• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

What is the United States?

What is the United States?


  • Total voters
    29
I have a different perspective, grounded in reality. Around 1971 I read the People's Almanac. I was stunned reviewing the economic details. The world's largest economies by dollars were the USA, Britain, France, and then IBM. Wowser, thinks I. Hundreds of other Nations, but many Corporations, mostly USA, larger than hundreds of nations. This means these companies wield the same economic power as many governments and much more power than the small countries that they often do business in/with. The CIA was chartered to help USA businesses overseas, and Latin America is a great example of what that translates to, along with the School of the Americas and its' dictator military training. These Corporations are now empowered by SCOTUS to have the same rights as citizens, so now we are a federation of people and Corporations and the Corporations have the economic power. "Of the people, by the people, for the people" has been bastardized to our detriment. Alexander Hamilton wanted to make the USA a nice place to do business, but right now it is a place for "dirty business" like wars for money, wars for good business, wars for the Corporate/Military/Industrial Complex. I submit we have a $750 billion military budget that, if given a voting choice, would be reduced substantially by the electorate. That would be human voters.
 
Last edited:
great example of hyperbole.
Thanks, Thunder. I thought it was great way to use a little hyperbole, too - almost poetical.
The Federal Government takes the States' money (the money that should be going from its citizens to the State instead goes to the Federal government), then the Federal Government makes the State's do things they wouldn't otherwise do in exchange for their own money (things that weren't part of the constitutional agreement). They are "enslaved" to the Federal government much the same way as drug addicts are a slave to their addiction. A state can know what it's doing is wrong and still have no choice but to give in. So, while the word has good effect, it's not really an exaggeration - it's used in a commonly accepted way.
 
...They are "enslaved" to the Federal government much the same way as drug addicts are a slave to their addiction.....

well, maybe it folks didn't keep electing Congressmen that kept the states "enslaved" to the Federal govt., things wouldn't be as dire as you claim.

Congressmen don't elect themselves, ya know.
 
Simple question: Is the United States a single nation like Germany, China, etc. OR is it a federation of nation-states similar to the EU or the UN? Why or why not?

My opinion is that it is a federation of sovereign, independent states.

I base this opinion on the fact that in the Treaty of Paris, Britain recognizes the individual states as sovereign and independent.

In the articles of confederation, the sovereignty and independence of each of the member states is affirmed.

There is no constitutional or historical evidence that any of the states voluntarily relinquished their sovereignty when they entered into their compact as defined in the constitution. In fact, several states specifically declared that they were no relinquishing their sovereignty.

Based on the fact that the states were sovereign and that they never voluntarily relinquished their sovereignty, my opinion is that they are still sovereign states.
 
My opinion is that it is a federation of sovereign, independent states.

I base this opinion on the fact that in the Treaty of Paris, Britain recognizes the individual states as sovereign and independent.

In the articles of confederation, the sovereignty and independence of each of the member states is affirmed.

There is no constitutional or historical evidence that any of the states voluntarily relinquished their sovereignty when they entered into their compact as defined in the constitution. In fact, several states specifically declared that they were no relinquishing their sovereignty.

Based on the fact that the states were sovereign and that they never voluntarily relinquished their sovereignty, my opinion is that they are still sovereign states.

I suppose - maybe -there are different degrees of sovereignty.
 
Thanks, Thunder. I thought it was great way to use a little hyperbole, too - almost poetical.
The Federal Government takes the States' money (the money that should be going from its citizens to the State instead goes to the Federal government), then the Federal Government makes the State's do things they wouldn't otherwise do in exchange for their own money (things that weren't part of the constitutional agreement). They are "enslaved" to the Federal government much the same way as drug addicts are a slave to their addiction. A state can know what it's doing is wrong and still have no choice but to give in. So, while the word has good effect, it's not really an exaggeration - it's used in a commonly accepted way.

Sounds to me that this is the same way an employee is enslaves to his company.
 
It is really supposed to be a hybrid of the two. The primary focus was to have local governments that were most important to the lives of the citizens but that those local governments would be regulated by the federal government that was supposed to have the best interest of the people at mind with regard to freedom. Obviously, that concept was not well defended by the citizens of the US.
 
The entire point of the constitution was that the states, like little children, wouldn't work together for the common good unless they were forced to by a guiding parent figure. The federal government was put in place by the constitution (and the articles of confederation were straight up repealed, so they are no longer valid at all) to keep self-centered state governments in check. It literally exists to tell the states what to do, because they proved they can't be trusted to do the right thing on their own.

And this isn't even getting into the issue of slavery.

The United States has been a single nation with sub-regions since 1787.
 
Back
Top Bottom