• Cyburbia is a friendly big tent, where we share our experiences and thoughts about urban planning practice, the built environment, planning adjacent topics, and anything else that comes to mind. No ads, no spam, and it's free. It's easy to join!

NEVERENDING ♾️ The NEVERENDING Political Discussion Thread

Hink said:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2012/10/02/capital_gains_taxes_115635.html

This is the best article I have seen that describes why capital gains taxes are different from regular income. I wanted to get your thoughts on capital gains taxes, as I know many of you are much smarter than I when it comes to taxes and tax policy.

I don't know if I have an opinion on whether or not capital gains taxes should be lower than regular income or not. I think I can see both sides at this point.

Thoughts?
Click to expand...

His opening argument equating his ten years of work and his book royalty advance to a capital gain seems pretty flawed since the only capital he has invested is time (not counting foregone income from not investing his time elsewhere) and the laws of nature and physics do not allow him to post a gain on that form of capital.

Regarding his closing thoughts, and his opinion about politicians who "jack up tax rates" though, I disagree, especially regarding corporate taxes and capital gains. Lower corporate taxes and lower capital gains taxes encourage the financiers to take the profits out of the businesses to pay higher bonuses and dividends. If the rates were higher there would be less incentive to take as much money out because the corporations could lower their profits (and therefore their tax liability) by reinvesting those funds back into their firms to advance research, increase regular wages, improve services, etc.

Personally I would prefer to see the capital gains taxed the same as regular income.
 
Hink said:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2012/10/02/capital_gains_taxes_115635.html

This is the best article I have seen that describes why capital gains taxes are different from regular income. I wanted to get your thoughts on capital gains taxes, as I know many of you are much smarter than I when it comes to taxes and tax policy.

I don't know if I have an opinion on whether or not capital gains taxes should be lower than regular income or not. I think I can see both sides at this point.

Thoughts?
Click to expand...
The whole risk argument seems a bit disingenuous to me when there's tons of people (small business owners) that are taking tremendous risks but still taxed at the normal tax rate. With that said, I have no problems with people who actually invest in companies paying a lower tax rate. The issue I have is with derivatives where it's not shares of companies being traded but rather risk. I think money derived from that should be taxed normally in that it would discourage high risk transactions and would actually encourage physical investment in companies.

One political issue that is just baffling to me is the one the postal service has found themselves in. For the life of me I see no reason why Congress is having them over-contribute to their pension system to such an absurd degree. It's like some people have deliberately set the postal service up to fail...
 
Blide said:
One political issue that is just baffling to me is the one the postal service has found themselves in. For the life of me I see no reason why Congress is having them over-contribute to their pension system to such an absurd degree. It's like some people have deliberately set the postal service up to fail...
Click to expand...

They did. The PO was doing very well until 2006 when congress required them to pre-pay 70 years worth of pensions. I don't see any legitimate reason why this was done.
 
There should only be a few questions during the prez debate:

1. What does a pair of socks cost at Macy's? Kohls? Wal-Mart?

2. What does a pound of grapes cost?

3. What does an average hardcover book cost?

4. Do you know what BOGO means?
 
Zoning Goddess said:
There should only be a few questions during the prez debate:

1. What does a pair of socks cost at Macy's? Kohls? Wal-Mart?

2. What does a pound of grapes cost?

3. What does an average hardcover book cost?

4. Do you know what BOGO means?
Click to expand...


I don't know the answers to any of those questions!! And seriously, what the heck is BOGO?
 
What do you know about Bulderberg

I have heard some whopper conspiracy theories in my time, but this one might actually have thin threads of truth to it. Apparently the Bilderberg Group controls the world and everyone answers to them. One site named it the mother of all secret societies.

But here is the interesting twist… not only do they exist and have a website, they do talk about global politics, they do have very influential people in attendance, and they do appear to do what the conspiracy theorists say… up to the point that they don’t actually admit to having any influence on global politics.

What are your thoughts on Bilderberg? Do you think that all of our political discussions are in vein because there is a master puppeteer behind the scenes and we just see the show? Or do you think that this group of business owners are actually looking out for their best interest, but only on a corporate level?
 
michaelskis said:
What are your thoughts on Bilderberg?
Click to expand...
There are other meetings beyond this one where world leaders and business leaders frequently get together such as the Bohemian Club.

I think it's easy to see how people think there's some sinister conspiracy theory behind all these meetings. Personally I think it serves a more benign purpose of being an opportunity where the world's power players can meet each other in a candid manner where they're not going to get scrutinized by the press. I think there's too many massive egos and competing interests at play for it to be much more than that.
 
Last edited:
If there is a world wide conspiracy dedicated to making its members rich, I wish they were better at it. Wouldn't they be even richer if the world was more prosperous?
 
crime, family & politics

Written by Gregg Easterbrook:

Preach What You Practice: One of the ironies of American politics is that is politically conservative states like Texas tend to have high rates of crime, divorce and teen pregnancy, while the liberal states like Massachusetts and New York tend to have low crime rates and higher percentages of stable marriages. So do people become conservative because they look around and observe lawlessness and absence of traditional values, or does conservatism cause these things? Do people become liberal because they look around and observe stability and affluence, or because liberalism causes these things?

New York City was liberal in the 1980s when it was a homicide capital and is liberal now as one of the safest cities in the world to stroll after dark, making it hard to separate cause and effect.

Love him or hate him, on this subject you've got to read Charles Murray's new book "Coming Apart." His big point is that well-off liberals should "preach what they practice" -- that denizens of the high-income zip codes in blue states themselves have two-parent households with conventional marriages, strict work ethics and high educational achievement, yet contend no one should be judgmental about out-of-wedlock birth, bad public schools or welfare. Murray presents overwhelming evidence that although it's assumed anything goes in the sinful liberal cities while tradition rules in the Bible Belt, in the last generation it's been the other way around -- red states are plagued by divorce and teen pregnancy, blue states have conventional family values.

Coming from a radioactive conservative, this analysis is unsettling. Liberals, Murray charges, are harming the underclass by asserting that all lifestyles are equally valid -- when they know from their own experience that conventional behavior leads to the best economic and educational outcomes.
 
Planit said:
Written by Gregg Easterbrook:

Preach What You Practice: One of the ironies of American politics is that is politically conservative states like Texas tend to have high rates of crime, divorce and teen pregnancy, while the liberal states like Massachusetts and New York tend to have low crime rates and higher percentages of stable marriages. So do people become conservative because they look around and observe lawlessness and absence of traditional values, or does conservatism cause these things? Do people become liberal because they look around and observe stability and affluence, or because liberalism causes these things?

New York City was liberal in the 1980s when it was a homicide capital and is liberal now as one of the safest cities in the world to stroll after dark, making it hard to separate cause and effect.

Love him or hate him, on this subject you've got to read Charles Murray's new book "Coming Apart." His big point is that well-off liberals should "preach what they practice" -- that denizens of the high-income zip codes in blue states themselves have two-parent households with conventional marriages, strict work ethics and high educational achievement, yet contend no one should be judgmental about out-of-wedlock birth, bad public schools or welfare. Murray presents overwhelming evidence that although it's assumed anything goes in the sinful liberal cities while tradition rules in the Bible Belt, in the last generation it's been the other way around -- red states are plagued by divorce and teen pregnancy, blue states have conventional family values.

Coming from a radioactive conservative, this analysis is unsettling. Liberals, Murray charges, are harming the underclass by asserting that all lifestyles are equally valid -- when they know from their own experience that conventional behavior leads to the best economic and educational outcomes.
Click to expand...

An interesting read. My comments are directed at Easterbrook and not Planit's. I am assuming Planit just posted Easterbrook's words and not his own.

I’m not sure what to make of Murray’s position in all of this based on the info presented. First of all, I don’t think that well healed liberals are saying that no one should be judgmental about bad public schools, for example. Where did he get that idea? Second, I’m not sure what the argument here is. Is he saying liberals should stop pretending that single family or other “non-traditional” home structures are ok? To what end? To try and promote “traditional” values (whatever that is exactly) as the best way? Wouldn’t that put them in the camp of the red states that are seeing these high numbers of teen pregnancies, divorce rates and crime? Is it possible that liberal areas don’t see these high rates because they don’t “preach” these standards? Not making someone who made unfortunate decisions and got pregnant (or got someone pregnant) young or married the wrong person feel like a bad person or someone that is condemned to hell, poverty, etc. seems like a pretty good way to be. Personally I would rather encourage someone for their good decisions than denigrate them for the bad. We all make mistakes. Some of us are just lucky enough to not make some really big ones. But even when that happens, are they bad people?

Success, stable homes and higher income are all linked to education, for example. The financial challenge with any single parent household is there is only one wage earner. But depending on the circumstances, that person may be “better off” not staying in an unhappy marriage even if they are in a lower income bracket. Abusive or otherwise unhealthy relationships don’t do anyone much good, I would argue (especially the children). And how many of those two family households in liberal areas are actually those peoples’ first marriage anyway? There are a lot of factors here that have not been parsed here methinks.

Again, I think it’s the preaching that is part of the issue. At least when it comes to things like teen pregnancy. Tell any kid how much they really shouldn’t have sex until they are married, no exceptions and with threats of hell or being kicked out of the house/church and you have just elevated that activity to “highly desirable.” Same with drinking, drugs, smoking, etc. I prefer to inform and educate people about these things and allow them to make their own decisions with facts in hand (ie. comprehensive sex education, which includes abstinence, as opposed to abstinence-only curricula). They’ll have to make them anyway, whether you like it or not.

Again, I really don’t think anyone of any political persuasion is promoting that bad schools are just ok. Education reform is a cause that spans all ages and affiliations. How to make it happen is the big question.

This book sounds like a big mess of conflated data….
 
michaelskis said:
I have heard some whopper conspiracy theories in my time, but this one might actually have thin threads of truth to it. Apparently the Bilderberg Group controls the world and everyone answers to them. One site named it the mother of all secret societies.

But here is the interesting twist… not only do they exist and have a website, they do talk about global politics, they do have very influential people in attendance, and they do appear to do what the conspiracy theorists say… up to the point that they don’t actually admit to having any influence on global politics.

What are your thoughts on Bilderberg? Do you think that all of our political discussions are in vein because there is a master puppeteer behind the scenes and we just see the show? Or do you think that this group of business owners are actually looking out for their best interest, but only on a corporate level?
Click to expand...

If all of this is true then how was Bill Clinton elected president? He scared the business community to death and the Bush family have allegedly been long time members of the Bilderberg's.

I have never put much stock into conspiracy theories. People in power rarely serve as puppets for long. Besides almost every economist and corporate big wig states that Congress needs to create a budget and stop engaging in this ridiculous brinksmanship regarding the debt ceiling. If puppet masters estisted I would doubt this would occur nor would such misunderstanding on what the debt ceiling actually is among Congress.
 
wahday said:
An interesting read. My comments are directed at Easterbrook and not Planit's. I am assuming Planit just posted Easterbrook's words and not his own.

….
Click to expand...

That's correct - just passing along something that was an interesting observation
 
wahday said:
An interesting read. My comments are directed at Easterbrook and not Planit's. I am assuming Planit just posted Easterbrook's words and not his own.

I’m not sure what to make of Murray’s position in all of this based on the info presented. First of all, I don’t think that well healed liberals are saying that no one should be judgmental about bad public schools, for example. Where did he get that idea? Second, I’m not sure what the argument here is. Is he saying liberals should stop pretending that single family or other “non-traditional” home structures are ok? To what end? To try and promote “traditional” values (whatever that is exactly) as the best way? Wouldn’t that put them in the camp of the red states that are seeing these high numbers of teen pregnancies, divorce rates and crime? Is it possible that liberal areas don’t see these high rates because they don’t “preach” these standards? Not making someone who made unfortunate decisions and got pregnant (or got someone pregnant) young or married the wrong person feel like a bad person or someone that is condemned to hell, poverty, etc. seems like a pretty good way to be. Personally I would rather encourage someone for their good decisions than denigrate them for the bad. We all make mistakes. Some of us are just lucky enough to not make some really big ones. But even when that happens, are they bad people?

Success, stable homes and higher income are all linked to education, for example. The financial challenge with any single parent household is there is only one wage earner. But depending on the circumstances, that person may be “better off” not staying in an unhappy marriage even if they are in a lower income bracket. Abusive or otherwise unhealthy relationships don’t do anyone much good, I would argue (especially the children). And how many of those two family households in liberal areas are actually those peoples’ first marriage anyway? There are a lot of factors here that have not been parsed here methinks.

Again, I think it’s the preaching that is part of the issue. At least when it comes to things like teen pregnancy. Tell any kid how much they really shouldn’t have sex until they are married, no exceptions and with threats of hell or being kicked out of the house/church and you have just elevated that activity to “highly desirable.” Same with drinking, drugs, smoking, etc. I prefer to inform and educate people about these things and allow them to make their own decisions with facts in hand (ie. comprehensive sex education, which includes abstinence, as opposed to abstinence-only curricula). They’ll have to make them anyway, whether you like it or not.

Again, I really don’t think anyone of any political persuasion is promoting that bad schools are just ok. Education reform is a cause that spans all ages and affiliations. How to make it happen is the big question.

This book sounds like a big mess of conflated data….
Click to expand...

I think the point he's trying to make is that liberals like to point out the hypocracy in the red states that preach morality but don't seem to practice. He's saying the blue states enspouse values that don't follow either because of having more traditional families, sending their kids to private schools, etc.
 
Whose Yur Planner said:
I think the point he's trying to make is that liberals like to point out the hypocracy in the red states that preach morality but don't seem to practice. He's saying the blue states enspouse values that don't follow either because of having more traditional families, sending their kids to private schools, etc.
Click to expand...
I am honestly having a hard time seeing how blue states can be considered hypocritical in this instance. Accepting or presenting other options while not choosing to utilize them is hardly hypocritical. What is hypocritical is advocating a hardline on something while not actually adhering to it yourself.
 
Blide said:
I am honestly having a hard time seeing how blue states can be considered hypocritical in this instance. Accepting or presenting other options while not choosing to utilize them is hardly hypocritical. What is hypocritical is advocating a hardline on something while not actually adhering to it yourself.
Click to expand...

Most politicians are hypocritical regardless of party affiliation. That is why they pass laws and regulations that don't actually pertain to them, take money from special interest groups to approve funding or regulations but say that it is wrong in front of the TV cameras and call each other names for doing things that their own party does.
 
Murray should not be taken as gospel truth. His book is very controversial and has been debated all over the place.

A liberal critique of it (from what I remember of reading about it - I will never read anything of his again after his bell curve book)

1. He cherry picks his evidence. He ignores a lot of trend line data and relies on current associations.

2. He ignores social and economic factors such as the loss of good paying jobs for high school educated men, availability of head start and other social services, etc.

3. His solutions have no evidence to back up they would work. They are no more than opinion. There is no reason to suppose, as Murray does, that same sex marriage sends a signal to others that they don't have to be married. It just reflects his own prejudices.

5. Same for his accusations of hypocrisy.

I could go on. Again, I am adamant about not reading his book because I have found his other writings not worth paying for.
 
michaelskis said:
Most politicians are hypocritical regardless of party affiliation. That is why they pass laws and regulations that don't actually pertain to them, take money from special interest groups to approve funding or regulations but say that it is wrong in front of the TV cameras and call each other names for doing things that their own party does.
Click to expand...

In the 80s and 90s in southeast MI my dad was a campaign manager for local mayors, judges, DAs, those sorts of candidates, and a lobbyist as well (the 10 cent bottle deposit, e.g.). He'd drag me along frequently to events, and I met many of these folks. What you say is true at the national level and increasingly at the state level, but still largely not true below that (sadly that is slowly changing too).

Don't conflate all of them together. The local folks are still trying their best and want to do a good job. Corporations have bought the national electeds and the media. They haven't extended their tentacles down to local mayors yet in most places.

Aside, maybe relevant: I still have my opening day ticket from 1985 with the world series trophy on it, 5th row behind the home bullpen at the rubber, dad could get good seats from his work. Rubbing the frame that holds the ticket for good luck.
 
Blide said:
I am honestly having a hard time seeing how blue states can be considered hypocritical in this instance. Accepting or presenting other options while not choosing to utilize them is hardly hypocritical. What is hypocritical is advocating a hardline on something while not actually adhering to it yourself.
Click to expand...

Disclaimer-I do not believe this. It is just consistent with a certain mindset.
 
michaelskis said:
Most politicians are hypocritical regardless of party affiliation.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I'm not disagreeing with this. However I will say that I think Republicans have become much more hypocritical recently as they've moved further to the right. A whole bunch of Republicans are now taking stances on social and fiscal issues they don't personally believe in just so they don't get primaried out by Tea Party candidates.

Whose Yur Planner said:
Disclaimer-I do not believe this. It is just consistent with a certain mindset.
Click to expand...
I understand. I just thought it was a strange assertion that the original author was making.
 
ColoGI said:
In the 80s and 90s in southeast MI my dad was a campaign manager for local mayors, judges, DAs, those sorts of candidates, and a lobbyist as well (the 10 cent bottle deposit, e.g.). He'd drag me along frequently to events, and I met many of these folks. What you say is true at the national level and increasingly at the state level, but still largely not true below that (sadly that is slowly changing too).

Don't conflate all of them together. The local folks are still trying their best and want to do a good job. Corporations have bought the national electeds and the media. They haven't extended their tentacles down to local mayors yet in most places.

Aside, maybe relevant: I still have my opening day ticket from 1985 with the world series trophy on it, 5th row behind the home bullpen at the rubber, dad could get good seats from his work. Rubbing the frame that holds the ticket for good luck.
Click to expand...

With the exceptions of a hand full of massive Cities (NYC, CHI, LA....) you are correct in your assessment of local governments, for the most part anyways. There are always exceptions, but I have been very lucky that many of the local governments that I have worked for, the people elected actually thought and felt what they said. The Mayor of my city also lives two blocks from me and it is amazing because he practices what he preaches... He is also a religious pastor too, so that helps.
 
http://news.yahoo.com/gop-senate-ca...ancies-rape-061057785--abc-news-politics.html

GOP Senate Candidate: 'God Intended' Pregnancies From Rape
Click to expand...

My problem isn't necessarily that he said it... he has a right to be stupid. My problem is that he isn't the only one who feels they can dictate what someone does with their body. As a man, I don't have anything that can be related to rape and childbirth. I don't have anything that is even close to the mental and physical torment.

The fact that men in congress, or running for congress, feel it their place - under the guise of religion - to tell a women how they should feel when such an act happens is just so beyond me.

How can the people of Indiana vote this idiot in? If he and Akin both win, I think it says something about our country... and it isn't very good.

As a note:

-Akin is down 5 points in Missouri
-Mourdock is up 2 points in Indiana
 
Hink said:
http://news.yahoo.com/gop-senate-ca...ancies-rape-061057785--abc-news-politics.html
How can the people of Indiana vote this idiot in? If he and Akin both win, I think it says something about our country... and it isn't very good.

As a note:

-Akin is down 5 points in Missouri
-Mourdock is up 2 points in Indiana
Click to expand...

Indiana is an extremely conservative state. Indiana Democrats would be described as 'New England Republicans' if they were in Connecticut or Maine.

Mourdock angered a lot of centrist Republicans defeating Dick Lugar and commenting that, paraphrasing, it's his way or the highway. He's angered Lugar supporters again with a mailer that seems to claim an endorsement from Lugar when there is no such thing. But I think Mourdock just delivered his October surprise and Donnelly will win by a narrow margin of ~3 points or so.

[OT]He made last night's comment in my fair 'burgh.[/OT]
 
Talk about messed up! I just was talking with the treasurer who showed me a situation where based on the electoral college, both candidates would end up with 269. If that happens, the House picks the president and the Senate picks the VP.

Romney / Biden? :-|
 
michaelskis said:
Talk about messed up! I just was talking with the treasurer who showed me a situation where based on the electoral college, both candidates would end up with 269. If that happens, the House picks the president and the Senate picks the VP.

Romney / Biden? :-|
Click to expand...

This has occurred twice in history. The first was in 1800, Thomas Jefferson and Aaron Burr tied (that was also the first time you had a P/VP running as a combined party ticket, and the first time electors pledged to vote party-line rather than as free agents). Thomas Jefferson ended up winning, and it led to the 12th amendment. The second time was in 1824 when the House of Representatives chose John Adams over Andrew Jackson. It happened more in this time period simply because there were fewer states and in some cases more candidates (as in 1824), increasing the potential for a tie.

It is incredibly unlikely, but plausible with this election. You want to really throw a wrinkle into it? Let's assume Obama wins the popular vote, but the Electoral College is tied. Now the House is in a position to select Romney, but doing so would be counter to the popular vote. Imagine that fall-out? :-c:6:
 
In that scenario, I wonder if there'd be a legitimate chance of getting rid of the electoral college. If the electoral college favored Obama and the popular vote did not, I could see some Republicans finally buying into the whole idea. Although the electoral college is really the only thing that gives them a shot of capturing the presidency with any given election.
 
Suburb Repairman said:
It is incredibly unlikely, but plausible with this election. You want to really throw a wrinkle into it? Let's assume Obama wins the popular vote, but the Electoral College is tied. Now the House is in a position to select Romney, but doing so would be counter to the popular vote. Imagine that fall-out? :-c:6:
Click to expand...

But it would be the NEWLY ELECTED House that would make the decision, so you never know for sure.

Seems dumb that in the event of an electoral "draw" it wouldn't just go to the popular vote, doesn't it?
 
ursus said:
But it would be the NEWLY ELECTED House that would make the decision, so you never know for sure.

Seems dumb that in the event of an electoral "draw" it wouldn't just go to the popular vote, doesn't it?
Click to expand...

It seems dumb and it is dumb, but America was never intended to be a democracy. The founders created the electoral college specifically because they did not want the presidency to be decided on the popular vote of the people. Contrary to popular belief, the majority of the founders did not want regular citizens to be making important political decisions. This was most recently clarified by the supreme court (Bush v. Gore) when they said we actually have no constitutional right to vote. The popular vote is technically meaningless, and so is each state vote. Let's just say that Obama wins the popular vote in Ohio but Ohio decides to have all its electoral votes go to Romney anyways. Well that would be perfectly okay under the constitution. I'm not sure if it would be legal under Ohio law, but under many states it would be perfectly okay under the law for the popular state vote to be ignored. So legally and technically, your vote doesn't really matter.
 
imaplanner said:
It seems dumb and it is dumb, but America was never intended to be a democracy. The founders created the electoral college specifically because they did not want the presidency to be decided on the popular vote of the people. Contrary to popular belief, the majority of the founders did not want regular citizens to be making important political decisions. This was most recently clarified by the supreme court (Bush v. Gore) when they said we actually have no constitutional right to vote. The popular vote is technically meaningless, and so is each state vote. Let's just say that Obama wins the popular vote in Ohio but Ohio decides to have all its electoral votes go to Romney anyways. Well that would be perfectly okay under the constitution. I'm not sure if it would be legal under Ohio law, but under many states it would be perfectly okay under the law for the popular state vote to be ignored. So legally and technically, your vote doesn't really matter.
Click to expand...

In most states you vote for the electors and not the party nominee for president/vice president. That is why each parties electoral appears on the ballot. The electors have pledged to vote for their parties nominee if they get the majority of the popular vote. In 2004 one of the electors of Minnesota voted for John Edwards for President instead of John Kerry who "won" the state.
 
michaelskis said:
Which Polls do you trust. Personally, I don't Trust CNN, FOX, CBS, NBC, or MSNBC.
Click to expand...

I don't understand why polls even matter to be honest. A poll has never influenced my vote, whether my chosen candidate was behind or ahead.

Just another thing to try and get ratings on TV and ad buys on the interwebs.
 
Individual polls don't matter. It's irrelevant that Romney is leading in national polls when he's still behind in most swing states. The polls also don't factor in the ground game in which Obama has the clear advantage.

As for polling information. Nate Silver's 538 blog is the place to go. The model incorporates polling data, economic variables, and past election data to predict election results. Nate Silver may be a liberal himself but he created the model so his personal biases wouldn't get in the way of the predictions. He has well documented his entire methodology and thoroughly explained why it works the way it does.

As for the importance of polls. I think Obama's drop in the polls after the first debate will be important in getting more Democrats to the polls since it showed his reelection wasn't a given.
 
Mildly excited... it looks like my Texas state house rep screwed up badly enough last session that we may score an unexpected democrat victory. While others may not think this a big deal, our current rep was viewed as a serious up-and-comer in the GOP. The democrat is hammering him, quite successfully, over the school finance issues here in Texas over the last two years.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
michaelskis said:
30 states petition federal government to secede after election

I am fascinated that it is a combination of both red states and blue states. I wonder if we will get to a point where secession from the US happens, or if the US will just break up into 5 or 6 parts.
Click to expand...

After financial collapse of the country I can see the interest at its highest. Why should prosperous states (Georgia) "carry" certain states (California, as examples) will be the rationale. Will succession succeed, I don't know.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Tide said:
After financial collapse of the country I can see the interest at its highest. Why should prosperous states (Georgia) "carry" certain states (California, as examples) will be the rationale. Will succession succeed, I don't know.
Click to expand...

That is what I am wondering too. I personally hope that it does not, but with things going the way that they are going, I would not be too surprised if some type of shakeup happens.
 
Tide said:
After financial collapse of the country I can see the interest at its highest. Why should prosperous states (Georgia) "carry" certain states (California, as examples) will be the rationale. Will succession succeed, I don't know.
Click to expand...

If the union ended up dissolving, I think California would be alright.:h:

This idea of states seceding just seems funny though; some people seem way to butthurt over the election results and are acting on emotion over common sense.
 
Some of the counter-petitions on the WhiteHouse.gov website made me laugh:

- Petition to Deport Everyone that Signed a Petition to Withdraw their State from the United States of America
- Petition to Strip the Citizenship from Everyone who Signed a Petition to Secede and Exile Them
 
terraplnr said:
Some of the counter-petitions on the WhiteHouse.gov website made me laugh:

- Petition to Deport Everyone that Signed a Petition to Withdraw their State from the United States of America
- Petition to Strip the Citizenship from Everyone who Signed a Petition to Secede and Exile Them
Click to expand...

OMG that is so funny!!!! :lmao::lmao::lmao:
 
What if it does happen. Do you think that particular states would group together or do you think we will have the US, with several independent nations among the remaining 20? Or do you think it would be a total collapse of the US? I also think that 40,000 signatures in TX is enough to get people's attention.

Why do you think that all these states want to leave the union? Interestingly enough, many historians say that the Civil war was about states rights as much as about slavery. Here is an interesting article on it. I don't agree with this 100% but there is quite a bit of truth to what he says.
 
Back
Top