If a second American Revolution where to happen....

[chadachada123]

I agree with the size of the US being unworkable, for sure. That's what is great about the United States in theory: It was NEVER MEANT to get anything done on the national level. The federal government is responsible for nothing aside from the military, the federal court system, and printing money. (Pretty much) everything else is supposed to be left to the states, to solve the very issue that we currently have. It was meant to be like the EU in scope, but with the addition of the military (which is also supposed to not be nearly as large as it currently is).

The issue I see is that since the US is so big and our laws so fucked up, peaceful secession is impossible. If a state tried to secede, it would be forcefully prevented from doing so. I don't see any way out of this that doesn't involve violence or the death of the majority of our current government.

The funny thing is that even the military wasn't really supposed to be run at the federal level. At least, not in the way it is today. The bulk of the army and smaller naval vessels were supposed to be run by militias that were completely funded and run at the state level, while the federal army was supposed to be a small, well-trained force that ran the larger naval vessels and coordinated the militias. It sure would be nice if it still worked that way, but that was changed after the civil war.

I still think that our best hope is peaceful secession. If the idea gains enough traction in enough places I think it could probably be implemented with minimal bloodshed. It would be really hard to stop it if more states were trying to secede than were trying to stay in the union.

I had completely forgotten about my 8th grade field trip to DC, which included a detour to Gettysburg, and very much relates to what you just mentioned. My home state has a statue dedicated to it for its actions in the Battle of Gettysburg, the 24th Michigan Volunteer Infantry.

Shit, while reading the Wikipedia article on "Michigan in the American Civil War," I found out just how important my state was for the Union side. The Union asked for no more than four regiments, and Michigan sent seven, including (general?) George Custer.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michigan_in_the_American_Civil_War

Nothing like that exists anymore, does it? I never even thought about the names of the divisions when learning about the Civil War. It never clicked that they were state-controlled until literally just now.

Man, the US kinda really sucks a lot now, in retrospect.

Still, I worry about a repeat of the Civil War. Like you said, it drastically changed the role of the federal government for the worst, and I'd hate to see the federal government use even more power to force the Union's unity.

 

[CrazyDave DC]

Sorry, but the idea of another revolution in the U.S. makes no sense at all. The only revolutions that actually happen are against oppressive, corrupt, authoritarian regimes.

DUH, HELLOOOOOO?! And what do you call the US?

I call the U.S. a democracy? What do you call it?

A deterring example to the rest of the world and an example of why it takes more than having elections and a constitution to be a functional democracy.

"Deterring example" or no, the U.S. is still, by definition, a democracy: a system of government whereby all members of a society are represented by elected officials. There's much more to it, of course, but the fact remains that the American public have the right to elect someone else if an elected official oversteps his/her bounds.

The U.S. is not some failed state where elections and a constitution are merely a formality, rather there's is a culture in which elections and the constitution are most highly cherished. Despite that, they have presidential system, which makes it quite difficult to pass bills without them being shot down. What is more, the current situation in Washington is one of political deadlock. So yeah, I'll be the first to step up on my soapbox and say how idiotic the American government is organized, but that doesn't mean its not functional.

P.S. I'm from Canada and I like our parliamentary system a lot more than the U.S. despite how much I disagree with my Prime Minister.

 

[That_Sneaky_Camper]

In a straight fight the American Military would obliterate all opposition from its rebellious citizens, armored tank divisions, cruise missiles, naval bombardment, laser guided bombs, fighter jets, and if need be nukes are all options. Now of course this has to take into account if the Military would have the stomach to kill their friends and family on such a massive scale.

Also what you're suggesting would not be a revolution but a Second American Civil War.

 

[the clockmaker]

I call that a god damn failed system.

And I call beer a breakfast, but that doesn't make it so.

A failed state is one where the govenment does not fuction at all, where the police are little more than a corrupt, armed gang, where the army exists solely for a profit, where the 'head of state' holds little to no power.

What you need is some perspective. Is the situation in the US ideal, no, but it is a stubbed toe compared to the sucking chest wound of a failed state.

You see, what you're doing here, with your hyperbolic statements that are, I dunno, supposed to challange the views of the sheeple I guess, this is hurting your cause, this is what margenalises your beliefs, not 'the man'. Say that the US needs a better health care system, I'll agree with you, I mean, I'm Australian, but you start shouting nonsense like 'the US isn't a democracy or the US is a failed state' then I and others like me, here and in other places, will point out that your point of view is, well lets go with less than informed.

 

[alexkeller]

Read DMZ by Brian Wood and Riccardo Burchielli. Pretty accurate depiction of your scenario.

 

[maxcarrion]

I don't even know where to start -

Why is there a revolution? If the government has, say, passed a law allowing them to invade their citizens privacy at will and censor the internet to only pro American views that don't breach US IP laws?

Who's fighting who? In a revolution what makes you think it will be all the military v all the civilians? I expect what ever reason would separate military and civilian alike, if the poor are uprising, a lot more of the military come from poor backgrounds than rich.

Which side's victory is better for the world? That's the side the large international organisations will likely support - take the oil out of the hands of dictators who are holding us to ransom and reaming us on price? - why yes, the oppressed citizens of Libya are definitely the ones to support.

Who will be seen as on the "right" side - politicians will often side with what appears right to the population that elects them. Bought and paid for US government strips the few rights the poor still have so that big business can turn bigger profits and the poor rise up as they have no other choice - provided they have a good chance of winning then the UN or NATO or someone might lend a hand if they feel they can get away with it. Whack job survivalists decide the US is too foreigner friendly so take Washington? I think the world would side with the incumbent power.

 

[the clockmaker]

word

I love when people tell me that I'm entitled to my opinion, it is the text equivalent of patting me on the head and blessing my little cotten socks.

That being said, your posts in this thread have, so far, called the US a corrupt, authoritarian state and alluded to it being a failed state. You are the one who put the US down on the level of the 'arab spring nations'.

This is where the 'first/second/third' world dichotomy (trichotomy?) has led us, people break the world up into neat little sections so they can compare 'like to like' There are no apples, no oranges, only states. Alternatively, every nation is an apple to every other nation's orange, factors such as population spread, economic basis geographic position and historical matters conspire to ensure that every nation has a different experience.
On top of that, it is incongrous to compare the US to nations that are worse off, but valid to compare it to those that have it better? What sort of logic is that?

.If we are going to compare it, then Quality of living is a spectrum, on which the US sits 13th, above most of Europe.

This is a thread about the forcible dismatling of the US governmental system, don't lose sight of that. You came into this thread, implying that you thought it was just due to the US being corrupt and authoritarian, and then claimed that the US was not a democracy. That is not, 'setting the bar higher' that is blatant falsehood. This is not about 'setting the bar' this is about honesty.

 

[Nikolaz72]

So that leaves... no one that could even come close to challenging the US miltary.

Two words:
Trade blockade.
An army can't run on a hungry stomach or without oil.

Are you talking about an actual blockade? If so, it wouldn't be legal. Other than by order of the UN security council, only combatants can blockade without it being an act of war, and thus prohibited to NATO member nations, as well as the UN itself since the US would vote No. And of course major non-NATO countries, such as Russia or China, could not intervene as the blockade's effective declaration of war would automatically put them in a state of war with all of NATO.

I would also be interested to see how a potential physical blockade could be set up at either the Mexican or Canadian borders given their size. Both are pretty much porous.

I also have a hard to figuring out how you could physically block the coastlines of the US, especially selectively. The US has a HUGE navy and a sizable airforce. In their own waters, close to shore and resupply, and with blockade ships thousands of miles from resupply, which world navy would have any hope of standing down the US navy and air force? Whoever tried would end up losing much of their fleet.

If you are talking just trade restrictions, some nations might participate. However, if countries have significant trade with the country there is no motivation for such restrictions since it could be damaging to their own economies and trade restrictions would either hurt both sides (with potentially more harm to the rebels who might not have stockpiles) or they would have to choose sides, meaning some of their supply ships will be sunk (especially if the sub fleet were to pick one side) and if they choose the losing side they will have permanent damage to their economy as they can expect retribution.

Problem with your theory is that you put Nato on the side of the US goverment, most of Nato is more left-leaning than the goverment. If its a right-wing revolution then 'I guess' everyone in the world would side with the goverment. But if its a left-wing revolution caused by the growing lowerclass and 1% holding half the economy and all that, I think the rest of Nato would support the rebels and not the 1% rich guys. It would likely happend something like.

And its not likely to be Military/vs/Public. Its more like to be Military and Public (rebels and deserters) vs Military and Public (militia and home defense)

1: Rich guys have their foreign bank accounts closed.
2: Countries stops trading with the US Goverment.
3: The ones who 'do' keep trading with the US goverment will get trade sanctions put on them.
4: The UN and NATO will most likely fall apart (And will most likely get recreated a bit differently)

The Alliance treaties the foreign countries have with the US only works as long as the people in said foreign countries wants to uphold them. Liberals/Social-Democrats/Socialists are more likely to, if we were to use the poor/vs/rich revolution. Side with the poor.

That being said, we would probably have the largest war since WW2 on our hands, and everyone would pray that nobody starts launching nukes.

word

I love when people tell me that I'm entitled to my opinion, it is the text equivalent of patting me on the head and blessing my little cotten socks.

That being said, your posts in this thread have, so far, called the US a corrupt, authoritarian state and alluded to it being a failed state. You are the one who put the US down on the level of the 'arab spring nations'.

This is where the 'first/second/third' world dichotomy (trichotomy?) has led us, people break the world up into neat little sections so they can compare 'like to like' There are no apples, no oranges, only states. Alternatively, every nation is an apple to every other nation's orange, factors such as population spread, economic basis geographic position and historical matters conspire to ensure that every nation has a different experience.
On top of that, it is incongrous to compare the US to nations that are worse off, but valid to compare it to those that have it better? What sort of logic is that?

.If we are going to compare it, then Quality of living is a spectrum, on which the US sits 13th, above most of Europe.

This is a thread about the forcible dismatling of the US governmental system, don't lose sight of that. You came into this thread, implying that you thought it was just due to the US being corrupt and authoritarian, and then claimed that the US was not a democracy. That is not, 'setting the bar higher' that is blatant falsehood. This is not about 'setting the bar' this is about honesty.

Now, im not one to like indexes. But I am certain the... (Looks it up) American companies and CIA who stands for it are completely unbiased in their work. That being said!

http://www.workers.org/2008/us/inequalities_0731/

it ranks very high in in-equality. Very low in Social Mobility. Has some of the worst healthcare for the poor in the west. And one of the largest lower class and probably -the- largest poverty levels. How that fits in with the 13th on Living Quality, well.. Thats pretty easy, an American in average. Has a larger house and a larger car than a European. Most poor people in America, even those in poverty can afford large houses and cars because they are just so cheap in America compared to everywhere else. That being said, they would probably like cheap food and healthcare a lot more if you asked them. But if you ask the UN Economics unit and the CIA, Big houses and cars are more important in terms of life-quality than a good healthcare system.

Few countries have everything required for it, I guess Scandinavia are amongst those whom do. But if I were to choose where to live (after Scandinavia) despite the US being higher on the list, just knowing the facts. It probably wouldnt be the United States I immigrated to.

That being said, this is going far off topic. But one of my American friends told me not too long ago that the President doesnt actually have a lot of power. That might be true, I wouldnt know but I trust him when he says that, it does seem like almost every decision out of America comes from Congress/Senate and the President just signs it.

 

[SciMal]

That being said, this is going far off topic. But one of my American friends told me not too long ago that the President doesnt actually have a lot of power. That might be true, I wouldnt know but I trust him when he says that, it does seem like almost every decision out of America comes from Congress/Senate and the President just signs it.

This is true in a practical sense.

The President signs Bills into Law or uses the Veto power to not sign the Bill into Law. The House of Representatives and the Senate form bills, pass them between each other, and then if both decide a Bill is worthy - send it on to the President to be signed.

That's the jist of it, and it's something a lot of people (even in the United States) forget. Too many people here blame the President for not creating a better economy or supporting their opinions, when for the last year Congress (Senate + House of Reps) has been gridlocked. The Republican-majority House has been the MOST obstructionist in 150 years, and not by accident.

Besides the power to Veto, the President can do a lot of other things. The ability to start military actions without the approval of Congress for a short while, the ability to issue Executive Orders - basically temporary acts of law that skirt Congress for a very short time - and a few others. The primary roll is one of Diplomacy, Commander in Chief of the military forces, and the power to Veto or sign Bills into law.

 

[Aur0ra145]

Another American Revolution would not happen. The chances of one happening are amazingly tiny. I do believe that America is going to eventually end up like Greece.

We have a winner!

Taxing people rather than letting them reinvest their money back into the economy does not allow for growth to happen. Growth is needed to pay down debt, we cannot maintain current economic trends and ideas and be okay. Socialism does not work.

 

[the clockmaker]

You're right about one thing: "I love when people tell me that I'm entitled to my opinion, it is the text equivalent of patting me on the head and blessing my little cotten socks."

Above = truth. That's exactly what it is. But ok, let's get back on topic. I don't necessarily think there will be a "revolution". But the way things are going now is unsustainable. Just look at the spread of resources and opportunity. The Occupy-movement was just an early version of a reaction to a system that has gone wrong for a long time, as is the Tea Party movement. The very existence of those two things is an indication in itself that the USA is a societal body with a very malignant infection.

And for all that babble about apples and oranges and whatever...what do you want to compare to? Former communist states, some of which have had less than 10 years of stability in which to consolidate a democratic constitution after decades or centuries of dictatorship and totalitarian regime? Is that what you have in mind when you claim that the USA is better than most of europe? Please, at least in those ex-commie, poorly-working-but-trying-to-get-there people don't fool themselves into thinking their system is better than it is.

I know what I want to compare to. I want to compare to consolidated, proper and well-developed democracies. Like the one the USA has always claimed to, and should, be. Anyone with money have it pretty damn fine, no doubt about that. And the USA is pretty damn good at some things, it's no coincidence that some of the most successful and innovative inventions and companies in modern times are from there. But it's always gonna be fucked up in my book when those companies are prioritized ahead of actual people. When 50 million people can't go to the doctor unless they're literally about to die, it's a pretty powerful indication that something is wrong at the very core of a society. It lacks humanity, compassion, tolerance, solidarity. Every man for himself. And at the top is the 1-10% who stand on the backs and shoulders of the rest, feeding them lies that they may one day stand on the top too, whatever it takes to subdue their feeble minds that have been indoctrinated from birth by the media controlled by those few on the top.

Whatever man. No, it's not the worst. Definitely not. But it's depressing as fuck, especially since american culture usually is all about how awesome the USA is, the land of the free home of the brave, bla bla bla...empty words echoing noble ideals...

Alright, lets go back to that quality of life index, filtering out any nation that isn't 'suitable' by your standards. Note, I still do not agree with you that it is valid to compare the US with some nations, but not with others, but even if I were to conform to your narrow view of life, you would still be wrong.

Starting off, the spread from the current top ranked nation in qaulity of life (Ireland) to the US is .75 of a point.

Secondly, you keep asserting that the US is either the worst of nearly the worst amongst esablished deomcracies, well it ranks above Canada (ranked 14th) Kiwiland (ranked 15th), the netherlands (16th) Japan (17th)Portugal (19th) Austria (20th) Belgium (24th) France (25th) germany (26th) and the UK (29th)Which is what I meant when I said 'most of europe'

So, to recap so far,
US is a failed state -FALSE
US is not a democracy -FALSE
US is the worst of the stable democracies-FALSE

Rhetoric will get you nowhere and as I said before, repetition does not equal truth.

 

[Lionsfan]

snip

I just want to point out that your idea of a failed state/democracy[footnote]which the US isn't mind you[/footnote] =/= being a oppressive, corrupt, authoritarian regime.

In fact people living in oppressive, corrupt, authoritarian regimes (real ones, not what rich hipsters think is one) would love to be living in the US, or any other Western Nation. So that premise is completely wrong.

Second, the US is not a failed state. Fund for Peace [http://fundforpeace.org/global/], a nonprofit organization has a list of basic criteria used for a Nation to be considered a failed state, which includes several social, economic, political, and military indicators. However, it can be boiled down to these:

1) Loss of control of its territory, or of the monopoly on the legitimate use of physical force therein
2) Erosion of legitimate authority to make collective decisions
3) An inability to provide public services
4) An inability to interact with other states as a full member of the international community

The US fulfill's absolutely none of those requirements[footnote]The most you could argue is Number 2, and even then we're talking about trivial things in the grand scheme of things[/footnote]; disagree with how the US functions all you want, but calling the US a failed state is idiotic at worst, hyperbole at best.