CDZ Do you think that a revolution or uprising in America is inevitable in the future? Or incredibly unl

[PratchettFan]

What do you base that on?

it is common sense that Rhode Island should not have the same power in the Senate as California...by any rational method...asked directly on that topic I am sure Rhode Islanders would see the truth to that.

You switched subjects. We were talking about states giving up their control over voting. You said they would to a certain extent and I was wondering what you based that conclusion on. I see nothing in past behavior which would lead me to that conclusion.

As to Rhode Islanders agreeing they should have less a say in the senate than a more populous state, I see absolutely no chance of that ever happening. There would be no benefit to them to do it and they don't have to do it. Further, there is no chance at all of it being passed, since it would mean half of the states would be giving up power to the more populous states and it takes 3/4's of the states to approve an amendment. You'd have better odds winning the lottery 100 times in a row.

you are not following.....and your missing my proposal on the Senate which I would base on renewable resource base....so it would truely represent something like what the rhetoric on the Senate is, that it gives less populous rural states a voice....it would not be based on population............

right now the Senate is based on an old outdated new england aristrocracy........and religious differences

You are missing the fact that you can't do it. It is specifically prohibited under Article V. Nor would any state which did not live up to your "renewable resource" standard agree to it.

First of all, I've already said I think It is legal..... second I dont know how much different the renewable resource standard would be, I dont think for most states it would be all that different from current voting power. some eastern seaboard states California, Texas and Alaska are likely to be only states with large changes.

You are wrong. There is no ambiguity in Article V. It is very clear and it relates directly to the amendment process. "...no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate." No state is going to consent to have less of a vote than another state. It is not going to happen.

 

[PratchettFan]

Your proposal is that they would have less senators than other states. That is in direct conflict with Article V. Whether it is 2 or 20, Rhode Island has to have the same number as California unless Rhode Island consents to have less. There is no way they are going to consent.

Unless I am misunderstanding you and you no longer are suggesting that they should have less.

NO my proposal is that they would still have 2 Senators apiece, just that those Senators would not necessarily have a full 2 votes each. They may have a fraction more or less.

Uh huh. Let me repeat, Article V does not mention a number. It says equal suffrage. What you are describing is not equal suffrage, so without the consent of each individual state affected it cannot be done.

that depends on what the definition of suffrage is....for a state....and I suggest keeping 2 senators would qualify yet...........if not, then breaking up the larger states would accomplish the same object.

here is the definition I found "the right to vote in political elections."...Two Senators per state would have equal rights to vote

Nice try, but we both know that is hocum. A half vote is not the same thing as a full vote. Look up the definition of "equal". If your vote counts for two of mine, they are not equal.

why should you care about "equal" it is obvious that the current system does not treat the states equally as California by any measure should have more voting power than RI.....Second I dont know its hocum.....when we think of people being equal its a different thing from states being equal ...substitute the definitions words with the requirement....
no state shall be deprived of its equal right to vote in political elections....they have the equal right to vote...tho they wouldnt have equal voting power.....as they dont have now...so that is no change.

Also is the prohibition applicable only before one thousand eight hundred and eight, only on state called amendments?...it is I think unclear.

(I see states can use a convention as a form of ratification which I think contradicts an earlier argument you made. )

but also..if perhaps the courts would agree with you...then you can work backwards, create smaller states from the ripped-off states now, on a formulaic basis. It would probably be harder to get to as equal a position as you could with the above but you could get closer.

You dancing around the issue but it isn't going to help. What you are talking about is prohibited in Article V without the consent of each, individual state. It doesn't talk about political elections, it talks about the Senate. You can change the number of senators per state by amendment, but you can't give any state more voting power in the Senate than any other state. No matter how you try, that is a hard fact and it can't be changed by amendment.

As to breaking up the states, good luck with that. People have been trying to do that for many years now and so far none of the efforts have been successful.

 

[dcraelin]

it is common sense that Rhode Island should not have the same power in the Senate as California...by any rational method...asked directly on that topic I am sure Rhode Islanders would see the truth to that.

You switched subjects. We were talking about states giving up their control over voting. You said they would to a certain extent and I was wondering what you based that conclusion on. I see nothing in past behavior which would lead me to that conclusion.

As to Rhode Islanders agreeing they should have less a say in the senate than a more populous state, I see absolutely no chance of that ever happening. There would be no benefit to them to do it and they don't have to do it. Further, there is no chance at all of it being passed, since it would mean half of the states would be giving up power to the more populous states and it takes 3/4's of the states to approve an amendment. You'd have better odds winning the lottery 100 times in a row.

you are not following.....and your missing my proposal on the Senate which I would base on renewable resource base....so it would truely represent something like what the rhetoric on the Senate is, that it gives less populous rural states a voice....it would not be based on population............

right now the Senate is based on an old outdated new england aristrocracy........and religious differences

You are missing the fact that you can't do it. It is specifically prohibited under Article V. Nor would any state which did not live up to your "renewable resource" standard agree to it.

First of all, I've already said I think It is legal..... second I dont know how much different the renewable resource standard would be, I dont think for most states it would be all that different from current voting power. some eastern seaboard states California, Texas and Alaska are likely to be only states with large changes.

You are wrong. There is no ambiguity in Article V. It is very clear and it relates directly to the amendment process. "...no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate." No state is going to consent to have less of a vote than another state. It is not going to happen.

There is ambiguity

 

[dcraelin]

NO my proposal is that they would still have 2 Senators apiece, just that those Senators would not necessarily have a full 2 votes each. They may have a fraction more or less.

Uh huh. Let me repeat, Article V does not mention a number. It says equal suffrage. What you are describing is not equal suffrage, so without the consent of each individual state affected it cannot be done.

that depends on what the definition of suffrage is....for a state....and I suggest keeping 2 senators would qualify yet...........if not, then breaking up the larger states would accomplish the same object.

here is the definition I found "the right to vote in political elections."...Two Senators per state would have equal rights to vote

Nice try, but we both know that is hocum. A half vote is not the same thing as a full vote. Look up the definition of "equal". If your vote counts for two of mine, they are not equal.

why should you care about "equal" it is obvious that the current system does not treat the states equally as California by any measure should have more voting power than RI.....Second I dont know its hocum.....when we think of people being equal its a different thing from states being equal ...substitute the definitions words with the requirement....
no state shall be deprived of its equal right to vote in political elections....they have the equal right to vote...tho they wouldnt have equal voting power.....as they dont have now...so that is no change.

Also is the prohibition applicable only before one thousand eight hundred and eight, only on state called amendments?...it is I think unclear.

(I see states can use a convention as a form of ratification which I think contradicts an earlier argument you made. )

but also..if perhaps the courts would agree with you...then you can work backwards, create smaller states from the ripped-off states now, on a formulaic basis. It would probably be harder to get to as equal a position as you could with the above but you could get closer.

You dancing around the issue but it isn't going to help. What you are talking about is prohibited in Article V without the consent of each, individual state. It doesn't talk about political elections, it talks about the Senate. You can change the number of senators per state by amendment, but you can't give any state more voting power in the Senate than any other state. No matter how you try, that is a hard fact and it can't be changed by amendment.

As to breaking up the states, good luck with that. People have been trying to do that for many years now and so far none of the efforts have been successful.

I think its just the opposite, cant change the number of senators, but can change their voting power.

I think if enough people are educated on the irrationality of the Senate as it currently stands, they would be glad to change it.

Nothing the Senate passes now has any real legitimacy...it is a kind of aristocracy based on religious differences over 200 years old.

 

[PratchettFan]

You switched subjects. We were talking about states giving up their control over voting. You said they would to a certain extent and I was wondering what you based that conclusion on. I see nothing in past behavior which would lead me to that conclusion.

As to Rhode Islanders agreeing they should have less a say in the senate than a more populous state, I see absolutely no chance of that ever happening. There would be no benefit to them to do it and they don't have to do it. Further, there is no chance at all of it being passed, since it would mean half of the states would be giving up power to the more populous states and it takes 3/4's of the states to approve an amendment. You'd have better odds winning the lottery 100 times in a row.

you are not following.....and your missing my proposal on the Senate which I would base on renewable resource base....so it would truely represent something like what the rhetoric on the Senate is, that it gives less populous rural states a voice....it would not be based on population............

right now the Senate is based on an old outdated new england aristrocracy........and religious differences

You are missing the fact that you can't do it. It is specifically prohibited under Article V. Nor would any state which did not live up to your "renewable resource" standard agree to it.

First of all, I've already said I think It is legal..... second I dont know how much different the renewable resource standard would be, I dont think for most states it would be all that different from current voting power. some eastern seaboard states California, Texas and Alaska are likely to be only states with large changes.

You are wrong. There is no ambiguity in Article V. It is very clear and it relates directly to the amendment process. "...no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate." No state is going to consent to have less of a vote than another state. It is not going to happen.

There is ambiguity

I see none at all.

 

[PratchettFan]

Uh huh. Let me repeat, Article V does not mention a number. It says equal suffrage. What you are describing is not equal suffrage, so without the consent of each individual state affected it cannot be done.

that depends on what the definition of suffrage is....for a state....and I suggest keeping 2 senators would qualify yet...........if not, then breaking up the larger states would accomplish the same object.

here is the definition I found "the right to vote in political elections."...Two Senators per state would have equal rights to vote

Nice try, but we both know that is hocum. A half vote is not the same thing as a full vote. Look up the definition of "equal". If your vote counts for two of mine, they are not equal.

why should you care about "equal" it is obvious that the current system does not treat the states equally as California by any measure should have more voting power than RI.....Second I dont know its hocum.....when we think of people being equal its a different thing from states being equal ...substitute the definitions words with the requirement....
no state shall be deprived of its equal right to vote in political elections....they have the equal right to vote...tho they wouldnt have equal voting power.....as they dont have now...so that is no change.

Also is the prohibition applicable only before one thousand eight hundred and eight, only on state called amendments?...it is I think unclear.

(I see states can use a convention as a form of ratification which I think contradicts an earlier argument you made. )

but also..if perhaps the courts would agree with you...then you can work backwards, create smaller states from the ripped-off states now, on a formulaic basis. It would probably be harder to get to as equal a position as you could with the above but you could get closer.

You dancing around the issue but it isn't going to help. What you are talking about is prohibited in Article V without the consent of each, individual state. It doesn't talk about political elections, it talks about the Senate. You can change the number of senators per state by amendment, but you can't give any state more voting power in the Senate than any other state. No matter how you try, that is a hard fact and it can't be changed by amendment.

As to breaking up the states, good luck with that. People have been trying to do that for many years now and so far none of the efforts have been successful.

I think its just the opposite, cant change the number of senators, but can change their voting power.

I think if enough people are educated on the irrationality of the Senate as it currently stands, they would be glad to change it.

Nothing the Senate passes now has any real legitimacy...it is a kind of aristocracy based on religious differences over 200 years old.

I really don't see how you came to that conclusion. Nowhere in Article V does it say you can't change the number. It says it has to be equal.

Its a moot issue, in any case. You might get a few people to agree with you, but none of them will be sent to a constitutional convention. No state will give up their influence.

 

[dcraelin]

that depends on what the definition of suffrage is....for a state....and I suggest keeping 2 senators would qualify yet...........if not, then breaking up the larger states would accomplish the same object.

here is the definition I found "the right to vote in political elections."...Two Senators per state would have equal rights to vote

Nice try, but we both know that is hocum. A half vote is not the same thing as a full vote. Look up the definition of "equal". If your vote counts for two of mine, they are not equal.

why should you care about "equal" it is obvious that the current system does not treat the states equally as California by any measure should have more voting power than RI.....Second I dont know its hocum.....when we think of people being equal its a different thing from states being equal ...substitute the definitions words with the requirement....
no state shall be deprived of its equal right to vote in political elections....they have the equal right to vote...tho they wouldnt have equal voting power.....as they dont have now...so that is no change.

Also is the prohibition applicable only before one thousand eight hundred and eight, only on state called amendments?...it is I think unclear.

(I see states can use a convention as a form of ratification which I think contradicts an earlier argument you made. )

but also..if perhaps the courts would agree with you...then you can work backwards, create smaller states from the ripped-off states now, on a formulaic basis. It would probably be harder to get to as equal a position as you could with the above but you could get closer.

You dancing around the issue but it isn't going to help. What you are talking about is prohibited in Article V without the consent of each, individual state. It doesn't talk about political elections, it talks about the Senate. You can change the number of senators per state by amendment, but you can't give any state more voting power in the Senate than any other state. No matter how you try, that is a hard fact and it can't be changed by amendment.

As to breaking up the states, good luck with that. People have been trying to do that for many years now and so far none of the efforts have been successful.

I think its just the opposite, cant change the number of senators, but can change their voting power.

I think if enough people are educated on the irrationality of the Senate as it currently stands, they would be glad to change it.

Nothing the Senate passes now has any real legitimacy...it is a kind of aristocracy based on religious differences over 200 years old.

I really don't see how you came to that conclusion. Nowhere in Article V does it say you can't change the number. It says it has to be equal.

Its a moot issue, in any case. You might get a few people to agree with you, but none of them will be sent to a constitutional convention. No state will give up their influence.

perhaps, but its worth the effort just to highlight how absurd the current makeup of the Senate is. The small sates may resist....but then the big states can break themselves down.

AS Paine said ( I believe I have a pic-quote of this in my gallery) "The remnants of an aristocracy" ...he was speaking of the
house of lords in England....but it applies as much to the Senate in the US.....The illegitimate remnants of an aristocracy.

 

[Josf]

The dictators, tyrants, criminals, sociopaths, psychopaths, and the sycophantic minions have and hold dear a common bond that divides them from the rest of human kind, and these types of people share their idea, and they share the actions spawned from their common ideal, and the idea of revolution is the idea where people rise up from that man-made hell on earth to think and act outside that box.

The common denomination that binds the non-revolutionary people and keeps them in their self made sewer is, in a word, crime.

In more than a few words the idea of crime is dictatorial, or blind belief in blind obedience, which means blindness concerning any attempt to even question the order to obey, and the criminal mind makes no bones about such things, there must be obedience, there is no questioning obedience, and anyone daring to step out of that box will be made an example of, for all to see, as anyone daring to question dictatorial orders will suffer in some catastrophic way, at the hands of the fellow criminals who volunteer to exist in that box.

Examples abound as to which order must be obeyed today, which may also be the exact opposite of which order must be obeyed tomorrow, and that is why dictatorial people are often fighting over the meanings of words.

The order might be handed down to wear blue today. Anyone not caught wearing blue will be strung up by some part of the human anatomy, to then die slowly, so as to make sure everyone knows what happens when someone is caught not wearing blue. The color may turn to red over night, while the word may still be blue, and those failing to realize that the color which was once blue is now red, the former word for red is now blue, so everyone must wait to see which actual color the fearless leader is calling blue, be the actual color red, yellow, or green, it does not matter, and those who are color blind had better find some trustworthy help to clue the disabled in on which color must be worn today.

Revolutionary thinking, on the other hand, is to dispel, and reject, and nullify, dictatorial orders from dictatorial people, all together, and replace such a destructive idea, and such destructive actions driven by such destructive ideas, with the alternative, which is the opposite, which is defense against crime, or in a few words, a voluntary association.

Complications set in, none-the-less, as the criminals add to their list of things to do, the idea of deception. So criminals claim that anyone can volunteer to be one with them too.

The revolutionary idea includes a method by which the criminals are given a reasonable, affordable, opportunity to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, to the whole country, the validity of their version of voluntary association, as they may be suspected of counterfeiting the real color with the false one.

 

[Teddy Pollins]

Countries that have revolutions do so because life was really bad. Everyone is hungry. People disappear. People get murdered by the government, in large numbers.
America has problems. the question is are we near that bad. Anyone who thinks so may try to start and look at reaction.

 

[dcraelin]

Countries that have revolutions do so because life was really bad. Everyone is hungry. People disappear. People get murdered by the government, in large numbers.
America has problems. the question is are we near that bad. Anyone who thinks so may try to start and look at reaction.

Some think an economic collapse is eminent.

But if this country's elite would allow government reformation a revolution would not be necessary.

 

[Roadrunner]

My thoughts are so clear and simple:
Given the state of the economy, the growing disparity of wealth, joblessness, and increasing negative views of the government, do you think it will hit a breaking point where Americans decide to revolt and overthrow the government/wealthy elite?
Or is that more likely an extreme scenario that will never happen?
Your opinion of the future of America's state of affairs?

Not likely at all. There is always a possibility of a very few idiots who think they are about to begin a revolution to do something really stupid. But that will be just another news day.

Funny thing about that. People who think they can change the world are usually a bit crazy. Except that it is the people who THINK they can change the world are the people who ACTUALLY do change the world.

Thinking you can start a revolution in a stable society (and this is a stable society) is a tad more than a bit crazy. The phrase "bat shit" comes to mind.

There will be no revolution.

There will be civil disturbances, like in Ferguson and Baltimore, but they will be short lived.

 

[PratchettFan]

Countries that have revolutions do so because life was really bad. Everyone is hungry. People disappear. People get murdered by the government, in large numbers.
America has problems. the question is are we near that bad. Anyone who thinks so may try to start and look at reaction.

Some think an economic collapse is eminent.

But if this country's elite would allow government reformation a revolution would not be necessary.

Back in the 80's people thought Japan was going to buy the country and take over. People think all kinds of things, but that doesn't make them right.

 

[dcraelin]

Countries that have revolutions do so because life was really bad. Everyone is hungry. People disappear. People get murdered by the government, in large numbers.
America has problems. the question is are we near that bad. Anyone who thinks so may try to start and look at reaction.

Some think an economic collapse is eminent.

But if this country's elite would allow government reformation a revolution would not be necessary.

Back in the 80's people thought Japan was going to buy the country and take over. People think all kinds of things, but that doesn't make them right.

really! stock market pumped up by stock buybacks only.....and gasoline cost is on the rise again....evidence collapse may well be eminent.

 

[PratchettFan]

Countries that have revolutions do so because life was really bad. Everyone is hungry. People disappear. People get murdered by the government, in large numbers.
America has problems. the question is are we near that bad. Anyone who thinks so may try to start and look at reaction.

Some think an economic collapse is eminent.

But if this country's elite would allow government reformation a revolution would not be necessary.

Back in the 80's people thought Japan was going to buy the country and take over. People think all kinds of things, but that doesn't make them right.

really! stock market pumped up by stock buybacks only.....and gasoline cost is on the rise again....evidence collapse may well be eminent.

Or not. I think you seriously underestimate the resiliency of our system The civil war raged to an end and we are still here. The great depression came and we are still here. Markets have crashed, bubbles have burst, major corporations disappeared in a puff of balance sheets, and we are still here. All of these little bumps you think will push us over the edge may or may not come, but we will still be here.

 

[dcraelin]

Countries that have revolutions do so because life was really bad. Everyone is hungry. People disappear. People get murdered by the government, in large numbers.
America has problems. the question is are we near that bad. Anyone who thinks so may try to start and look at reaction.

Some think an economic collapse is eminent.

But if this country's elite would allow government reformation a revolution would not be necessary.

Back in the 80's people thought Japan was going to buy the country and take over. People think all kinds of things, but that doesn't make them right.

really! stock market pumped up by stock buybacks only.....and gasoline cost is on the rise again....evidence collapse may well be eminent.

Or not. I think you seriously underestimate the resiliency of our system The civil war raged to an end and we are still here. The great depression came and we are still here. Markets have crashed, bubbles have burst, major corporations disappeared in a puff of balance sheets, and we are still here. All of these little bumps you think will push us over the edge may or may not come, but we will still be here.

in some form we will still be here..........but perhaps after a lot of violence as in the civil war........

 

[PratchettFan]

Countries that have revolutions do so because life was really bad. Everyone is hungry. People disappear. People get murdered by the government, in large numbers.
America has problems. the question is are we near that bad. Anyone who thinks so may try to start and look at reaction.

Some think an economic collapse is eminent.

But if this country's elite would allow government reformation a revolution would not be necessary.

Back in the 80's people thought Japan was going to buy the country and take over. People think all kinds of things, but that doesn't make them right.

really! stock market pumped up by stock buybacks only.....and gasoline cost is on the rise again....evidence collapse may well be eminent.

Or not. I think you seriously underestimate the resiliency of our system The civil war raged to an end and we are still here. The great depression came and we are still here. Markets have crashed, bubbles have burst, major corporations disappeared in a puff of balance sheets, and we are still here. All of these little bumps you think will push us over the edge may or may not come, but we will still be here.

in some form we will still be here..........but perhaps after a lot of violence as in the civil war........

Even after the civil war (which we are not going to have) the form did not change. What makes us different today is that we are not divided by clear regions. We are divided by population densities. Urban vs rural, and both entities are dependent upon the other. How does Georgia break away from Atlanta, Missouri from St. Louis? It used to be you were born, lived and died within a few square miles. Now families are spread across the nation. How do you make war against the city where your children live?

There is no revolution brewing, no great unrest, no population ready to toss out the powerful. What there is is a media who maintain ratings by dramatizing everything and an internet where people expound on unsupported theories. None of it is real.

 

[dcraelin]

Some think an economic collapse is eminent.

But if this country's elite would allow government reformation a revolution would not be necessary.

Back in the 80's people thought Japan was going to buy the country and take over. People think all kinds of things, but that doesn't make them right.

really! stock market pumped up by stock buybacks only.....and gasoline cost is on the rise again....evidence collapse may well be eminent.

Or not. I think you seriously underestimate the resiliency of our system The civil war raged to an end and we are still here. The great depression came and we are still here. Markets have crashed, bubbles have burst, major corporations disappeared in a puff of balance sheets, and we are still here. All of these little bumps you think will push us over the edge may or may not come, but we will still be here.

in some form we will still be here..........but perhaps after a lot of violence as in the civil war........

Even after the civil war (which we are not going to have) the form did not change. What makes us different today is that we are not divided by clear regions. We are divided by population densities. Urban vs rural, and both entities are dependent upon the other. How does Georgia break away from Atlanta, Missouri from St. Louis? It used to be you were born, lived and died within a few square miles. Now families are spread across the nation. How do you make war against the city where your children live?

There is no revolution brewing, no great unrest, no population ready to toss out the powerful. What there is is a media who maintain ratings by dramatizing everything and an internet where people expound on unsupported theories. None of it is real.

The form changed dramatically after the civil war...3 amendments....and some would argue a change in interpretation of the base Constitution also. It was a revolution in reality if not in name.

If gas prices get as high as Europes and the stock market crashes again...who knows what could happen

 

[RKMBrown]

Back in the 80's people thought Japan was going to buy the country and take over. People think all kinds of things, but that doesn't make them right.

really! stock market pumped up by stock buybacks only.....and gasoline cost is on the rise again....evidence collapse may well be eminent.

Or not. I think you seriously underestimate the resiliency of our system The civil war raged to an end and we are still here. The great depression came and we are still here. Markets have crashed, bubbles have burst, major corporations disappeared in a puff of balance sheets, and we are still here. All of these little bumps you think will push us over the edge may or may not come, but we will still be here.

in some form we will still be here..........but perhaps after a lot of violence as in the civil war........

Even after the civil war (which we are not going to have) the form did not change. What makes us different today is that we are not divided by clear regions. We are divided by population densities. Urban vs rural, and both entities are dependent upon the other. How does Georgia break away from Atlanta, Missouri from St. Louis? It used to be you were born, lived and died within a few square miles. Now families are spread across the nation. How do you make war against the city where your children live?

There is no revolution brewing, no great unrest, no population ready to toss out the powerful. What there is is a media who maintain ratings by dramatizing everything and an internet where people expound on unsupported theories. None of it is real.

The form changed dramatically after the civil war...3 amendments....and some would argue a change in interpretation of the base Constitution also. It was a revolution in reality if not in name.

If gas prices get as high as Europes and the stock market crashes again...who knows what could happen

Eventually the folks on one side or the other end up siding with liberty... then the other side gets dragged along. Look at gay marriage.. What pisses people off is having their liberties trashed by authorities at the behest of the majority. As we gain our liberty back our desire for war wanes.

 

[PratchettFan]

Back in the 80's people thought Japan was going to buy the country and take over. People think all kinds of things, but that doesn't make them right.

really! stock market pumped up by stock buybacks only.....and gasoline cost is on the rise again....evidence collapse may well be eminent.

Or not. I think you seriously underestimate the resiliency of our system The civil war raged to an end and we are still here. The great depression came and we are still here. Markets have crashed, bubbles have burst, major corporations disappeared in a puff of balance sheets, and we are still here. All of these little bumps you think will push us over the edge may or may not come, but we will still be here.

in some form we will still be here..........but perhaps after a lot of violence as in the civil war........

Even after the civil war (which we are not going to have) the form did not change. What makes us different today is that we are not divided by clear regions. We are divided by population densities. Urban vs rural, and both entities are dependent upon the other. How does Georgia break away from Atlanta, Missouri from St. Louis? It used to be you were born, lived and died within a few square miles. Now families are spread across the nation. How do you make war against the city where your children live?

There is no revolution brewing, no great unrest, no population ready to toss out the powerful. What there is is a media who maintain ratings by dramatizing everything and an internet where people expound on unsupported theories. None of it is real.

The form changed dramatically after the civil war...3 amendments....and some would argue a change in interpretation of the base Constitution also. It was a revolution in reality if not in name.

If gas prices get as high as Europes and the stock market crashes again...who knows what could happen

No, it didn't. Three branches of government, laws being created, approved and reviewed in exactly the same way. Attitudes change, but the system is the same system that was created by the Founders. Just because there is a little pealing paint doesn't mean the house is about to fall down.

If our history is any predictor, then the safe money would be on our moving along just as we have. There is certainly nothing which would indicate we are about to undergo any significant change.

 

[PratchettFan]

really! stock market pumped up by stock buybacks only.....and gasoline cost is on the rise again....evidence collapse may well be eminent.

Or not. I think you seriously underestimate the resiliency of our system The civil war raged to an end and we are still here. The great depression came and we are still here. Markets have crashed, bubbles have burst, major corporations disappeared in a puff of balance sheets, and we are still here. All of these little bumps you think will push us over the edge may or may not come, but we will still be here.

in some form we will still be here..........but perhaps after a lot of violence as in the civil war........

Even after the civil war (which we are not going to have) the form did not change. What makes us different today is that we are not divided by clear regions. We are divided by population densities. Urban vs rural, and both entities are dependent upon the other. How does Georgia break away from Atlanta, Missouri from St. Louis? It used to be you were born, lived and died within a few square miles. Now families are spread across the nation. How do you make war against the city where your children live?

There is no revolution brewing, no great unrest, no population ready to toss out the powerful. What there is is a media who maintain ratings by dramatizing everything and an internet where people expound on unsupported theories. None of it is real.

The form changed dramatically after the civil war...3 amendments....and some would argue a change in interpretation of the base Constitution also. It was a revolution in reality if not in name.

If gas prices get as high as Europes and the stock market crashes again...who knows what could happen

Eventually the folks on one side or the other end up siding with liberty... then the other side gets dragged along. Look at gay marriage.. What pisses people off is having their liberties trashed by authorities at the behest of the majority. As we gain our liberty back our desire for war wanes.

Oh, I don't think the gay community ever considered war. Even though their liberties were being trashed at the behest of the majority.