@Otto_English A number of my American friends say that a split into say DSA (Democratic States of America) and the rest may need to be seriously considered. West Coast + North East states combined would be an economic powerhouse.
@RoryStewartUK Exactly. If the scenario was that Russia took back Alaska (they owned it until 1867 after all), oh and maybe Seattle as well for good measure, killing 50,000+ Americans in the process, do we think the US would be OK with a “peace” deal that let them to keep the land?
@realannapaulina So if the scenario was that Russia took back Alaska (they owned it until 1867 after all), oh and maybe Seattle as well for good measure, killing 50,000+ Americans in the process, you think the US would be OK with a “peace” deal that let them to keep the land?
@jasonwhitlock So if the scenario was that Russia took back Alaska (they owned it until 1867 after all), oh and maybe Seattle as well for good measure, killing 50,000+ Americans in the process, you think the US would be OK with a “peace” deal that let them to keep the land?
@marion1_alice@GBNEWS@andytwelves So if the scenario was that Russia took back Alaska (they owned it until 1867 after all), oh and maybe Seattle as well for good measure, killing 50,000+ Americans in the process, you think the US would be OK with a “peace” deal that let them to keep the land?
@juneslater17 So if the scenario was that Russia took back Alaska (they owned it until 1867 after all), oh and maybe Seattle as well for good measure, killing 50,000+ Americans in the process, you think the US would be OK with a “peace” deal that let them to keep the land?
@RepStefanik@POTUS@realDonaldTrump@WhiteHouse So if the scenario was that Russia took back Alaska (they owned it until 1867 after all), oh and maybe Seattle as well for good measure, killing 50,000+ Americans in the process, you would be OK with a “peace” deal that let them to keep the land?
@grahamallen So if the scenario was that Russia took back Alaska (they owned it until 1867 after all), oh and maybe Seattle as well for good measure, killing 50,000+ Americans in the process, you would be OK with a “peace” deal that let them to keep the land?
@VivekGRamaswamy@realDonaldTrump So if the scenario was that Russia took back Alaska (they owned it until 1867 after all), oh and maybe Seattle as well for good measure, killing 50,000+ Americans in the process, you would be OK with a “peace” deal that let them to keep the land?
@SecretaryBurgum@POTUS So if the scenario was that Russia took back Alaska (they owned it until 1867 after all), oh and maybe Seattle as well for good measure, killing 50,000+ Americans in the process, you would be OK with a “peace” deal that let them to keep the land?
@DavidSacks So if the scenario was that Russia took back Alaska (they owned it until 1867 after all), oh and maybe Seattle as well for good measure, killing 50,000+ Americans in the process, you would be OK with a “peace” deal that let them to keep the land?
@SecScottBessent So if the scenario was that Russia took back Alaska (they owned it until 1867 after all), oh and maybe Seattle as well for good measure, killing 50,000+ Americans in the process, you would be OK with a “peace” deal that let them to keep the land?
@RepMarkGreen So if the scenario was that Russia took back Alaska (they owned it until 1867 after all), oh and maybe Seattle as well for good measure, killing 50,000+ Americans in the process, you would be OK with a “peace” deal that let them to keep the land?
@bennyjohnson So if the scenario was that Russia took back Alaska (they owned it until 1867 after all), oh and maybe Seattle as well for good measure, killing 50,000+ Americans in the process, you would be OK with a “peace” deal that let them to keep the land?
@PeteHegseth So if the scenario was that Russia took back Alaska (they owned it until 1867 after all), oh and maybe Seattle as well for good measure, killing 50,000+ Americans in the process, you would be OK with a “peace” deal that let them to keep the land?