Except we’ve already seen from history that doing that just allows the states to ignore the constitution and brutally oppress minorities, as the South so happily did for decadesI've thought a lot about this lately, and think that only way to keep the United States "united" is to hand more power to the states and shrink the federal government. Given all the animosity and vitriol after Kirk's murder, I see an ever widening philosophical chasm that is threatening our ability to coexist. I think the solution is to hand all social and most practical legislative reins to the states, so that geographically, people can gravitate toward like minded areas, and reserve the federal government's role to that which is similar to the EU, only more restricted, with its primary role to support defense. Otherwise, I fear we're headed toward an ever more destructive domestic outcome. States are far more hands on when it comes to the needs of their constituents. I'm still trying to shape how it would look, but I think radically broadening states' rights is the path to our salvation. What say you??
Oh really?Most constitutional rights would be shaped by the states. I think anybody believing that minorities would be oppressed fail to take into consideration two factors: money and mobility. States need their minority residents, and the overriding priority of most humans is economic, so therein likes the solution to any potential "oppression." People don't want strong contributors to leave, do they??
I've thought a lot about this lately, and think that only way to keep the United States "united" is to hand more power to the states and shrink the federal government. Given all the animosity and vitriol after Kirk's murder, I see an ever widening philosophical chasm that is threatening our ability to coexist. I think the solution is to hand all social and most practical legislative reins to the states, so that geographically, people can gravitate toward like minded areas, and reserve the federal government's role to that which is similar to the EU, only more restricted, with its primary role to support defense. Otherwise, I fear we're headed toward an ever more destructive domestic outcome. States are far more hands on when it comes to the needs of their constituents. I'm still trying to shape how it would look, but I think radically broadening states' rights is the path to our salvation. What say you??
I agree, but those days are coming to an end, essentially because of fiscal realities. There's no denying a 36 plus trillion dollar debt, and our ability to pay the interest, and dole stimulus spending is gonna be tough without us winding up a "banana republic"While I agree that the federal government continuously grows more powerful and expensive, I doubt many (and surely not most) congress critters will agree to increasing their state/local taxes to stop (much less reverse) that trend.
Federal funds (bribes?) paid to state/local governments and/or to their residents are seen as being “free” (come at no additional cost to state/local taxpayers) money. Keep in mind that congress critters enjoy re-election rates of over 90% by continuously engaging in annual federal deficit (stimulus?) spending.
Read the context please. This is a general discussion about states versus federal rights, not the particulars about how to wage a war. You're so anxious to make some straw man insult, that you can't contribute a single constructive post??Civil war again? No one has explained to me how it will be fought. Whose side will the air force take? What will the Navy do? How do you know when you win?
Civil war. Please.
I agree, but those days are coming to an end, essentially because of fiscal realities. There's no denying a 36 plus trillion dollar debt, and our ability to pay the interest, and dole stimulus spending is gonna be tough without us winding up a "banana republic"
Read the context please. This is a general discussion about states versus federal rights, not the particulars about how to wage a war. You're so anxious to make some straw man insult, that you can't contribute a single constructive post??
The two party system provides the illusion of choice.We’ve been hearing that for decades, yet the electorate has a choice between voting for the ‘viable’ candidate from the party for a bigger (more powerful and expensive) federal or the ‘viable’ candidate from the party for a huge federal government. Under our two party system, we the sheeple have limited ‘viable’ choices.
And short.In general, only fools think that they have the stomach for another American Civil War or that anything good will come of it without many decades of strife in between. If it does happen, be sure that the rest of your life will be a pile of hardscrabble suck.
For some, for sure. For the rest, they will scramble for each day.The two party system provides the illusion of choice.
And short.
I've thought a lot about this lately, and think that only way to keep the United States "united" is to hand more power to the states and shrink the federal government. Given all the animosity and vitriol after Kirk's murder, I see an ever widening philosophical chasm that is threatening our ability to coexist. I think the solution is to hand all social and most practical legislative reins to the states, so that geographically, people can gravitate toward like minded areas, and reserve the federal government's role to that which is similar to the EU, only more restricted, with its primary role to support defense. Otherwise, I fear we're headed toward an ever more destructive domestic outcome. States are far more hands on when it comes to the needs of their constituents. I'm still trying to shape how it would look, but I think radically broadening states' rights is the path to our salvation. What say you??
How so??I think the division amongst Americans is intentional and not organic.
Today's electorate is a lot more ignorant than it was 30 years ago. I'll wager that most voters couldn't even name the three branches of government. Our representatives exploit the voters' ignorance, and are rewarded with many terms in office even though they have repeatedly demonstrated that they are wholly incompetent.. . . Keep in mind that congress critters enjoy re-election rates of over 90% by continuously engaging in annual federal deficit (stimulus?) spending.
I don't see it as viable as this point. It's fun to think we can force people to get along, but in reality, they have to want to, and it doesn't look like they do. We have all kinds of people on anti-depressants and anti-anxiety meds for a reason, and a lot has to do with a sense of disenfranchisement and insecurity as in fear of each other. The federal government cannot address the emotional state of the nation anymore. It's too self-serving and too distant. The federal government with all its employees and contractors is almost like a nation unto itselfI say NO!
I am for a strong Federal Government, and a weakening of State power. Why? Well in the first place just look to States like California, and New York, a couple of examples where they are pissing on the Constitution and Federal law in support of foreigners over their natural born citizens.
In the second place, we are a Union of United States, and that union would likely dissolve into a number of competing and combatting States much like prior "empires" the world over. To prevent that I would gladly re-up in the U.S. Army to fight to keep the Union "United."
Well, right now, it looks like we have an awful lot of fools. I've never seen such rage, and it's not getting better. I'm looking for solutionsIn general, only fools think that they have the stomach for another American Civil War or that anything good will come of it without many decades of strife in between. If it does happen, be sure that the rest of your life will be a pile of hardscrabble suck.
I don't see it as viable as this point. It's fun to think we can force people to get along, but in reality, they have to want to, and it doesn't look like they do. We have all kinds of people on anti-depressants and anti-anxiety meds for a reason, and a lot has to do with a sense of disenfranchisement and actual insecurity as in fear. The federal government cannot address the emotional state of the nation anymore. It's too big, too self-serving and too distant
Civil war ain't it.Well, right now, it looks like we have an awful lot of fools. I've never seen such rage, and it's not getting better. I'm looking for solutions
Obviously it's what should be avoided at all costs, but demonstrably, human emotion is super-charged, and when it is, rational doesn't take precedenceCivil war ain't it.
Interesting, I don't see that trend, at least lately. There seems to be a backlash of sorts in western Europe, and Taiwan has taken a stand with supportI don't agree with your assessment. I think it is just a small but highly vocal activist segment of our population that is seeking exactly what you'd support for all sorts of partisan reasons.
I, on the other hand, recognize that in other parts of the world there appears to be a growing trend toward Socialism/Communism and that is something I oppose with all my will. So I want a United States willing to fight for the ideals the nation was founded on.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?