FondrenRoad

They would evict Bush tomorrow in order to get Trump. We'd have to go pick up Bush's shit from the curb before the next rain.

I hope one of these courts has the balls to sanction Rudy.

If done properly, Trump's library could be the most entertaining one to visit. It would need to be an honest assessment of him and his presidency, however. If he or his family is in charge of building it, it's going to be worthless self promotion.

You are thinking of it the wrong way. Imagine a spoiled little kid playing with a game boy. Another kid comes over and his mom tells him to share. Instead of sharing, he throws a fit, smashes the game boy, runs to his room, and slams the door. Trump is trying to do that to the country. He would rather break it than let Biden play with it. His plan in the Middle East is simply to make it even harder to deal with than it already is.

China is a sovereign nation. So you now consider states sovereign?

See the part regarding interstate compacts for infrastructure funding where needed, and that would include interstate highways and farm to market highways in food producing states. And I have no problem with the main interstate system. Commuter spurs and loops should be locally funded however. So Iowa could say "we need this highway to get food and goods to you. Can we get some money to do that?" But instead Iowa says, "we are taking your money to build this highway. And we are going to block you from using your money to build new infrastructure in your area like the Hudson rail tunnel. And we are going to take more money and subsidize our farmers. And we are going to take even more and send it to the bloated military. And we are going to fight against everything you want for your people like universal healthcare, affordable housing, or any type of social services. Oh and we are going to raise your federal taxes and damage your ability to self fund through state and local taxes, and we will laughably call this a tax cut. We just want everything you have and we don't care if the subway collapses due to neglect."

Every state can pay for its own infrastructure. Where highways and rail lines are beneficial to other states, then those states can enter into an interstate compact to fund them. If a state provides universal healthcare, UBI, extended welfare, or child care, this should not be available to those who move there from other states until they meet long term residency requirements. You simply can't have open borders between a libertarian wonderland and a socialist wonderland. Spending on defense needs to be cut in half anyway. But giving states the ability to wipe their ass with their share of the defense bill will go a long way toward making that happen.

Yes and if they were independent and Wyoming wanted to join, they would not have the same power as California in the new Senate. California doesn't need Wyoming to join. Wyoming would not be able to name its terms. All these low population landlocked states would have no bargaining power. There is no urgent need to expand in order to block the British from land grabbing. And again, Wyoming is just an example. In reality, the deep south would not be able to join at all in spite of having ports. And they may not even want to anyway.

In order to achieve that, you need to eliminate the federal income tax and allow states to have strict residency requirements for access to state services. The federal government can be funded by state taxes which the states would transfer upward.

No it wouldn't. Most of the states that benefit from the Senate and EC disparities would not meet the economic or civil rights requirements to join this new nation. If they still wanted to join in order to receive an influx of cash from wealthy states, they would make this agreement understanding that rule making and governance is going to be population based. And they would also understand that they are giving up their sovereignty in order to join this new nation. Something they should have done in the first place. If states are currently sovereign, then the United States is not currently a nation. And if it isnt a nation, then states should be able to leave unilaterally if they want to. We were a grouping of convenience prior to the civil war. Now we are a hostile forced grouping of otherwise sovereign states like the USSR and Warsaw Pact were. For all the negativity Trumpists throw at the EU, at least member states are allowed to leave if they wish.

That isn't gonna happen though. The GOP, as is, can almost never lose the Senate for another 2 decades. And they may win the presidency again in 2024. At the same time, they may never win the popular vote again. But their voters are loyal to the party, not the platform. Socially liberal libertarians can easily win some GOP seats if they run as GOP candidates. Really, actual communists could even win GOP seats if they dont use the word and are white men.

Except we are talking about people. 40 million vs 600,000. We are talking about people getting 3 votes for President over other people that get 1. We aren't talking about money getting votes. 1 person, 1 vote. It shouldn't be this hard. But we are going to have another civil war over it instead. Because people like you want to support tyrants. The states rights people say the states are all sovereign. Thats really the only point where economics come into play. If California is sovereign, then let it be sovereign. Let it collect its tax first. If you want the Federal government to be NATO or the UN instead of a nation, then let it be that instead. Also ditch the expat tax entirely.

Thats fucking awesome.

IIRC, you are a libertarian who used to generally vote republican pre-Trump, and someone who votes like that is a Republican even if they claim otherwise. Could be wrong though. If so, my bad, and consider that the royal "you." But if you are actually a libertarian, then you need to go take over the GOP. In our 2 party system, both parties get an extraordinary amount of votes from just the party name no matter what the platform is. The Dems can't be that big of a tent for that reason. The GOP is a right side tent. If you are right side, you need to be in it and fight against extremism in it. As you pointed out, progressives are pissed off because they can't even take over the big tent party. But progressives want nice things. They arent extremists. They are black lives matter,, not black lives only. On the other side, actual right wing extremists and white supremacists just held almost total power for 4 years. As a progressive myself, give me the libertarian GOPers any day.

Fuck that. Id love to have at least 4 parties. But we have 2. You are a Republican. Get your ass back there and fix it. No quarter is actually in the constitution. Put out the fire in your house, soldier.

I dont really want Wyoming out. I just think people, rather than land, should vote. Wyoming is an example because they are the least populated state. However, they certainly aren't the worst state with disproportionate voting power. And ejection isn't the right way really. Legal secession is. With legal secession, WY voters would have to actually give a shit about CA voters. Maybe we could all actually be Americans with common cause again. At any rate, Trump is what you get from our fucked up system. And really he was just the first to figure it out. There's gonna be someone better at it. Its not even that high of a bar. All it requires is someone that can say the right things at McCain's funeral. Dont shit on the military. And that person could have deported every immigrant in the country and rounded up political opponents. That's literally how close we are/were. We can have our civil war then, I guess. Personally, I'd just rather get it over with. It's clear this isn't working. So let's dissolve the union instead of fixing it. Because Republicans, like you, dont want to fix it anyway.

It should be Latin in English. Not Latino, and thats what led to the creation of Latinx in the first place. English does not have gender when describing almost every other ethnic or national group generically. Even those that use gender to describe themselves. We could be having this argument about francais and francaise but we just say French. And native French speaking Americans just say French when speaking English and use French terms when speaking French. When speaking Spanish, Americans should use Latino as the default because that's what is used. In spite of the Latinx term coming from Americans of Latin American heritage, much of it is because of English' influence on American Spanish. If I see a cat of unknown gender, I'm not gonna call it a gatx in Spanish either. But also gender in Spanish isn't necessarily "gender" and I think that is where the disconnect really happens. Every noun has a gender. Why does my table have to be a woman? And my car, she's a she to me, but its still un carro or coche. English speakers don't need to modify Spanish, and Spanish speakers don't need to modify English. But if we are going to assign fault, Spanish speakers should have never imported Latino into English. Latinx is what you get from that. That being said, and like I said before, if an individual wants me to call them Latinx, then I will call that individual Latinx. And I also think every American should be bilingual in English in Spanish.

There should be 4 parties. Social liberal/economic socialist, social liberal/laissez faire, social conservative/economic socialist, social conservative/laissez faire. As it is, we only have 2 of these and it locks economic policy together with completely unrelated social policy. I'm not sure how it would all wash out, but there are a lot of people that are socially liberal libertarians and a lot of people that would support socialist economics but hate abortion or gay marriage too much. I think having 4 parties would have us moving in the right direction socially, save for abortion, and would also have us actually getting to good compromise positions on economic policy. Although I guess we need a 5th party for completely irrational Trumpists.

So all of yall are gonna be sterile zombies. I'm still in camp 2 so I might have to repopulate the earth. It's a tough job, but someone has to do it.

Do states have rights or not? The GOP argues for states rights non stop until blue states want rights. How about every 20 years, every state gets to have a referendum on whether they stay in? 60% of the vote needed to leave. Then, since all the small states want California to fund all infrastructure in their states, they might throw their sugar daddy a bone and support some of the social and environmental reforms that Californians want.

Yep almost all of it happened before he was President. But he has not stopped committing fraud since becoming President. And he has also already been smacked down in court for claiming that everything he does now falls under the scope of the Presidency. So he can probably still be charged in state courts for state crimes he is committing now for his businesses. Also, he may be able to pardon his past federal crimes, but not future crimes. Its not like he could just give a blanket future pardon and then go around committing terrorist acts. So he can pardon his campaign finance crimes until Bidens inauguration day, but still get charged when he embezzles money from Trump 2024.

Why do any of them care about him now? There's a reason Hulk Hogan hated putting other wrestlers over.

Its unsustainable to have such a disparity in population and revenue generation, yet provide them the same exact power to govern. Wyoming should supply 1/50 of US tax revenue then. Instead, they send Californians to die overseas on California's dime. Pretty much every thing that conservatives complain about with the EU is barely present in the EU which actually considers population and economic output in governance. Cyprus doesn't have the same power as Germany in the EU. Nor should it. Likewise, Wyoming should not have the same power as California. Conservatives need to decide if they actually want the USA to be a nation or not. What you seem to really want is a confederacy of otherwise independent states. If thats the case then you are going to have to let blue states self govern and manage their own tax burdens, and pay up into the confederate system according to a schedule. The top down system doesn't work. There isn't another nation in the world that allows its poorest and least populated regions to rule with an iron fist.

Yes.

I've never been dishonest about that. The people should pick the President. Period. And sure this thread isn't about that. Its about reforming another part of government. One that also will never be reformed peacefully because we would need a tyrannical minority to stop wanting to be tyrants in order to do so. This was really always going to end one way. Trump was incompetent, but the next tyrant probably won't be.