If we do away with individual states, we will then be governed (ruled) by one all-powerful central government over which we have little, or no electoral recourse. Once size fits all. What’s good for Manhattan is good for Amarillo. Last week’s presidential election was a repudiation of that notion. Looking at the above map, there is obviously a wide disparity of thought between the densely populated urban areas and the that huge red area known as “flyover country”. What’s good for Miami is not necessarily what’s good for Omaha. This piece by the Washington Post shows that the mainstream media still doesn’t get it. But it fits their current effort to attack the Electoral College.

Quote:While Donald Trump resoundingly won the electoral college — the state-based “point system” we’ve used in presidential elections for more than two centuries — Hillary Clinton won the popular vote by about 780,000 as of a week out of the election. In other words, more Americans wanted Clinton to win, reason enough to revisit the wisdom of using the electoral college to determine elections. But a larger, more important argument is often overlooked in this ongoing debate.

The United States of America: We use the phrase all the time but rarely think of what the words actually mean. In 1776, when this country officially became the United States of America, the words signified a bold idea. Geographic neighbors had formed alliances previously in history to form nations, of course, but these united states shared a vision and philosophy that was literally revolutionary.

The coming together of 13 disparate colonies was itself a historic achievement; never before, perhaps, had a collection of diverse, often contrarian regions merged to create a country whose leaders so vigorously rejected the political and religious doctrines of the times. (The people were not as enthusiastic.) We tend to forget how difficult a process the uniting of the original states was, as the cultural boundaries of the 13 regions persisted after the Founding Fathers joined forces to form a federated republic.

But times have changed, and we need to rethink the notion of the “United States of America.” Our states are no longer culturally diverse regions with their own respective identities; rather, they are artificially constructed geographic entities that certainly would not be formed today. Borderlines between states are especially nonsensical. Pensacola, Fla., is a lot more like Mobile, Ala., than Miami. Upstate New Yorkers are less than happy about being in the same tax pool as Manhattanites.

In fact, despite all the attention to divisions within the country based on geography (or race, gender, class or any other demographic measure, for that matter), Americans share a remarkably similar way of thinking and acting. (The so-called red-vs.-blue-state divide is a crude, media-driven concept that looks great on maps but has little basis in reality.) Regional differences have drastically dissipated over the course of the past 240 years, turning the once radical proposition of the “United States” into an anachronism that now has little or no real value.

More than anything, it was the barrage of mass media and mass marketing through the 20th century that crushed regionality in this country (and much of the world), flattening out attitudinal and behavioral dissimilarities. Suburbanization — as well as the kudzu-like spread of strip malls, chain stores and franchises — transformed much of the country’s physical landscape into something that makes it difficult to know where one is.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/in-t...061bf3899c

The alt-left is freaking out and playing their cards face up at this point. Looks like Alex Jones was right, yet again.

They get nuttier by the minute don't they?

Even as they are recoiling in fear of the almost limitless power about to be bestowed upon Trump (in large part due to the radical expansion of executive privilege that has taken place under Obama), they STILL want to continue to expand the power of the federal government.

(11-16-2016 12:18 AM)Kronke Wrote:  The alt-left is freaking out and playing their cards face up at this point. Looks like Alex Jones was right, yet again.

It's a full in mental breakdown. All the full tard thinking comes rushing to the surface. These people are defective. Need counseling and meds.

(11-16-2016 06:48 AM)BlazerFan11 Wrote:  Even as they are recoiling in fear of the almost limitless power about to be bestowed upon Trump (in large part due to the radical expansion of executive privilege that has taken place under Obama), they STILL want to continue to expand the power of the federal government.

Can you explain the part in bold? I thought that Obama's terms in office were horrible and that he'll go down as one of the worst presidents in history. I also thought that he went way too far pushing executive power. This last statement I'm not so sure about. I looked up the amount of executive orders by president, and he's NOT one of the problem children if you are using the number of executive orders as a metric for expanding executive power.

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/data/orders.php

That doesn't touch on the gravity of his executive orders - maybe his are way more invasive than past ones. I didn't look it up TBH, but I doubt it. Executive overreach has been a chronic issue ever since the early 1900s. I'm not going to include Obamacare in this, because I don't consider that an executive overreach but a Democratic Party overreach. It was a team effort with aid from the legislative branch.

There are 2 sides to this coin. There really isn't a reason to have states if people can freely move across them. What's a border if it isn't secured? The lines just create artificially collection of power. A good argument can be made that what is good for Manhattan isn't good for Amarillo, but an equally good argument can be made that what's good for Amarillo is not what's good for Houston.

Whoever wrote that probably really believes that crap. That's scary.

The educational system has failed our so called journalists.

(11-16-2016 08:19 AM)firmbizzle Wrote:  There are 2 sides to this coin. There really isn't a reason to have states if people can freely move across them. What's a border if it isn't secured? The lines just create artificially collection of power. A good argument can be made that what is good for Manhattan isn't good for Amarillo, but an equally good argument can be made that what's good for Amarillo is not what's good for Houston.

Sounds like a reasonable argument. However, once again, the states were not artificially created by the Federal Gov't as subdivisions of the country to manage it. There were 13 states that existed before the U.S. gov't. Even for the states made after the Federal gov't existed, they were still started as unique entities who later joined the union. The point being is that the issues between Amarillo and Houston in your hypothetical are up to the state of Texas to resolve. The Federal gov't has no issue there.

The other point is that since day one, people were ALWAYS able to move freely between states and never required documentation nor currency exchanges since the founding of the nation. This point is great if we're discussing the EU, but not meaningful when discussing the USA.

I hope you people realize the US didn't defeat King George III,... 13 individual Colonies did. Hence why KG III signe 13 separate treaties, NOT just a single document.

We are a nation of different states. Keep it so. Follow the Constitution!

Carry on!

At least the comments are very negative to that article.

We need to spend more time studying the Tenth Amendment.

Furthermore, everyone should take the time to read the Federalist Papers and the anti-Federalist responses. Maybe then they would understand the genius of the US Constitution.

Just want's his Hunger Games.

(11-16-2016 08:46 AM)Paul M Wrote:  Just want's his Hunger Games.

You aren't kidding. We are not that far off from the set up that had with elites living in the big capitol while everyone outside and it rough yet they had no say in the government because majority rules

(11-16-2016 08:22 AM)WalkThePlank Wrote:  The educational system has failed our so called journalists.

now you know why the brits despise the journos.....

hearst knew what he was doing by screwing his era and promoting failure within those moving forward.....

#propoganda/agendarule

the ethical journalist is almost dead now....those left rarely get clicks/views/reads/etc....

The States can actually make the union less vulnerable to balkanization. You think California wants to give up what power it has over its state to the federal government they share with Alabama? You think Texas wants to give up what power it has over its state to the federal government it shares with Oregon?

Our country is just too heterogeneous to completely dissolve the individual State governments. Diversity isn't necessarily a strength despite what the touchy-feely motivational posters say.

(11-15-2016 11:19 PM)usmbacker Wrote:  


If we do away with individual states, we will then be governed (ruled) by one all-powerful central government over which we have little, or no electoral recourse. Once size fits all. What’s good for Manhattan is good for Amarillo. Last week’s presidential election was a repudiation of that notion. Looking at the above map, there is obviously a wide disparity of thought between the densely populated urban areas and the that huge red area known as “flyover country”. What’s good for Miami is not necessarily what’s good for Omaha. This piece by the Washington Post shows that the mainstream media still doesn’t get it. But it fits their current effort to attack the Electoral College.

Quote:While Donald Trump resoundingly won the electoral college — the state-based “point system” we’ve used in presidential elections for more than two centuries — Hillary Clinton won the popular vote by about 780,000 as of a week out of the election. In other words, more Americans wanted Clinton to win, reason enough to revisit the wisdom of using the electoral college to determine elections. But a larger, more important argument is often overlooked in this ongoing debate.

The United States of America: We use the phrase all the time but rarely think of what the words actually mean. In 1776, when this country officially became the United States of America, the words signified a bold idea. Geographic neighbors had formed alliances previously in history to form nations, of course, but these united states shared a vision and philosophy that was literally revolutionary.

The coming together of 13 disparate colonies was itself a historic achievement; never before, perhaps, had a collection of diverse, often contrarian regions merged to create a country whose leaders so vigorously rejected the political and religious doctrines of the times. (The people were not as enthusiastic.) We tend to forget how difficult a process the uniting of the original states was, as the cultural boundaries of the 13 regions persisted after the Founding Fathers joined forces to form a federated republic.

But times have changed, and we need to rethink the notion of the “United States of America.” Our states are no longer culturally diverse regions with their own respective identities; rather, they are artificially constructed geographic entities that certainly would not be formed today. Borderlines between states are especially nonsensical. Pensacola, Fla., is a lot more like Mobile, Ala., than Miami. Upstate New Yorkers are less than happy about being in the same tax pool as Manhattanites.

In fact, despite all the attention to divisions within the country based on geography (or race, gender, class or any other demographic measure, for that matter), Americans share a remarkably similar way of thinking and acting. (The so-called red-vs.-blue-state divide is a crude, media-driven concept that looks great on maps but has little basis in reality.) Regional differences have drastically dissipated over the course of the past 240 years, turning the once radical proposition of the “United States” into an anachronism that now has little or no real value.

More than anything, it was the barrage of mass media and mass marketing through the 20th century that crushed regionality in this country (and much of the world), flattening out attitudinal and behavioral dissimilarities. Suburbanization — as well as the kudzu-like spread of strip malls, chain stores and franchises — transformed much of the country’s physical landscape into something that makes it difficult to know where one is.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/in-t...061bf3899c

They need to get outside the Beltway more often. Texans are not like people anywhere else. Georgians are not like Minnesotans or Districters.

Stop trying to destroy this country.

You political power has been limited for a reason. Your ability to force your brand of change down people's throats has been limited for a reason. If you want a place that has a single sovereignty with a single power center then go find one, leave my Constitutional Federal Republic alone.

(11-16-2016 09:28 AM)ark30inf Wrote:  Stop trying to destroy this country.

You political power has been limited for a reason. Your ability to force your brand of change down people's throats has been limited for a reason. If you want a place that has a single sovereignty with a single power center then go find one, leave my Constitutional Federal Republic alone.

Political power is the raison d'être for progressives, liberals and Democrats.