Should the US divorce?

a reply to: JAGStorm

Most of the cultural divides in the US aren't along state lines, they're along rural vs city lines. There's not really a way to split that.

a reply to: JAGStorm

No.

We need to defederalize our nation. return some power to the states, and then put a gimp mask and choke leash on uncle sam while we train his unruly ass to come to heel.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: JAGStorm

No.

We need to defederalize our nation. return some power to the states, and then put a gimp mask and choke leash on uncle sam while we train his unruly ass to come to heel.

I've got the opposite opinion. I think states have far too much power as it is. For example, lets take health care. In some states there is no medicaid gap, in others it's huge. Or for a more specific stat, the US has almost as high a fatality rate during birth as Brazil and behind almost all of Europe, but in some states it's the lowest rates in the world, while other states it's much worse than third world countries. Or another example is abortion, last week Ohio effectively outlawed it.

Another point is education. We have states where history is literally taught out of the Bible, and in some states their science scores are so bad that universities across the US won't even accept their high schools classes when admitting students. But at the same time, some of our states are world leaders in education quality.

Across the country we do not have one standard of health care, one standard of education, or one scale for the value of a dollar and these things don't vary by just a little bit. They vary by a lot.

This is because states have too much freedom, and too much ability to screw over their residents. This isn't helped by the fact that some states are extremely poor, and some don't even believe in the US. A Washington Congressman just last week quoted states rights and what the feds need to get out of because it's unconstitutional by reciting the CSA Constitution, without even realizing he wasn't even reading the US Constitution.

State governments have too little oversight, and that's not going to change. It's just not feasible to have enough watchdog organizations cover state governments, and media messaging is also difficult when the popular news networks are national or international rather than local. Furthermore, states are only accountable to their own residents, so no matter what happens in a state, ~98% of the population doesn't care and has no say. That's no way to run a nation.

The only way the country can work is if the feds control what's going on, because that's the government people pay attention to.

I know for instance that whatever conglomerate is designed if it relies on existing state lines it will fail miserably. For instance, everyone I have ever met from southern Illinois wish with all their hearts that they could be separated from the greater Chicago area.

a reply to: JAGStorm
Not in a million years would that happen. I'll give you just 2 words "military spending". At the moment your government (that's the government for ALL the USA) is spending approx $600 billion on the military per year. That's the whole of the US military, not Texas or California but all.
Now if the states were to split up how would the nations military collect their ill gotten gains. Would each "state" have their own military? Would New England send a man to the moon? Would you have custom posts at the state borders? The list goes on and on.

originally posted by: crayzeed
a reply to: JAGStorm
Not in a million years would that happen. I'll give you just 2 words "military spending". At the moment your government (that's the government for ALL the USA) is spending approx $600 billion on the military per year. That's the whole of the US military, not Texas or California but all.
Now if the states were to split up how would the nations military collect their ill gotten gains. Would each "state" have their own military? Would New England send a man to the moon? Would you have custom posts at the state borders? The list goes on and on.

I'm sure someone said not in a million years would Donald Trump be president, or a black man, or that we would be having this discussion from two machines across the world. Never say never.

originally posted by: Fools
I know for instance that whatever conglomerate is designed if it relies on existing state lines it will fail miserably. For instance, everyone I have ever met from southern Illinois wish with all their hearts that they could be separated from the greater Chicago area.

There's no way to alleviate this. Think of an 80/20 rule. It's essentially a fractal all the way down.

On a federal level some of the bigger states dictate national policy. Lets say we broke into 50 states. Now in each state there will be a couple big cities that dictate policy. So lets break up again into a "nation" of millions of counties. In each county, there is a county state that will dictate policy to everyone else. So now we break up into city states. In each of those city states there will be neighborhoods that dictate things.

Let me give an example from Nevada, the state I grew up in. If you talk to anyone in the state who lives outside of Vegas, they get rather upset that Las Vegas essentially dictates the entire state. Nevada has 13 counties, so you break them up. Las Vegas becomes Clark County. Reno, the city I lived in gets to run Washoe County. In that area, Reno now dictates policy but the people of Sparks, Incline Village, Verdi, Sun Valley, Stead, and a few others are now at the whim of yet another oppressor. But then, if we were to break it up further, then Reno essentially becomes run by the Loomis, Carano, and a couple other families.

Subdividing the nation for this reason will never create unity. The only thing we can do is use the law to create an equitable and fair balance of power.

The country is already split up, Rural and Urban. The boundries aren't rigidly marked, but most people from both sides now where they start in their respective areas.

For rurals, when traffic gets worse, landscape becomes bleak and crime skyrockets, they know they've crossed the line.

For urbans, I guess when they stop seeing starbucks on every corner and wonder why the houses aren't touching and people are waving and smiling, they know they've crossed the line.

originally posted by: MisterSpock
For urbans, I guess when they stop seeing starbucks on every corner and wonder why the houses aren't touching and people are waving and smiling, they know they've crossed the line.

More like, when wages plummet and job opportunity disappears.

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: MisterSpock
For urbans, I guess when they stop seeing starbucks on every corner and wonder why the houses aren't touching and people are waving and smiling, they know they've crossed the line.

More like, when wages plummet and job opportunity disappears.

I'm rurul, the metro area(state capitol) is within 30 miles, a lot of people commute.

I guess I assumed most people viewed rural as not metro, i guess you pictured 400 miles from the nearest walmart or something.

Where I live, we have maybe one murder in a decade. 20 miles south(westish) is one of the worst areas in the state, they have shootings nightly, murders(multiple) weekly. It's a right #hole, it's urban.

originally posted by: Fools
I know for instance that whatever conglomerate is designed if it relies on existing state lines it will fail miserably. For instance, everyone I have ever met from southern Illinois wish with all their hearts that they could be separated from the greater Chicago area.

I lived in Northern Illinois and we too wished we were separated from Chicago. A lot of their bs bleeds into the other areas though.

careful you all talking anti-federalist and divorcing. The last time that was tried an entire population of the southern states were labeled pro-slavery.

originally posted by: Saiker
careful you all talking anti-federalist and divorcing. The last time that was tried an entire population of the southern states were labeled pro-slavery.

Just like how now everyone that is pro-USA/states rights is labeled a “racist”... the more things change... 🤨

a reply to: Aazadan

The Tenth Amendment (Amendment X) to the United States Constitution, which is part of the Bill of Rights, was ratified on December 15, 1791.[1] It expresses the principle of federalism and states' rights, which strictly supports the entire plan of the original Constitution for the United States of America, by stating that the federal government possesses only those powers delegated to it by the United States Constitution. All remaining powers are reserved for the states or the people.

I don't think this amendment has ever been repealed.

a reply to: Aazadan

screwing over the populace is the forte of the federal government.

the only way to allow people to self govern is to move that governance closer to their door step. otherwise we end up with the interests of NYC affecting the day to day lives of someone living in Fabens, TX.

Governance of the people needs to be controlled by the people.

a reply to: CharlesT

When reading the 9th and 10th together, it essentially says that any power the federal government chooses to not exercise falls to the states, but that the feds have first dibs on anything.

A weak federal government isn't constitutionally necessary, it's just irresponsible and has already lead to two failures of government in the US's history (Confederacy and Articles of Confederation).

originally posted by: Aazadan
a reply to: CharlesT

When reading the 9th and 10th together, it essentially says that any power the federal government chooses to not exercise falls to the states, but that the feds have first dibs on anything.

A weak federal government isn't constitutionally necessary, it's just irresponsible and has already lead to two failures of government in the US's history (Confederacy and Articles of Confederation).

Chooses to not exercise? I think you need to reread it. The constitution describes exact limitation of authority on the federal government. There is no choosing to or not to enforce responsibilities by the fed... Their responsibilities and authorities are specific.

Edit: Is what you stated part of the new age federal Department of Education propaganda they are pushing onto schoolchildren these days?

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: Aazadan

screwing over the populace is the forte of the federal government.

the only way to allow people to self govern is to move that governance closer to their door step. otherwise we end up with the interests of NYC affecting the day to day lives of someone living in Fabens, TX.

Governance of the people needs to be controlled by the people.

State governments screw the populace over far more than the federal government. It's state and local governments that have more say over your life. They're the ones who choose education standards, they're the ones who choose to make medical care prohibitively expensive, they're the ones that lead to a corrupt criminal justice system.

We've tried local government, we're trying it now. The more local we make things, the more corrupt it gets because no one pays attention to local politics.

To use the example I just mentioned in Ohio. We just passed a law nicknamed the Heartbeat Bill. There's been attempts to pass it for over 10 years now, what it does is it outlaws abortion if the pregnancy is older than 6 weeks, in all cases including rape, or if it's life threatening to the mother. There is also substantial red tape that takes longer than 6 weeks to get an abortion authorized. In essence, it outlaws the practice.

There was very little media coverage of this, because it's state politics, and state politics are boring. It passed essentially in secret, despite the fact that something like 60% of the state is opposed to the bill. On the other hand, anti abortion bills get a lot of coverage on the national level and everyone gets to make their voice heard.

Local government cannot work. A town of 10,000 people simply does not have the resources to have a watchdog agency look into everything that is going on, and even if it did there is no where to publish and create public feedback. 1/3 of people watch the news, 50% of people will be against an issue, 1% of those people will write letters, 5% of those people will show up to a protest.

That means you need 12000 people for every person who wants to make their opinion known on an issue. At 10 minutes per appointment, you need a minimum of 48 people to file into a legislators office for just a single day of opposition. At 48 people, that means 12,000x48 or a minimum population of 576,000 to put even the most minuscule voice on a local issue.

There's some other issues in here too like population density, but the main point is... local governments operate without oversight, and that can't be fixed. That means government needs to operate along the axis's that do get media attention and public oversight.

To use your Texas example, even if you removed the feds, your small town in Texas is going to be subject to the whims of Dallas, Houston, and Austin. It still won't be local governance, you'll just be giving those cities the power to dictate to you.

a reply to: JAGStorm

This is going to work out

Why bail on something just because we've hit a rough spot? Coming through the rough spots will only make us stronger, though I know it doesn't feel like it right now

Hold on to your hat

originally posted by: CharlesT

originally posted by: Aazadan
a reply to: CharlesT

When reading the 9th and 10th together, it essentially says that any power the federal government chooses to not exercise falls to the states, but that the feds have first dibs on anything.

A weak federal government isn't constitutionally necessary, it's just irresponsible and has already lead to two failures of government in the US's history (Confederacy and Articles of Confederation).

Chooses to not exercise? I think you need to reread it. The constitution describes exact limitation of authority on the federal government. There is no choosing to or not to enforce responsibilities by the fed... Their responsibilities and authorities are specific.

Try reading the Constitution. Federal authority is extremely broad, among others it covers anything which crosses state lines, which is pretty much everything.