Should the US break up into 3 or 4 smaller countries? (employment, Mexicans, poll)

[LibertyForever]

Bs!

[whogo]

We should return to a concept called federalism. We should return to being a constitutional republic where the powers of the federal government are few and specifically enumerated.

[Mayiask]

Should the US break up into 3 or 4 smaller countries?

HUH?? Only if we want to guarantee continual war. What on earth makes anyone think that division would lead to unity?

[tickyul]

Just eliminate the very corrupt Federal Government......each state would be truly sovereign.

This land mass and population of the USA is just too large to be RULED over by one very corrupt entity.

[Braunwyn]

Originally Posted by Inciteful

I think it is so funny that the liberals are against the idea more so and the conservatives are more for it. Maybe liberals really do know that would mean they would have to get out there and work for a living since the conservative money would not be there for them to steal from. They know someone has to work to pay the taxes that support the country! Good luck if they can create the jobs, as we see the current administration does not know how that is done, since the unemployment rate went back up to 7.9%.

I'm in MA, which is a liberal state, and I think the workers in our state are quite productive.

[LibertyForever]

I am personally an advocate to a return to the AOC but that or just small enclaves would be fine.

[SPECFRCE]

This would be unfair for our friends in the south. I believe this could be horrible for our great nation! Destroy the corrupt Government and ALL bigots and our country would be stellar, Period.

I can not find enough good reason to pummel the south--Again, civil war nor as another country.

[sskink]

I think conservatives like this because their states have most of the remaining nuke missiles.

[LibertyForever]

lol...

[Mircea]

Originally Posted by evan83

I'm curious what you all think.

I think your poll sucks.

Originally Posted by desertdetroiter

Why are people all of a sudden so obsessed with the breakup of the U.S.? Haven't we settled this already? Or was the Civil War a waste of time.

That was a long time ago, and no, it didn't settle anything legally.

Under the Doctrine of Extra-Constitutionally, as posited by Lincoln, Truman, Bush, Clinton, Bush and Obama, just as the president has powers as described in the Stamp Act Congress, Continental Congress, Declaration of Independence and Articles of Confederation, the People also have powers conferred to the People by those documents, which includes the right to disband, become independent, and if necessary engaged in armed rebellion.

I prefer violence as a last resort option, but I'm also pragmatic and understand that sometimes violence is the only option.

As circumstances warrant, people have an obligation to engage in all manner of non-violent actions, up to and including civil disobedience, before resorting to armed rebellion. Obviously, if the government starts carting people off to death camps in the middle of the night, you can fast forward past the non-violence and civil disobedience to the violent stuff.

I guess the question you have to ask is, "Have I done all that I can do?"

I see that as being quite subjective, meaning that you can't really quantify or qualify it, and so it's based on each individual's perception of the problems.

Let's be blunt -- you're governments are corrupt to the core -- all of them from the federal government to the State legislatures to the county commissions down to cities/townships. Why? Because democracies always fail, and the first reason they fail is apathy. Nature abhors a vacuum, and if people are not going to participate in their governments, then special interest groups, unions, PACs, lobbyists and corporations will...and they have.

The people have allowed themselves to become disenfranchised and subordinated to Special Interest Group.

How do you rectify that? You have to create a Separation of Special Interest & State. Seeing how your Supreme Court declared non-humans as having rights relating to electioneering, uh, I mean campaign financing, the only way you can undo that is through a Constitutional Amendment.

Neither Congress nor the State legislatures have proposed any laws to enact meaningful campaign finance reform, and they never will -- because it's not in their best interest.

And the strange thing is that people tout their "right to vote."

Well, you know, the Soviets and the people in the Democratic [People's] Republics of Poland, Germany, Romania, Hugaria et al got to vote, too. They surely did. Every year they went through the motions of going to the polls and filling out a ballot.

In the Soviet Union, the Communist Party bank-rolled the campaigns, and chose the candidates, so you voted for corrupt candidate #1 or slightly more corrupt candidate #2.

In America, Special Interest Groups bank-roll the campaigns and choose the candidates so you get to vote for corrupt candidate #1 or slightly more corrupt candidate #2?

"Totalitarianism by any other name would smell as putrid and disgusting."

So....who among you would care to explain how the US systems is superior?

Can you rectify that? Only if you take the money out of campaign finances and elections, and since your governments are not willing....you'll have to do it by grass-roots voter initiative.

Is that possible? Sure, but realistically, it will never happen.

Since you cannot restore integrity to your political system, what are your options?

You can let the system run its present course to the end....which will not bode well for your children, grand-children and future descendants.

Or you can attempt to force a change. In every revolution, no more than the 10% of the population has supported "The Cause."

You need 31 Million people on your side....whether they openly support you or not.

But that's revolution, we're talking about independence, as in secession. Then you're still talking about revolution. For whatever reason, the States have voluntarily forfeited their sovereignty by refusing to exercise it and we are all equally guilty of violating the Constitution by not demanding that our States exercise their sovereignty in accordance with the Constitution.

That would be part of the apathy thing.

I'm sure there's a few States that could just bow out, but many others wouldn't, because their State legislators are beholden to the federal government, and so you'd have to overthrow your State government and then secede.

But any State can secede any time it wants without any repercussions from the US, meaning no wars, no bombing, no nothing.

Which brings us back to the Civil War. That was then; this is now. The demographics have changed, so there's no possibility of a North/South division, but suppose there was -- in 2012, the South would win -- easily --- in less than a few months -- for the exact same reason that any State can leave the Union now without repercussion.

Indiana, Kentucky and Ohio could form their own country tomorrow, and the only thing the federal government would do is waste a lot of money buying flags with 47 stars.

Breaking bad...

Mircea