|
I, for one, would love to throw off the hated Federal yoke. As a true son of Maryland I could return to my homeland and bathe in the blood of the inferior Delawarean. Less facetiously, it would take a concerted effort for most states to even be able to feed themselves in a world without the federal government. Plenty of states have territorial reasons to resent their neighbors (plenty of states have border disputes even today, some even over land with natural resources on it), so there would probably be a long period of chaos and violence until it sorted itself out.
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2015 06:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 23:36 |
|
|
As a Virginian, like half of my state's GDP is the federal government. As I oppose homelessness, I am also inclined to reject this proposal. However, you're welcome to visit; I bet if you used necromantic magicks to reanimate George Washington you could ask him.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2015 06:31
|
|
|
What we really need is to make the President a life long position and answerable not to the senate or congress but to the people. Also we should have a requirement that said president come from the military, for they really love the country, perhaps we could even stop calling the guy president. just call him Commander.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2015 06:46
|
|
|
I hate how slow and bureaucratic the government is. Every little thing takes forever to get done thanks to all those checks and balances. If only someone would make the trains run on time.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2015 06:51
|
|
|
Fojar38 posted:I hate how slow and bureaucratic the government is. Every little thing takes forever to get done thanks to all those checks and balances. If only someone would make the trains run on time. Good to see someone else gets it. Also we need to make it so that our client states understand that they are clients, not equals, and only exist to pay us tribute.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2015 06:55
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:Good to see someone else gets it. Also we need to make it so that our client states understand that they are clients, not equals, and only exist to pay us tribute. This. We're paying billions to Israel for the privilege of protecting them, when that money by all rights should be coming back the other way.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2015 07:07
|
|
|
If you want to really want to undermine the government, keep the proportions in Congress the same but double the membership numbers. You'd square all of the infighting, pettiness, arguing, and grandstanding that goes on now to the point where it's totally impotent. If you doubled the number of House seats every election cycle, there'd be total collapse within a decade as 13,920 congresspeople try to do anything.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2015 07:18
|
|
|
Tao Jones posted:If you want to really want to undermine the government, keep the proportions in Congress the same but double the membership numbers. You'd square all of the infighting, pettiness, arguing, and grandstanding that goes on now to the point where it's totally impotent. You'd further consolidate power in leadership positions and reduce the power of local elites, outside those able to finance leadership bids. Gerrymandering isn't a problem, until your team loses its statehouse during a census year and you suddenly find yourself  feeling unentitled That's politics!
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2015 07:30
|
|
|
Tao Jones posted:If you want to really want to undermine the government, keep the proportions in Congress the same but double the membership numbers. You'd square all of the infighting, pettiness, arguing, and grandstanding that goes on now to the point where it's totally impotent. Doubling Congress and the senate is not a bad idea. The Commander that I am emphasizing would actually need it as he would need to hear as many voices as possible. Also double the number of supreme court justices, while also curtailing their power.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2015 07:30
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:Gerrymandering isn't a problem, until your team loses its statehouse during a census year and you suddenly find yourself That's some crap right there. Realpolitik doesn't allow for introspection. When the other team is gerrymandering and you can't break it, call them every name in the book and push ballot initiatives to take that power away from the legislature. What good is a congressional power if the other team controls it? You don't wish on a star and think what you would gerrymander if only you could win, you get in there, fight dirty, and who cares if you take over a House that has one less power than before: you just brought a ton more powers to into your column. Gerrymandering is a corruption of our democracy because Republicans are the ones doing it, and we will attack it as long as they're the ones doing it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2015 07:43
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:That's some crap right there. Realpolitik doesn't allow for introspection. When the other team is gerrymandering and you can't break it, call them every name in the book and push ballot initiatives to take that power away from the legislature. What good is a congressional power if the other team controls it? You don't wish on a star and think what you would gerrymander if only you could win, you get in there, fight dirty, and who cares if you take over a House that has one less power than before: you just brought a ton more powers to into your column. Here's a better realpolitik solution for ya: don't be so poo poo you loving lose power during a census year. When your state is somewhere full to the brim of talent, like Illinois, you don't worry about those cornballer league political considerations, you focus on the business of government administration.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2015 07:46
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:Because all the population has the opportunity for representation. If your bitch is that a 0.15% difference in the proportion of reprentation isn't perfect representation, well, guess what, you got all the freedom in the world to move your rear end to Montana. You wanna, or you gonna sit in wherever the gently caress you are and complain that life ain't perfect because its off by 0.15%? Not 0.15%! That doesn't refer to anything! Read what I wrote! Some people have 100% more representation than others, that is the figure of merit. If I were only to start bitching when "difference in proportion of representation" got to 2% according to your stupid metric, which still seems very small, then a group of 10k guys could have the equivalent of 6 million votes between them. The correct figure of merit of course is that the group has 60,000% more representation than those with only "one" vote. If you have any intellectual honesty you'll top misrepresenting numbers to make things seem like they are a smaller problem then they are.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2015 07:51
|
|
|
Stereotype posted:If you have any intellectual honesty I see you're unfamiliar with MIGF.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2015 07:57
|
|
|
Stereotype posted:Not 0.15%! That doesn't refer to anything! Read what I wrote! Some people have 100% more representation than others, that is the figure of merit. oh god, 0.15% of the population votes for one congressman and two senators in order to balance power between states as institutions and populations capable o representative government! the horror, the horror! If you're so outraged by it, why don't you up your stakes and move to Montana? loving christ, you're never gonna see a Congressman from Montana head the appropriations committee, state ain't got no delegation to get behind 'em. And if you know any loving thing about basic civics in america, which I seriously question, you'd know that all legislation originates in the house and gets ratified in the senate. Oh god, what a horrible population, getting a Rep without important committee placement while other states have double the pop in a district and get Chair of the House Ways and Means! Such injustice!!!!!! Jesus loving christ, the purpose of House delegations shifting sizes is to force intra-state bipartisanship in advancing that state's interests in the House by making more populated states have greater weight than less populated states, even if they have double Montana's pop:rep ratio. Why the gently caress do you oppose bipartisanship? OH GOD GUYS, BIG STATES HAVE MORE COMMITTEE CHAIRS AND MORE MEMBERS ON WAYS&MEANS! THIS IS SUCH A HUGE TRAVESTY OF JUSTICE! -- Jefferson Davis, circa 1859 e: motherfucker shiiitteee go back to the founder's intent with 3/5ths count for non-whites and you'll find that representation is about drat even. Why do you oppose minority members from large states sitting on important committees and not just that no loving pork at loving all shitshow whivh is Ag, Vet Affairs, and Small Business? My Imaginary GF fucked around with this message at 08:12 on Apr 14, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2015 08:07
|
|
|
I just want America to be a third world country and completely irrelevant to the rest of the world instead of trying to be the World Police.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2015 08:25
|
|
|
Did someone leave the Infinite Monkeys machine hooked up to the Heritage Foundation podcast?
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2015 08:25
|
|
|
I honestly assumed from the title this was a proposal to eliminate states in favor of a unified national government, which while unreasonable is actually a much, much better idea than the opposite.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2015 08:30
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:Here's a better realpolitik solution for ya: don't be so poo poo you loving lose power during a census year. When your state is somewhere full to the brim of talent, like Illinois, you don't worry about those cornballer league political considerations, you focus on the business of government administration. Woulda coulda shoulda. It happened. When we were the only ones with The Bomb, we used it. And then we didn't wait for a surrender, we glared straight at the Russians and killed a few hundred thousand more Japanese civilians just to show Stalin what's what. Then the enemy got The Bomb. Did we say "oh well, we shouldn't have had poo poo counterintelligence and this never would have happened, but fair's fair now they get to use it?" Hell no, we demonized the gently caress out of The Bomb and anyone who would dare use it, without a hint of irony, and we browbeat the enemy into arms limitation treaties. Who gets the most benefit from gerrymandering? The enemy. Who controls the US House no matter which party gets the most votes? The enemy. Now that Gerrymandering is a weapon for them, we become the defenders of democracy and the Will of the People. When we're in power again, the Gerrymander becomes the best hope of minority representation and it's time to crack and pack.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2015 08:58
|
|
|
Yes it is clearly the Federal government that is the problem. It has not at all been a mostly tempering force in American history. We need to give wingnut shitheads more power.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2015 11:32
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:This nation is actually a paradise where every citizen, and many noncitizens, are absolutely free to express themselves, to love, to move across borders, to engage in trade, to make fortunes, to criticize the government, to praise God or deplore him, and to traverse its broad highways and take in its scenic parks. That which has never been achieved in all history, has been achieved in America. It's easy to criticize the prosperous, egalitarian and bureaucratically sound model which we have wrested from the founders' original intentions but this is it. The stable and effective governance of 300 million. It is astonishing. Is this post a joke? I mean I'd think so but then I remember that Americans are all weird nationalists and sincerely think this, so I can't tell.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2015 12:07
|
|
|
I hate to ask a question I could research myself but I'm at work. How does say France or Germany organise the state? How about Australia? Something like that may work better since I don't think any of thier subdivisions or "states" were ever sovereign entities.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2015 14:42
|
|
|
WorldsStrongestNerd posted:I hate to ask a question I could research myself but I'm at work. How does say France or Germany organise the state? How about Australia? Something like that may work better since I don't think any of thier subdivisions or "states" were ever sovereign entities. France is semi-unitary. Germany and Australia are federations, with Australia leaving a whole lot more powers directly to the states (for example when they enacted their famous gun restrictions, their constitution has it illegal for the federal government to regulate guns, meaning all the states had to pass their own versions of the same bill).
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2015 14:58
|
|
|
WorldsStrongestNerd posted:I hate to ask a question I could research myself but I'm at work. How does say France or Germany organise the state? How about Australia? Something like that may work better since I don't think any of thier subdivisions or "states" were ever sovereign entities. A few French subdivisions were sovereign entities at one point or another but outside of fringe federalist or separatist groups nobody really thinks that matters at all.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2015 15:11
|
|
|
Popping in to say that pretty much all the pot shots at me as OP are unfounded, incorrect straw men. Maybe that's the joke, but I don't get it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2015 15:41
|
|
|
Locke Dunnegan posted:Popping in to say that pretty much all the pot shots at me as OP are unfounded, incorrect straw men. Maybe that's the joke, but I don't get it. It's more that your beliefs are indistinguishable from parody.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2015 15:49
|
|
|
Locke Dunnegan posted:Popping in to say that pretty much all the pot shots at me as OP are unfounded, incorrect straw men. Maybe that's the joke, but I don't get it. If you want an honest answer the wealthy states with the biggest cash flow would just build armies to take over the poor states and thus we would be back to the Union once again. Also what happens to the U.S. Military and all our nuclear weapons?
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2015 16:01
|
|
|
Venom Snake posted:If you want an honest answer the wealthy states with the biggest cash flow would just build armies to take over the poor states and thus we would be back to the Union once again. Also what happens to the U.S. Military and all our nuclear weapons? Also most of the large and even middling states already have substantial state forces. Hell, the NYC PD could probably project force in the Midwest with their arsenal alone.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2015 16:21
|
|
|
Venom Snake posted:If you want an honest answer the wealthy states with the biggest cash flow would just build armies to take over the poor states and thus we would be back to the Union once again. Also what happens to the U.S. Military and all our nuclear weapons? Really? Outside of a few specific cases, I find this difficult to believe. For instance, what would California gain from annexing, say, Nevada? The latter is a shithole of a desert with few things of value. It would simply be a net loss for California's economy.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2015 16:25
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:It's more that your beliefs are indistinguishable from parody. The beliefs you think I have are the straw men. That's the point I made. Once again, I was asking honestly because I DIDN'T KNOW, not that I was trying to sneak in some agenda. Please don't ever try to teach. Edit: If, say, I saw a speech from Ron Paul about bringing back the gold standard, and didn't know what that entailed, and asked about it, would you assume I was a supporter and then berate me? Do you not like discussion? Why are you in this forum? Locke Dunnegan fucked around with this message at 16:31 on Apr 14, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2015 16:29
|
|
|
enraged_camel posted:
Among other things it would help ensure they continue to get power and water made possible by the Hoover Dam (they'd probably make sure to hold the Arizona side of the Colorado River too) as well as seizing the income potential of Vegas' attractions. Not to mention that Nevada has rich mining resources - $8 billion dollars in gold and silver mining alone for 2013. The state produces 75% of America's mined gold. Why wouldn't they want to seize Nevada, especially when it'd be poorly defended? Locke Dunnegan posted:The beliefs you think I have are the straw men. That's the point I made. Once again, I was asking honestly because I DIDN'T KNOW, not that I was trying to sneak in some agenda. Please don't ever try to teach. No they aren't. Every belief you've outright described having is akin to parody.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2015 16:33
|
|
|
enraged_camel posted:Really? Outside of a few specific cases, I find this difficult to believe. Las Vegas has historically been part of the Californian patrimony, and as such must be reunited with the motherland.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2015 16:36
|
|
|
you all should all get together and role-play this pipe dream revolution that will never happen.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2015 16:41
|
|
|
Locke Dunnegan posted:Edit: If, say, I saw a speech from Ron Paul about bringing back the gold standard, and didn't know what that entailed, and asked about it, would you assume I was a supporter and then berate me? Do you not like discussion? Why are you in this forum?
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2015 16:42
|
|
|
Palace of Hate posted:Yes, but only because you previously indicated you believe that issues of corruption are a result of a "too big" federal government with "too much power" I worded my argument wrong, then. It's more an issue of special interest co-opting legislation that should be in the best interest of the people. I figured that diluting power to multiple smaller governments would make it more difficult to have such a strong influence over a nation as big as the US but as has been said before it would probably cause more harm than good. Never did I say "rawr big government is intrinsically bad", I said that there are problems with our centralized government and was wondering what would happen if it was set up different. It was a thought experiment for discussion, not a loving call to arms to overthrow the gubmint. Those of you who are super excited to poo poo on me for being a retard libertarian pothead (and whatever else you want me to be) need to chill the gently caress out and take a step back. People are less likely to be open to new ideas if you are bullying them for not knowing everything that you do.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2015 16:50
|
|
|
HorseLord posted:Is this post a joke? I mean I'd think so but then I remember that Americans are all weird nationalists and sincerely think this, so I can't tell. What bitch-rear end country were you thinking of that can even be mentioned in the same sentence as America's majesty? Lets talk about real nations now, who eat at the big-boy table and play for high stakes, nations who gently caress with their pants around their ankles. Scandinavian midget kingdom experiments don't count. What countries have the degree of government transparency? Real countries, now. Lower corruption? Greater opportunities for advancement? Where are people from all walks of life so equally respected, at least in form? You ain't got poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2015 16:54
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:What bitch-rear end country were you thinking of that can even be mentioned in the same sentence as America's majesty? Lets talk about real nations now, who eat at the big-boy table and play for high stakes, nations who gently caress with their pants around their ankles. Scandinavian midget kingdom experiments don't count. You're sounding disturbingly MIGFesque, SedanChair. Did you eat any deep dish within the last 24 hours? 
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2015 16:56
|
|
|
Locke Dunnegan posted:I worded my argument wrong, then. It's more an issue of special interest co-opting legislation that should be in the best interest of the people. I figured that diluting power to multiple smaller governments would make it more difficult to have such a strong influence over a nation as big as the US but as has been said before it would probably cause more harm than good. Never did I say "rawr big government is intrinsically bad", I said that there are problems with our centralized government and was wondering what would happen if it was set up different. It was a thought experiment for discussion, not a loving call to arms to overthrow the gubmint. Uh, it's way easier for special interests to co-opt multiple small entities that don't have an overlying government than it is for them to co-opt an entire government. Jesus christ, have you never been to a city/town/county council meeting or followed state politics? Your thought experiment is stupid because it relies on having no understanding of the status quo.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2015 17:03
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:Uh, it's way easier for special interests to co-opt multiple small entities that don't have an overlying government than it is for them to co-opt an entire government. Jesus christ, have you never been to a city/town/county council meeting or followed state politics? See now, we're getting somewhere. You make an actual point as rebuttal for the thread's topic, but you gently caress up any chance of continued on topic responses from me by continuing to be a prick. Edit: I just realized I'm explaining basic SA forum etiquette to a troll. Dropping it. Locke Dunnegan fucked around with this message at 17:12 on Apr 14, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2015 17:08
|
|
|
Yeah OP, for real, look at the screwjob happening in places like North Carolina (where plutocrat Art Pope singlehandedly bought the GOP legislative majorities in both houses), Kansas (home turf of the Koch brothers, currently reeling after tax cuts passed by the governor and teabag-dominated state legislature) and Wisconsin (need I say anything about Scott Walker?); special interests can pack state legislatures and do much more damage there.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2015 17:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 23:36 |
|
|
Locke Dunnegan posted:See now, we're getting somewhere. You make an actual point as rebuttal for the thread's topic, but you gently caress up any chance of continued on topic responses from me by continuing to be a prick. No, you can choose to make on topic responses. You're deciding not to because you're huffy. You screwed up your OP, you screwed up your thread title, and that's why you're getting mocked. Take a little personal responsibility. If you want to learn about the interplay of federal vs. state power, I'd suggest reading up on it. A basic textbook would be a good way to start.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2015 17:10
|
|
