Are Republicans holding the US back?

[Magnus Portucale]

The only Social Democratic party that you have in the USA.

Again, all the good ideas they stand for are supported by the Democrats. The Greens have no base and no chance of getting anyone elected to anything above dog-catcher.

That's because of American Politics .

You also have Justice Party but it's like Greens little chance off getting in to the government .

[Terraius]

Im saying that a nation of nearly 400 million people trying to operate with thousands of independent municipalities is impractical.

And I'm saying that if you believe that government governs better when it's closer to the people, you don't need a nation, just self-governance, which is the closest to the people.

Thats a very 2 dimensional way of thinking. Dealing with people is never black and white, especially when it comes to government.

[Obamacult]

Your personal opinion, while greatly appreciated, is not considered valid or reliable scientific evidence.

Moreover, the following list is of the nation-states with the highest GDP per capita. Indeed, these are the societies that afford their citizens the best standards of living on the planet.

It appears to debunk your unsupported opinion, as most of these nation-states are tiny compared to the large central government that you fawn over that is required to managebankrupt society:

Listed in order by GDP (PPP) per capita

Qatar = 1.7 million
Liechtenstein = 36,000
Luxembourg = 500,000
Bermuda = 64,000
Monaco = 50,000
Singapore = 5.3 million
Jersey = 97,000
Falkland Is. = 2,500
Norway = 5.0 million
Brunei = 400,000
Hong Kong = 7.0 million
United States (1st large state listed ) = 310 million
UAE =8,264,070
Guernsey =62,431
Switzerland =8,014,000
Cayman Is. =55,456
Gibaltar =29,752
Netherlands =16,775,273
Kuwait = 3,582,054
Austria =8,458,023
Australia =22,894,306
Ireland=4,588,252
Sweden=9,551,781
Canada =35,002,447
Iceland=320,060
Germany (2nd large state listed) = 81 million

Provide a source, plz, and if you look at your own damn list, you'd see that among the highest are places with effective government.

Oh, and you're arguing a straw man if you assume that I "fawn over" large federal governments.

What do you fawn over dude besides asking for sources to easily verified truths that any self-respecting first year geography student could plainly see was accurate.

More so, considering that I have on more than one occasion provided more substantive, objective, factual and empirically supported sources in a single post than you have in months of many inane retorts devoid of a shred of data or facts.

[Obamacult]

Moreover, the following list is of the nation-states with the highest GDP per capita.

Most of them are not nation-states at all, and many of those which are technically counted as independent nation-states (Liechtenstein etc.) are actually dependent on others to perform the major functions of government for them (they are incapable of managing their own currencies or defending themselves etc.)

Duh!

Read this:

Fallacy #1 -- empowering the individual states to manage health care, education, retirement, transportation, etc. is a return to the Articles of Confederation

This is a typical strawman argument from the peanut gallery because Washington would still be responsible for national defense and insuring unrestricted commerce between the individual states. Hence, the Bill of Rights would remain intact and life, liberty, private property and contracts would still be protected by the Federal government. The only difference is that governance of most economic issues would return to the states or the individual as was the case for over 100 years after the Constitution was ratified in the late 1780's.

Fallacy #2 -- The Federal government is doing just fine managing health care and retirement.

The United States government paid over $400,000,000,000 per year on the average to service a debt of over $16,000,000,000,000 over the last four years. Moreover, the average interest payment for the last ten years is over $350,000,000,000 and growing!

If this doesn't expose the peanut gallery argument that 'the debt doesn't matter' as pure deluded and destructive bullshit, then nothing will. To illustrate the opportunity costs of this expenditure (in 2008 dollars), it would pay the salaries of 4,000,000 teachers, 25,000 junior highs, 8000 hospitals (4-8 stories), 100,000 nursing homes, etc.

Fallacy #3 -- It is incredibly bad to have a short-lived private sector monopoly within a single industry, but the Mother of All Monopolies represented by a leviathan government that lords over virtually all commerce with unchallenged monopolistic tax and regulatory policy is hunky dory?!!

This pretty much exposes the ridiculous house of cards ideological foundation upon which statism rests. For example, they become apoplectic when faced with a single monopoly within a single industry that can easily be overcome with competition, boycotts, substitution goods, etc. In contrast, statists fawn over the monopoly in Washington that is protected from competition, boycotts, and substitution goods by threat of violence. If you examine the way Washington does business and how it deals with the citizenry -- it is a textbook example of an unyielding, coercive and destructive monopoly that no private sector monopoly has ever or will ever approach in the size and scope of coercion.

Fallacy #4 -- Profit is bad.

Profit informs a free society where capital and labor must be allocated to provide the most benefits based on the preferences of free people and NOT some politician or bureaucrat acting in his own interest. Indeed, firms that make the most profit best satisfy consumer preferences in a free society through voluntary exchanges that always benefit everyone involved in the exchange or the transaction would never have occurred.

Without profit, society has no idea of where to allocate scarce resources. Government cannot efficiently or rationally manage societal resources due to the economic calculation problem outlined below:

Economic Calculation Problem of Command Economies

Fallacy #5 -- Statists say we should downsize banks so they are not too big to fail, but a huge monopolistic government in Washington that borrows 40 cents on every dollar and is paying interest on debt of over 100% of GDP and growing is fine the way it is??!!

Indeed, my view is that government in Washington is too big to fail and by breaking up this inefficient and oppressive monopoly control over economic issues. Washington still maintains its role protecting life, liberty, private property and enforcing contracts by control of the armed forces, federal law enforcement and legal arbiter of last resort. Moreover if a state went bankrupt, the Feds would treat this the same as any large scale private bankruptcy and assume temporary ownership and restructuring responsibility until the state could get back on its feet.

Fallacy #6 -- The debt doesn't matter because who owe it to ourselves or it won't effect us ?!!

The debt must be addressed and there is only a few ways this can happen:

1) higher taxes that will cause capital and talent to offshore thereby further eroding the tax base. Indeed, there are some drones who say this isn't a problem despite the fact that Obama mentioned numerous times during the recent campaign that it is A PROBLEM.

2) print money that will debase the currency causing interest rates to rise, inflation that is the cruelest tax of all on the poor, debt payments to rise, loss of confidence in the US government and ultimate capitulation.

3) more borrowing that will cause America's credit worthiness to decline, interest rates to rise, debt to increase, further leading to a series of debilitating economic decision that will ultimately be thrust on the lap of Main Street in significantly reduced growth, decreases in discretionary income and declining living standards.

4) eliminate or reduce promised benefits in social security and health care leading to lower standards of living. Indeed, this is generational theft since young people paying into the system today will never get anything close to what they contribute into the system.

Fallacy #7 -- Smaller populations and smaller states have less efficient governments ???!!

Absurd, the geopolitic has myriad examples of governments smaller than most US states that function very well within societies of small populations. Indeed, the ten least corrupt states (Finland, Sweden, Iceland, Singapore, Canada, etc.) all have populations less then many US states. Moreover, many small nations have strong records of economic growth, civil and political rights (Switzerland, Luxembourg, Singapore, Hong Kong, Norway, etc.)

Fallacy #8 -- Government that governs closest to the people is NOT the best governance ??!!

How anyone can logically conclude that a one-size fits all solution emanating from bureaucrats and politicians in Washington is more accountable and responsive than government from a state capital far closer to the people and more intimate with each states unique problems?

Unfortunately, it is true that many leftwing ideologues think that a bureaucrat or politician thousands of miles removed from society in Washington is better able to decide what a citizen needs or wants than that citizen himself.

This is the very definition of arrogance and tyranny. Nonetheless, I am sure that these leftists can find a state that suits their needs and be comforted in the fact that their state of choice will provide the highest standards of living. Yet we all know that they won't accept this bargain because deep down they fear competition and free choice because it will expose the absurdity and bankruptcy of their ideology.

In contrast, government that governs closest to the people governs best. It is obvious, these politicians will be serving their constituents with money from their district for their district. They know best how to fund and where to fund and what projects to fund. Indeed, every state and community has its own unique problems and strengths that require local experts to address, not some clueless bureaucrat thousands of miles removed from the problem.

Fallacy #9 -- Choice and competition are not beneficial??!!

This is the typical sentiment of tyrants and their dupes. They reject competition because they know their coercive and destructive schemes would fall like a house of cards if faced with freedom of choice by the citizenry. Indeed, it would be extremely beneficial to have a United States in which the economic services currently mismanaged by the coercive monopoly in Washington was suddenly downsized and broken-up into 50 disparate and competing state enterprises.

We have seen that smaller states can function and manage public goods as efficiently as any large state and in many cases far more efficiently and with less corruption and more accountability. Moreover, the United States would have a supreme advantage over these smaller states in Europe, Latin American and the Asian Pacific Rim in that our competing states would still share the same language, legal system, national defense, and all of its citizens and commerce could travel unrestricted from state to state.

Indeed, the only change would be to transfer economic management of responsibilities to the individual states that all rational, objective and independent thinking citizens recognized that our large and unresponsive Federal government has failed to deliver with any measure of financial responsibility.

Moreover, if a citizen does not trust or appreciate the level of government services provided, it is far easier to move across state lines than to move to another nation. Indeed, the Federal government would insure that commerce and labor could travel unrestricted across state lines (commerce clause).

In sum, it is manifestly absurd and delusional to think that 50 states competing for the favors of the citizenry would be less responsive and accountable than a single massive coercive central government monopoly in Washington.

Fallacy #10 -- Obamacult is a intolerant and rigid ideologue.

This is laughable and hypocritical coming from a forum that is universally dominated by leftwing dogma while I am generally the only conservative-libertarian arguing for a particular point of view.

In sum, I am the lone conservative voice within a leftwing echo chamber, and yet amusingly, I am called intolerant?!!

Fallacy # 11 -- My vote during Federal elections matters.

This is really an indictment on the absurdity of voting in Presidential elections when your vote is worth 1/120,000,000 and to make matters worse, it is for the lesser of two evils.

Indeed, if power was transferred to the states, your vote would be demonstrably more valuable since it would be among far less competitors. Moreover, it is far easier for a third party candidate or party to make inroads within a targeted state then in a national election. Hence, a transfer of economic power to the states would lend itself to a more responsive and dynamic political competition that would make it easier for third party candidates to leverage an advantage in a couple states with electorates favorable to their policies. Moreover, your vote, while still hardly a determining factor, would still account for more weight than national elections where it is virtually useless, particularly in the 80% of the states that represent non-battleground states.

Fallacy #12 -- I benefit more when the federal government spends my taxes.

Wrong, when taxes go to the federal government the benefits are dispersed among 310 million citizens among a land mass that is demonstrably larger than any single state. In contrast, taxpayers at the state level are far more likely to directly benefit from tax expenditures for obvious reasons.

Fallacy #13 -- The federal government can more effectively and impartially promote and preserve civil and political rights while managing myriad economic responsibilities at the same time.

Of course, the opposite is true. When the federal government oversees redistribution of trillions of dollars in tax and regulatory policy -- it invites the kind of corruption that rots and destroys nations from the inside out in a mountain of corruption and cronyism. Indeed, by removing the money from the federal government -- it can more effectively accomplish its primary beneficial responsibility of protecting life, liberty, private property and enforcing contracts.

To use an analogy, the federal government is the preeminent 'referee' in the economy in particular and society in general -- however when this referee enters the game as a profit-seeking 'player' -- then its ability to make accurate and fair calls is severely and irreparably compromised to the detriment of society.

[Farnhamia]

Again, all the good ideas they stand for are supported by the Democrats. The Greens have no base and no chance of getting anyone elected to anything above dog-catcher.

That's because of American Politics .

You also have Justice Party but it's like Greens little chance off getting in to the government .

The Justice Party, yeah. Wiki sayeth of Rocky Anderson, the founder:

Formerly a member of the Democratic Party, Anderson expressed his disappointment with that Party in 2011,[17] stating, “The Constitution has been eviscerated while Democrats have stood by with nary a whimper. It is a gutless, unprincipled party, bought and paid for by the same interests that buy and pay for the Republican Party."[18] Anderson announced his intention to run for President in 2012 as a candidate for the newly formed Justice Party.[19]

Right there is the problem with American "minor parties." They think that if they can just win the presidency, everything will be okay. What Anderson should have said is, "I'm going work hard to build a support base for the Justice Party, starting with local governments and working my way up. It won't be easy, my friends, and it won't happen overnight, but we can make it happen!"

[Frisivisia]

Most of them are not nation-states at all, and many of those which are technically counted as independent nation-states (Liechtenstein etc.) are actually dependent on others to perform the major functions of government for them (they are incapable of managing their own currencies or defending themselves etc.)

Duh!

Read this:

Fallacy #1 -- empowering the individual states to manage health care, education, retirement, transportation, etc. is a return to the Articles of Confederation

This is a typical strawman argument from the peanut gallery because Washington would still be responsible for national defense and insuring unrestricted commerce between the individual states. Hence, the Bill of Rights would remain intact and life, liberty, private property and contracts would still be protected by the Federal government. The only difference is that governance of most economic issues would return to the states or the individual as was the case for over 100 years after the Constitution was ratified in the late 1780's.

Fallacy #2 -- The Federal government is doing just fine managing health care and retirement.

The United States government paid over $400,000,000,000 per year on the average to service a debt of over $16,000,000,000,000 over the last four years. Moreover, the average interest payment for the last ten years is over $350,000,000,000 and growing!

If this doesn't expose the peanut gallery argument that 'the debt doesn't matter' as pure deluded and destructive bullshit, then nothing will. To illustrate the opportunity costs of this expenditure (in 2008 dollars), it would pay the salaries of 4,000,000 teachers, 25,000 junior highs, 8000 hospitals (4-8 stories), 100,000 nursing homes, etc.

Fallacy #3 -- It is incredibly bad to have a short-lived private sector monopoly within a single industry, but the Mother of All Monopolies represented by a leviathan government that lords over virtually all commerce with unchallenged monopolistic tax and regulatory policy is hunky dory?!!

This pretty much exposes the ridiculous house of cards ideological foundation upon which statism rests. For example, they become apoplectic when faced with a single monopoly within a single industry that can easily be overcome with competition, boycotts, substitution goods, etc. In contrast, statists fawn over the monopoly in Washington that is protected from competition, boycotts, and substitution goods by threat of violence. If you examine the way Washington does business and how it deals with the citizenry -- it is a textbook example of an unyielding, coercive and destructive monopoly that no private sector monopoly has ever or will ever approach in the size and scope of coercion.

Fallacy #4 -- Profit is bad.

Profit informs a free society where capital and labor must be allocated to provide the most benefits based on the preferences of free people and NOT some politician or bureaucrat acting in his own interest. Indeed, firms that make the most profit best satisfy consumer preferences in a free society through voluntary exchanges that always benefit everyone involved in the exchange or the transaction would never have occurred.

Without profit, society has no idea of where to allocate scarce resources. Government cannot efficiently or rationally manage societal resources due to the economic calculation problem outlined below:

Economic Calculation Problem of Command Economies

Fallacy #5 -- Statists say we should downsize banks so they are not too big to fail, but a huge monopolistic government in Washington that borrows 40 cents on every dollar and is paying interest on debt of over 100% of GDP and growing is fine the way it is??!!

Indeed, my view is that government in Washington is too big to fail and by breaking up this inefficient and oppressive monopoly control over economic issues. Washington still maintains its role protecting life, liberty, private property and enforcing contracts by control of the armed forces, federal law enforcement and legal arbiter of last resort. Moreover if a state went bankrupt, the Feds would treat this the same as any large scale private bankruptcy and assume temporary ownership and restructuring responsibility until the state could get back on its feet.

Fallacy #6 -- The debt doesn't matter because who owe it to ourselves or it won't effect us ?!!

The debt must be addressed and there is only a few ways this can happen:

1) higher taxes that will cause capital and talent to offshore thereby further eroding the tax base. Indeed, there are some drones who say this isn't a problem despite the fact that Obama mentioned numerous times during the recent campaign that it is A PROBLEM.

2) print money that will debase the currency causing interest rates to rise, inflation that is the cruelest tax of all on the poor, debt payments to rise, loss of confidence in the US government and ultimate capitulation.

3) more borrowing that will cause America's credit worthiness to decline, interest rates to rise, debt to increase, further leading to a series of debilitating economic decision that will ultimately be thrust on the lap of Main Street in significantly reduced growth, decreases in discretionary income and declining living standards.

4) eliminate or reduce promised benefits in social security and health care leading to lower standards of living. Indeed, this is generational theft since young people paying into the system today will never get anything close to what they contribute into the system.

Fallacy #7 -- Smaller populations and smaller states have less efficient governments ???!!

Absurd, the geopolitic has myriad examples of governments smaller than most US states that function very well within societies of small populations. Indeed, the ten least corrupt states (Finland, Sweden, Iceland, Singapore, Canada, etc.) all have populations less then many US states. Moreover, many small nations have strong records of economic growth, civil and political rights (Switzerland, Luxembourg, Singapore, Hong Kong, Norway, etc.)

Fallacy #8 -- Government that governs closest to the people is NOT the best governance ??!!

How anyone can logically conclude that a one-size fits all solution emanating from bureaucrats and politicians in Washington is more accountable and responsive than government from a state capital far closer to the people and more intimate with each states unique problems?

Unfortunately, it is true that many leftwing ideologues think that a bureaucrat or politician thousands of miles removed from society in Washington is better able to decide what a citizen needs or wants than that citizen himself.

This is the very definition of arrogance and tyranny. Nonetheless, I am sure that these leftists can find a state that suits their needs and be comforted in the fact that their state of choice will provide the highest standards of living. Yet we all know that they won't accept this bargain because deep down they fear competition and free choice because it will expose the absurdity and bankruptcy of their ideology.

In contrast, government that governs closest to the people governs best. It is obvious, these politicians will be serving their constituents with money from their district for their district. They know best how to fund and where to fund and what projects to fund. Indeed, every state and community has its own unique problems and strengths that require local experts to address, not some clueless bureaucrat thousands of miles removed from the problem.

Fallacy #9 -- Choice and competition are not beneficial??!!

This is the typical sentiment of tyrants and their dupes. They reject competition because they know their coercive and destructive schemes would fall like a house of cards if faced with freedom of choice by the citizenry. Indeed, it would be extremely beneficial to have a United States in which the economic services currently mismanaged by the coercive monopoly in Washington was suddenly downsized and broken-up into 50 disparate and competing state enterprises.

We have seen that smaller states can function and manage public goods as efficiently as any large state and in many cases far more efficiently and with less corruption and more accountability. Moreover, the United States would have a supreme advantage over these smaller states in Europe, Latin American and the Asian Pacific Rim in that our competing states would still share the same language, legal system, national defense, and all of its citizens and commerce could travel unrestricted from state to state.

Indeed, the only change would be to transfer economic management of responsibilities to the individual states that all rational, objective and independent thinking citizens recognized that our large and unresponsive Federal government has failed to deliver with any measure of financial responsibility.

Moreover, if a citizen does not trust or appreciate the level of government services provided, it is far easier to move across state lines than to move to another nation. Indeed, the Federal government would insure that commerce and labor could travel unrestricted across state lines (commerce clause).

In sum, it is manifestly absurd and delusional to think that 50 states competing for the favors of the citizenry would be less responsive and accountable than a single massive coercive central government monopoly in Washington.

Fallacy #10 -- Obamacult is a intolerant and rigid ideologue.

This is laughable and hypocritical coming from a forum that is universally dominated by leftwing dogma while I am generally the only conservative-libertarian arguing for a particular point of view.

In sum, I am the lone conservative voice within a leftwing echo chamber, and yet amusingly, I am called intolerant?!!

Fallacy # 11 -- My vote during Federal elections matters.

This is really an indictment on the absurdity of voting in Presidential elections when your vote is worth 1/120,000,000 and to make matters worse, it is for the lesser of two evils.

Indeed, if power was transferred to the states, your vote would be demonstrably more valuable since it would be among far less competitors. Moreover, it is far easier for a third party candidate or party to make inroads within a targeted state then in a national election. Hence, a transfer of economic power to the states would lend itself to a more responsive and dynamic political competition that would make it easier for third party candidates to leverage an advantage in a couple states with electorates favorable to their policies. Moreover, your vote, while still hardly a determining factor, would still account for more weight than national elections where it is virtually useless, particularly in the 80% of the states that represent non-battleground states.

Fallacy #12 -- I benefit more when the federal government spends my taxes.

Wrong, when taxes go to the federal government the benefits are dispersed among 310 million citizens among a land mass that is demonstrably larger than any single state. In contrast, taxpayers at the state level are far more likely to directly benefit from tax expenditures for obvious reasons.

Fallacy #13 -- The federal government can more effectively and impartially promote and preserve civil and political rights while managing myriad economic responsibilities at the same time.

Of course, the opposite is true. When the federal government oversees redistribution of trillions of dollars in tax and regulatory policy -- it invites the kind of corruption that rots and destroys nations from the inside out in a mountain of corruption and cronyism. Indeed, by removing the money from the federal government -- it can more effectively accomplish its primary beneficial responsibility of protecting life, liberty, private property and enforcing contracts.

To use an analogy, the federal government is the preeminent 'referee' in the economy in particular and society in general -- however when this referee enters the game as a profit-seeking 'player' -- then its ability to make accurate and fair calls is severely and irreparably compromised to the detriment of society.

That straw man copypasta you've posted a thousand times? Yeah, we've read it, and no, it still doesn't prove anything.

[Terraius]

What do you fawn over dude besides asking for sources to easily verified truths that any self-respecting first year geography student could plainly see was accurate.

More so, considering that I have on more than one occasion provided more substantive, objective, factual and empirically supported sources in a single post than you have in months of many inane retorts devoid of a shred of data or facts.

You really dont need to resort to borderline ad hominum to get your point across. I understand this is NS General and 99% of arguments include character assassinations cleverly masked as legitimate points, but there is a fine line I think that has to be drawn. Theres no need to come off as an arrogant confrontationalist just because people arn't willing to jump behind your posts as 'reliable scientific evidence.'

[Vultasia]

Both parties are holding your country back.

Republicans are just stupid cavemen unable to move on with the times.
Democrats are stupid, paranoid fuckwits who thinks expelling High School kids for admiring Japan in the name of "Public Safety" is justifiable.

[Terraius]

Both parties are holding your country back.

Republicans are just stupid cavemen unable to move on with the times.
Democrats are stupid, paranoid fuckwits who thinks expelling High School kids for admiring Japan in the name of "Public Safety" is justifiable.

Think you have another country in mind.

[Magnus Portucale]

That's because of American Politics .

You also have Justice Party but it's like Greens little chance off getting in to the government .

The Justice Party, yeah. Wiki sayeth of Rocky Anderson, the founder:

Formerly a member of the Democratic Party, Anderson expressed his disappointment with that Party in 2011,[17] stating, “The Constitution has been eviscerated while Democrats have stood by with nary a whimper. It is a gutless, unprincipled party, bought and paid for by the same interests that buy and pay for the Republican Party."[18] Anderson announced his intention to run for President in 2012 as a candidate for the newly formed Justice Party.[19]

Right there is the problem with American "minor parties." They think that if they can just win the presidency, everything will be okay. What Anderson should have said is, "I'm going work hard to build a support base for the Justice Party, starting with local governments and working my way up. It won't be easy, my friends, and it won't happen overnight, but we can make it happen!"

You are right .

[Farnhamia]

Both parties are holding your country back.

Republicans are just stupid cavemen unable to move on with the times.
Democrats are stupid, paranoid fuckwits who thinks expelling High School kids for admiring Japan in the name of "Public Safety" is justifiable.

Suggest a solution.

[Alien Space Bats]

The problem with pushing power down to the States lies not so much with the basic concept as with the execution.

In particular — and we've already seen it in this thread — there's an assumption that municipalities are too small to operate independently, and so just as power is being devolved from Washington to the States, it must be transferred up the power hierarchy to our State capitols.

Yet our own history has shown example after example after example of States wantonly violating the civil rights of their citizens; of State governments becoming the pawns of plutocrats, with State Legislatures being bought up wholesale by moneyed interests, and of municipal governments being crushed by State authority. It never ceases to amaze me that the same people who rail against Federal "tyranny" — of which there are precious few examples in our history — have no problem whatsoever with State tyranny — of which we have numerous examples, coupled with more cases of outright corruption than you can shake a hundred sticks at.

Against this, advocates of "States' rights" claim that State power is more easily beaten back and both corruption and tyranny at the State level more easily defeated; yet anyone reasonably familiar with American history knows that to be an utter lie. Could Jim Crow ever have been broken without the intervention of the Federal government? Are there not numerous examples of States where outright corruption went on for decades utterly unchecked? Is wrongful incarceration in a State prison on trumped up or manufactured charges somehow preferable to the same in a Federal prison?

The thing is, Federalism is not in and of itself a bad idea; it's actually quite a good idea — but it's one that we've never quite implemented correctly, and it's one that its most fervent current proponents, seeking little more than to turn the clock back to a "more comfortable" time, seem Hell-bent on getting wrong.

The right way to do it is to set the Federal government over the States as an effective watchdog, while giving the States the collective power to hold the Federal government in check. Likewise, we need to do the same thing at the municipal level: Give municipalities the means to collectively hold their State governments accountable while giving the States watchdog authority over them; and finally, to complete the picture, we need aggressive Federal efforts to police municipal corruption, because — as a rule — the smaller the government, the easier it is to buy. If State power is challenged at both ends, by the People and municipalities from below and by Federal authority from above, then that effective combination stands the best chance of keeping States honest.

Then and only then can we decentralize authority to the States, knowing that we have created the proper checks against corruption, tyranny, and abuse of authority at the State level.

[Vultasia]

Both parties are holding your country back.

Republicans are just stupid cavemen unable to move on with the times.
Democrats are stupid, paranoid fuckwits who thinks expelling High School kids for admiring Japan in the name of "Public Safety" is justifiable.

Think you have another country in mind.

I'm thinking of a country whose "left-wing" party was once great until they did a shit job by privitising their space programme and supporting the much worse-than-government rebels in Syria.

Even the Centre-Right party of Germany is more left-wing than America's left wing party.

[Terraius]

Think you have another country in mind.

I'm thinking of a country whose "left-wing" party was once great until they did a shit job by privitising their space programme and supporting the much worse-than-government rebels in Syria.

Even the Centre-Right party of Germany is more left-wing than America's left wing party.

Eh, the CDU are liberal christians for sure, but I wouldnt call them more left wing than our left wing party. They both have radically different views. That and the European understanding of 'liberal' can be interchangeable with 'conservative' depending on the context. American 'liberal' and 'conservative' have different meanings and approaches than the traditional understandings of what the rest of the world would view them

[Grenartia]

bullshit

Take it back to your own damn thread, and stop fucking thread jacking. Nobody wants it here.

[Nulono]

Democrats are stupid, paranoid fuckwits who thinks expelling High School kids for admiring Japan in the name of "Public Safety" is justifiable.

Source?

[Die Oranje-Vrystaat]

Why can't people just agree states are different? There are left-wing states and right-wing states? Come on, just be rational. Not everyone is going to agree with you and that's fine. Because there are right-wing states and left-wing states.

[Grenartia]

Why can't people just agree states are different? There are left-wing states and right-wing states? Come on, just be rational. Not everyone is going to agree with you and that's fine. Because there are right-wing states and left-wing states.

Because I should be able to expect to be treated like a human fucking being in ALL 50 states, as opposed to less than half, as currently stands.

[Die Oranje-Vrystaat]

Why can't people just agree states are different? There are left-wing states and right-wing states? Come on, just be rational. Not everyone is going to agree with you and that's fine. Because there are right-wing states and left-wing states.

Because I should be able to expect to be treated like a human fucking being in ALL 50 states, as opposed to less than half, as currently stands.

You are treated as a human being, what are you talking about? If you want to feel victimised just go to Uganda or somewhere. I meant Nebraska people will never live as California people do, so just stop trying to put your policies into our laws.

[Virenna]

Why can't people just agree states are different? There are left-wing states and right-wing states? Come on, just be rational. Not everyone is going to agree with you and that's fine. Because there are right-wing states and left-wing states.

Because I should be able to expect to be treated like a human fucking being in ALL 50 states, as opposed to less than half, as currently stands.

Oh, so when you travel into your rival party's states you are violently attacked and robbed, and you are not allowed running water, electricity, or food? Please, the amount of entitlement the citizens of the first world place on themselves is ridiculous. Be happy your country allows views counter to your own; Grenartia is right.

[Farnhamia]

Because I should be able to expect to be treated like a human fucking being in ALL 50 states, as opposed to less than half, as currently stands.

You are treated as a human being, what are you talking about? If you want to feel victimised just go to Uganda or somewhere. I meant Nebraska people will never live as California people do, so just stop trying to put your policies into our laws.

You first. Be the bigger person.

[Die Oranje-Vrystaat]

You are treated as a human being, what are you talking about? If you want to feel victimised just go to Uganda or somewhere. I meant Nebraska people will never live as California people do, so just stop trying to put your policies into our laws.

You first. Be the bigger person.

Ok, tell me when Nebraskans tried to tell you how to run your state.

[Die Oranje-Vrystaat]

Because I should be able to expect to be treated like a human fucking being in ALL 50 states, as opposed to less than half, as currently stands.

Oh, so when you travel into your rival party's states you are violently attacked and robbed, and you are not allowed running water, electricity, or food? Please, the amount of entitlement the citizens of the first world place on themselves is ridiculous. Be happy your country allows views counter to your own; Grenartia is right.

I don't know whether this guy is agreeing with me or him.

[Terran Empire]

I dont think its just the Republicants... I think its also the Democraps. It pretty much everyone. Both are set in their ways so much that it gets in the way of actually solving a problem.

Shit i dunno, wipe the slate clean and start with all new people....

But of course the backlash.

[Farnhamia]

You first. Be the bigger person.

Ok, tell me when Nebraskans tried to tell you how to run your state.

Many Nebraskans are Republicans. The Republican Party has tried to institute an amendment to the Constitution to define marriage as only between one man and one woman. That would override any state law allowing same-sex marriage.