Texas Whackadoo Wants To Dissolve The United States?

[Iceprincess12]

It didn't take war to get us where we are, no reason we can't do it again. We may not but it's not actually a prereq.

Slow night? You should do the writing challenge in srp>lounge. Short story

 

[NOIRTRASH]

Balkanization happens where multiculturalism thrives. Its inevitable. And where it thrives goes into decline until the queers take over and ease the ethnics out.

 

[BoyNextDoor]

At the federal level our government is practically non-functional as it is because there are so many people bickering over so many opinions over how shit should be done. Mostly because regionally/culturally no one law will suit the entire country.

The socialist of the NW will never see eye to eye with the theocons of the south with the elitist of the NE with the needs of the Midwest and the concerns of life in the Southwest. Nor should they.

So until we break up these territories, and let the south be a bunch of theocon whackadoodles, let the PNW hug their trees and smoke their ganja, let the farmers in the west graze their cattle how they want etc. our federal government will continue to suck ass for EVERYONE. They are simply too diverse culturally/geographically/politically and economically for 1 government and 1 law to suit all if any of their needs and no amount of representation will fix that.



All the more argument for restructuring the whole fuckin' shabang.

Could you imagine a congress with 10,000 fuckin' reps trying to get shit done? LMFAO the federal government would cease to function at all.

I would say the bickering is over the same stupid shit. Gunz and vaginas. (Not that vaginas are stupid just that bickering over them is. Same with gunz.) More voices and maybe we can start talking about something else. I happen to like Bernie's talk track. I'd expect it would make room for a third party to get some seats in both houses.

10K is unwieldy. I'd say a doubling is in order along with the map re-drawing I suggested.

 

[NOIRTRASH]

At the federal level our government is practically non-functional as it is because there are so many people bickering over so many opinions over how shit should be done. Mostly because regionally/culturally no one law will suit the entire country.

The socialist of the NW will never see eye to eye with the theocons of the south with the elitist of the NE with the needs of the Midwest and the concerns of life in the Southwest. Nor should they.

So until we break up these territories, and let the south be a bunch of theocon whackadoodles, let the PNW hug their trees and smoke their ganja, let the farmers in the west graze their cattle how they want etc. our federal government will continue to suck ass for EVERYONE. They are simply too diverse culturally/geographically/politically and economically for 1 government and 1 law to suit all if any of their needs and no amount of representation will fix that.



All the more argument for restructuring the whole fuckin' shabang.

Could you imagine a congress with 10,000 fuckin' reps trying to get shit done? LMFAO the federal government would cease to function at all.

Mencken predicted the South would become like Austria, where the other sections of America would vacation and enjoy our vices, cuisine, weather, and quadroon male and female prostitutes....like Old New Orleans.

 

[Five_Inch_Heels]

10K is unwieldy. I'd say a doubling is in order along with the map re-drawing I suggested.

Reduce it. Keep the two in the Senate. Drop to two or four in the House for each state, not population based.

Take the financial incentive out. NO paid lobbying. NO salary for Congress Critters at all. Basic daily stipend for days actually doing something. Strict Term Limits. NO career critters.


And make is easier to remove mentally defective fools like Scalia from the courts.

 

[BoyNextDoor]

Reduce it. Keep the two in the Senate. Drop to two or four in the House for each state, not population based.

Take the financial incentive out. NO paid lobbying. NO salary for Congress Critters at all. Basic daily stipend for days actually doing something. Strict Term Limits. NO career critters.


And make is easier to remove mentally defective fools like Scalia from the courts.

If you have term limits then the bureaucrats have even more power. At least you can vote the reps out of office. I am not sure why anyone would want their representation reduced.

 

[Sean Renaud]

Reduce it. Keep the two in the Senate. Drop to two or four in the House for each state, not population based.

Take the financial incentive out. NO paid lobbying. NO salary for Congress Critters at all. Basic daily stipend for days actually doing something. Strict Term Limits. NO career critters.


And make is easier to remove mentally defective fools like Scalia from the courts.

Reducing it to four in the state not population bases is absurd. You may as well drop the House outright if it's not population based. And term limits are suicidal. We've learned from Obama that you really desperately need people who have lived Washington as long as they have walked to properly wield this thing called government. And the court is specifically supposed to be immune to you and I doing a damn thing.

 

[Sean Renaud]

Not really.

1. Yes, they are also never actually done because it's fairly radical.

2. It's a stretch. . .sorta. We've never really done one. The original not counted obviously. They could literally do anything.

3. The courts are specifically designed to be beyond the reach of the people. They also don't make laws no matter how much people want to complain about "legislating from the bench." Even at their worst they interpret existing law. Change the existing law if you don't like their ruling.

I do redicule the status quo but I do have specific things I want changed. Not just the entire shebang. The ones calling for a CC are just rallying the troops. they know good and damn well it's not realistic.

 

[BotanyBoy]

I would say the bickering is over the same stupid shit. Gunz and vaginas.

And you think adding more people to that cluster is going to un-fuck it?

I've never in my life seen more people = more streamlined and efficient.

I'd expect it would make room for a third party to get some seats in both houses.

See I don't think it would I think it would just be bigger (R) and bigger (D) and third party would still be a joke.

10K is unwieldy. I'd say a doubling is in order along with the map re-drawing I suggested.

What do you think doubling of take no prisoners chiefs up in DC will do?

Mencken predicted the South would become like Austria, where the other sections of America would vacation and enjoy our vices, cuisine, weather, and quadroon male and female prostitutes....like Old New Orleans.

LMFAO...Old New Orleans was a liburhul hole. If the South isn't totally full of fucking shit they will be more like a humid Afghanistan. Sure they will have some nicer shit but they will still be ruled by old testament bullshit laws.

I am not sure why anyone would want their representation reduced.

To make it more effective and get more people interested in their politics and hold their politicians accountable.

IF CA only had 4 people going to congress there would be a lot more attention paid to them than if every county in this state got to send 300 people to Washington DC. with an election every other weekend.

Simply put our government needs to be streamlined, more connected with the people and most importantly effective at resolving our societies issues.

It would be much easier to get 20 senators and 100 reps from 7-8 states to come to agreements than 200 senators and 1,200 reps from 55 states.

People would be FAR more concerned with who their reps/senators are and we could kick back a bunch of petty stuff to the territories to clean up the federal bickering. South? They can ban abortion and go full on old testament with heir laws, the PNW can hump their trees etc. Otherwise we are going to sit back and watch as these different cultural/economic factions in this land send reps to DC to fuck everyone else and fight about the fact that they can't because they are all there doing the same thing and as such can't agree on who to fuck and how.

 

[Hypoxia]

USA had a sovereign-states gov't once, under the Articles of Confederation. Didn't work -- that's why we have a Constitution. The sovereign-states meme has been flatlined for two and a quarter centuries. Fucktards don't get that.

Fucktards push a 'streamlined' (gutted) gov't for the third-biggest nation on Earth. That's suicidal. Fucktards push local control -- so local pols take bigger bribes. Ever experienced totally corrupt local gov't? Fucktards love that.

Fucktards push sedition. Anywhere else, that's High Treason and leads to the scaffold. Make no mistake, these Confederate debris are the same racist, sexist traitors they've always been, the ISIS of Redneck USA.

 

[BotanyBoy]

Good points, but a Constitutional Convention has never been about dissolving the states.

I'm not suggesting dissolving the states I'm suggesting restructuring the government to better suit their needs. Keep all the states....but 'the south/PNW/NE/SW/MW' only get's to send a limited number of people to DC for federal bidnizz and kick bullshit back to regional authority.

More stratification of power if you will.

Same Sex Marriage: Wherever you land on this subject...the outcome was not decided by congress or the states. It simply wasn't. "The people" had no say (and still don't) in the SCOTUS decision. Whether that makes it 'new law' or not...is up for debate.

Your right it was determined by the US constitution, 14th amendment which the people did have a say in. You want to give/deny certain groups of people legal status like marriage you have to go repeal the 14th first, until then equal treatment under the law is the law.

What Greg Abbot and others are proposing with Constitutional Conventions is to bring more power back to the states. The proposals are numerous, but in essence they all center around reducing the power of the courts and congress over the states. I don't think that's all that radical, especially given the 10th amendment. Also state governments tend to be more responsive to their citizens, than the federal government.

That's what I was suggesting too, just a different way to accomplish it. Because TX isn't really all that different from the rest of the south. You can blanket law the entire south and please a HUGE majority of the population. You can say the same of NE/MidWest/PNW/SW...but none of them will please the country, most will piss the other groups off.

The right basically threw their footing for 10A arguments out the fuckin' window when they all went lawsuit happy against CO for weed. They demonstrated they only give a fuck about states rights when it's convenient for them, otherwise they fucking LOVE federal supremacy.
http://cdn7.theweedblog.com/wp-content/uploads/dea-emails-marijuana.jpg

I agree that it's not realistic. The existing power structure in DC (both sides) has no interest in seeing a convention take place. Also there's a lot of fear about a convention. It's a blank slate. Anything could be enacted and that tends to scare the crap out of everyone, because everyone could lose something. Unless one side could control it...it'll never happen. It'd make for a great fiction story though...just sayin'

Oh totally....you're right it is a fun theory crafting canvas though.

Now breaking up certain states...that idea has a lot of merit..in my opinion. Huge parts of states (rural areas) are effectively drowned out by the larger cities. California's a good example. So is Washington State and Illinois.

Any state with a city is like that. Every state needs a place to congregate and do bidnizz (city) and that city is going to always have the gold to bully the fuckin' piss out of the rural areas. No breaking up of anything will change the urban/rural power dynamics.

 

[Sean Renaud]

Good points, but a Constitutional Convention has never been about dissolving the states.

Same Sex Marriage: Wherever you land on this subject...the outcome was not decided by congress or the states. It simply wasn't. "The people" had no say (and still don't) in the SCOTUS decision. Whether that makes it 'new law' or not...is up for debate.

What Greg Abbot and others are proposing with Constitutional Conventions is to bring more power back to the states. The proposals are numerous, but in essence they all center around reducing the power of the courts and congress over the states. I don't think that's all that radical, especially given the 10th amendment. Also state governments tend to be more responsive to their citizens, than the federal government.

I agree that it's not realistic. The existing power structure in DC (both sides) has no interest in seeing a convention take place. Also there's a lot of fear about a convention. It's a blank slate. Anything could be enacted and that tends to scare the crap out of everyone, because everyone could lose something. Unless one side could control it...it'll never happen. It'd make for a great fiction story though...just sayin'

Now breaking up certain states...that idea has a lot of merit..in my opinion. Huge parts of states (rural areas) are effectively drowned out by the larger cities. California's a good example. So is Washington State and Illinois.

No a CC has never been about dissolving the United States and such a thing is what it's about and what happens are ultimately two different things. There are no rules.

As for gay marriage the decision was made when the 14th Amendment was written. The fact was we decided to ignore it as long as we could because of bigotted religious folk, not because it wasn't already in the books. That's the snag of the Constitution, nothing is Unconstitutional until and unless the Supreme Court states that it is. Until then it's basically a Schrodinger.

Reducing the power of the federal government ist stupid. But I understand his desire and welcome him to try. But lots of our problems come from a lack of central power not too much of it.

No one side would ever have the control necessary, a CC will happen if we're on the brink of a Civil War and all the liberals in both parties say we should try asking questions first and shooting later and the Conservatives are overwhelmingly out numbered. Otherwise we'll shoot first and let Allah sort it out.

If the world was fair the country would be drown out by the big cities. They are simply superior which is why people congregate there and money and influence does. Having said that Califorinia is 2 or three states with the only thing in common being a coast and a gold rush. I'm not a Texan to know what their issue is beyond city folk tend towards lib and rural folk don't.

The reality is that either state breaking up (ATM) would be entirely a move by the PTB to get more votes. California would likely be split evenly if 2 states with three I would hedge towards RR/D but who knows it depends on where the lines are drawn. Again Texas? I got nothing. As much as I think consolidating some of those other states would be wise it won't happen and from a pragmatic stance would just be devastating towards Republicans.

 

[BotanyBoy]

I'm not a Texan to know what their issue is beyond city folk tend towards lib and rural folk don't.

Same thing as CA.

DFW/Houston trying to micromanage people 600 miles away via Austin and fuck every dollar/resource they can out of them in the process via arbitrary bullshit.

 

[Five_Inch_Heels]

Read up on Michigan and you'll see the same thing -- outstaters complaining about Detroit having all the pull.

Orlando and Miami run Florida.

 

[Sean Renaud]

Well duh cities have pull. But even if you count SF Nor Cal and So Cal are STILL different beyond just big cities vs rural. LA and SD are far more conservative (especially on border control) I'd bet Nor Cal is more progun though but I've never looked at polls on that in particular.

 

[Gwanji16]

Let em go, i say

Let them figure out how to replace all the stuff the federal government gives them and still stay tax free. Morons.

 

[BotanyBoy]

Let them figure out how to replace all the stuff the federal government gives them and still stay tax free. Morons.

Texas gives more than it takes dip shit....from that perspective they would actually be better off without the rest of the country dragging them down.

And whoever told you Texas was tax free was lying to you.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Reduce it. Keep the two in the Senate. Drop to two or four in the House for each state, not population based.

Take the financial incentive out. NO paid lobbying. NO salary for Congress Critters at all. Basic daily stipend for days actually doing something. Strict Term Limits. NO career critters.


And make is easier to remove mentally defective fools like Scalia from the courts.

Justices can be impeached, but that has only happened once, and he was acquitted. It's not supposed to be easy to remove them, especially for making controversial decisions.

 

[renard_ruse]

The US is too large, it should be broken up into a number of smaller regional countries, perhaps as part of a loose confederation such as the European Union.

 

[renard_ruse]

I haven't been east of Nevada for over ten years. I don't even know what the rest of the country is like anymore. Its ridiculous it takes a week just to drive across a single country. That's too big. You can drive across France or Germany in one day.

 

[Sean Renaud]

Slow night? You should do the writing challenge in srp>lounge. Short story

I've never even found that place and all my SRP buddies basically upped and left. Again, happens from time to time.

 

[BotanyBoy]

I haven't been east of Nevada for over ten years.

LOL do you live in a coastal state? That must/would be horrible...

I don't even know what the rest of the country is like anymore.

LMAO that much is obvious.

 

[Sean Renaud]

I'm not sure he ever knew what the world was like to begin with.

 

[BotanyBoy]

I'm not sure he ever knew what the world was like to begin with.

LOL he thinks we are destined to head back to 1905 before everything went to hell because liburlz wanted the government to treat most human beings like human beings.

 

[Tigersman]

Raising the flag

Between past Texas governor Rick Perry Ns current Texas governor Greg Abbott, it's a miracle the Mexican flag has not replaced the American flag. These two fools allowed Texas cities to become sanctuary cities for illegal aliens. An illegal alien can live in Texas for twenty years and never learn the English language as interpreters are supplied so they can access public services.