The U.S. Is Fast Heading Into a Dangerous Place Politically.

I don't know. Accusations of Jefferson banging Sally Hemmings didn't prevent him from becoming President. Granted, the media wasn't as ubiquitous as it is now, and lots of people weren't literate, so it may be that far fewer members of the voting population would have heard the stories.

Patronize much?

I don't feel the US is having this issue. The current climate is very much the product of decentralization. I don't think it's an improvement.

Is this the same media that asserted a Clinton victory of epic proportions?

Luckily, when Trump is inaugurated, there's no fear of that.

Case in point. Anyone with genuine charisma could manage better than Ramen as a cheerleader.

They'd at least get Reek or Gollum, for example.

You'd be surprised how many of those "2D is superior to 3D" otakus are also "Japan must be strong again" types, though. I saw a movie a while back that really came off as one of these guys' wet dreams because the set-up for it was that Japan was both isolationist and an economic powerhouse somehow. It's why I tend to kind of teeter on the fence when it comes to closing out bases there and easing restrictions on their military.

On the other hand, who could fear this guy:

Good call on "raping and pillaging" being a relic of the past for Japan. They are 40 year old emasculated virgins afraid of their own shadow. Option B is a 40 year old "company man" working 65 hours a week and on the edge of suicide. In theory they have the resources to be more than a match for NK especially when you factor in the support from SK (who have a lot of skin in that game).

I can give you an example based on my own district. My Congressman mostly represents suburban towns southeast of Boston, but the district also slices through a corner of the city. Needless to say, he doesn't care about the voters in the Boston part of his district.

On the OP, I agree to quite an extent, and think Ecky has the right response. The US is too big and complicated to work under centralized power, and the Constitutional structure, though designed with that problem in mind doesn't quite manage to solve the conflict at this point. I don't think the answer lies in devolving power back to the states, however. What we need is a middle layer of super regions, agglomeration of multiple states with similar population demographics. Leave much of domestic policy and spending decisions to these regional governments, leaving the Federal primarily charged with foreign policy and coordinating cross regional activities.

Ummmmm no. Now you're just adding a layer of "management" to the mix.

That never works.

No, not really. Read it again. The suggestion is that regional takes away some tasks from the Federal. My concern is that simply handing it all to the states means too much inefficiency, yet leaving it at the Federal means too much distant bureaucracy. Think about Brussels giving things back to Paris and Rome.

It's not an additional layer, it's a new segregation of duties.

Nope. Still won't work. You're just adding more asshole politicans in to the mix.

You live in Florida, wouldn't you prefer that things like highway construction and health care in Florida not be decided by people in Massachusetts? I'm talking about bringing these things closer to the people who use the service. Tax policy could be similarly devolved. I think you are stuck on this idea of layers, but there's no new layer, just a repositioning.

Yes, it's always gerrymandering when it's Republicans and fair elections when it's Democrats.

What's wrong with states doing that? There's plenty of domestic policy I don't want Oregon making for me, and I know Nevada wouldn't want to be effectively managed from Sacramento. I imagine there's quite a bit Zombie doesn't want managed from Atlanta too. It's an idea that maybe makes sense for New England and DC/Maryland/Delaware, but I can't imagine any of the larger states wanting in to any sort of compact except on particular issues.

I'm thinking about things that cross state lines, so it might be that a state like California makes sense also as a regional government. But it's different in the Northeast, where a bad decision on whether to build a train tunnel in New Jersey impacts travel in Massachusetts. Look at how California can proceed on high speed rail (ignoring arguments about whether they should). A meaningful project like that for people in Massachusetts requires cooperation from seven or eight other states.

We already do decide highway construction and health care. The state does it. Every highway where I live is under expansion. Every last one of them.

We don't need another layer of greaseball politicians and their lackeys in the works.

The one thing you said that was right was the Feds should cede power. But they should cede it to the states. The Feds have their hands in way too many things.

Then the states can get together and hammer out a plan to work together.

The left only favors states' rights when it suits their agenda and gul is a notorious statist.

I said as soon as the election got hot that we were heading for another civil war.

I don't want people to die, but I think a split is inevitable. Thus, I hope the Feds let the country split into its six natural nations easily.

city limits, county lines, and so forth. No need to unnecessarily split a county into different districts if it can be done without it.

The Federal government is so deeply entrenched at this point that there's no way they will simply relinquish power. What we need is a convention of states to undo the entrenchment.

Problem is that the divide is ( with a couple of exceptions) rural v. urban. You can't simply say, for example, "North Carolina goes in the red pile" because most of the folks in Charlotte wouldn't stand for it. You might get away with Oklahoma north, along with Montana WY and ID, Arkansas and the Western half of MO and IA (if you can control KC) but that's not much of a self sustaining unit.

There are other isolated spots like AL and WV but can't do GA because Atlanta, can't do Florida because Miami and the other cities, can't even do MS because the delta would go nuts.

I've speculated on balkanization maps for over a decade but ever how you do it, you're going to have some VERY disgruntled minority who won't go quietly.

no, it's gerrymandering. Period. Full stop.

It's despicable no matter which party draws the line for partisan advantage. At the moment, Republicans leveraged a very successful 2010 into an advantageous position, but IDGAF who does it - it's BAD policy. And I mean both on state and federal level.

There were plenty of citizens of the Confederacy that didn't align with the Confederacy.

Then why do we only hear of gerrymandering when Democrats lose? Why point to 2010, is that because there was a Republican wave that year?

not nearly such a divide between the interest of the (few) urban areas and the agrarian interests though. Plus, most of the folks who did not necessarily have a rooting interest in the economic issues being fought over (slavery et al) still were damned passionate about "goddam government needs to leave us alone!" so there wasn't any big slug of loyalists. Just scattered pockets.

I pointed to 2010 because it's the dynamic currently in play. And if you haven't been hearing about gerrymandering all your adult life then you haven't been paying attention.

Political partisans in power DO bitch when the other side does it and then (claim to) feel obliged to do it themselves when they win - neither party is willing to pass up the opportunity.

Those of us not political power brokers have always said "a pox on both their houses"

We call them scalawags.