CheckEmoji Community · the emoji forum
🏠 Home 🆕 What's new ❓ Unanswered 🔥 Popular 📡 RSS Members 👥 0 online log in · register
Home › Society › Politics › Close to Politics › How realistic is the idea of a United States of America?

How realistic is the idea of a United States of America?

Started by Richard Wilson4 · · 👁 7 views · 103 replies

📡 Subscribe to replies

Participants Richard Wilson4rustydrifter10restlesscrane152Betty Palmer8Charles Morales24Frank Grant6wiredmason19northernhawk55Arthur Anderson49Noah Cruz75Roger Bishop22bluerider63Patrick Hill43Rebecca Watsonvividfalcon54Andrew Chase31Alex Scott5feralcanyon73gentleeagle45casualranger2darkbison14James Nguyen13neonhound18Harold Perez15 …
wiredmason19 wiredmason19 Member
19 messages
joined Jun 2009
#41 ·
Noah Cruz75 said:We’re already done for. We're 100% reliant on Western cash and loans, even if nobody wants to admit it. Our leaders are completely beholden to whatever instructions they get from the West.
The only way out is a revolution—the kind where the working class finally snaps because they can't afford their debts or even basic survival anymore.

Honestly, we brought this entire situation on ourselves............and a revolution won't actually change anything since there just aren't enough of us left to make an impact........our only real shot is to send our youth abroad to get the best education possible and then somehow bring them back home to lead the country...

Of course, it would also be nice to see a total overhaul of the political class...
Arthur Anderson49 Arthur Anderson49 Active Member
127 messages
joined Nov 2007
#42 ·
wiredmason19 said:Honestly, we brought this entire situation on ourselves............and a revolution won't actually change anything since there just aren't enough of us left to make an impact........our only real shot is to send our youth abroad to get the best education possible and then somehow bring them back home to lead the country...

Of course, it would also be nice to see a total overhaul of the political class...

🤣 Give me a break! Look, we’re the ones who put them there in the first place; nobody forced them on us. And whenever they weren't cutting it, we kicked them out and picked someone else. In this country, we've been holding free and—let's be real—about 95% honest elections since 1990.

It's not like the faces haven't changed. Even the parties have shifted around. We've seen everyone take a turn in power, from the far left, through the center, all the way to the right. I mean, seriously, who would you even put in charge now that hasn't already had their shot—and totally flopped?
Noah Cruz75 Noah Cruz75 Active Member
167 messages
joined Oct 2011
#43 ·
wiredmason19 said:Honestly, we brought this entire situation on ourselves............and a revolution won't actually change anything since there just aren't enough of us left to make an impact........our only real shot is to send our youth abroad to get the best education possible and then somehow bring them back home to lead the country...

Of course, it would also be nice to see a total overhaul of the political class...

That's exactly what the administration is banking on—that we're too few to matter. But their clock is ticking. The European Union is just going to keep dropping demands we can't meet, and it might be time to take a stand against them. I see a standoff with the EU as an option, but I'm worried it'll eventually boil over into a full-blown revolution to oust everyone who's been lying to the American people for years.
wiredmason19 wiredmason19 Member
19 messages
joined Jun 2009
#44 ·
Arthur Anderson49 said:So what? It’s always been this way. I mean, the last time things actually looked different was back in 1941, if I recall correctly.

The only real solution I see is a full-blown revolution—basically the working class just rising up because they can't afford their loans or even basic groceries anymore.

Yeah, sure thing. Because a revolution is definitely going to put food on everyone's table.

Wait, so you're saying that back in 1941, we weren't even relying on Western currency, but instead were tied to Central European money????????
wiredmason19 wiredmason19 Member
19 messages
joined Jun 2009
#45 ·
Noah Cruz75 said:That's exactly what the administration is banking on—that we're too few to matter. But their clock is ticking. The European Union is just going to keep dropping demands we can't meet, and it might be time to take a stand against them. I see a standoff with the EU as an option, but I'm worried it'll eventually boil over into a full-blown revolution to oust everyone who's been lying to the American people for years.


I’m with you there; we definitely need to get this current leadership out of office through peaceful protests and everything, but I don't really see why we should be picking a fight with the European Union... if you ask me, they're actually our lifeline...
Noah Cruz75 Noah Cruz75 Active Member
167 messages
joined Oct 2011
#46 ·
wiredmason19 said:I’m with you there; we definitely need to get this current leadership out of office through peaceful protests and everything, but I don't really see why we should be picking a fight with the European Union... if you ask me, they're actually our lifeline...

The EU is our savior? Heh. You'll find out pretty quickly what kind of "salvation" that actually looks like.
Arthur Anderson49 Arthur Anderson49 Active Member
127 messages
joined Nov 2007
#47 ·
wiredmason19 said:Wait, so you're saying that back in 1941, we weren't even relying on Western currency, but instead were tied to Central European money????????

If my hazy memory serves me right, the Kingdom of America wasn't actually leaning on foreign cash at all. At one point—somewhere in the 1920s—they were even sending grain aid over to hungry Sweden! I know, sounds totally wild looking back from today, right?

But once the Communist era hit, everything changed. They became dependent, and honestly, it never really stopped after that.
Noah Cruz75 Noah Cruz75 Active Member
167 messages
joined Oct 2011
#48 ·
Let’s be real here—they haven't even ratified the Treaty of Lisbon yet, and you just know some other countries will jump in to block it anyway. Who knows how messy that gets. The European Union is still a long way off, yet we're out here acting like fools. We need to take charge and actually control the situation. That’s why I brought up the Front Against the EU movement; they need to see we aren't just passive bystanders or mindless followers.
If that doesn't work, revolution is the only way left.
wiredmason19 wiredmason19 Member
19 messages
joined Jun 2009
#49 ·
Arthur Anderson49 said:If my hazy memory serves me right, the Kingdom of America wasn't actually leaning on foreign cash at all. At one point—somewhere in the 1920s—they were even sending grain aid over to hungry Sweden! I know, sounds totally wild looking back from today, right?

But once the Communist era hit, everything changed. They became dependent, and honestly, it never really stopped after that.

Someone mentioned 1941, probably referring to the start of the Independent State of America... that's what I was getting at when I talked about Central European support rather than Western support...

TRANSLATED: We've always been under Western influence, and we're going to be for a long time to come...
Arthur Anderson49 Arthur Anderson49 Active Member
127 messages
joined Nov 2007
#50 ·
wiredmason19 said:Someone mentioned 1941, probably referring to the start of the Independent State of America... that's what I was getting at when I talked about Central European support rather than Western support...

TRANSLATED: We've always been under Western influence, and we're going to be for a long time to come...

Nah, I wasn't really talking about the Kingdom of America. It wasn't exactly a genius state by any means, but let's be real—it wasn't nearly as incompetent as people try to make it out to be later on, right?
wiredmason19 wiredmason19 Member
19 messages
joined Jun 2009
#51 ·
Arthur Anderson49 said:Nah, I wasn't really talking about the Kingdom of America. It wasn't exactly a genius state by any means, but let's be real—it wasn't nearly as incompetent as people try to make it out to be later on, right?

So why on earth did you pick 1941 then, man?

You could have easily gone with any year in the 1920s or 1930s, but no, you had to go straight for 1941...

That's what threw me off so much...

It’s kind of like someone trying to talk about a different era of the US and deciding to start with 1991...
vividfalcon54 vividfalcon54 Newcomer
5 messages
joined Jun 2009
#52 ·
Michael Collins;21084197 said:The European Union is facing a crisis on every level—political, economic, and social...

That said, if we embrace the Washington, D.C. agreements and manage to move past this economic slump in a few years, things might actually stabilize...

If the European Union can maintain its footing without constant upheaval—taking for granted our ability to go fifty years without a major war—I honestly think the union will just keep growing with every passing generation...

The real question is: how far does it go?

The biggest hurdle remains whether the European Union chooses an economic path or a political one.

Take the United States of America, for example; it started out as a confederation, and even then, the Constitution stirred up massive amounts of controversy...

And keep in mind, all that drama happened long before the internet and the era of global media...

It’s honestly a joke. I spent over 45 minutes typing out my argument for why this is impossible, only for the forum to refuse to publish it.
I wasn't attacking anyone or being rude; I was simply pointing out real-world examples of what happens if nothing changes. If the current system stays as it is, it completely devalues individual effort because the whole thing is just a game of Monopoly where the winner is always decided in advance.The Bank.]
Arthur Anderson49 Arthur Anderson49 Active Member
127 messages
joined Nov 2007
#53 ·
wiredmason19 said:So why on earth did you pick 1941 then, man?

You could have easily gone with any year in the 1920s or 1930s, but no, you had to go straight for 1941...

That's what threw me off so much...

It’s kind of like someone trying to talk about a different era of the US and deciding to start with 1991...

That's why I wrote last time. But hey, fine; I guess I wasn't clear enough.
wiredmason19 wiredmason19 Member
19 messages
joined Jun 2009
#54 ·
Arthur Anderson49 said:That's why I wrote last time. But hey, fine; I guess I wasn't clear enough.

And my bad, that was totally on me

BuzzFeed😳sorry for the misunderstanding, but I was under the impression that the first phase was basically just a semi-colony or something like that...
vividfalcon54 vividfalcon54 Newcomer
5 messages
joined Jun 2009
#55 ·
Noah Cruz75 said:Let’s be real here—they haven't even ratified the Treaty of Lisbon yet, and you just know some other countries will jump in to block it anyway. Who knows how messy that gets. The European Union is still a long way off, yet we're out here acting like fools. We need to take charge and actually control the situation. That’s why I brought up the Front Against the EU movement; they need to see we aren't just passive bystanders or mindless followers.
If that doesn't work, revolution is the only way left.

I am with you 100%. While massive corporations run the show and politicians are busy secretly offloading government bonds behind closed doors, they wave the European Union in our faces as a distraction. It’s nothing more than bait for the small fry.
Arthur Anderson49 Arthur Anderson49 Active Member
127 messages
joined Nov 2007
#56 ·
wiredmason19 said:And my bad, that was totally on me

BuzzFeed😳sorry for the misunderstanding, but I was under the impression that the first phase was basically just a semi-colony or something like that...

Man, our history gets even messier when you think about it... When was the last time we actually ran the show on our own terms? Back during the days of Tomislav, Mutimir, Držislav, and all those high-society types?
wiredmason19 wiredmason19 Member
19 messages
joined Jun 2009
#57 ·
Arthur Anderson49 said:Man, our history gets even messier when you think about it... When was the last time we actually ran the show on our own terms? Back during the days of Tomislav, Mutimir, Držislav, and all those high-society types?


Look, we’ve always been a relatively small nation, so it makes sense that someone else would exert influence over us, whether it's direct or just behind the scenes..........

The real question is just how much control we've actually surrendered. It feels like if you look back over the last century, we might have actually had the most leverage during the mid-20th century era, back when there were even times when others were answering to us instead...
vividfalcon54 vividfalcon54 Newcomer
5 messages
joined Jun 2009
#58 ·
wiredmason19 said:I honestly think that a full unification will happen eventually, though we’re still looking at some massive hurdles like language barriers, religious differences, and deep-seated national identities...

When you look at the language issue, I suspect there will be a handful of dominant languages that take over, while the smaller ones slowly fade into the background.......after all, everyone is basically learning English in school anyway...

As for religion—in the US, it just doesn't carry quite as much weight as it used to in certain areas, since most of our society has become pretty secularized over time...

Now, nationality—that’s going to be a real challenge, but I feel like it could be managed if we used enough media influence to get people to identify as Americans first, and then maybe as people from New York, Texas, or California later on...

So, in my view, the biggest obstacle is definitely national identity, whereas religious differences would probably be the easiest hurdle to clear...

You mentioned English, but think about who actually holds all the cards from birth. Who doesn't need anything beyond their native tongue? Who can just pack up and travel the entire world with nothing but their mother tongue? An American probably couldn't.🤷
Arthur Anderson49 Arthur Anderson49 Active Member
127 messages
joined Nov 2007
#59 ·
wiredmason19 said:Look, we’ve always been a relatively small nation, so it makes sense that someone else would exert influence over us, whether it's direct or just behind the scenes..........

The real question is just how much control we've actually surrendered. It feels like if you look back over the last century, we might have actually had the most leverage during the mid-20th century era, back when there were even times when others were answering to us instead...

You might have a point there, but let's be real: that whole era was built on nothing but illusions and massive amounts of foreign aid. And man, that came with a massive, massive price tag.
vividfalcon54 vividfalcon54 Newcomer
5 messages
joined Jun 2009
#60 ·
Arthur Anderson49 said:🤣 Give me a break! Look, we’re the ones who put them there in the first place; nobody forced them on us. And whenever they weren't cutting it, we kicked them out and picked someone else. In this country, we've been holding free and—let's be real—about 95% honest elections since 1990.

It's not like the faces haven't changed. Even the parties have shifted around. We've seen everyone take a turn in power, from the far left, through the center, all the way to the right. I mean, seriously, who would you even put in charge now that hasn't already had their shot—and totally flopped?

Unfortunately, most people just focus on the so-called major parties and whoever happens to be the best at smooth-talking their way through a campaign.
Here is the question: who do you think people in your small town would actually vote for?
A) An honest, straight-shooting politician; someone who would look you in the eye and say, "Look, we don't have any development plans for rural areas in our immediate forecast for the next two years—maybe three, we aren't certain—but through grit, sweat, and sheer hard work, we might manage to get your infrastructure sorted in about four years."
B) A liar; someone who claims, "This village of 150 homes is one of our top priorities among the 2,000 towns in this region. Once we take office, we will ensure this community
gets the infrastructure it deserves as soon as we finalize the rural development budget."

You must log in or register to reply here.

Log in Register

🔗 Similar threads