Is an overbearing federal government - no matter what party dominates - moving us toward civil war??

[Logophile]

You mean like the Articles of Confederation?
Been there, done that...and failed.

Nothing is written stone that can't be rewritten to be both appropriate and appealing

 

[Logophile]

An amicable divorce is an impossibility.

Well, as you're a Canadian, that would be your first reaction, but given that US citizens are not, it's a viable solution that is becoming a reality, albeit quietly

 

[Callen]

Well, as you're a Canadian, that would be your first reaction, but given that US citizens are not, it's a viable solution that is becoming a reality, albeit quietly

No, given I am Canadian we have been through this. It is philosophicaly interesting but impossible practically when one considers money, literally money who gets the dollar,? Trade, management of ports and borders, defense....no one being American....passports. only non thinking persons think that is doable

 

[Captain Adverse]

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??

Nope, I disagree wholeheartedly.

If this nation's founders wanted the USA to be at best a loose confederation of friendly independent States then they had the option to do so. In fact, when the Civil War eventually occurred what you suggest is exactly what the Southern States tried. One of the many problems faced by the Confederate States was a lack of cooperation, with each State prioritizing its needs over all others.

I support the Federal system because it unites us in action under the rules of the Constitution, while still giving each State general governance over its own State territory. However, each State remains subject to the Federal Government and each State is given fair representation in that government via Congress. That Body makes the laws, rules, and regulations all U.S. citizens abide by.

IMO the "differences dividing us" which you assert are created by the Party currently out of power and desperately seeking to regain it. Pretty much now IMHO by any means necessary, apparently including violence. Of course, they would advocate whatever it takes to get back into power...anything except accepting reality and work within the Constitutional framework.

So also IMO it appears they YOU have bought into their nonsense narratives to the point that you would prefer to divide our nation rather than actually seek common ground.

Well I can tell you here and now that I would gladly return to active duty in the U.S. Army even at my age to defend the Constitution and preserve the nation.

 

[mrjurrs]

Nothing is written stone that can't be rewritten to be both appropriate and appealing

Okay, but that would not change the end result of reverse federalism.

 

[Logophile]

No, given I am Canadian we have been through this. It is philosophicaly interesting but impossible practically when one considers money, literally money who gets the dollar,? Trade, management of ports and borders, defense....no one being American....passports. only non thinking persons think that is doable

You're still tied to the British royal family. You can't imagine it because it's not the mindset of those in your nation to be independent and accept that it might be a better arrangement here

 

[Logophile]

Nope, I disagree wholeheartedly.

If this nation's founders wanted the USA to be at best a loose confederation of friendly independent States then they had the option to do so. In fact, when the Civil War eventually occurred what you suggest is exactly what the Southern States tried. One of the many problems faced by the Confederate States was a lack of cooperation, with each State prioritizing its needs over all others.

I support the Federal system because it unites us in action under the rules of the Constitution, while still giving each State general governance over its own State territory. However, each State remains subject to the Federal Government and each State is given fair representation in that government via Congress. That Body makes the laws, rules, and regulations all U.S. citizens abide by.

IMO the "differences dividing us" which you assert are created by the Party currently out of power and desperately seeking to regain it. Pretty much now IMHO by any means necessary, apparently including violence. Of course, they would advocate whatever it takes to get back into power...anything except accepting reality and work within the Constitutional framework.

So also IMO it appears they YOU have bought into their nonsense narratives to the point that you would prefer to divide our nation rather than actually seek common ground.

Well I can tell you here and now that I would gladly return to active duty in the U.S. Army even at my age to defend the Constitution and preserve the nation.

Lol!! You'd hardly be defending the nation if you took up arms, of that you can be assured. The Constitution was in fact designed to be a confederation of loosely tied states. You seem to be mistaking the founding fathers for Marxists, and poor Lincoln as Trotsky. Oh dear

 

[Logophile]

Okay, but that would not change the end result of reverse federalism.

There's nothing wrong with an amicable divorce while sharing the "kids" so to speak

 

[mrjurrs]

There's nothing wrong with an amicable divorce while sharing the "kids" so to speak

It didn't work then, and it won't work now.

Just say you think America shoyuld be over if you think that is the way to fix it. As someone from CA I've got no issue with it, we'll be fine with protected borders, and we can quit sending our tax revenue to red states forcing them to live down to the syle of life they vote for.

 

[PopMartian]

America is not the same as the 13 Colonies. For this nation in the present be so simplistic as when the creators drafted the constitution is like saying Make America Great Again. Nope. America is quickly becoming an authoritarian state under the illusion of freedom to choose how to live.

Welcome to fascism under the Oligarchy Puppet named Donald (convicted felon) Trump.

 

[Lutherf]

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??

So, basically, you're a Constitutional Conservative. Congratulations for finally seeing the light!

 

[Captain Adverse]

Lol!! You'd hardly be defending the nation if you took up arms, of that you can be assured. The Constitution was in fact designed to be a confederation of loosely tied states. You seem to be mistaking the founding fathers for Marxists, and poor Lincoln as Trotsky. Oh dear

Actually, you are only partly correct. The original union was a loose Confederation under the Articles of Confederation. But there were many problems with that system. Examples include multiple currencies with changing values, issues with tolls when moving between States, problems enforcing differing laws when a perpetrator could cross a State line and dispute extradition if the same law did not exist in that State. These and other problems with foreign trade, currency exchanges, land disputes, etc. led to a Convention to come to agreement governing all the States.

The Constitutional Convention ended up with the U.S. Constitution which would take effect when nine States ratified it. I used to teach American History to high school students, and was a teaching assistant in the History Dept. at the University where I got my Masters in History. I also aced Constitutional law while working on my J.D.

So, save your snide Logo...that's a laugh.

 

[gbg3]

Well, as you're a Canadian, that would be your first reaction, but given that US citizens are not, it's a viable solution that is becoming a reality, albeit quietly

I completely agree that, albeit quietly so far, it is becoming a reality. People have been moving at quite high rates for several years. Red states are turning redder, and blue states are turning bluer. Interestingly though, the reason blue states are turning bluer is because of an outflow (leaving fewer conservatives) and the reason red states are turning redder is because of an inflow (of those conservatives moving to red states). That's why it's most redly states who will be getting more reps representing them and blue states will be losing reps - based on the latest census.

And to go along with these changes, very few House seats are even competitive anymore.

 

[Callen]

Red states are turning redder, and blue states are turning bluer

.....and some red States are turning bluer. Not sure any blue States are turning redder.

 

[gbg3]

.....and some red States are turning bluer. Not sure any blue States are turning redder.

I agree. I bet very few blue states are turning redder. Few people are migrating to blue states, with their higher taxes and such. Red states are where the moving vans are headed. That's leaving the blue states with bluer and smaller populations.

I remember you thinking Florida would turn more blue in 2024, as people left states like California or Illinois. Instead, just the opposite happened. You and I discussed this often before that election and, on this, you ended up being completely wrong.

 

[Callen]

I agree. I bet very few blue states are turning redder. Few people are migrating to blue states, with their higher taxes and such. Red states are where the moving vans are headed. That's leaving the blue states with bluer and smaller populations.

I remember you thinking Florida would turn more blue in 2024, as people left states like California or Illinois. Instead, just the opposite happened. You and I discussed this often before that election and, on this, you ended up being completely wrong.

The fat lady hasn't sung...catch you in the midterms. Watch Texas too.

 

[gbg3]

most redly states

Lol, I meant "mostly red states". That's an interesting error I made - it makes me think I might be losing my mind.

 

[trixare4kids]

.....and some red States are turning bluer. Not sure any blue States are turning redder.

CA. just recently added 50k new Republicans as voters.

 

[gbg3]

The fat lady hasn't sung...catch you in the midterms

She sang and very loudly.

Are you expecting Florida to finally shift red in the midterms? Keep that wishful thinking going. That state, which was purple not too long ago, very clearly made up its mind in the last several elections.

 

[Callen]

She sang and very loudly.

Are you expecting Florida to finally shift red in the midterms? Keep that wishful thinking going. That state, which was purple not too long ago, very clearly made up its mind in the last several elections.

Am I expecting FL to shift red? Hardly

 

[Logophile]

Actually, you are only partly correct. The original union was a loose Confederation under the Articles of Confederation. But there were many problems with that system. Examples include multiple currencies with changing values, issues with tolls when moving between States, problems enforcing differing laws when a perpetrator could cross a State line and dispute extradition if the same law did not exist in that State. These and other problems with foreign trade, currency exchanges, land disputes, etc. led to a Convention to come to agreement governing all the States.

The Constitutional Convention ended up with the U.S. Constitution which would take effect when nine States ratified it. I used to teach American History to high school students, and was a teaching assistant in the History Dept. at the University where I got my Masters in History. I also aced Constitutional law while working on my J.D.

So, save your snide Logo...that's a laugh.

Your credentials notwithstanding, you are not looking at the subject objectively. Details are always worked out in systems, aside from which, that was then this is now, and we are making the transition anyway. People are moving/gravitating toward states that reflect their values

 

[eohrnberger]

Nope, I disagree wholeheartedly.

If this nation's founders wanted the USA to be at best a loose confederation of friendly independent States then they had the option to do so. In fact, when the Civil War eventually occurred what you suggest is exactly what the Southern States tried. One of the many problems faced by the Confederate States was a lack of cooperation, with each State prioritizing its needs over all others.

I support the Federal system because it unites us in action under the rules of the Constitution, while still giving each State general governance over its own State territory. However, each State remains subject to the Federal Government and each State is given fair representation in that government via Congress. That Body makes the laws, rules, and regulations all U.S. citizens abide by.

IMO the "differences dividing us" which you assert are created by the Party currently out of power and desperately seeking to regain it. Pretty much now IMHO by any means necessary, apparently including violence. Of course, they would advocate whatever it takes to get back into power...anything except accepting reality and work within the Constitutional framework.

So also IMO it appears they YOU have bought into their nonsense narratives to the point that you would prefer to divide our nation rather than actually seek common ground.

Well I can tell you here and now that I would gladly return to active duty in the U.S. Army even at my age to defend the Constitution and preserve the nation.

I have to agree with you there. 'Uniting' by dividing the country in 1/2 isn't uniting at all, hence my disdain for the Dems, Libs and Progs constantly practicing identity politics, the politics of division and divisiveness to gain / maintain their political power at the cost of any sort of unity. We are living through those seeds that they have sown.

Little wonder that now they want to divide the nation with these ridiculous proposals, when all that's needed is for the Dems, Libs and Progs to stop practicing their identity politics and stop setting people against each other based on their immutable characteristics.

 

[trixare4kids]

I agree. I bet very few blue states are turning redder. Few people are migrating to blue states, with their higher taxes and such. Red states are where the moving vans are headed. That's leaving the blue states with bluer and smaller populations.

I remember you thinking Florida would turn more blue in 2024, as people left states like California or Illinois. Instead, just the opposite happened. You and I discussed this often before that election and, on this, you ended up being completely wrong.

CA. is turning redder. It's the only one I follow as it's my home state. Don't get too excited, it's still extremely blue, but the gains for Republicans are fairly significant compared to the gains for Democrats from February to September, 2025

https://elections.cdn.sos.ca.gov/ror/60day-special-2025/historical-reg-stats.pdf

 

[Rexedgar]

CA. just recently added 50k new Republicans as voters.

Drop in the ocean.

 

[Phys251]

I completely agree that, albeit quietly so far, it is becoming a reality. People have been moving at quite high rates for several years. Red states are turning redder, and blue states are turning bluer. Interestingly though, the reason blue states are turning bluer is because of an outflow (leaving fewer conservatives) and the reason red states are turning redder is because of an inflow (of those conservatives moving to red states). That's why it's most redly states who will be getting more reps representing them and blue states will be losing reps - based on the latest census.

Citation needed.

And to go along with these changes, very few House seats are even competitive anymore.

Thanks to gerrymandering.