- Joined
- Sep 29, 2007
- Messages
- 122,425
- Reaction score
- 27,273
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Independent
Yeah, around the argument goes.
Incorrect. The argument stopped. Some arguers might still be spinning though. :shrug:
Yeah, around the argument goes.
Time to admit that hyper partisanship has gone beyond politics and is tearing us apart and destroying us as a nation.
Maybe it is time to split the country, probably into States.
The Fedgov has grown ridiculously over powered. When people on both sides are literally having meltdowns at the idea of the "other side" controlling the Fedgov, that says the Fedgov is too powerful. As the country was originally structured, the average citizen should barely CARE who the President is, because the President wasn't supposed to have any real impact on the daily life of Joe Citizen.
Now, we panic at the idea of ONE SCOTUS justice being appointed by the Other side. We have literal meltdowns bordering on psychosis about the Other side controlling the Fedgov.
We have literal fighting in the streets over it.
Either way you slice it, whoever wins control, tens of millions of people think they're getting screwed hard, and in some ways they're not wrong.
It's like the Bad Old Days in Britain when everyone panicked about whether the King was Protestant or Catholic. When the King was one sort, the other sort got trampled and oppressed. It went back and forth and that sort of thing is why we have the First Amendment and no national religion.
Well it is happening again, only political party or ideology is the thing dividing us.
Both sides want to do things a certain way, that the Other side sees as oppressive and unreasonable.
Maybe it is time for a divorce. Separate the nation into the States again, as independent polities, and let them govern themselves as they see fit, and sink or swim according to their own preferred ideologies.
The one thing that needs to remain is the right of the People to vote with their feet, and leave a State that doesn't suit them for one that does.
I suppose we'd have to keep some sort of minimal Federation (of STATES) to administer the nukes, and a much-reduced Air Force and Navy. Some kind of fixed apportionment among the States to fund same, say maybe 3% of the GDP divided by population of the states. That would cut the military budget by a third or so... plenty enough to defend the country still, if not to engage overseas so much.
Conservatives, you know you're tired of so much national policy being determined by NY and California.
Liberals, you know you're tired of the Red States "holding you back".
Let it go and be free. Do your thing, but in your own state. If "your thing" is as great as you think it is, over the next couple decades you'll have people and businesses flocking to your state and you'll prosper. You won't have to worry about the Fedgov imposing ideologies you hate on you because of voters in those "Other" states.
Is it time? Vote in the poll.
How do states resolve differences in that scenario, for example if a state upriver from another pollutes the river because they don't have the same standards?You're probably correct. #2 is where we're at and many people are not pleased.... some enough so to provoke or initiate violence at times. I expect that to get worse, unfortunately.
An alternative would be disempower the Fedgov in matters of domestic policy, returning a large measure of autonomy to the States... but that is about as likely to happen as pigs flying, at least without drastic measures.
How do states resolve differences in that scenario, for example if a state upriver from another pollutes the river because they don't have the same standards?
How do states resolve differences in that scenario, for example if a state upriver from another pollutes the river because they don't have the same standards?
Incorrect. The argument stopped. Some arguers might still be spinning though. :shrug:
The argument stopped. Some arguers might still be spinning though.
Im pretty sure 99percenter and I are still making the same arguments, in a circle. Maybe just stay out of it. :2wave:
Nobody wants to split. It might sound cool when you're pissed at a Progressive. Or a conniption fit over a Con. In reality, it's not so bad here and I believe that if it was to be proposed seriously by congress to be voted on by the American populace, there would be damn few splitters.
Because "splitters" is not a word. But few would want to break up the home of the brave.
thank you for confirming my point...
I think Alaska would prolly try to split if the got to vote on it.