View Single Post
Old 11-15-2012, 11:43 AM   #1183
Keyan Farlander
@Keyan Farlander
Jedi Master
Join Date: May 1999
Posts: 7,430
Forum Veteran  10 year veteran! 
Originally Posted by edlib View Post
I think it would be amazingly reckless and destructive towards our common interests... but if everyone from a state (or states) insists on leaving the union, then I guess I probably wouldn't stand in their way.
Well, it's kind of a moot point now. Ever since the Civil War, it's been pretty clear that nobody is going anywhere. Unless people at the federal level believe that the secession of a particular state or states would be obviously and greatly advantageous for the rest of the country (highly unlikely), I don't think a peaceful secession would happen.

It might make the concept of National Security kind of difficult... since there wouldn't be a Nation to secure... Dismantle the Armed Forces and let each state form it's own militia?
Possibly, although that's a much less viable option now, in this age of high technology warfare. I imagine there would be treaties, and states would contribute to a mutual defense force. Of course, there would be the problem of how to decide when and how to use that force.

The refusal by extremists and ideologues on both sides to find common ground, suck it up, and do what's best for the majority of people in the country is the sole reason for the gridlock and polarization.
I think the problem is more fundamental than that. A lot of people do not vote for what is best for the majority of the people or what is best for the country in general. They vote for what is best for themselves. And the politicians try to give it to them because those votes are what keeps them in power. That is, unfortunately, a fundamental flaw of our system.

And why does it ONLY have to be "Drown the government in a bathtub?" Could we try to agree that drowning the government in a swimming pool or watering hole might be a decent compromise for scaling back? Making cuts, but not totally eliminating everything that people might want.
Because the amount of money we spend is so far beyond what we take in that it's ridiculous. We simply have to spend less money, by a lot, and that means massive cuts. And really, this is something neither side wants to deal with. Everyone talks about getting this under control, but nobody has a plan that actually gets it done.

Get involved at some level with your representatives. Write. Call. Meet in person. Even if you didn't personally vote for them, they still work for you. Go to every public "Town-Hall" meeting you can find time to. Get active in the process and the community. It may be only once a month, or a couple of times a year... but that's still more than most people do.
That can be a very effective way to participate in your local government, for sure, but that's not going to count for much of anything on the national stage. When it comes to the overall direction of the country, I don't think there's much any of us can individually do to change anything, without making it the major focus of our lives.

Of course, I thought the country was in MUCH worse shape after 4 years of W., and couldn't fathom how he could ever get re-elected... yet I had to accept that Kerry was the weaker candidate in the eyes of the majority.
Well, he was riding some support from 9/11 for one thing. But for all the things he was doing wrong, changing parties in the presidency wouldn't have reversed that course, and I think people pretty much knew that. It still blows my mind that people continue to blame the state of this country on Bush and heap praise on Obama, even though Obama is pursuing the exact failing policies that Bush used to dig us farther into this hole.

When you have a winner-takes-all competition between 2 sides... one side has to lose. It doesn't mean you have to give up on hope or the country though... to me that's going too far.
A lot of people saw this election as our last chance to put on the brakes. To be realistic, electing Romney probably wouldn't have put on the brakes much, but at least it would have been a sign that people were not happy with the direction in which the country was heading. I think the strong reactions to the Obama victory are not really born out of losing one election, or out of dislike for one particular politician, but out of the realization that a lot of people are just fine with the direction of the country. And one term of one president is not going to bring the country to ruin, but the idea that this is what a lot of people want and are going to continue to want after Obama is gone is far more significant.
Keyan Farlander is offline   you may: