States Rights: What do you think?

[Olerand]

Then the United States and its Constitution need to be dissolved, and all the states can be independent and do what they want.

If they don't want that, then they have to accept federal supremacy, as is the case in all other federal nations on Earth.

Why dissolve the country or Constitution just for functioning as planned?

The American system is designed to have federal supremacy for everything the federal government has the authority to do.

The previous poster disagrees. Therefore, the Constitution must be replaced with another.

[Talonis]

Whoa, there buddy. Are you saying the south is racist over a black man in office? Here we go:

The south is predominately republican, while Obama is a democrat, a pretty left democrat. They don't like him in office because he is a democrat, not because he is black. They, me included, dislike a lot of his policies, and dislike what he is doing in office. BUT, if he was a republican, there would be no secessionist movements in the south. Just, don't jump to conclusions like that, they are not true and are made up.

Besides, political division is driving this country into the ground, not racism. Both idiots in the US government cant agree on anything, and the people have had enough. Im sure our founding fathers would be ashamed of what they created, looking at the US now.

Yes, that is exactly what I am saying.

Obama is no "left-wing Democrat", even for a Democrat he is centrist. Democrats are also not of the "left", as recognized by the rest of the developed world.

He happens to be Black, however, something centrist Clinton was not.

Political division and racism go hand in hand in American politics, along with identity politics too.

Just going to point out that "Left", "Right", and "Centrist" are geographically based- what's "Right" in one country may be "Centrist" or "Left" in another. We should look at individual issues instead of big blocks o' daftness that just serve to oversimplify an issue.

[WestRedMaple]

Why dissolve the country or Constitution just for functioning as planned?

The American system is designed to have federal supremacy for everything the federal government has the authority to do.

The previous poster disagrees. Therefore, the Constitution must be replaced with another.

You didn't really answer the question.

We can alter the Constitution whenever we feel like it. Right now, there is not the required support to do it

[Olerand]

Just going to point out that "Left", "Right", and "Centrist" are geographically based- what's "Right" in one country may be "Centrist" or "Left" in another. We should look at individual issues instead of big blocks o' daftness that just serve to oversimplify an issue.

Not really. In all developed nations, the "left" is social-democracy, socialism, as represented by Labour Parties/Social Democratic Parties/Socialist Parties.

In America, the "left" is liberalism. Liberalism exists in Europe, and is centrist.

The right in America is also, nowadays, the far-right of Europe.

America alone is the exception, there is a general rule for these things, America simply does not follow it.

The previous poster disagrees. Therefore, the Constitution must be replaced with another.

You didn't really answer the question.

We can alter the Constitution whenever we feel like it. Right now, there is not the required support to do it

I was referring to the previous poster who wanted state supremacy over the federal government.
If he wants that, then the Constitution must be replaced.

I, could not care less, and would not suggest America change its constitution.

[Atlanticatia]

The south is predominately republican, while Obama is a democrat, a pretty left democrat.

Have you ever wondered why that is?

The South votes Republican because the GOP appeals to racists - the Southern Strategy.

Remember when this openly racist antisemtic Neo-Nazi white supremacist won a seat in the Louisiana House of Representatives (under the GOP name) just 20 years ago? And then he got 40% of the vote for Louisiana governor.

Now, if David Duke -- basically the most extreme far-right a neo-nazi racist antisemite can get -- is able to get elected to the Louisiana House + get quite a significant vote for governor -- it isn't that crazy of an idea that the GOP is popular in the South because of their more "moderate" racist ideals. (i.e. the ideals where they might not actually say "n****r" but are still pretty fucking racist).

[Ripoll]

Just going to point out that "Left", "Right", and "Centrist" are geographically based- what's "Right" in one country may be "Centrist" or "Left" in another. We should look at individual issues instead of big blocks o' daftness that just serve to oversimplify an issue.

Not really. In all developed nations, the "left" is social-democracy, socialism, as represented by Labour Parties/Social Democratic Parties/Socialist Parties.

In America, the "left" is liberalism. Liberalism exists in Europe, and is centrist.

The right in America is also, nowadays, the far-right of Europe.

America alone is the exception, there is a general rule for these things, America simply does not follow it.

Didn't realize there was an international committee for accepted forms of political parties. Apparently the US working center "right" has been better off than the rest of the world for some time now.

[Ripoll]

The south is predominately republican, while Obama is a democrat, a pretty left democrat.

Have you ever wondered why that is?

The South votes Republican because the GOP appeals to racists - the Southern Strategy.

Remember when this openly racist antisemtic Neo-Nazi white supremacist won a seat in the Louisiana House of Representatives (under the GOP name) just 20 years ago? And then he got 40% of the vote for Louisiana governor.

Now, if David Duke -- basically the most extreme far-right a neo-nazi racist antisemite can get -- is able to get elected to the Louisiana House + get quite a significant vote for governor -- it isn't that crazy of an idea that the GOP is popular in the South because of their more "moderate" racist ideals. (i.e. the ideals where they might not actually say "n****r" but are still pretty fucking racist).

Calling the GOP racist supporting and all these other political smears is why people hate modern day liberals. If you wan't to convince the people to start voting democratic focus on the economy and less on the politics.

[Olerand]

Didn't realize there was an international committee for accepted forms of political parties. Apparently the US working center "right" has been better off than the rest of the world for some time now.

There is no "committee", but there are social-democratic parties in all other developed nations, including CAN/AUS/NZ who represent the "left".

Only in America is liberalism "left".

And I didn't understand the second part, kindly clarify.

[Zorga]

The south is predominately republican, while Obama is a democrat, a pretty left democrat.

Have you ever wondered why that is?

The South votes Republican because the GOP appeals to racists - the Southern Strategy.

Remember when this open racist antisemtic Neo-Nazi white supremacist won a seat in the Louisiana House of Representatives (under the GOP name) just 20 years ago? And then he got 40% of the vote for Louisiana governor.

Now, if David Duke -- basically the most extreme far-right a neo-nazi racist antisemite can get -- is able to get elected to the Louisiana House + get quite a significant vote for governor -- it isn't that crazy of an idea that the GOP is popular in the South because of their more "moderate" racist ideals. (i.e. the ideals where they might not actually say "n****r" but are still pretty fucking racist).

Well, some people take advantage over the south's slavery and use that for a backing or a safe haven for spreading their ideals. I do think that rascists like the GOP's anti Obama stuff, as he is black. But, that doesnt mean they will switch over, when a Black GOP president is in office, which will eventually happen.

[Twilight Imperium]

Just going to point out that "Left", "Right", and "Centrist" are geographically based- what's "Right" in one country may be "Centrist" or "Left" in another. We should look at individual issues instead of big blocks o' daftness that just serve to oversimplify an issue.

Yeah, I mean one of them created a large, controversial economically powerful policy after inheriting a bad national economy, had a talent for oration, and a history of political activism, and the other was.. who?

But they're surely different enough on the policies that the South is flipping their shit over that, and not his race.

[Talonis]

Just going to point out that "Left", "Right", and "Centrist" are geographically based- what's "Right" in one country may be "Centrist" or "Left" in another. We should look at individual issues instead of big blocks o' daftness that just serve to oversimplify an issue.

Not really. In all developed nations, the "left" is social-democracy, socialism, as represented by Labour Parties/Social Democratic Parties/Socialist Parties.

In America, the "left" is liberalism. Liberalism exists in Europe, and is centrist.

The right in America is also, nowadays, the far-right of Europe.

America alone is the exception, there is a general rule for these things, America simply does not follow it.

China disagrees. Also, you only take developed nations into consideration here, and the original definition was peeps what didn't like dem French monarchs (might've paraphrased some).
You also say, essentially, that all developed countries have the same economic, environmental, cultural, and nationalist/anti-nationalist views. So tell me more about how Japan is literally just Spain with a different language. Or explain how Greece has the exact same economic policy as the UK and gets such a different result.

[Olerand]

China disagrees. Also, you only take developed nations into consideration here, and the original definition was peeps what didn't like dem French monarchs (might've paraphrased some).
You also say, essentially, that all developed countries have the same economic, environmental, cultural, and nationalist/anti-nationalist views. So tell me more about how Japan is literally just Spain with a different language. Or explain how Greece has the exact same economic policy as the UK and gets such a different result.

Is the United States' political culture comparable to China? I was giving it the benefit of the doubt and comparing it to other developed nations, but I mean, if you want to compare yourselves to China, feel free.

The United States, being a developed nation, is only comparable to other developed nations.

I never said that, I defined what "left" and "right" are. The left in Japan is their Social Democratic and Communist Parties, their "center" is their Democratic Party, and they will tell you as much.

In all developed nations, the "left" and "right' are the same. Except America.

The rest of your post is completely irrelevant as it presumes something I never said.

[Ripoll]

China disagrees. Also, you only take developed nations into consideration here, and the original definition was peeps what didn't like dem French monarchs (might've paraphrased some).
You also say, essentially, that all developed countries have the same economic, environmental, cultural, and nationalist/anti-nationalist views. So tell me more about how Japan is literally just Spain with a different language. Or explain how Greece has the exact same economic policy as the UK and gets such a different result.

Is the United States' political culture comparable to China? I was giving it the benefit of the doubt and comparing it to other developed nations, but I mean, if you want to compare yourselves to China, feel free.

The United States, being a developed nation, is only comparable to other developed nations.

I never said that, I defined what "left" and "right" are. The left in Japan is their Social Democratic and Communist Parties, their "center" is their Democratic Party, and they will tell you as much.

In all developed nations, the "left" and "right' are the same. Except America.

The rest of your post is completely irrelevant as it presumes something I never said.

the US and China re the two most powerful countries in the world. How is comparing us to china a smear.

[Olerand]

the US and China re the two most powerful countries in the world. How is comparing us to china a smear.

Because China is a single-party dictatorship. Do you know what political culture means?

[Talonis]

China disagrees. Also, you only take developed nations into consideration here, and the original definition was peeps what didn't like dem French monarchs (might've paraphrased some).
You also say, essentially, that all developed countries have the same economic, environmental, cultural, and nationalist/anti-nationalist views. So tell me more about how Japan is literally just Spain with a different language. Or explain how Greece has the exact same economic policy as the UK and gets such a different result.

Is the United States' political culture comparable to China? I was giving it the benefit of the doubt and comparing it to other developed nations, but I mean, if you want to compare yourselves to China, feel free.

The United States, being a developed nation, is only comparable to other developed nations.

I never said that, I defined what "left" and "right" are. The left in Japan is their Social Democratic and Communist Parties, their "center" is their Democratic Party, and they will tell you as much.

In all developed nations, the "left" and "right' are the same. Except America.

The rest of your post is completely irrelevant as it presumes something I never said.

Incorrect.
You stated that America is the ONLY exception, meaning that everyone else has a similar system. That is also incorrect, which is what I was showing.
China, further, is developed, unless being the home of the world's biggest company, having the second most buying power, and having a modern infrastructure in cities is undeveloped.

[Atlanticatia]

To be fair, the US does have a 'left' presence in the center-left social democratic Progressive Caucus. Our 2-party system has led to, well, two parties - however within the parties there are quite different factions. I do agree that overall the Democratic Party is a centrist social liberal party.

[Olerand]

Incorrect.
You stated that America is the ONLY exception, meaning that everyone else has a similar system. That is also incorrect, which is what I was showing.
China, further, is developed, unless being the home of the world's biggest company, having the second most buying power, and having a modern infrastructure in cities is undeveloped.

The only exception amongst developed countries. Which it is.

Don't try to "trick" me, I know what I said.

I never claimed it was exceptional to the entire world.

[Ripoll]

the US and China re the two most powerful countries in the world. How is comparing us to china a smear.

Because China is a single-party dictatorship. Do you know what political culture means?

values and norms that define a nation. China has values and norms, as does the US. We might not share those values and norms but frankly China doesn't abide by the same political ramifications Europe does. And Europe doesn't mean the world.

[Olerand]

Because China is a single-party dictatorship. Do you know what political culture means?

values and norms that define a nation. China has values and norms, as does the US. We might not share those values and norms but frankly China doesn't abide by the same political ramifications Europe does. And Europe doesn't mean the world.

Your post is completely irrelevant and addresses somethings I never said or even thought of.

China and America don't share the same political culture.
America's political culture is "closer" to other developed liberal democracies.

That is all.

[Ripoll]

values and norms that define a nation. China has values and norms, as does the US. We might not share those values and norms but frankly China doesn't abide by the same political ramifications Europe does. And Europe doesn't mean the world.

Your post is completely irrelevant and addresses somethings I never said or even thought of.

China and America don't share the same political culture.
America's political culture is "closer" to other developed liberal democracies.

That is all.

I addressed what political culture meant and addressed the fact that every nation has one? Regardless we need to stop thread jacking about flawed European socialistic leaning politics and economic policy and start addressing the issue of state rights and I made my position on the matter very clear

Horrible idea, this lunacy is what led to countless economic hardships. The articles of confederation was terrible. States could print their own money which led to it being worthless because frankly competing currencies within the same nation is a terrible idea. States placed tariffs on each other.......yea let that sink in. The federal Government couldn't tax, the federal Government couldn't realistically raise a national army. Businesses struggled and the states refused to promote a national agenda and just focused on "improving" their societies by trying to bring down the rest of the nation around them. States as of right now are still the most powerful individual actor in any political system in the world. These radical thoughts are ridiculous and counter productive. It's simply not feasible militarily, economically, or politically. Different states promoting different agendas abroad also leads to diplomatic confusion and discourages other countries to develop close knit ties with our nation furthermore destroying any reputation we have ever had or ever will have abroad.

Take this trash somewhere else.

[Olerand]

I addressed what political culture meant and addressed the fact that every nation has one? Regardless we need to stop thread jacking about flawed European socialistic leaning politics and economic policy and start addressing the issue of state rights and I made my position on the matter very clear

So you agree that America's political culture is not similar to China's? If so, great!

The American notions of "left" "right" and what have you are indeed then the exception in the developed world.

[Ripoll]

I addressed what political culture meant and addressed the fact that every nation has one? Regardless we need to stop thread jacking about flawed European socialistic leaning politics and economic policy and start addressing the issue of state rights and I made my position on the matter very clear

So you agree that America's political culture is not similar to China's? If so, great!

The American notions of "left" "right" and what have you are indeed then the exception in the developed world.

America is the highest example of the developed world and frankly Europe isn't the only developed part of the world,

[Olerand]

So you agree that America's political culture is not similar to China's? If so, great!

The American notions of "left" "right" and what have you are indeed then the exception in the developed world.

America is the highest example of the developed world and frankly Europe isn't the only developed part of the world,

No, along with Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Israel, Japan, and South Korea. And they all fit in the "left" "right" differences of Europe.

As for the other assertion, sure, why not.

[Nazi Flower Power]

For the past three-hundred years, the United States has been quarreling about the same old issue: States Rights. I have put a lot of thought into the topic, and, based on my biases(my opinion may not be the best), that the States need to receive more rights, and, most of all, State law should definitely supersede Federal law. Developing this theory however, does indeed, put up quite a bit of controversy.

States' rights is not really that huge of an issue, and it has never been very divisive. The most serious disagreements have always been about other things. Sometimes states' rights come up in the course of a debate, but they are not the reason the debate started in the first place.

For example, when Massachusetts was the only state allowing gay marriage, that turned into a "states' rights" issue with Massachusetts saying the federal government should recognize any marriage that the state recognized (because marriages are authorized by states, not a federal agency) and the religious right going, "Nooooo! Only OUR states are supposed to have rights! Our rights are being violated because gay people from Massachusetts could move to our state!" Even though people on both sides of the debate brought up states' rights, it was pretty clear that the reason they were arguing in the first place was because the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and the religious right had a difference of opinion on homosexuality.

It's worth noting that if you compare this to the debate about slavery in the 19th century, and you treat both as "states' rights" issues, New England and the South have switched sides. The 19th century South said a state's right to maintain a controversial institution was more important than others' right not to recognize it. In the debate about gay marriage, the religious right (who are mostly Southerners) said the exact opposite. So either the South has completely changed its conception of states' rights, or states' rights was never the real issue.

I tend to think states' rights was never the real issue.

There is always the argument that the Federal government is the only thing keeping the Union together, and that it is dire that the Federal law reigns supreme, but, what if the current domestic policies are not the best? What if the constitution needs to be edited and once again, amended?

What do you think?????

If the Constitution needs to be amended, then get it amended.

I actually support the right of states to secede, but as long as they are in the Union, they have to comply with federal law. It defeats the purpose of the Union if states are not subject to federal law. States that don't want to follow federal law should not be the federal government's responsibility to defend militarily, provide disaster relief, fund the building of infrastructure, or provide any public service.

[Glorious Freedonia]

The trick is to have a small but powerful central government and powerful states. It isn't that states could reject federal government unless it was an obvious abuse of federal power. If the federal government dealt only with international relations, interstate trade, and defense. States would have a lot more areas to act and we would have lots of social experiments in the various states.