The truth is, this nation is too big and too diverse for it's own good. This last election and the events happening now only reaffirm it. Most of us have different values, different cultures, different views and paths forward than someone in a neighboring state. States act like mini-nations, not recognizing ID's and permits from other states. States have different laws, different cultures, different ways of life. Politically, the country is not only divided but states, counties, and cities are as well. For example, with the recent flag issue, most people in California for example are acting differently from those in Alabama.

Would breaking up the US be a bad thing? We basically act like it already. Might as well make it official.

No need for that. Just relocate all the straight white men between 30 and 70 w/o college degrees earning less than $80k a year to the state of Alabama and give them all the booze, heroin and guns they want.

You mean we are becoming the Untied States of America?
My first and only answer is: Yes breaking the USA up would be a bad thing.

We are supposed to be diverse. We began this way, we designed the governmental system to be that way, and yes states are supposed to be somewhat different from each other. We all operate under the same structure and need to adhere to its requirements but each state is an independent state.

What I wonder is why people really need to make an issue about whether someone stands for the anthem or pledges or not? Who really cares? I specifically do not say the words "under god" when I say the pledge of allegiance, and if someone does not want to stand or stop getting their beer at the beginning of a sports event it does not bother nor affect me in any real way.

The question could be: why do people make an issue of something that does not detrimentally impact their life?

Tugg

This is probably much easier said than done, but what about a system similar to the EU? Every state is an independent country, but a common currency, open borders, etc.

af773atmsp wrote:

This is probably much easier said than done, but what about a system similar to the EU? Every state is an independent country, but a common currency, open borders, etc.

Have you noticed how many problems the EU has ?

330west wrote:

No need for that. Just relocate all the straight white men between 30 and 70 w/o college degrees earning less than $80k a year to the state of Alabama and give them all the booze, heroin and guns they want.

Wait! Don't forget Ann Coulter and Laura Ingraham!

af773atmsp wrote:

This is probably much easier said than done, but what about a system similar to the EU? Every state is an independent country, but a common currency, open borders, etc.

How much independence is there after granting most powers to transnational bureaucrats and courts?

Super80Fan wrote:

The truth is, this nation is too big and too diverse for it's own good. This last election and the events happening now only reaffirm it. Most of us have different values, different cultures, different views and paths forward than someone in a neighboring state. States act like mini-nations, not recognizing ID's and permits from other states. States have different laws, different cultures, different ways of life. Politically, the country is not only divided but states, counties, and cities are as well. For example, with the recent flag issue, most people in California for example are acting differently from those in Alabama.

Would breaking up the US be a bad thing? We basically act like it already. Might as well make it official.

The last election? This started 3 elections ago, when a certain socialist decided to voice his opinion by saying "elections have consequences." Barry started this mess, yet the SJW types are too oblivious to realize it, because they had 8 years to do whatever the hell they wanted and still managed to squander the opportunity.

Well, after a fashion, that's how it ought to be.

The role of the federal government has expanded vastly beyond its constitutionally proper role.

BobPatterson wrote:

af773atmsp wrote:

This is probably much easier said than done, but what about a system similar to the EU? Every state is an independent country, but a common currency, open borders, etc.

How much independence is there after granting most powers to transnational bureaucrats and courts?

Well, since you can leave the EU when you want, sovereigity is therefore still complete. No troops massing at the UK border to bring them back into the union.

Best regards
Thomas

jetero wrote:

330west wrote:

No need for that. Just relocate all the straight white men between 30 and 70 w/o college degrees earning less than $80k a year to the state of Alabama and give them all the booze, heroin and guns they want.

Wait! Don't forget Ann Coulter and Laura Ingraham!

No women. You don't want these pinheads procreating, do you? Speaking of pinheads though, they can have Roger Stone.

330west wrote:

No need for that. Just relocate all the straight white men between 30 and 70 w/o college degrees earning less than $80k a year to the state of Alabama and give them all the booze, heroin and guns they want.

So who’s going to repair your AC, fix your car, take care of your plumbing problems, and so on? Awful lot of good, hard-working folks in that wide net of yours who don’t touch booze, let alone heroin.

330west wrote:

jetero wrote:

330west wrote:

No need for that. Just relocate all the straight white men between 30 and 70 w/o college degrees earning less than $80k a year to the state of Alabama and give them all the booze, heroin and guns they want.

Wait! Don't forget Ann Coulter and Laura Ingraham!

No women. You don't want these pinheads procreating, do you? Speaking of pinheads though, they can have Roger Stone.

Only them--they're in their mid-50s with dusty wombs. You're right with Roger Stone, he can go and they can be 3 crotchety old women together.

DiamondFlyer wrote:

Super80Fan wrote:

The truth is, this nation is too big and too diverse for it's own good. This last election and the events happening now only reaffirm it. Most of us have different values, different cultures, different views and paths forward than someone in a neighboring state. States act like mini-nations, not recognizing ID's and permits from other states. States have different laws, different cultures, different ways of life. Politically, the country is not only divided but states, counties, and cities are as well. For example, with the recent flag issue, most people in California for example are acting differently from those in Alabama.

Would breaking up the US be a bad thing? We basically act like it already. Might as well make it official.

The last election? This started 3 elections ago, when a certain socialist decided to voice his opinion by saying "elections have consequences." Barry started this mess, yet the SJW types are too oblivious to realize it, because they had 8 years to do whatever the hell they wanted and still managed to squander the opportunity.

When in doubt, blame the black guy(s)

EA CO AS wrote:

330west wrote:

No need for that. Just relocate all the straight white men between 30 and 70 w/o college degrees earning less than $80k a year to the state of Alabama and give them all the booze, heroin and guns they want.

So who’s going to repair your AC, fix your car, take care of your plumbing problems, and so on? Awful lot of good, hard-working folks in that wide net of yours who don’t touch booze, let alone heroin.

I'm pretty sure my plumber does a lot better than 80 and my mechanic is gay.

We are not too big and we are not too diverse. Countries like Australia are also diverse and is a very successful country, just like the US.

We have become more split nationally over the years. Part of that problems comes from explosive growth in communications, from smart mobile phones to the internet. As we are seeing these days there is a well organized Russian program sending out false news targeted to specific locations. It would be folly to believe they will stop after the election.

I've also seen a lot of changes in my 73 years that are related to greed. Too many people put cash over country, including the President.

Ken777 wrote:

We are not too big and we are not too diverse. Countries like Australia are also diverse and is a very successful country, just like the US.

I've also seen a lot of changes in my 73 years that are related to greed. Too many people put cash over country, including the President.

Excellent post Ken. I know I don't share a lot of your political views, but this post hits the nail on the head. Other countries, such as the UK, Canada are very diverse as well and are very successful. I have always thought that our diversity makes us stronger as a nation as different people from different backgrounds bring different perspectives to aspects of life, and in an ideal world we would take the best of these and incorporate them into society.

As you said though, greed has become a common place in our society too, and it goes a lot further than Wall Street, though certainly Wall Street has a big role to play. We all want the 500 dollar IPhone, or the 80 inch flat screen TV, or the fast car, or the fancy clothes. None of these things are cheap, and when we focus on those more, instead of food, housing, etc....it becomes very difficult to make ends meet and people resort to other methods. We as a society are generally not disciplined with finances. And partly as a result I believe we elect leaders who aren't either.

But Wall Street is also to blame here. But its a double edge sword for a guy like me who has a 401(k) and investments in the Stock Market. I make these investments so that I can preserve my earnings and have a good retirement without having to rely on Social Security. The downside to this is, stock prices go up when benefits and pay are taken away from the employees, and Wall Street views employees as burdens and expenses on the balance sheet, not as assets. I was really angry when the Morgan Stanley analyst ripped Doug Parker for actually paying his employees. Does Wall Street not get that a happy work group is a more productive work group? More productive people tend to get more business, meaning more revenue and more profits to the company. To say that people that put their blood sweat and tears into the success of a company are less entitled to some of those profits than people who sit in a fancy Manhattan Office and do nothing for the company other than buy a few shares of stock in the company is exactly whats wrong with this country in the first place. If I was the President and I heard that on an earnings call, I would have immediately gone to the Rose Garden and called out that analyst by name. These are also the same people that price unhealthy food cheap, and healthy food more expensive, which actually costs us all in the long run because the health care costs associated with this will cost way more than the difference in the price of the food. I could go on and on. But these are the main reasons I try to give my business to small business as much as possible and not to the big corporate giants out there. Doing so only will magnify the problem.

As for us being divided, I have lived in Blue States and Red States, and part of the big problem is that people have so many false stereotypes about the other regions and dismiss everyone there as such, and as such we don't listen to each other at all and all we do is double down in our arguments, and rather than have honest debate, all we do is insult each other and unfortunately that is true even in this forum. I grew up in Boston as a die hard liberal aside from the Abortion issue. I voted for Bill Clinton, Al Gore, John Kerry, etc. I went to college in Florida and while I was still left leaning there, I got to see other perspectives rather than just the Liberal perspective that you get in Boston where nothing else is allowed to even be spoken (metaphorically speaking of course). I lived in purple WI for 10 years, and I became a right leaning independent after that after realizing that Taxing and Spending will only be good short term, but it will bite you in the rear long term (which of course is when most of the people who implemented such policies are out of office), What I can say is liberals are not the monsters that conservatives make them out to be and that outlets like Breitbart and Fox News portray them as. Likewise, Conservatives are not all bible thumping redneck white supremacists the way that liberals make them out to be and outlets like the Huffington Post, MSNBC, and Moveon would portray them as. I know plenty of deeply religious pro life people who are democrats, and likewise I know plenty of Conservatives who are women, Black, Hispanic, Gay, etc. Perhaps if we stop with the name calling and actually start with the listening we would be more united. Of course the politicians don't want that because it strips them of power. And that is the one thing that is forgotten in this whole thing.

Amen.

BobPatterson wrote:

af773atmsp wrote:

This is probably much easier said than done, but what about a system similar to the EU? Every state is an independent country, but a common currency, open borders, etc.

How much independence is there after granting most powers to transnational bureaucrats and courts?

So, according to you, which powers are transferred to transnational bureaucrats and courts and which aren't so we can determine if indeed it is the most powers or not.

MaverickM11 wrote:

DiamondFlyer wrote:

Super80Fan wrote:

The truth is, this nation is too big and too diverse for it's own good. This last election and the events happening now only reaffirm it. Most of us have different values, different cultures, different views and paths forward than someone in a neighboring state. States act like mini-nations, not recognizing ID's and permits from other states. States have different laws, different cultures, different ways of life. Politically, the country is not only divided but states, counties, and cities are as well. For example, with the recent flag issue, most people in California for example are acting differently from those in Alabama.

Would breaking up the US be a bad thing? We basically act like it already. Might as well make it official.

The last election? This started 3 elections ago, when a certain socialist decided to voice his opinion by saying "elections have consequences." Barry started this mess, yet the SJW types are too oblivious to realize it, because they had 8 years to do whatever the hell they wanted and still managed to squander the opportunity.

When in doubt, blame the black guy(s)

He's not wrong

Dutchy wrote:

BobPatterson wrote:

af773atmsp wrote:

This is probably much easier said than done, but what about a system similar to the EU? Every state is an independent country, but a common currency, open borders, etc.

How much independence is there after granting most powers to transnational bureaucrats and courts?

So, according to you, which powers are transferred to transnational bureaucrats and courts and which aren't so we can determine if indeed it is the most powers or not.

The loss of powers is ongoing and not complete. If it is not already "most" it eventually will be.

For some, it is already too much. Ask the Brits.

In any event, I was asking a question. Answer it if you care to.

BobPatterson wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

BobPatterson wrote:

How much independence is there after granting most powers to transnational bureaucrats and courts?

So, according to you, which powers are transferred to transnational bureaucrats and courts and which aren't so we can determine if indeed it is the most powers or not.

The loss of powers is ongoing and not complete. If it is not already "most" it eventually will be.

For some, it is already too much. Ask the Brits.

In any event, I was asking a question. Answer it if you care to.

Which question is that "how much independence is there"?

Anyhow it shows clearly that you don't know a lot about the EU and what it's powers are on which domains and which domains aren't theirs and how democratic control is organized within the EU. I would suggest you find out instead of making these kinds of speculative and populistic statements. As for "too much" that is a personal judgment so I can't begin to comment on that.

330west wrote:

No need for that. Just relocate all the straight white men between 30 and 70 w/o college degrees earning less than $80k a year to the state of Alabama and give them all the booze, heroin and guns they want.

Build a large wall around Alabama first.
( cue R.A.Heinlein: "Coventry" )

The problem with the US is that everything is extreme. Everything is amplified. My signature is tongue-in-cheek, but there is an element of truth to it.

As apodino said, when you surround yourself (in real life and online) with like-minded people, you are in an echo chamber and as such you become distant from other groups, and thus become very suspicious of them. Suspicious breeds intolerance and hatred, and you end up where we are today. I think I may have hinted that I am not Trump's biggest fan , but I don't believe that he caused this. He simply poured gasoline onto the already simmering flames and has amplified what was already there long before he came to power.

When people become so entrenched in their "side", it becomes very difficult to find common ground. The way things are going, the left and right respectively are becoming more extreme, so this problem will only get worse.

I dread to think what state the US will be in by the end of Trump's presidency. God help us all.

bgm wrote:

The problem with the US is that everything is extreme. Everything is amplified.

Amplified does not come close.

Everybody hysterically overstates "his/her/its" thing. The hysterics completely prohibit separating facts from chaff or finding a any compromise.
It's all about religious fervor.
Combine that with the language taken hostage for mis-attributions and polarizations in general.
That then makes it impossible to have meaningful communications with those that use the English vocabulary in its original meaning.

330west wrote:

No need for that. Just relocate all the straight white men between 30 and 70 w/o college degrees earning less than $80k a year to the state of Alabama and give them all the booze, heroin and guns they want.

Wouldn't it just be easier to relocate all gay white men and minorities w/o college degrees to California?

Dutchy wrote:

BobPatterson wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

So, according to you, which powers are transferred to transnational bureaucrats and courts and which aren't so we can determine if indeed it is the most powers or not.

The loss of powers is ongoing and not complete. If it is not already "most" it eventually will be.

For some, it is already too much. Ask the Brits.

In any event, I was asking a question. Answer it if you care to.

Which question is that "how much independence is there"?

Anyhow it shows clearly that you don't know a lot about the EU and what it's powers are on which domains and which domains aren't theirs and how democratic control is organized within the EU. I would suggest you find out instead of making these kinds of speculative and populistic statements. As for "too much" that is a personal judgment so I can't begin to comment on that.

Well, Dutchy my friend, maybe we can make a deal.

I will stay out of European politics if you stay out of American politics.

Is that acceptable to you?

EA CO AS wrote:

330west wrote:

No need for that. Just relocate all the straight white men between 30 and 70 w/o college degrees earning less than $80k a year to the state of Alabama and give them all the booze, heroin and guns they want.

So who’s going to repair your AC, fix your car, take care of your plumbing problems, and so on? Awful lot of good, hard-working folks in that wide net of yours who don’t touch booze, let alone heroin.

Yep and this is EXACTLY why liberals and Democrats are losing elections is this mentality right here. Just keep on spitting on working class white guys you will never see the white house or have majorities in congress ever again.

WIederling wrote:

That then makes it impossible to have meaningful communications with those that use the English vocabulary in its original meaning.

By golly, you've nailed the problem.

Speaking as Shakespeare spoke or wrote has become damned inconvenient.

Anyway, we haven't even considered the Aussies and Kiwis yet.

apodino wrote:

Ken777 wrote:

We are not too big and we are not too diverse. Countries like Australia are also diverse and is a very successful country, just like the US.

I've also seen a lot of changes in my 73 years that are related to greed. Too many people put cash over country, including the President.

Excellent post Ken. I know I don't share a lot of your political views, but this post hits the nail on the head. Other countries, such as the UK, Canada are very diverse as well and are very successful. I have always thought that our diversity makes us stronger as a nation as different people from different backgrounds bring different perspectives to aspects of life, and in an ideal world we would take the best of these and incorporate them into society.

As you said though, greed has become a common place in our society too, and it goes a lot further than Wall Street, though certainly Wall Street has a big role to play. We all want the 500 dollar IPhone, or the 80 inch flat screen TV, or the fast car, or the fancy clothes. None of these things are cheap, and when we focus on those more, instead of food, housing, etc....it becomes very difficult to make ends meet and people resort to other methods. We as a society are generally not disciplined with finances. And partly as a result I believe we elect leaders who aren't either.

But Wall Street is also to blame here. But its a double edge sword for a guy like me who has a 401(k) and investments in the Stock Market. I make these investments so that I can preserve my earnings and have a good retirement without having to rely on Social Security. The downside to this is, stock prices go up when benefits and pay are taken away from the employees, and Wall Street views employees as burdens and expenses on the balance sheet, not as assets. I was really angry when the Morgan Stanley analyst ripped Doug Parker for actually paying his employees. Does Wall Street not get that a happy work group is a more productive work group? More productive people tend to get more business, meaning more revenue and more profits to the company. To say that people that put their blood sweat and tears into the success of a company are less entitled to some of those profits than people who sit in a fancy Manhattan Office and do nothing for the company other than buy a few shares of stock in the company is exactly whats wrong with this country in the first place. If I was the President and I heard that on an earnings call, I would have immediately gone to the Rose Garden and called out that analyst by name. These are also the same people that price unhealthy food cheap, and healthy food more expensive, which actually costs us all in the long run because the health care costs associated with this will cost way more than the difference in the price of the food. I could go on and on. But these are the main reasons I try to give my business to small business as much as possible and not to the big corporate giants out there. Doing so only will magnify the problem.

As for us being divided, I have lived in Blue States and Red States, and part of the big problem is that people have so many false stereotypes about the other regions and dismiss everyone there as such, and as such we don't listen to each other at all and all we do is double down in our arguments, and rather than have honest debate, all we do is insult each other and unfortunately that is true even in this forum. I grew up in Boston as a die hard liberal aside from the Abortion issue. I voted for Bill Clinton, Al Gore, John Kerry, etc. I went to college in Florida and while I was still left leaning there, I got to see other perspectives rather than just the Liberal perspective that you get in Boston where nothing else is allowed to even be spoken (metaphorically speaking of course). I lived in purple WI for 10 years, and I became a right leaning independent after that after realizing that Taxing and Spending will only be good short term, but it will bite you in the rear long term (which of course is when most of the people who implemented such policies are out of office), What I can say is liberals are not the monsters that conservatives make them out to be and that outlets like Breitbart and Fox News portray them as. Likewise, Conservatives are not all bible thumping redneck white supremacists the way that liberals make them out to be and outlets like the Huffington Post, MSNBC, and Moveon would portray them as. I know plenty of deeply religious pro life people who are democrats, and likewise I know plenty of Conservatives who are women, Black, Hispanic, Gay, etc. Perhaps if we stop with the name calling and actually start with the listening we would be more united. Of course the politicians don't want that because it strips them of power. And that is the one thing that is forgotten in this whole thing.

Agree with everything said. My opinion as long as liberals keep crying about the white man owes the black man something this is never going to get better. I know injustices have been done and in some cases continue but there has been a lot progress made but you would never know it watching MSNBC or reading Huffington post. I mean you cant go into a Hobby Lobby and see them selling a display that has cotton balls and some black woman is offended. That kind of crap is what I am fed up to the ears with. Hey news flash there are whites that picked cotton too. If this woman is so offended by anything made of cotton why doesn't she just shuck her cotton underwear and jeans right in the store and anything else made of cotton..In my opinion Obama got this mess rolling instead of being the race uniter he was a divider and Trump has made this even worse. I don't see this getting any better in my lifetime I am afraid it's going to get even worse and that's a shame for the children.

Hey guys,
Yep, from the outside it does appear that the USA is slowly 'un-uniting'.... Probably since the end of the Cold War.
But it appears that the world is also changing, with the individual and/or immediate societal/cultural group of that individual being more important than the nation overall. Events in Catalonia are the latest example of that (a gross simplification I know, but you get my point).
The same-sex marriage postal vote currently underway here in Australia isn't a perfect example, but it shows how within a nation robust national debate about important issues can take place relatively peacefully. I'm not saying that Australia is better than the USA or Catalonia etc just highlighting how important issues can be handled by stable, representative (ie democratic in its true sense) government.
Cheers,
Bunumuring

stratosphere wrote:

Agree with everything said. My opinion as long as liberals

This to me is part of the problem: ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑

If I understand your views in general correctly, you tend toward a "conservative" viewpoint (whatever the hell that actually and exactly comprises), so it is great to provide suggestions to others of what they can do, what you think they should change but what can you do? What can you change personally to improve the conversation in the US? What can you encourage people you share viewpoints with to do or change to make things better?

All people seem to want to do is to tell others how to live and what to do (you feel that is the case with "liberals" don't you Stratosphere?). But most people seem to be unwilling to try and change themselves and to reach out to others to find out where they can meet in the middle. Instead the idea of "no compromise" was acceptable not long ago. Also how wee present our ideas and the words we choose also make an impact. I know people say being "PC" is a bad thing but trying to be polite is a part of being PC that should be valued.

I am not perfect so don't take this as me thinking I am better. I'm not, i do find myself baiting people at time, but I do try very hard to not do things like that. I try to come at a discussion balanced (but from my viewpoint of course and trying to make my point of course) and not attack or inflame a discussion or a person.

Tugg

BobPatterson wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

BobPatterson wrote:

The loss of powers is ongoing and not complete. If it is not already "most" it eventually will be.

For some, it is already too much. Ask the Brits.

In any event, I was asking a question. Answer it if you care to.

Which question is that "how much independence is there"?

Anyhow it shows clearly that you don't know a lot about the EU and what it's powers are on which domains and which domains aren't theirs and how democratic control is organized within the EU. I would suggest you find out instead of making these kinds of speculative and populistic statements. As for "too much" that is a personal judgment so I can't begin to comment on that.

Well, Dutchy my friend, maybe we can make a deal.

I will stay out of European politics if you stay out of American politics.

Is that acceptable to you?

no, inform yourselve about the EU structure and you are welcome to comment on it.

Dutchy wrote:

BobPatterson wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

Which question is that "how much independence is there"?

Anyhow it shows clearly that you don't know a lot about the EU and what it's powers are on which domains and which domains aren't theirs and how democratic control is organized within the EU. I would suggest you find out instead of making these kinds of speculative and populistic statements. As for "too much" that is a personal judgment so I can't begin to comment on that.

Well, Dutchy my friend, maybe we can make a deal.

I will stay out of European politics if you stay out of American politics.

Is that acceptable to you?

no, inform yourselve about the EU structure and you are welcome to comment on it.

I did not comment on EU structure.

I commented about independent countries and loss of independence.

Pity that you could not agree to my offer.

BobPatterson wrote:

I did not comment on EU structure.

I commented about independent countries and loss of independence.

Pity that you could not agree to my offer.

"How much independence is there after granting most powers to transnational bureaucrats and courts?"

Yes, you did, by introducing the word "power" into the equation, trias politica, you are forgetting about the political side, deliberate or not. By this you are showing you know nothing about the structure of the EU and that is important when you make a comment like that, the same as you ask a leading question like you did and you know nothing about the powers which have been granted - democratically chosen for - to the EU level.

And why would I accept such a bogus offer? I would like to invite you to educate yourself about the EU and join the discussion and get an American perspective on it. I know you don't care for foreign opinions, or at the very least, mine, but heck I don't care

BobPatterson wrote:

WIederling wrote:

That then makes it impossible to have meaningful communications with those that use the English vocabulary in its original meaning.

By golly, you've nailed the problem.

Speaking as Shakespeare spoke or wrote has become damned inconvenient.

Anyway, we haven't even considered the Aussies and Kiwis yet.

US accents are nearer Shakespeare than modern english ( received pron., estuary.. )
groups emigrating usually take a snapshot of their culture and language with them.
Changes are much slower than in the host society seemingly independent on how
big that separated out group grows to.
For the US you see that in archaic dialects also religious and humanistic views that
seem to stem from about the reformation time.
The moderation of religious fervor for a saner community never happened.
Additionally we see a continuing stepwise regression there undoing the civilizational
advances that can be retraced in for example the bible.
Today at the "you make moves to crimp my hair I take off your head, salt your lands, ..".

stratosphere wrote:

EA CO AS wrote:

330west wrote:

No need for that. Just relocate all the straight white men between 30 and 70 w/o college degrees earning less than $80k a year to the state of Alabama and give them all the booze, heroin and guns they want.

So who’s going to repair your AC, fix your car, take care of your plumbing problems, and so on? Awful lot of good, hard-working folks in that wide net of yours who don’t touch booze, let alone heroin.

Yep and this is EXACTLY why liberals and Democrats are losing elections is this mentality right here. Just keep on spitting on working class white guys you will never see the white house or have majorities in congress ever again.

Working class white guys are going extinct.

https://www.ft.com/content/34637e1a-0f4 ... 8954394623

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/brooking ... ty-groups/

http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/st ... tegist-sa/

Back in 1993, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) declared that America could no longer afford to be Mexico’s welfare state – and that the U.S. should only accommodate legal immigrants.

Feinstein noted that Mexico does not provide its citizens the host of expensive entitlements available in the U.S.:

“In Mexico, there is no welfare, there is no AFDC, there is no SSI, there is no Medicaid, there is no Social Security, there is no Medicare, and there is a 58 cent an hour minimum wage.”

But, the U.S. simply can’t afford to be Mexico’s welfare state, she said:

“It is my view that, if we are going to have a North America Free Trade Agreement, that Mexico must do its share – because the day when America could be the welfare system for Mexico is gone. We simply can’t afford it.

“And, I think you’ve seen the figures, to state and local governments, of what the cost is. It’s over two billion dollars in California alone. And, I have those figures, if you want them, in specific, in my purse.”

America couldn’t even afford the then-two million illegal aliens in the country, Feinstein said 25 years ago, so the U.S. should solely focus on caring for people legally in the country:

“And that’s why the issue is now joined with two million illegal immigrants.

“It’s a competition for space. Whether the space is a job, the space is a home, a place in a classroom, it becomes a competition for space. This is a country that’s based on immigration. And we all know that.

“And yet, at times you become so overtaxed you have to concentrate on saying, ‘The people who should be here are those who come legally at this time.’

“And we’ve got to, for the time being, enforce our borders.”

https://www.prisonplanet.com/feinstein- ... -gone.html

DIRECTFLT wrote:

Back in 1993, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) declared that America could no longer afford to be Mexico’s welfare state – and that the U.S. should only accommodate legal immigrants.

Feinstein noted that Mexico does not provide its citizens the host of expensive entitlements available in the U.S.:

“In Mexico, there is no welfare, there is no AFDC, there is no SSI, there is no Medicaid, there is no Social Security, there is no Medicare, and there is a 58 cent an hour minimum wage.”

But, the U.S. simply can’t afford to be Mexico’s welfare state, she said:

“It is my view that, if we are going to have a North America Free Trade Agreement, that Mexico must do its share – because the day when America could be the welfare system for Mexico is gone. We simply can’t afford it.

“And, I think you’ve seen the figures, to state and local governments, of what the cost is. It’s over two billion dollars in California alone. And, I have those figures, if you want them, in specific, in my purse.”

America couldn’t even afford the then-two million illegal aliens in the country, Feinstein said 25 years ago, so the U.S. should solely focus on caring for people legally in the country:

“And that’s why the issue is now joined with two million illegal immigrants.

“It’s a competition for space. Whether the space is a job, the space is a home, a place in a classroom, it becomes a competition for space. This is a country that’s based on immigration. And we all know that.

“And yet, at times you become so overtaxed you have to concentrate on saying, ‘The people who should be here are those who come legally at this time.’

“And we’ve got to, for the time being, enforce our borders.”

https://www.prisonplanet.com/feinstein- ... -gone.html

DF, you left out the part where she said, “Hey, I’ve got a great idea! Why don’t we build a wall to keep the rapists out?”

DIRECTFLT wrote:

Back in 1993, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) declared that America could no longer afford to be Mexico’s welfare state – and that the U.S. should only accommodate legal immigrants.

Feinstein noted that Mexico does not provide its citizens the host of expensive entitlements available in the U.S.:

“In Mexico, there is no welfare, there is no AFDC, there is no SSI, there is no Medicaid, there is no Social Security, there is no Medicare, and there is a 58 cent an hour minimum wage.”

But, the U.S. simply can’t afford to be Mexico’s welfare state, she said:

“It is my view that, if we are going to have a North America Free Trade Agreement, that Mexico must do its share – because the day when America could be the welfare system for Mexico is gone. We simply can’t afford it.

“And, I think you’ve seen the figures, to state and local governments, of what the cost is. It’s over two billion dollars in California alone. And, I have those figures, if you want them, in specific, in my purse.”

America couldn’t even afford the then-two million illegal aliens in the country, Feinstein said 25 years ago, so the U.S. should solely focus on caring for people legally in the country:

“And that’s why the issue is now joined with two million illegal immigrants.

“It’s a competition for space. Whether the space is a job, the space is a home, a place in a classroom, it becomes a competition for space. This is a country that’s based on immigration. And we all know that.

“And yet, at times you become so overtaxed you have to concentrate on saying, ‘The people who should be here are those who come legally at this time.’

“And we’ve got to, for the time being, enforce our borders.”

Because I shudder at the thought of anyone stumbling into the previously-linked website thinking that it is some sort of viable news source, here is the actual video of Feinstein making these comments, for better context.

https://www.c-span.org/video/?48917-1/u ... rder-visit

It is an interesting find, I'll give you that much, DFLT...

wowlookplanes wrote:

It is an interesting find, I'll give you that much, DFLT...

Why? Because the right-wing media has duped their know-nothing base into thinking Democrats are for open borders and MS-13?

jetero wrote:

wowlookplanes wrote:

It is an interesting find, I'll give you that much, DFLT...

Why? Because the right-wing media has duped their know-nothing base into thinking Democrats are for open borders and MS-13?

Mainly because it shows the dramatically-different circumstances we were in in 1993. The electorate cared about deficits, Japan had just finished up a buying spree of American corporate assets, and, most importantly, the economy was not in great shape.

In the presser Boxer pointed out that former governor Pete Wilson (I'm a Californian so I can say this), that douche, was actually pushing to get MORE low cost labor into California to appease his corporate buddies.

I just find it interesting that the tables were turned and the parties were taking the polar opposite positions 25 yrs ago.

Politicians.....can't live with 'em, can't throw them all off a bridge....

330west wrote:

No need for that. Just relocate all the straight white men between 30 and 70 w/o college degrees earning less than $80k a year to the state of Alabama and give them all the booze, heroin and guns they want.

Wow just wow.

wowlookplanes wrote:

Politicians.....can't live with 'em, can't throw them all off a bridge....

Personally, I blame the citizens. We get the politicians we deserve.

We need look no further than all the barking idiots coming out this week to take turns typing various forms of "I told you so!" Would be nice if about half of them would at least take their other hand out of their pants long enough to avoid the spelling errors...

I think there should be different nations:

Pennsylvania and north, south of the Ohio River and west to the Rocky Mountains, north of the Ohio River and west to the Rocky Mountains, Great Basin, Western states, Alaska, and Hawaii. I don't really see those basic areas with the same values or economy.

Super80Fan wrote:

Would breaking up the US be a bad thing? We basically act like it already. Might as well make it official.

It wouldn’t just be good for the US to split it would be good for the world.

Ken777 wrote:

We are not too big and we are not too diverse. Countries like Australia are also diverse and is a very successful country, just like the US.

Australia diverse?? Really all the power and money in Australia is concentrated amongst the 90% of Australians who are white. It’s one of the whitest countries in the world.

Kiwirob wrote:

Super80Fan wrote:

Would breaking up the US be a bad thing? We basically act like it already. Might as well make it official.

It wouldn’t just be good for the US to split it would be good for the world.

Fortunately, for all of us, you are more than welcome to stay outside of the United States.

Kiwirob wrote:

It’s one of the whitest countries in the world.

Sounds like Trump's wet dream. "Why can't we be more like Australia?"

geologyrocks wrote:

Kiwirob wrote:

Super80Fan wrote:

Would breaking up the US be a bad thing? We basically act like it already. Might as well make it official.

It wouldn’t just be good for the US to split it would be good for the world.

Fortunately, for all of us, you are more than welcome to stay outside of the United States.

I find it amusing that your Dear Leader referred to other countries as shitholes. With your fellow citizens shooting up schools, your political system is a disaster, everybody seems to be angry and hates each other, you have no functioning universal healthcare system, a poor, underfunded educational system, incredible poverty that rivals most third world countries, neonazi rallies, unarmed citizens being gunned down by your police.... which country is the shithole again? Take a look in the mirror, it might shock you.