Okay but in many of the cases today we know concretely and in clear terms how to solve the problems based on data we do have.

Not to mention that the alternative of guessing / thought experiments is surely worse.

All of those countries were directly sponsored at birth by the US. Their most vulernable years, during civil war or following state collapse, were seen through by massive right wing allies. Who is going to sponsor the US right in forcefully reintegrating secessionist states?

The question is how they project the force to do that into blue states, and do so without triggering massive strikes and protests they can't control. Doing so would require the full participation of the US military, which is unlikely, and even then it wouldn't work for long. If Chile and Spain could escape fascist dictatorships which were sponsored by a thriving US, what makes you think a collapsing US with virtually no allies rightwing enough to help would succeed?

All the advantages you're talking about are very temporary. The blue states have production, manpower, and allies. Enlisted military people skew right and independent, but enlisteds don't control the military. The right may want to "expanbd" and they may even try to but blue states would both have nuclear deterrents and all the advantages of long-term-warfare on their side.

You are right that the blue states may just refuse to secede, but if they do, the right won't be able to stop them. Saying it could is just fundamentally not a materialist analysis.

The military will not just "say no." Military leadership and the security state at large is solidly Liberal. The US is not the only country on earth and I don't think the red states will find many allies.

If the blue states want out there's not really anything the red states could do to stop them, if they'd even try.

Difficult to see how they could stop blue states from seceding. Even the private sector is against them. I think this will be bloody and likely will balkanize the USA but I don't think it will be a fash takeover or even civil war.

I do not find this at all compelling. Whether we feel good about phsyicalism or not, whether humans tend to act or think in physicalist terms or not, or whether there are apparent paradoxes within physicalism or not, the fact is we cannot see or interact with anything that is not, by definition, material. The question of optimizing human well being is at its core mathematical. How do we feed everyone, etc. Once we reach that point, where all people are cared for, we can pursue teleological questions with our surplus.

Liberalism is the air we breath sadly. I find it easy, if correct, to just blame the writers for being libs.

It's more interesting to wonder why TNG could be made in the 90s and isn't being made today, at least to me.

thanks for stopping by! I appreciate the suggestion as well

2 is just very hard. You need to train yourself to habitually queue villagers and military units.

hey friend :)

fun. More historical than aoe2 but just as fun

much better now. I was always better than unmodded warband (controversial I know but people forget how much mods added), but they've filled most of the frustrating gaps. I would recommend it.

right, but like are the libs getting more or fewer seats than 2019? Cons? NDP?

Okay but what's actually happening in Canada? Cons seem happy on Twitter but lots of info suggesting ndp and lib votes are more by mail and will come in tomorrow.

Do we know anything yet? Is there even an inkling?

Alaska actually #1 lol

I posted it there lol. 10 upvotes.

What does reading mean if you can't process the basic info in the words?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Literacy_in_the_United_States#:~:text=Information%20on%20literacy%2C%20while%20not,of%20the%20214%20nations%20included.

This is a screenshot from Wikipedia. Real source is the national education survey.