Time to end the United States in America.

OriginalScreenName

OriginalScreenName

Bronze Member
So why should America stay united ? Why shouldn't all states be divided by political party. Every 4 to 8 years our country faces the same bullshit, one piece of **** party wins, one party loses, and the losing party cries bloody murder for the next 4 to 8 years. Both parities lie, one party wants to adhere to the constitution and bill of rights, and the other party, pretends to but would really like to create their own version of a new constitution and bill of rights.

Granted there would be obstacles to over come in an amicable separation of the union. But all very solvable. Hypothetically, the United States Military, could stay united, and be considered a continental military to protect the nation, and still operate with in NATO.

I see no reason, why America should stay united. The states should vote individually for how they want to be, Democrat or Republican, and be done with it.

An to me, it would seem the Democrat party should be in favor of said idea because they constantly promote the idea of how racist the country is as a whole, how evil the Republican party is and racist. The Republican party in theory should agree as well.

There is no need to keep things as they are until they come to the point of no return. Everyone in Europe on the left, constantly complains of how un modern the USA is, Europe has how many countries, that operate fine on their own. to a degree. said would be the same if the Union ended here.

The obvious reason why the Democrat Party would never agree, is because they know their policies and ideals, would crumble into poverty. But if they actually believed in their policies and ideals, they would jump at it.


So again, why should the USA stay United and not amicably dissolve into a 50/50 Republican, Democrat society of States.
 
Interesting proposition. US politics is more toxic than here in the UK. It’s no surprise that there’s disillusionment with the status quo.

I’m not sure you’d get a clean 50/50 split of Dem/GOP States but then that would be for the States to decide. If it’s 70/30 in favour of one Party, that’s fine as long as the electors chose that, right?

A chunk of Europe is in the European Union which could have been a good project as a single market with co-operation amongst member states. However, it’s moved more towards federalism since the 80s and it’s tended to be the Left that’s moved it that way.

We left the EU but haven’t seen the full effects because COVID hit just as we left. I know our vaccine response was better than it would have been if we’d been in the EU but some of the economic problems we’re facing are probably down to leaving. There would be some economic pain for each US state to suffer if the Union was broken.

We also have a possible majority in Scotland that wants to break away from the UK but I’m not sure how that would work out for them because the Nationalists there want to hold on to the benefits of being in the UK including currency/military etc. That situation is more comparable to what you’re suggesting for the US and I guess it would be the smaller/less economically successful States that would suffer most from a break up.

I think what you’re suggesting is a union of sorts but cut the federalism - 50 independent States co-operating on military/defence and economic matters, a little like the EU project when it was founded as the European Community.

I guess it could work but you’d have to set up institutions to run the new enterprise along the lines of a committee where the leader of each state has a vote on all decisions that affect all states (eg. Going to war, currency matters, interest rates etc).

How would you deal with States though, @OriginalScreenName, say where there’s a national disaster in a State where they’d usually rely on federal support ?

Or another idea could be to totally reform the US political system, keep federalism and get politicians working hard for their electors without taking extreme stances and point scoring all the time.🤷‍♂️
 
Inkandtatts said:
Interesting proposition. US politics is more toxic than here in the UK. It’s no surprise that there’s disillusionment with the status quo.

I’m not sure you’d get a clean 50/50 split of Dem/GOP States but then that would be for the States to decide. If it’s 70/30 in favour of one Party, that’s fine as long as the electors chose that, right?

A chunk of Europe is in the European Union which could have been a good project as a single market with co-operation amongst member states. However, it’s moved more towards federalism since the 80s and it’s tended to be the Left that’s moved it that way.

We left the EU but haven’t seen the full effects because COVID hit just as we left. I know our vaccine response was better than it would have been if we’d been in the EU but some of the economic problems we’re facing are probably down to leaving. There would be some economic pain for each US state to suffer if the Union was broken.

We also have a possible majority in Scotland that wants to break away from the UK but I’m not sure how that would work out for them because the Nationalists there want to hold on to the benefits of being in the UK including currency/military etc. That situation is more comparable to what you’re suggesting for the US and I guess it would be the smaller/less economically successful States that would suffer most from a break up.

I think what you’re suggesting is a union of sorts but cut the federalism - 50 independent States co-operating on military/defence and economic matters, a little like the EU project when it was founded as the European Community.

I guess it could work but you’d have to set up institutions to run the new enterprise along the lines of a committee where the leader of each state has a vote on all decisions that affect all states (eg. Going to war, currency matters, interest rates etc).

How would you deal with States though, @OriginalScreenName, say where there’s a national disaster in a State where they’d usually rely on federal support ?

Or another idea could be to totally reform the US political system, keep federalism and get politicians working hard for their electors without taking extreme stances and point scoring all the time.🤷‍♂️
Click to expand...
in regards to states that suffer natural disasters, it isn't too different from other Island nations, like Japan, that face Tsunamis or what have you, help seems to always turn up where needed. I guess it wouldn't hurt to, have a semi national type fund for natural disasters , and then some people would start jerking off and laugh dur then it would just end up back to being the united states. Not even close.

An really a national emergency fund, or response agency like FEMA ( which by the way FEMA is a giant cluster **** and has so many stipulations that the people who really need financial help, most of the time get left out because whoops, they are just under the line ) I don't think would be needed, because again , people are willing to help, there are plenty NGOS, and religious orgs that come together in times of need to help others, and for me, that is how it should be, and not a reliance upon a government or federal government.

As to splitting the states up 50. 50 upon the two party system, I personally wouldn't care, if it was 60/40, 20/80, or any number, as long as it voted upon by each individual state and no shinanigans were involved.

issues would come up about, well what about funding for public schools, funding for this funding for that, my response would be too fucking bad, the money is constantly being misused , it is time to wipe the slate clean, and let each side figure it out for themself instead of blaming each side for fucking **** up, and also each side claiming they have the best answer. If each sides swears up n down they got they answer, then let them prove it. I would imagine the Republican states would stick to the original constitution and bill of rights, and when **** doesnt work, or an elected official, is full of ****, or something doesnt work, they will get the boot.

The only real real problem I would see is the collective National Debt, and I don't know how to answer that, except that, the debt stays as is to be paid off, but no more debt can be obtained on a national level. and that each side would split the debt 50/50 which i mean **** like that can be figured out any which way.

An those smaller less successful states you speak of, that might suffer from a break up, I don't know which ones you refer, to, but I would suspect they are Democrat states. California for example, would be the first state to be financially screwed.

But again, if this was a real debate put forth infront of the government, and that came up, well what about us democrat states or republican states that rely on the finances from the government, my reply would be the same, if each party is better than the other in ideals, political and other wise, this shouldnt be a problem more over, it is the people who are really suffering from having to be taxed to death for programs that most do not even benefit from.

BUT WHAT ABOUT THOSE WHO DO BENEFIT FROM THOSE PROGRAMS, they still can, you will both just have to figure out how to raise the money with out shooting yourself in the foot, and you will have to start relying on NGOS and Religious orgs, and other venues for help.

Now for the judicial system, not much would really have to change, criminal codes blah blah blah, all that ****, can stay the same in all 50 states, things do not have to be complicated if both sides agree there is no need to complicate things for common sense ****. and if someone asks, well who gets to decide what is common sense, my reply would be, not you because you just asked that question.

In the end, I no longer see a need for the United States to remain united.
 
OriginalScreenName said:
As to splitting the states up 50. 50 upon the two party system, I personally wouldn't care, if it was 60/40, 20/80, or any number, as long as it voted upon by each individual state and no shinanigans were involved.
Click to expand...
Or ditch the 2-party system altogether. It's never as black and white as it seems - there are grey areas that each side agrees on at an intellectual level but they won't dare agree to in public because of saving face and that's why there's so much sh*t thrown by each side. I'm a firm believer in changing your stance if the arguments support it rather than taking an inflexible position because of Party lines.

OriginalScreenName said:
The only real real problem I would see is the collective National Debt, and I don't know how to answer that, except that, the debt stays as is to be paid off, but no more debt can be obtained on a national level. and that each side would split the debt 50/50 which i mean **** like that can be figured out any which way.
Click to expand...
Relatively easily solved. Split is as a proportion based on population of each State. If you want to throw in a bit of socialism, you could add a formula based on wealth/ability to pay.


Where would you stand on trade? Free trade between each of the 50 former States would seem the most logical to me.


Out of interest, where do you stand politically? I'm guessing slightly more on the right? I'll put it out there, I'm right of centre on most issues.
 
Completely decentralize the economy with crypto and remove fiat currency as a thing and watch how quickly corruption in the state removes itself. But that won't happen because the highest potential of crypto, in putting the power in the hands of individuals, will(most likely) be prevented with a CBDC.
 
Inkandtatts said:
Or ditch the 2-party system altogether. It's never as black and white as it seems - there are grey areas that each side agrees on at an intellectual level but they won't dare agree to in public because of saving face and that's why there's so much sh*t thrown by each side. I'm a firm believer in changing your stance if the arguments support it rather than taking an inflexible position because of Party lines.


Relatively easily solved. Split is as a proportion based on population of each State. If you want to throw in a bit of socialism, you could add a formula based on wealth/ability to pay.


Where would you stand on trade? Free trade between each of the 50 former States would seem the most logical to me.


Out of interest, where do you stand politically? I'm guessing slightly more on the right? I'll put it out there, I'm right of centre on most issues.
Click to expand...
i tend to the right,

doing away with the two party system, or at least throwing in a new third party, just will never happen, as both sides attack any such notion, when the " Tea Party " was forming it was only meant to be a grass roots group for protesting, for conservatives, least that is how i remember it, I might be wrong. anyhow, what happened was both sides saw it as a new political party, a political party mind you, with no officers, no nothing. and what happened, Hillary Clinton deemed them deplorables / and etc, along with the democrats, and the republican politicians automatically started jumping on the band wagon to establish themselves into it, to get a foothold, and control.

the part of throwing in a bit of socialism, into the mix, I wouldn't care, i am not for it, the idea being of splitting the states, between the two parties, is that I would imagine, the Republican states would stick with capitalism, the constitution and bill of rights, where as the democrat states can try socialism, and what ever else they want, and each side can jerk off claiming theirs is the better system.

Also, for all those so bent that capitalism doesnt work, Europe is so much better, they do not seem willing to pack their bags and move to Europe or else where that doesn't use capitalism. but what ever.

Free Trade would need to stay I think, the idea isn't so much to close off all ties between the states. But stuff like infrastructure , etc would have to be handled by each side individually.


Soundz123 said:
Completely decentralize the economy with crypto and remove fiat currency as a thing and watch how quickly corruption in the state removes itself. But that won't happen because the highest potential of crypto, in putting the power in the hands of individuals, will(most likely) be prevented with a CBDC.
Click to expand...
Biden is already moving the government into Crypto, I forget the entirety of it, but it is under the guise of enforcing sanctions on Russia, I would have to find the article and I am too lazy at the moment. I would wager a bet though the gist is to work the government into being able to tax crypto currency and regulate it.

It is just what our government does, if they can figure out how to tax something and regulate it, they will. Booze, Cigarettes and now Marijuana. All super evil at first, until someone went, waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaiiiiiiiiiiiit a minute, we can make money off this! all we have to do is regulate it, wash our hands clean and then tax it.

The last thing the government will ever do is anything dealing with their money.

I do not, think though, that The Constitution and Bill of Rights has failed our country, and I do not think our three branches as initially constructed is flawed, it is a very good check and balance system. The problem I see is the two party system that developed that has managed to corrupt everything that was set up. I do not think the founders ever imagined a two party system colluding to control everything. An then the Founders also shot the future in the foot, with various laws in place, pretty much making it next to impossible in a legal sense to do what they did, which is to break away from a government, by force.

The thing is, it is perfectly fine to over throw ones government and create a new one or fix what you have, the problem is, if you lose, you lose, you are labeled a terrorist and wrong, and etc. You win, you get to control the narrative and or make life better for all.

But i am tired of the , ****, tired of the same garbage every 4- 8 years, and i think i am done voting, ill be hard pressed to vote in 2024.
 
The United States does not have a two-party system. It has a one-party system disguised as two.

Every person elected in America's government is bribed to do the status quo. Ultra-wealthy oligarchs bribe them to continue American fascism.

All of these ultra-wealthy imperialists who own America use their monstrous military-industrial complex to bully nations. Working class Americans, especially non-white people, are used as fodder in this war machine while ultra-wealthy oligarchs stay alive.

Broken school systems in the United States are designed to indoctrinate lower class Americans for wage slavery while children born into exclusive wealth get elite education.

For-profit prisons are designed to dehumanizingly subordinate lower class Americans while children born into exclusive wealth stay unimprisoned.

Mainstream media in the United States is owned by oligarchs to distract American masses with anti-intellectual propaganda while attacking investigative journalists.

Online surveillance is designed to keep lower class Americans and people in other countries subordinated with governmental spying.

Gag orders in the United States make the first amendment a joke.

Increasing political corruption in the United States has caused Americans to have a harder time renouncing their American citizenship. Becoming a naturalized American is this debt trap considering the increasing wealth inequality in America. Working class Americans started losing their social mobility after World War 2 when increasing wealth inequality happened.

Martin Luther King, Jr. was assassinated when he tried exposing America's ultra-wealthy imperialists.

America is theocratic via religious grifting by taking poor people's money through fake charity to keep pedophilic priests and pastors living in luxury while working class Americans become increasingly impoverished every year. Which continues the misogynistic and pro-slavery Christianity. American presidents historically follow misogynistic religions with scriptures that promote pro-slavery. I know anti-slavery and egalitarian atheists who have been rejected when getting elected in America's government. They were rejected because of their lack of misogynistic and pro-slavery religion.

en.wikipedia.org

Pledge of Allegiance - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org

"I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under misogynistic theocracy, divisible, with slavery and malice for all" is more honest.

America's oligarchs have not banned child marriage in every state to prevent old sickos from grooming minors.

America is a fascist country controlled by religious pedophiles that narcissistically care about money enough that they sell their souls to evil.

Disney is doing child trafficking by brainwashing child entertainers. Disney is not allowing free speech on child entertainers' social media accounts. Some parents prevented their children from working for Disney because of its child abuse. Christina Aguilera was a Disney puppet, then she started becoming a corrupt sellout. She politically supported Hillary KKKlinton instead of showing compassion for working class Americans, especially black people.

These rich and famous celebrities are sellouts. They don't care about people. They use philanthropy as a publicity stunt. Some of these sellouts manipulate people by acting like victims themselves. So, they play the sympathy card.

Mainstream media in America manipulates females to be insecure fools that buy beauty products with a victim complex.

Mainstream media in America does anti-white man nonsense.

Mainstream media in America treats men like disposable garbage with glorified violence.

Mainstream media in America is more anti-intellectual towards females with sexual objectification than males.

Founders of the United States stole land from natives with this military-industrial complex controlled by white, Christian, and misogynistic men. Founders of the United States lied about these natives. Indigenous and non-white people continue to deal with systemic racism in the United States. I have native ancestry by the way.

Founders of the United States intentionally had vague language in their legal documents to let men use loopholes in a politically corrupt way.

America's fascist overlords prevent people not born in America from becoming American presidents. It is systemic racism that values race over intellect and compassion. It shows the arrogant idiocracy and lack of compassion of America's rulers.

Divided States of AmeriKKKa is more politically toxic than the U.K, indeed. But I will say the U.K. has increasingly become an anti-intellectual police state with Orwellian online surveillance and elitist gag orders to benefit its exclusively wealthy oligarchs only. Some investigative journalists have permanently moved away from the U.K. as a result. Because they want internet freedom, online privacy, and free speech. This energy crisis in the U.K. allows its exclusively wealthy oligarchs to have better standard of living. The U.K. contributes to global warming by financially supporting environmentally unfriendly companies. The U.K. also financially supports sweatshops. So, the U.K. is not doing very well in regards to protecting human rights everywhere.

R.T. America has been banned globally while countries contribute to global warming and financially support sweatshops when oligarchs keep Orwellian online surveillance legalized in many nations. So, I'd say all countries are not doing very well in regards to protecting human rights anywhere. I'd say free speech, online privacy, internet freedom, and critical thinking have become a joke everywhere. I think younger generations are dumber, weaker, and less ethical than older ones. I find these fast-paced societies in countries only benefit oligarchs for gaining powerful wealth quicker. Suicide rates, depression, anxiety, and lack of wanting children have increased from these fast-paced societies that financially support sweatshops, contribute to global warming, etc.

Time to end countries, global warming, sweatshops, other forms of human rights violation, and the human specie is what I say.
 
Oligarch-owned mainstream media portrayed the older generations as global warming deniers to keep those cut-throat oligarchs wealthy from environmentally unfriendly businesses. But it's a generalization that dehumanizes the older generations. Some people from the older generations were environmentalism activists protesting against companies causing global warming. But oligarch-owned mainstream media didn't want to show that. Because they want to make younger generations impulsive consumers that give up their online privacy, internet freedom, free speech, ability to question everything rather than agree with things easily, and self-control.
 
cynical, two party system disguised as one, is still a two party system, I am sorry I didn't fully read your novel, I am sure others have, but I skimmed it enough to see that in essence you gave even more reasons for the United States of America to at the very least, drop the " United " in the name, or just dissolve and become independent states.

Anyhow,

this thread will quickly devolve into jabbering and the original topic will die, i don't give two flying rats turds.

Now what would happen, if this topic was brought up officially to the congress or senate. The case would be made as to why the union should be dissolved as previously stated. An I promise, some douche bag, would say, " it is our diversity that unites us, and we are stronger together ".

Which is nothing but contrite bullshit, would be my retort because if that was the case then exactly why are the two political parties constantly trying to destroy each other ? To which said puff piece would laugh and say it is merely how our country was founded to be able to disagree not destroy each other. To which around the monkey bush we go again, but then why is, when one party is in control the other starts damning the other party and etc.

It wouldn't end, the hypocrisy that is. What I find odd, is why hasn't either party not brought this subject up. Seems like partial control, is worth more than constantly battling to gain total control for a minimum of 4 years to a max of 8. Or is there more power for both, in the way things are now, if that is the case, that would be the reason why there would never be a split of the union.

If anyone takes a good look into Abraham Lincoln and his journey to keeping the United States, United. He was on a political razor wire of a balancing act, while juggling at the same time. A complete political nightmare. The ending of the secession during that time frame in the history of the USA was a just one. But even if it had succeeded I think either way slavery would have ended in America, at a much slower pace with probably a lot more injustice but eventually it would have ended especially with the rest of the world growing and evolving, well most of it.

I still see no worth while reason why the Unite States of America should stay united. I acknowledge it would be a hard struggle to adjust to a split country, but I think in the end, it would put to rest a lot of political unrest with voting for a president every 4-8 years and having to deal with outrage and protests and riots during that presidential election, and the aftermath of fighting against said party for the remainder of the presidency.

either way, **** it all. everything fucking sucks and world leaders are nothing but power hungry giant vaginas that buckle to dictators and tyrants and religious cults.
 
CynicalOne said:
Oligarch-owned mainstream media portrayed the older generations as global warming deniers to keep those cut-throat oligarchs wealthy from environmentally unfriendly businesses. But it's a generalization that dehumanizes the older generations. Some people from the older generations were environmentalism activists protesting against companies causing global warming. But oligarch-owned mainstream media didn't want to show that. Because they want to make younger generations impulsive consumers that give up their online privacy, internet freedom, free speech, ability to question everything rather than agree with things easily, and self-control.
Click to expand...
I dont see older generations protesting abt global warming when scientists started talking talking abt it, no activism, like it or not, the media portrays older generations as people who didnt care abt global warming because alot of them didnt rlly care, and while yes some did care, like it or not, alot of them dont care, and most climate denial is from older generations. Now cut out the generation war bs, its just dumb and unproductive lmao
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top