needs. A farm will take weeks or months to start producing, and farmers plan their crops literal years in advance.
And that “farms are only a few weeks away from producing” announcement is a cold comfort when people are hungry right now. Most of society is only about three days of missed meals away from violence.
The sad reality is that the south/central US produces a lot of food. Sure, there are other areas that food could be produced, but it’s not already doing so, meaning it would be useless in anything except the long-term. But in order to reach the long-term, you first need to deal with the short-term. And the short-term in this scenario has a lot of people going hungry.
Yes, but (at least according to the above split) the population density would wildly change. The central/south US exports a lot of food because they don’t have a lot of people to feed. California produces 13% of the food, but it also consumes the most because it has the most people. Same with places like New England, which would also be allied with (and thus need to be supported by) California.
The stats would suddenly skew towards the central US having a bunch of excess food per capita, while the east/west US struggled with long term food shortages, supply lines between the east/west through/around the hostile central US, etc…
California is 10% of the US population and produces 13% of the US food. Sounds to me like we'll be ok.
Of course, eastern California might split off to go red since that half of the state is pretty solidly red...
To the extent you have some food production, that population might be mighty grumpy at being more unambiguously a political minority.
It wouldn't be pretty...
Don't be reductionist.
DARVO detected.
...how? lol, you're an idiot
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/DARVO
I know what DARVO is, what it means, and I've experienced it before. You can't just throw it out there nonsensically and expect people to take you seriously. Have a nice day, please do better, thank you.
I'll stop laughing when you stop stepping in it. 🍿
Hey, at least we're laughing together friend.
I like that a lot actually. Thanks for helping make my week more fun.
Likewise!
Indoor farming is a thing. Importing food from other countries is a thing (we do it already).
Cool. That will take 2 - 5 years to implement, if folx don't screw off too much.