President Donald Trump!
Kraichgauer
Veteran
Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 48,684
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.
12 Sep 2015, 3:21 am
Jacoby wrote:
morslilleole wrote:
pete1061 wrote:
Jacoby wrote:
Bernie won't be the nominee and won't be considered as running mate but I think Elizabeth Warren is likely the VP pick of whoever wins the nomination which will be either Hillary or Biden. Biden is a lot more likable personality wise and keeps his nose clean, he's a more electable general election candidate but record wise he is just as vulnerable if not more. Joe Biden was the man who wrote the PATRIOT ACT for what its worth. The Dem bench is pretty sad, if Warren was running then Hillary would be trailing by a decent amount I think by this point.
Bernie....
Another one with no chance.
But he spreads very DANGEROUS ideas.
Ideas that WILL start a civil war in this country.
This rasies another question ; why do so many consider socialistic ideas dangerous? Socialistic ideas would HELP the vast majority of citizens by giving them the income they deserve to a decent tax rate along with various rights that allows them to live a normal life. And the ability to actually get healthcare when they need it.
There are plenty of socialistic ideas and things in the US that people are just fine with
I think secession needs to be put back on the table, we shouldn't be afraid of self determination. If the states cannot maintain their own sovereignty then leaving the union really is the only other option they given. Everything should be decentralized, we'd be so much better off anyway.
But would the world be better off without a united America to fight totalitarianism? I personally think not.
_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
Jacoby
Veteran
Joined: 10 Dec 2007
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,284
Location: Permanently banned by power tripping mods lol this forum is trash
12 Sep 2015, 3:30 am
Kraichgauer wrote:
Jacoby wrote:
morslilleole wrote:
pete1061 wrote:
Jacoby wrote:
Bernie won't be the nominee and won't be considered as running mate but I think Elizabeth Warren is likely the VP pick of whoever wins the nomination which will be either Hillary or Biden. Biden is a lot more likable personality wise and keeps his nose clean, he's a more electable general election candidate but record wise he is just as vulnerable if not more. Joe Biden was the man who wrote the PATRIOT ACT for what its worth. The Dem bench is pretty sad, if Warren was running then Hillary would be trailing by a decent amount I think by this point.
Bernie....
Another one with no chance.
But he spreads very DANGEROUS ideas.
Ideas that WILL start a civil war in this country.
This rasies another question ; why do so many consider socialistic ideas dangerous? Socialistic ideas would HELP the vast majority of citizens by giving them the income they deserve to a decent tax rate along with various rights that allows them to live a normal life. And the ability to actually get healthcare when they need it.
There are plenty of socialistic ideas and things in the US that people are just fine with
I think secession needs to be put back on the table, we shouldn't be afraid of self determination. If the states cannot maintain their own sovereignty then leaving the union really is the only other option they given. Everything should be decentralized, we'd be so much better off anyway.
But would the world be better off without a united America to fight totalitarianism? I personally think not.
But what if the US is the source of the totalitarianism?
Kraichgauer
Veteran
Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 48,684
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.
12 Sep 2015, 6:38 am
Jacoby wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Jacoby wrote:
morslilleole wrote:
pete1061 wrote:
Jacoby wrote:
Bernie won't be the nominee and won't be considered as running mate but I think Elizabeth Warren is likely the VP pick of whoever wins the nomination which will be either Hillary or Biden. Biden is a lot more likable personality wise and keeps his nose clean, he's a more electable general election candidate but record wise he is just as vulnerable if not more. Joe Biden was the man who wrote the PATRIOT ACT for what its worth. The Dem bench is pretty sad, if Warren was running then Hillary would be trailing by a decent amount I think by this point.
Bernie....
Another one with no chance.
But he spreads very DANGEROUS ideas.
Ideas that WILL start a civil war in this country.
This rasies another question ; why do so many consider socialistic ideas dangerous? Socialistic ideas would HELP the vast majority of citizens by giving them the income they deserve to a decent tax rate along with various rights that allows them to live a normal life. And the ability to actually get healthcare when they need it.
There are plenty of socialistic ideas and things in the US that people are just fine with
I think secession needs to be put back on the table, we shouldn't be afraid of self determination. If the states cannot maintain their own sovereignty then leaving the union really is the only other option they given. Everything should be decentralized, we'd be so much better off anyway.
But would the world be better off without a united America to fight totalitarianism? I personally think not.
But what if the US is the source of the totalitarianism?
So far, that hasn't been the case. Previously, it had been a matter of German militarism, Soviet socialist expansionism, and now, Islamic fundamentalism.
_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
12 Sep 2015, 9:50 am
Inventor wrote:
Trump will make a great President!
While others pander to some small group, Trump speaks of the major problems that have been ignored for decades.
America likes Trump, the rest are not even liked in their own party.
While others pander to some small group, Trump speaks of the major problems that have been ignored for decades.
America likes Trump, the rest are not even liked in their own party.
"America likes Trump"! 31% of the Republican Party as well as you and a couple of other people on this website, besides Mr. Trump's offspring, would like to see him become president of the USA. Not the rest of us.
Just remember this old saying: "Be careful of what you wish for because you just might get it".
Jacoby
Veteran
Joined: 10 Dec 2007
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,284
Location: Permanently banned by power tripping mods lol this forum is trash
12 Sep 2015, 10:00 am
Kraichgauer wrote:
Jacoby wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Jacoby wrote:
morslilleole wrote:
pete1061 wrote:
Jacoby wrote:
Bernie won't be the nominee and won't be considered as running mate but I think Elizabeth Warren is likely the VP pick of whoever wins the nomination which will be either Hillary or Biden. Biden is a lot more likable personality wise and keeps his nose clean, he's a more electable general election candidate but record wise he is just as vulnerable if not more. Joe Biden was the man who wrote the PATRIOT ACT for what its worth. The Dem bench is pretty sad, if Warren was running then Hillary would be trailing by a decent amount I think by this point.
Bernie....
Another one with no chance.
But he spreads very DANGEROUS ideas.
Ideas that WILL start a civil war in this country.
This rasies another question ; why do so many consider socialistic ideas dangerous? Socialistic ideas would HELP the vast majority of citizens by giving them the income they deserve to a decent tax rate along with various rights that allows them to live a normal life. And the ability to actually get healthcare when they need it.
There are plenty of socialistic ideas and things in the US that people are just fine with
I think secession needs to be put back on the table, we shouldn't be afraid of self determination. If the states cannot maintain their own sovereignty then leaving the union really is the only other option they given. Everything should be decentralized, we'd be so much better off anyway.
But would the world be better off without a united America to fight totalitarianism? I personally think not.
But what if the US is the source of the totalitarianism?
So far, that hasn't been the case. Previously, it had been a mat
The US holds the greatest responsibility for the spread of Islamic jihadist beliefs, we have been intimately involved in the creation of all these groups both indirectly and directly.
David Petraeus is actually saying we should ally ourselves with al-Qaeda to take advantage of their split with ISIS, that is essentially what we've tried to do in Syria. We allied with jihadists in the murder of Mumar Gaddafi too, look at that country now. This is not a conspiratorial belief.
The US has been aggressively expansionist since the end of the Cold War but Americans in general are pretty bad at connecting the dots between how we say other countries should act and how our country then conducts itself.
Yes, I think the world would be better off with a decentralized America.
Kraichgauer
Veteran
Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 48,684
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.
12 Sep 2015, 3:27 pm
Jacoby wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Jacoby wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Jacoby wrote:
morslilleole wrote:
pete1061 wrote:
Jacoby wrote:
Bernie won't be the nominee and won't be considered as running mate but I think Elizabeth Warren is likely the VP pick of whoever wins the nomination which will be either Hillary or Biden. Biden is a lot more likable personality wise and keeps his nose clean, he's a more electable general election candidate but record wise he is just as vulnerable if not more. Joe Biden was the man who wrote the PATRIOT ACT for what its worth. The Dem bench is pretty sad, if Warren was running then Hillary would be trailing by a decent amount I think by this point.
Bernie....
Another one with no chance.
But he spreads very DANGEROUS ideas.
Ideas that WILL start a civil war in this country.
This rasies another question ; why do so many consider socialistic ideas dangerous? Socialistic ideas would HELP the vast majority of citizens by giving them the income they deserve to a decent tax rate along with various rights that allows them to live a normal life. And the ability to actually get healthcare when they need it.
There are plenty of socialistic ideas and things in the US that people are just fine with
I think secession needs to be put back on the table, we shouldn't be afraid of self determination. If the states cannot maintain their own sovereignty then leaving the union really is the only other option they given. Everything should be decentralized, we'd be so much better off anyway.
But would the world be better off without a united America to fight totalitarianism? I personally think not.
But what if the US is the source of the totalitarianism?
So far, that hasn't been the case. Previously, it had been a mat
The US holds the greatest responsibility for the spread of Islamic jihadist beliefs, we have been intimately involved in the creation of all these groups both indirectly and directly.
David Petraeus is actually saying we should ally ourselves with al-Qaeda to take advantage of their split with ISIS, that is essentially what we've tried to do in Syria. We allied with jihadists in the murder of Mumar Gaddafi too, look at that country now. This is not a conspiratorial belief.
The US has been aggressively expansionist since the end of the Cold War but Americans in general are pretty bad at connecting the dots between how we say other countries should act and how our country then conducts itself.
Yes, I think the world would be better off with a decentralized America.
I don't think we need to go the the extreme of a decentralized America; rather we should just strive to be an America that lives up to the values we pays lip service to. That includes no more military adventurism and expansion.
_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
Jacoby
Veteran
Joined: 10 Dec 2007
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,284
Location: Permanently banned by power tripping mods lol this forum is trash
12 Sep 2015, 3:47 pm
You can't get 300 million people to agree on everything, sometimes those disagreements will be so fundamental that there is no way to find a middle ground. What point is there in fighting? Do you believe in divorce? Maybe we need a more nuanced approach to secession and self determination. I don't think the world benefits from a huge centralized America, I don't think we Americans benefit from it, the people that benefit are an elite few who have bought and paid for our government to do their bidding. This country shouldn't be a suicide pact, it shouldn't be at gunpoint, we're not a free country if that is the case. We can be the laboratory of democracy but not if we have mob rule by 300+ million people with totally different priorities and values. Czechoslovakia doesn't exist anymore, they're fine being neighbors. Our federal government is too powerful and it will only become more and more like those governments in those dystopian novels of the last century, we can affect change tho smaller scale but not a federal level.
Kraichgauer
Veteran
Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 48,684
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.
12 Sep 2015, 4:11 pm
Jacoby wrote:
You can't get 300 million people to agree on everything, sometimes those disagreements will be so fundamental that there is no way to find a middle ground. What point is there in fighting? Do you believe in divorce? Maybe we need a more nuanced approach to secession and self determination. I don't think the world benefits from a huge centralized America, I don't think we Americans benefit from it, the people that benefit are an elite few who have bought and paid for our government to do their bidding. This country shouldn't be a suicide pact, it shouldn't be at gunpoint, we're not a free country if that is the case. We can be the laboratory of democracy but not if we have mob rule by 300+ million people with totally different priorities and values. Czechoslovakia doesn't exist anymore, they're fine being neighbors. Our federal government is too powerful and it will only become more and more like those governments in those dystopian novels of the last century, we can affect change tho smaller scale but not a federal level.
But the thing is, Americans from the very beginning have never agreed on anything. That we can be one people with such divergent opinions is what makes America the experiment in democracy that it is. Historically, it was when people decided that we shouldn't live together that we had had our bloodiest conflict. You site the success of Czechoslovakia in splitting in two, but that's so recent that the jury, in historic terms, is still out. Another example, with a much less happy ending, is when the Roman Empire divided into two. The western half, which was poorer, much more agrarian, and had found themselves having to depend on potential enemies as their standing army, only lasted a few centuries more after that split. If, say the American south split away today, I wouldn't give them much chance of survival without their fellow Americans. A country splitting up has never been a good idea.
_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
12 Sep 2015, 4:18 pm
Kraichgauer wrote:
Jacoby wrote:
You can't get 300 million people to agree on everything, sometimes those disagreements will be so fundamental that there is no way to find a middle ground. What point is there in fighting? Do you believe in divorce? Maybe we need a more nuanced approach to secession and self determination. I don't think the world benefits from a huge centralized America, I don't think we Americans benefit from it, the people that benefit are an elite few who have bought and paid for our government to do their bidding. This country shouldn't be a suicide pact, it shouldn't be at gunpoint, we're not a free country if that is the case. We can be the laboratory of democracy but not if we have mob rule by 300+ million people with totally different priorities and values. Czechoslovakia doesn't exist anymore, they're fine being neighbors. Our federal government is too powerful and it will only become more and more like those governments in those dystopian novels of the last century, we can affect change tho smaller scale but not a federal level.
But the thing is, Americans from the very beginning have never agreed on anything. That we can be one people with such divergent opinions is what makes America the experiment in democracy that it is. Historically, it was when people decided that we shouldn't live together that we had had our bloodiest conflict. You site the success of Czechoslovakia in splitting in two, but that's so recent that the jury, in historic terms, is still out. Another example, with a much less happy ending, is when the Roman Empire divided into two. The western half, which was poorer, much more agrarian, and had found themselves having to depend on potential enemies as their standing army, only lasted a few centuries more after that split. If, say the American south split away today, I wouldn't give them much chance of survival without their fellow Americans. A country splitting up has never been a good idea.
In fact, the South would be poorer. They get much more back in Federal benefits than they pay in taxes and revenues. We in the rest of the country currently subsidize them...
Kraichgauer
Veteran
Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 48,684
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.
12 Sep 2015, 4:32 pm
pcuser wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Jacoby wrote:
You can't get 300 million people to agree on everything, sometimes those disagreements will be so fundamental that there is no way to find a middle ground. What point is there in fighting? Do you believe in divorce? Maybe we need a more nuanced approach to secession and self determination. I don't think the world benefits from a huge centralized America, I don't think we Americans benefit from it, the people that benefit are an elite few who have bought and paid for our government to do their bidding. This country shouldn't be a suicide pact, it shouldn't be at gunpoint, we're not a free country if that is the case. We can be the laboratory of democracy but not if we have mob rule by 300+ million people with totally different priorities and values. Czechoslovakia doesn't exist anymore, they're fine being neighbors. Our federal government is too powerful and it will only become more and more like those governments in those dystopian novels of the last century, we can affect change tho smaller scale but not a federal level.
But the thing is, Americans from the very beginning have never agreed on anything. That we can be one people with such divergent opinions is what makes America the experiment in democracy that it is. Historically, it was when people decided that we shouldn't live together that we had had our bloodiest conflict. You site the success of Czechoslovakia in splitting in two, but that's so recent that the jury, in historic terms, is still out. Another example, with a much less happy ending, is when the Roman Empire divided into two. The western half, which was poorer, much more agrarian, and had found themselves having to depend on potential enemies as their standing army, only lasted a few centuries more after that split. If, say the American south split away today, I wouldn't give them much chance of survival without their fellow Americans. A country splitting up has never been a good idea.
In fact, the South would be poorer. They get much more back in Federal benefits than they pay in taxes and revenues. We in the rest of the country currently subsidize them...
My point exactly.
_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
Jacoby
Veteran
Joined: 10 Dec 2007
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,284
Location: Permanently banned by power tripping mods lol this forum is trash
12 Sep 2015, 4:40 pm
Kraichgauer wrote:
Jacoby wrote:
You can't get 300 million people to agree on everything, sometimes those disagreements will be so fundamental that there is no way to find a middle ground. What point is there in fighting? Do you believe in divorce? Maybe we need a more nuanced approach to secession and self determination. I don't think the world benefits from a huge centralized America, I don't think we Americans benefit from it, the people that benefit are an elite few who have bought and paid for our government to do their bidding. This country shouldn't be a suicide pact, it shouldn't be at gunpoint, we're not a free country if that is the case. We can be the laboratory of democracy but not if we have mob rule by 300+ million people with totally different priorities and values. Czechoslovakia doesn't exist anymore, they're fine being neighbors. Our federal government is too powerful and it will only become more and more like those governments in those dystopian novels of the last century, we can affect change tho smaller scale but not a federal level.
But the thing is, Americans from the very beginning have never agreed on anything. That we can be one people with such divergent opinions is what makes America the experiment in democracy that it is. Historically, it was when people decided that we shouldn't live together that we had had our bloodiest conflict. You site the success of Czechoslovakia in splitting in two, but that's so recent that the jury, in historic terms, is still out. Another example, with a much less happy ending, is when the Roman Empire divided into two. The western half, which was poorer, much more agrarian, and had found themselves having to depend on potential enemies as their standing army, only lasted a few centuries more after that split. If, say the American south split away today, I wouldn't give them much chance of survival without their fellow Americans. A country splitting up has never been a good idea.
Autonomy doesn't mean we're not all Americans and it doesn't mean we can't work together on the things agree with. The European Union is made up of supposedly sovereign independent countries who speak different languages, come from different ethnicities, and have thousands of years of history between each other. We as Americans share a lot more than the Europeans do, we could make it work better. Wouldn't you want your government to be more responsive and better reflect the views of the people of your state?
If you love something, let it go. The moment the US turns its guns on its own people is the moment their ceases to be the United States, they have no authority to wage war against us.
12 Sep 2015, 4:45 pm
Jacoby wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Jacoby wrote:
You can't get 300 million people to agree on everything, sometimes those disagreements will be so fundamental that there is no way to find a middle ground. What point is there in fighting? Do you believe in divorce? Maybe we need a more nuanced approach to secession and self determination. I don't think the world benefits from a huge centralized America, I don't think we Americans benefit from it, the people that benefit are an elite few who have bought and paid for our government to do their bidding. This country shouldn't be a suicide pact, it shouldn't be at gunpoint, we're not a free country if that is the case. We can be the laboratory of democracy but not if we have mob rule by 300+ million people with totally different priorities and values. Czechoslovakia doesn't exist anymore, they're fine being neighbors. Our federal government is too powerful and it will only become more and more like those governments in those dystopian novels of the last century, we can affect change tho smaller scale but not a federal level.
But the thing is, Americans from the very beginning have never agreed on anything. That we can be one people with such divergent opinions is what makes America the experiment in democracy that it is. Historically, it was when people decided that we shouldn't live together that we had had our bloodiest conflict. You site the success of Czechoslovakia in splitting in two, but that's so recent that the jury, in historic terms, is still out. Another example, with a much less happy ending, is when the Roman Empire divided into two. The western half, which was poorer, much more agrarian, and had found themselves having to depend on potential enemies as their standing army, only lasted a few centuries more after that split. If, say the American south split away today, I wouldn't give them much chance of survival without their fellow Americans. A country splitting up has never been a good idea.
Autonomy doesn't mean we're not all Americans and it doesn't mean we can't work together on the things agree with. The European Union is made up of supposedly sovereign independent countries who speak different languages, come from different ethnicities, and have thousands of years of history between each other. We as Americans share a lot more than the Europeans do, we could make it work better. Wouldn't you want your government to be more responsive and better reflect the views of the people of your state?
If you love something, let it go. The moment the US turns its guns on its own people is the moment their ceases to be the United States, they have no authority to wage war against us.
When it comes to rights, we cannot give states the right to discriminate...
Jacoby
Veteran
Joined: 10 Dec 2007
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,284
Location: Permanently banned by power tripping mods lol this forum is trash
12 Sep 2015, 4:52 pm
pcuser wrote:
Jacoby wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Jacoby wrote:
You can't get 300 million people to agree on everything, sometimes those disagreements will be so fundamental that there is no way to find a middle ground. What point is there in fighting? Do you believe in divorce? Maybe we need a more nuanced approach to secession and self determination. I don't think the world benefits from a huge centralized America, I don't think we Americans benefit from it, the people that benefit are an elite few who have bought and paid for our government to do their bidding. This country shouldn't be a suicide pact, it shouldn't be at gunpoint, we're not a free country if that is the case. We can be the laboratory of democracy but not if we have mob rule by 300+ million people with totally different priorities and values. Czechoslovakia doesn't exist anymore, they're fine being neighbors. Our federal government is too powerful and it will only become more and more like those governments in those dystopian novels of the last century, we can affect change tho smaller scale but not a federal level.
But the thing is, Americans from the very beginning have never agreed on anything. That we can be one people with such divergent opinions is what makes America the experiment in democracy that it is. Historically, it was when people decided that we shouldn't live together that we had had our bloodiest conflict. You site the success of Czechoslovakia in splitting in two, but that's so recent that the jury, in historic terms, is still out. Another example, with a much less happy ending, is when the Roman Empire divided into two. The western half, which was poorer, much more agrarian, and had found themselves having to depend on potential enemies as their standing army, only lasted a few centuries more after that split. If, say the American south split away today, I wouldn't give them much chance of survival without their fellow Americans. A country splitting up has never been a good idea.
Autonomy doesn't mean we're not all Americans and it doesn't mean we can't work together on the things agree with. The European Union is made up of supposedly sovereign independent countries who speak different languages, come from different ethnicities, and have thousands of years of history between each other. We as Americans share a lot more than the Europeans do, we could make it work better. Wouldn't you want your government to be more responsive and better reflect the views of the people of your state?
If you love something, let it go. The moment the US turns its guns on its own people is the moment their ceases to be the United States, they have no authority to wage war against us.
When it comes to rights, we cannot give states the right to discriminate...
But the federal government can? That makes no sense. The US is not some small unitary state, governing it like one in a vast country of 300 million with way different views and values from area to area is a recipe for disaster. I don't even have to advocate for anything, I think it is inevitable and there won't be a war because the people will not tolerate it. Do you want blood to be spilled? It's not worth it, if it's such a bad idea then they'll fail on their own and ask to come back and nobody else would follow.
12 Sep 2015, 5:05 pm
Jacoby wrote:
But the federal government can? That makes no sense. The US is not some small unitary state, governing it like one in a vast country of 300 million with way different views and values from area to area is a recipe for disaster. I don't even have to advocate for anything, I think it is inevitable and there won't be a war because the people will not tolerate it. Do you want blood to be spilled? It's not worth it, if it's such a bad idea then they'll fail on their own and ask to come back and nobody else would follow.
I disagree. Having people be treated equally is worth making some discriminating people angry. People should NEVER be allowed to discriminate others. Letting states decide would open for huge amounts of discrimination against others. For instance, discrimination against LBGT people is strong in some states. So laws against discrimination would probably not be passed there. But that doesn't mean that there is no LBGT people there. Laws against discrimination needs to apply to all states to protect the smaller groups that does get discriminated.
Kraichgauer
Veteran
Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 48,684
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.
12 Sep 2015, 5:16 pm
Jacoby wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Jacoby wrote:
You can't get 300 million people to agree on everything, sometimes those disagreements will be so fundamental that there is no way to find a middle ground. What point is there in fighting? Do you believe in divorce? Maybe we need a more nuanced approach to secession and self determination. I don't think the world benefits from a huge centralized America, I don't think we Americans benefit from it, the people that benefit are an elite few who have bought and paid for our government to do their bidding. This country shouldn't be a suicide pact, it shouldn't be at gunpoint, we're not a free country if that is the case. We can be the laboratory of democracy but not if we have mob rule by 300+ million people with totally different priorities and values. Czechoslovakia doesn't exist anymore, they're fine being neighbors. Our federal government is too powerful and it will only become more and more like those governments in those dystopian novels of the last century, we can affect change tho smaller scale but not a federal level.
But the thing is, Americans from the very beginning have never agreed on anything. That we can be one people with such divergent opinions is what makes America the experiment in democracy that it is. Historically, it was when people decided that we shouldn't live together that we had had our bloodiest conflict. You site the success of Czechoslovakia in splitting in two, but that's so recent that the jury, in historic terms, is still out. Another example, with a much less happy ending, is when the Roman Empire divided into two. The western half, which was poorer, much more agrarian, and had found themselves having to depend on potential enemies as their standing army, only lasted a few centuries more after that split. If, say the American south split away today, I wouldn't give them much chance of survival without their fellow Americans. A country splitting up has never been a good idea.
Autonomy doesn't mean we're not all Americans and it doesn't mean we can't work together on the things agree with. The European Union is made up of supposedly sovereign independent countries who speak different languages, come from different ethnicities, and have thousands of years of history between each other. We as Americans share a lot more than the Europeans do, we could make it work better. Wouldn't you want your government to be more responsive and better reflect the views of the people of your state?
If you love something, let it go. The moment the US turns its guns on its own people is the moment their ceases to be the United States, they have no authority to wage war against us.
There are states in modern times that refuse to help other states in something as simple as water sharing. At the beginning of our country's history, a couple of east coast states were ready to go to war over just which owned a lighthouse - which was one of the reasons why the founding fathers realized there needed to be more centralization that the Articles of Confederation just wasn't providing. I don't see our similarities as a thing to keep us cooperating as centralized government does. Just what happens when Texas wants to invade Mexico, but the west coast doesn't want any part of it? What happens if disenfranchised blacks in Alabama rise up in armed rebellion with the financial and material aid of New York? Is all that okay, because we still have autonomy of the states?
As for another post of yours in which you responded to how states should not have the right to discriminate with: should the federal government? As a matter of fact, states rights have been used to discriminate against unpopular minorities much more than they have been used to defend them (with the exception of gay marriage here in Washington state, which passed by popular vote). The fact is, the rights of individual Americans will always trump the rights of the states in which they reside. The whole point of America's experiment in democracy was individual liberty, even when it comes to unpopular minorities.
_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
Jacoby
Veteran
Joined: 10 Dec 2007
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,284
Location: Permanently banned by power tripping mods lol this forum is trash
12 Sep 2015, 5:41 pm
Kraichgauer wrote:
Jacoby wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Jacoby wrote:
You can't get 300 million people to agree on everything, sometimes those disagreements will be so fundamental that there is no way to find a middle ground. What point is there in fighting? Do you believe in divorce? Maybe we need a more nuanced approach to secession and self determination. I don't think the world benefits from a huge centralized America, I don't think we Americans benefit from it, the people that benefit are an elite few who have bought and paid for our government to do their bidding. This country shouldn't be a suicide pact, it shouldn't be at gunpoint, we're not a free country if that is the case. We can be the laboratory of democracy but not if we have mob rule by 300+ million people with totally different priorities and values. Czechoslovakia doesn't exist anymore, they're fine being neighbors. Our federal government is too powerful and it will only become more and more like those governments in those dystopian novels of the last century, we can affect change tho smaller scale but not a federal level.
But the thing is, Americans from the very beginning have never agreed on anything. That we can be one people with such divergent opinions is what makes America the experiment in democracy that it is. Historically, it was when people decided that we shouldn't live together that we had had our bloodiest conflict. You site the success of Czechoslovakia in splitting in two, but that's so recent that the jury, in historic terms, is still out. Another example, with a much less happy ending, is when the Roman Empire divided into two. The western half, which was poorer, much more agrarian, and had found themselves having to depend on potential enemies as their standing army, only lasted a few centuries more after that split. If, say the American south split away today, I wouldn't give them much chance of survival without their fellow Americans. A country splitting up has never been a good idea.
Autonomy doesn't mean we're not all Americans and it doesn't mean we can't work together on the things agree with. The European Union is made up of supposedly sovereign independent countries who speak different languages, come from different ethnicities, and have thousands of years of history between each other. We as Americans share a lot more than the Europeans do, we could make it work better. Wouldn't you want your government to be more responsive and better reflect the views of the people of your state?
If you love something, let it go. The moment the US turns its guns on its own people is the moment their ceases to be the United States, they have no authority to wage war against us.
There are states in modern times that refuse to help other states in something as simple as water sharing. At the beginning of our country's history, a couple of east coast states were ready to go to war over just which owned a lighthouse - which was one of the reasons why the founding fathers realized there needed to be more centralization that the Articles of Confederation just wasn't providing. I don't see our similarities as a thing to keep us cooperating as centralized government does. Just what happens when Texas wants to invade Mexico, but the west coast doesn't want any part of it? What happens if disenfranchised blacks in Alabama rise up in armed rebellion with the financial and material aid of New York? Is all that okay, because we still have autonomy of the states?
As for another post of yours in which you responded to how states should not have the right to discriminate with: should the federal government? As a matter of fact, states rights have been used to discriminate against unpopular minorities much more than they have been used to defend them (with the exception of gay marriage here in Washington state, which passed by popular vote). The fact is, the rights of individual Americans will always trump the rights of the states in which they reside. The whole point of America's experiment in democracy was individual liberty, even when it comes to unpopular minorities.
You have selective memory if you don't know the extensive history of racial discrimination by our federal government, the most racist policy today in America is our War on Drugs buy thankfully courageous states like your home of Washington are bucking the central authority which runs totally counter to our interests. We send our military filled with poor and minorities to shoot first and die invading foreign lands to kill brown people. Think about all the people our government has killed, you're afraid of an imaginary boogeyman which they maintain to keep you enslaved to an oligarchy that would rather us be poor and powerless as individuals like the people are in China or India. Our government looks at the repression in China with ENVY! They're the future of America, that is what our country will increasingly look like. Of course, China actually protects its industry so our fate will be even worse.
It doesn't matter if you think it's a good idea tho, its just a matter of time until the majority of one state comes to that conclusion and then what?
| Similar Topics | |
|---|---|
| Why ABC News settled with Donald Trump for $15 million |
18 Dec 2024, 11:39 pm |
| Donald Trump Asks The SCOTUS To Block Sentencing In His Hush |
08 Jan 2025, 9:46 pm |
| Biden’s Pardons during last hours as President |
20 Jan 2025, 11:59 am |
| South Korean president to lift martial law |
14 Jan 2025, 11:01 pm |
