Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The State movements to secede from the Union show an increasing dissatisfaction with the central control of America by Washington DC.
We are seeing increasing defiance and dissatisfaction of a government people feel is no longer representative of their needs or in touch with reality.
It is my opinion that this is due to the centralization of power in Washington which is direct contrast to the 10th Amendment of the Constitution.
Every usurpation of power by the Federal Government, is a breach of the agreement between the people and the government, and adds to the disenfranchisement of the citizens.
It is also causing a division in the citizens that is now so visceral and full of hatred and mistrust that we no longer see ourselves as a united country.
Glad to see you're on board.
There's a sub-set of Political Science known as Political Geography.
We have only a mere several thousand years of data to back up the theories behind Political Geography, and the short story is that the structural basis for any government is based on either the geography or the people.
The Framers of the Constitution were more than keenly aware of that. When first establishing a unified structure, they realized that Unitary State would fail, so they chose a Confederation. While the Confederation failed in short order, the real reason was communications. With today's modern world of communications, a Confederation would work.
Having failed, the Framers adopted the only possible alternative: a Federation.
Only Nations and nation-States can govern using the Unitary State structure.
The common denominator for Nations and nation-States is homogeneity.
The Unitary State systems is perfect for small nation-States like Iceland, Norway, Denmark, Sweden, Luxembourg, Austria, the Netherlands and Germany.
In France, the Unitary State system failed. One reason it lasted as long as it did, was that the minorities were on the periphery of the geographic territory: the Basques in the Pyrenees Mountains in the South, the Normans and Bretons on the coast in the northwest, and the Alsatians in the East (on the border with Germany).
France was forced to adopt an hybrid system, organizing the Departments into 5 economic regions and then pushing power down from centralized Paris into the 5 economic regions.
Romania is another that fails spectacularly as a Unitary State. The Carpathian Mountains are not the only bar to governing using the Unitary State system. Romania is a country, not a nation. There are Bulgars, Greeks, Serbs, Slovaks, Ruthenians, Russians, Ukrainians, two different types of Germans, plus three different Hun groups --- the Magyars, the Szekely and the Csango -- not to mention Jews and tigani. I've spent years trying to convince the intelligentsia in Romania to adopt an hybrid system --- they're a tough sell.
The former Yugoslavia is another example. Tito ran Yugoslavia correctly --- using the Federal System to accommodate the Serbs, Croats, Slovenes, Istro-Romanians, Ara-Romanians, Vojdvodina (Romanians), Bulgars, Bosnian Croats, Bosnian Serbs, Bosniaks, Herzogovinians, Montenegrins, Macedonians, Greeks, Germans, Albanians, Jews and tigani.
Tito dies, his successors try to run Yugoslavia as a Unitary State and that was a spectacular fail.
So the US can only be governed as a Federation (or Confederation) and any attempt to govern as a Unitary State will result in failure....I guarantee it.
You're witnessing the inherent problems now, and have been ever since Lincoln violated the Constitution. Granted, his successors (no pun intended) attempted to steer the US back on path to the Federal System, but Roosevelt and Wilson put an end to that, combined with FDR's power grab and then each succeeding president has done his part to ensure the destruction of the US.
Heterogeneous populations -- and it doesn't matter if heterogeneity is due to race, ethnicity, language or culture....and in the case of the US all apply --- have a natural aversion to homogeneity. That is strengthened through geography -- ie wide dispersal. Why? It's actually a matter of Sociology.
For every action taken by the government in its attempt to crow-bar a Unitary State scheme into a Confederation or Federation, there is an equal and opposite reaction --- which is largely what you've been witnessing over the past 50 years.
The end result is always civil war or dictatorship.
I'm sure everyone is looking forward to that.
Justify this....two people, each receiving $1,100/month in Social Security Disability or Retirement....
equals $2092.95 per month in Cincinnati
equals $761.07. per month in San Fransisco
This gross disparity that Liberals claim is wonderful is brought to you courtesy of a Unitary State government. That would never happen in a Confederation or Federation.
Two families of four each receiving $400/month in Food Stamps except that $400 buys....
$578.13 worth of food in Cincinnati. $210.23 worth of food in San Fransisco
Let's look at another lie the government foists on people. The True Poverty Level for one person....
equals $6038.85 per year in Cincinnati
equals $21861.80 per year in San Fransisco
Going back to monthly Social Security benefits...
equals $25,115 per year in Cincinnati and is 4.1 x greater than the "federal" (snicker) Poverty Level
equals $9132.84 per year in San Fransisco and is 2.4 x below the "federal" (snicker) Poverty Level
Liberals will scream about Wealth Inequality (snicker) while ignoring inequalities like that.
Those gross injustices that Liberals like to screw people over with can only be resolved through Federalism (or through Confederalism).
Let's look at so-called Federal Income Taxes (snicker).
Two people earn $24,000 per year.....
The person living in Cincinnati lives like they actually have $45,664.34.
The person in San Fransisco lives like they $12,613.78.
And now the government masquerading as a federal government comes round and demands each person pays 15% in taxes.
Surely even the dumbest can see where that would pose a problem.
Yes, on paper the person in San Francisco earns $24,000 but in reality it is actually $12,600 and the government demands 15% on the $24,000, not the $12,600.
Likewise, the person in Cincinnati gets over like a fat cat, because they really have $45,600 but only pay taxes on $24,000.
And then Liberals dare scream "Wealth Inequality" (snicker).
Systemically...
There's a sub-set of Political Science known as Political Geography.
We have only a mere several thousand years of data to back up the theories behind Political Geography, and the short story is that the structural basis for any government is based on either the geography or the people.
The Framers of the Constitution were more than keenly aware of that. When first establishing a unified structure, they realized that Unitary State would fail, so they chose a Confederation. While the Confederation failed in short order, the real reason was communications. With today's modern world of communications, a Confederation would work.
Having failed, the Framers adopted the only possible alternative: a Federation.
Only Nations and nation-States can govern using the Unitary State structure.
The common denominator for Nations and nation-States is homogeneity.
The Unitary State systems is perfect for small nation-States like Iceland, Norway, Denmark, Sweden, Luxembourg, Austria, the Netherlands and Germany.
In France, the Unitary State system failed. One reason it lasted as long as it did, was that the minorities were on the periphery of the geographic territory: the Basques in the Pyrenees Mountains in the South, the Normans and Bretons on the coast in the northwest, and the Alsatians in the East (on the border with Germany).
France was forced to adopt an hybrid system, organizing the Departments into 5 economic regions and then pushing power down from centralized Paris into the 5 economic regions.
Romania is another that fails spectacularly as a Unitary State. The Carpathian Mountains are not the only bar to governing using the Unitary State system. Romania is a country, not a nation. There are Bulgars, Greeks, Serbs, Slovaks, Ruthenians, Russians, Ukrainians, two different types of Germans, plus three different Hun groups --- the Magyars, the Szekely and the Csango -- not to mention Jews and tigani. I've spent years trying to convince the intelligentsia in Romania to adopt an hybrid system --- they're a tough sell.
The former Yugoslavia is another example. Tito ran Yugoslavia correctly --- using the Federal System to accommodate the Serbs, Croats, Slovenes, Istro-Romanians, Ara-Romanians, Vojdvodina (Romanians), Bulgars, Bosnian Croats, Bosnian Serbs, Bosniaks, Herzogovinians, Montenegrins, Macedonians, Greeks, Germans, Albanians, Jews and tigani.
Tito dies, his successors try to run Yugoslavia as a Unitary State and that was a spectacular fail.
So the US can only be governed as a Federation (or Confederation) and any attempt to govern as a Unitary State will result in failure....I guarantee it.
You're witnessing the inherent problems now, and have been ever since Lincoln violated the Constitution. Granted, his successors (no pun intended) attempted to steer the US back on path to the Federal System, but Roosevelt and Wilson put an end to that, combined with FDR's power grab and then each succeeding president has done his part to ensure the destruction of the US.
Heterogeneous populations -- and it doesn't matter if heterogeneity is due to race, ethnicity, language or culture....and in the case of the US all apply --- have a natural aversion to homogeneity. That is strengthened through geography -- ie wide dispersal. Why? It's actually a matter of Sociology.
For every action taken by the government in its attempt to crow-bar a Unitary State scheme into a Confederation or Federation, there is an equal and opposite reaction --- which is largely what you've been witnessing over the past 50 years.
The end result is always civil war or dictatorship.
I'm sure everyone is looking forward to that.
Justify this....two people, each receiving $1,100/month in Social Security Disability or Retirement....
equals $2092.95 per month in Cincinnati
equals $761.07. per month in San Fransisco
This gross disparity that Liberals claim is wonderful is brought to you courtesy of a Unitary State government. That would never happen in a Confederation or Federation.
Two families of four each receiving $400/month in Food Stamps except that $400 buys....
$578.13 worth of food in Cincinnati. $210.23 worth of food in San Fransisco
Let's look at another lie the government foists on people. The True Poverty Level for one person....
equals $6038.85 per year in Cincinnati
equals $21861.80 per year in San Fransisco
Going back to monthly Social Security benefits...
equals $25,115 per year in Cincinnati and is 4.1 x greater than the "federal" (snicker) Poverty Level
equals $9132.84 per year in San Fransisco and is 2.4 x below the "federal" (snicker) Poverty Level
Liberals will scream about Wealth Inequality (snicker) while ignoring inequalities like that.
Those gross injustices that Liberals like to screw people over with can only be resolved through Federalism (or through Confederalism).
Let's look at so-called Federal Income Taxes (snicker).
Two people earn $24,000 per year.....
The person living in Cincinnati lives like they actually have $45,664.34.
The person in San Fransisco lives like they $12,613.78.
And now the government masquerading as a federal government comes round and demands each person pays 15% in taxes.
Surely even the dumbest can see where that would pose a problem.
Yes, on paper the person in San Francisco earns $24,000 but in reality it is actually $12,600 and the government demands 15% on the $24,000, not the $12,600.
Likewise, the person in Cincinnati gets over like a fat cat, because they really have $45,600 but only pay taxes on $24,000.
And then Liberals dare scream "Wealth Inequality" (snicker).
Systemically...
"Suppressing" is not the same as preventing one to vote. When one candidate lies about the other, the intent is to supress the vote for that candidate.
"Suppressing" is not the same as preventing one to vote. When one candidate lies about the other, the intent is to supress the vote for that candidate.
When you are trying to suppress someone from voting, what are attempting to do? You are trying to keep someone fro voting.
Repeal of the 17th Amendment would go a long way toward restoring the balance of powers the founding fathers envisioned when they had the House of Representatives be the people's voice and the Senate to be the States voice. The bogus progressive argument 100 years ago when arguing for doing away, via the 17th Amendment, with the appointment of Senators by each states' legislature, was that there was too much corruption and influence peddling in allowing state legislatures do the appointment. Direct election was going to fix that. Yesirree, Bob. We fixed that corruption problem, didn't we?
There should be some rights that states can't violate. Those are outlined in the constitution and her amendments. Everything else should be left up to the states. Smaller government is more efficient than larger government.
It is, therefore, very probable that mankind would have been, at length, obliged to live constantly under the government of a single person, had they not contrived a kind of constitution that has all the internal advantages of a republican, together with the external force of a monarchical, government. I mean a confederate republic. This form of government is a convention by which several petty states agree to become members of a larger one, which they intend to establish. It is a kind of assemblage of societies, that constitute a new one, capable of increasing by means of further associations, till they arrive at such a degree of power as to be able to provide for the security of the whole body. It was these associations that so long contributed to the prosperity of Greece. By these the Romans attacked the whole globe, and by these alone the whole globe withstood them; for when Rome had arrived at her highest pitch of grandeur, it was the associations beyond the Danube and the Rhine -- associations formed by the terror of her arms -- that enabled the barbarians to resist her.
Baron de Montesquieu
Which is why I despise modern liberalism and their depraved desire to have a vast and all powerful Federal bailiwick.
The conservatives see to it that our economy becomes a centralized, mercantilist empire like the old British companies while the liberals seal in and consolidate power in the central state concentrated in Washington. Both work together with their own special concoctions of arrogance, stubbornness and ignorance to utterly overturn and destroy the good ole USA. One side consolidates the rentier, monopolistic economy, while the other insures the political monopoly in DC. I despise both their ideals.
I've been saying this for a while now. Let liberal states be liberal and let conservative states be conservative. I would also like to see that states don't get back more in tax dollars than what they put into the federal government. I'm tired of seeing blue states paying for red states policies.
You realize that so called red states would then be able to modify there welfare and medicare programs to stay solvent thus causing a mass migration of the welfare class people to move to blue states thus causing blue states to raise taxes(or modify there own programs,and get called evil nazi's by people even farther to the left than they are) to a point were business and wealthy people will move to red states.
My own home State of Maine (Purple i guess:repub governor, but went for Obama in 2012) is trying to bring its welfare and medicare down to the national average but the FED's say no, just because our former Dem. Governor wanted to buy votes with great welfare now were stuck with it for life? even if it bankrupts us?
When you are trying to suppress someone from voting, what are attempting to do? You are trying to keep someone fro voting.
Unless I physically stop their vote, I can do whatever necessary without breaking the law. My point is the law is not going to change that takes away your right to vote. Putting up barriers that make it inconvieniant like ID, long lines, etc. is not "rolling back" your rights.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
