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

I have heard of it my adult life, I hear most of the whining from the left. This election has been the most vocal I've ever experienced. As I said in another thread, the hysteria is getting ridiculous.

 

You gotta keep in mind his adult life is all of 3 years.

 

So does the right. Common Core?

 

If you've been paying attention, which I'm sure you have, I've opposed Common Core every step of the way. That being said, Common Core was conceived by the Obama Administration. Why Republicans went for it is beyond me.

 

Blah blah blah. If you studied the history of the country you would see this has always been. Different factions have aligned themselves in odd ways over the years but the stark contrast between urban and rural has always been.

 

Yeah, I noticed.

No it wasn't. It was conceived by the States.

 

You are a fucking moron.

Seriously, just straight up stupid.

Not your fault. World needs ditch diggers.

(Common Core was created by the National Governors Association in response to the Feds failing to set a national standard.)

 

The what? Never heard of ut. Must not have been very successful.

 

Oh really?
http://www.whitehousedossier.com/2014/06/16/obama-instituted-common-core-sly/

 

Yarly.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Core_State_Standards_Initiative

 

Clinton won 88 of the 100 most populous counties, most of them in overwhelming fashion

 

I don't know if you noticed, but Common Core actually is pretty stupid. Especially the way they do math. It will in no way prepare any of its students for higher education, and would actually work toward their detriment if they wanted to go into a STEM field.

 

take a breath, step back, and consider this truism (I tell you now as one who's been all over the political spectrum now)

That which the OTHER side from me does is "whining" or "bitching" or "hypocritical"
That which the fellas I agree with does is principled and statesmanlike.

It takes some SERIOUS self-examination to see past that proclivity.

As it applies here, you being conservative do not tend to see conservatives as "whiners" when the subject comes up. That you happen to hear it more from the left NOW is a direct function of who has the upper hand NOW. That reality says nothing about who might have been bitching about it more in, say, 1992.

Or to frame it another way, when Trump seemed certain to lose, right wingers were obsessed with the possibility the election would be rigged, now that he's won, I challenge you to show me a single Republican who's convinced we need extensive investigation to be sure the vote was fair.

 

I'm not judging the merits of Common Core. I'm pointing out the fact that it's a State thing and not a Fed thing.

 

So glad my state gave it the axe.

 

But the election was rigged as has been proven by Wikileaks. They steamrolled Sanders in favor of Clinton and the media was compliant of that. Then they tried to fudge the numbers and said Clinton would win. It's just this time, enough people saw through their bullshit.

 

How would fudging the numbers to say Clinton would win help Clinton win? It seems to me that it would only convince would be Clinton voters to stay home.

 

The idea was probably to make Trump supporters stay home by convincing them that the country was overwhelmingly against them.

 

I would think it would make Trump supporters less likely to stay home.

 

Seems that was the actual effect.

 

I'm pretty sure that's exactly what @gul is advocating.

 

No. That's not what Gul is advocating.

He's advocating say a handful of states become a "region" and have a regional government. So you have a state government, then a regional government, then a federal government. He's adding another layer of government into the mix.

So let's say you took Florida, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, and South Carolina and called that the Southeast Region. You'd have the state governors and then you would have a regional governor.

Not a good idea.

 

I read his proposal differently. I read it more as stats within a region forming a coalition of sorts and exerting their states' rights. No new government positions--just taking the existing state governments and collectively utilizing them in a manner they would be unable to do individually.

 

Then you read it wrong. He's clearly advocating for a regional government that is above the state governments located in a region.

What Gul said: "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."

 

I'm not seeing a difference with what you and I described. He isn't calling for the creation of a new government, but rather a coalition of existing governments. That's the "middle layer", whether it be state governors, state legislators, or both.

 

You're being obtuse.

He clearly says a middle layer of super regions which would be between the states and the federal government. That would be a new government creation. The domestic policy and spending decisions would be made by these regional governments. A regional government is not a coalition of existing governments. It is a new government layer.

 

I don't know, I think that's a stretch unless he explicitly stated that. I honestly think you are reading too much into it. I also think you are more in agreement with him than you realize.

 

@Zombie Oregon actually has a setup with a regional government in the Portland Metro Area.

Usually it goes Federal>State>County>City.
Here it's Federal>Oregon>Metro>Clackamas/Multnomah/Washington Counties>City. While it's the (justified) appearance of an additional layer, Metro handles the regional decisions affecting the entire metro area, more or less neutering the three counties and local governments (though the counties still handle the issues that fall outside Metro's borders). I have no reason to believe that you'd like the system or how it works, but it seems to work reasonably well overall.
It wouldn't surprise me if Metro chafes at not being able to direct Clark County (Washington)'s policies that affect the Portland region, but even though Clark County doesn't walk in lock-step with the other three Portland counties, this is probably a good thing... until something odd happens causing Oregon to annex Clark County.

 

That's within the state. In a relatively small area.

Would you like a system where Oregon, Washington, and California are lumped into a region together? Who do you think is going to dominate the regional government?

 

They kid themselves that this time it would somehow be 'instead of' and not 'in addition to.'