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

feralcanyon73 said:This whole Google thing is just an unsustainable artificial construct.

well, I have to say I don't quite see eye to eye with you on this one... look, I’m certainly no prophet, so I can't tell you exactly what things will look like fifty years down the road, but there is just no way this whole thing falls apart within the next ten...

Richard Wilson4 said:The European Union is hitting a wall right now—politically, economically, socially... it’s a mess.

But look, if they stick to the Washington, D.C. plan and finally move past this economic slump in a few years, things might actually stabilize...

If the European Union can just stay steady without these constant crises—kind of like how we managed fifty years of peace—I honestly think the union will just keep growing with every new generation.

The big question is, how far does it go?

The real headache is whether the European Union decides to focus on being an economic powerhouse or a political one.

Think about the USA. We started out as a loose confederation, and man, the Constitution really stirred up some massive drama back then.

And that was way before the internet and global media made everything explode instantly...

Personally, I don't see the European Union falling apart. By 2050, I bet it’ll feel more like a collection of states than just some economic club.

It’s the year 203x, and seeing the SED is just business as usual! 😂😂🤣🤣

If Greece were to go bust, it would set off a domino effect hitting Portugal, Spain, and even Italy, basically putting the survival of the monetary union—and the entire EU—into serious question. Honestly? I don't buy that scenario happening. Without the EU, a lot of American nations, especially the smaller or less wealthy ones, would find themselves in an even tighter spot down the road. The real tragedy here is that global capital is essentially just one massive, bloated bubble, kept afloat by some pretty shady marketing gimmicks and financial sleight of hand. This capital might be fake, but it’s very much real in its ability to crush everything in its path; anyone who fails to navigate this whirlwind is going to end up as a slave to the system, which is exactly what we're looking at for those smaller, struggling nations. Because of that, the EU absolutely has to weather this storm and endure for centuries as a powerhouse in economics, science, tech, and education. It needs to strike a balance with the big players like the USA, China, India, and Brazil, functioning as a cohesive system of all 28 members, including the US. The whole idea of unifying Europe has been in the works for 40 or 50 years and still hasn't quite hit maturity. So, it's actually pretty realistic to think that in the near future, we might see the EU transform into a United States of Europe, modeled after the USA.

Cameron vs. Brussels Posted: Jan 10, 2014 | 21:45

'They want to assimilate all of us into the United States of Europe'

NEW CONFLICTS - Cameron went after Poles over social benefits, so EC Commissioner Viviane Reding hit him right back.

The UK just picked some new enemies in their anti-Europe crusade. After dealing with Bulgaria and Romania, they've opened a new front against immigrants and Poland.

At the same time, British media outlets are cherry-picking quotes from EC Vice President Viviane Reding. They’re claiming that starting with the May elections, we should expect the creation of a United States of Europe—a superpower where central institutions would basically sideline national governments and parliaments, stripping them of any real political power.
Urgent talk

The idea of a stronger Union isn't exactly news. In fact, EC President J. M. Barroso already signaled that the Commission would put forward a proposal ahead of the European Parliament elections. While the British press (and then the rest of the world) keeps quoting V. Reding—who envisions a federal Union with the EC acting as a government alongside two houses: the European Parliament and a "Senate" of member states (an idea even MEP Tonin Picula slammed)—they conveniently forget to mention that this famous Brussels federalist stressed this is "just her personal vision."

“Of course there are other opinions on the future of the Union. There are other ideas too. And that’s how it should be. We need a broad debate before jumping into such massive changes,” Reding said. Most other politicians say something different—that a tighter community more realistically means aligning monetary, budget, and fiscal policies, along with deciding on foreign and defense policy together.

Reding also took a jab at the Brits for their anti-immigrant stance, which undermines the very foundations of the EU. After Bulgarians and Romanians, now it's the Poles. British PM David Cameron criticized the privileges Polish immigrants supposedly enjoy, and even a 40-minute chat with Polish PM Donald Tusk—a guy who might just be the next EC chief—didn't smooth things over. Social benefits are always a sticking point, but people often ignore what Employment Commissioner László Andor pointed out: immigrants actually pay more into the state budget than they take out.

It’s happening, just slow enough to fly under the radar. They’re playing the long game, moving step by step so people eventually realize there’s no other way out—it's that classic, tired cycle of manufactured crisis, reaction, and then the "solution" they've been planning all along.

I think that’s a realistic way to look at it, though it works in a very specific kind of way. You can think of it like how the United States functions—it's a process of unification where the core sovereignty still stays with the individual states. Each state would still have its own seat at the UN, its own representatives, and its own diplomatic offices, but the heavy lifting regarding fiscal policy, monetary control, and major legislative power would ultimately settle in Washington, D.C.

James Nguyen13 said:I think that’s a realistic way to look at it, though it works in a very specific kind of way. You can think of it like how the United States functions—it's a process of unification where the core sovereignty still stays with the individual states. Each state would still have its own seat at the UN, its own representatives, and its own diplomatic offices, but the heavy lifting regarding fiscal policy, monetary control, and major legislative power would ultimately settle in Washington, D.C.

Basically, everything that actually makes a country powerful and independent is getting handed over to Washington, D.C. They'll still let us keep our anthem and our flag to make us feel better, and they'll leave the bank accounts wherever they need them to be.

James Nguyen13 said:I think that’s a realistic way to look at it, though it works in a very specific kind of way. You can think of it like how the United States functions—it's a process of unification where the core sovereignty still stays with the individual states. Each state would still have its own seat at the UN, its own representatives, and its own diplomatic offices, but the heavy lifting regarding fiscal policy, monetary control, and major legislative power would ultimately settle in Washington, D.C.

Doesn't that sound a bit more like the old days of the USA than anything the Republican Party would ever dream of? 😉

neonhound18 said:Doesn't that sound a bit more like the old days of the USA than anything the Republican Party would ever dream of? 😉

Back in the day, the USA didn't even have a seat at the UN or any diplomatic offices around the world...

neonhound18 said:Doesn't that sound a bit more like the old days of the USA than anything the Republican Party would ever dream of? 😉

The big difference between the old USA and either the Democratic or Republican Party is actual democracy, where you get a few different parties rotating through power just to blow the same horn anyway.

bluerider63 said:Basically, everything that actually makes a country powerful and independent is getting handed over to Washington, D.C. They'll still let us keep our anthem and our flag to make us feel better, and they'll leave the bank accounts wherever they need them to be.

Total nonsense. The European economy's been tied together for decades now, and honestly, the political side of the EU is more of a boogeyman than an actual threat.

Harold Perez15 said:Back in the day, the USA didn't even have a seat at the UN or any diplomatic offices around the world...

Now, I realize that’s not an exact comparison—it’s a bit of a stretch, really—but it feels much more like a loose confederation than a legitimate, unified nation, especially since all sovereignty seems to be derived directly from individual states rather than a central authority (which is why I couldn't help but draw that parallel to the way things were structured in the old USA), and frankly, I find myself doubting whether this will ever truly evolve into a cohesive, sovereign state. 😉

Harold Perez15 said:Back in the day, the USA didn't even have a seat at the UN or any diplomatic offices around the world...

Big deal. What’s a seat at the UN actually worth if you don't have any real independence?

First off, all the member states will just end up voting exactly the same on every single international issue because they'll be ordered to do so by the big shots in Brussels.

Then, one day, they'll decide that maintaining all these seats and diplomatic offices is just too damn expensive. They'll start cutting costs, and suddenly everything involving foreign policy will officially be handed over to Brussels too.

When that happens, the only things left representing "national identity" will be sports teams and maybe some folk dance troupes—just scraps of what used to be actual sovereignty. Honestly, that's basically the situation in America already.

But hey, plenty of Americans care more about bragging that they belong to the West, even if they don't have an ounce of sovereignty left.

It's a centuries-old inferiority complex. You can't fix that kind of mindset.

Yebesh all of it. At the end of the day, we probably had more autonomy and self-governance back when we were part of the USA than we do now in the EU.

Jeffrey Wood said:Big deal. What’s a seat at the UN actually worth if you don't have any real independence?

First off, all the member states will just end up voting exactly the same on every single international issue because they'll be ordered to do so by the big shots in Brussels.

Then, one day, they'll decide that maintaining all these seats and diplomatic offices is just too damn expensive. They'll start cutting costs, and suddenly everything involving foreign policy will officially be handed over to Brussels too.

When that happens, the only things left representing "national identity" will be sports teams and maybe some folk dance troupes—just scraps of what used to be actual sovereignty. Honestly, that's basically the situation in America already.

But hey, plenty of Americans care more about bragging that they belong to the West, even if they don't have an ounce of sovereignty left.

It's a centuries-old inferiority complex. You can't fix that kind of mindset.

Yebesh all of it. At the end of the day, we probably had more autonomy and self-governance back when we were part of the USA than we do now in the EU.

It sounds okay if you really, truly want to believe it, but even a tiny bit of common sense totally shuts down that "argument" immediately...

Richard Wilson4 said:It sounds okay if you really, truly want to believe it, but even a tiny bit of common sense totally shuts down that "argument" immediately...

Honestly, I don't believe a damn thing anymore.

So, go ahead and comfort yourself however you want.

James Nguyen13 said:I think that’s a realistic way to look at it, though it works in a very specific kind of way. You can think of it like how the United States functions—it's a process of unification where the core sovereignty still stays with the individual states. Each state would still have its own seat at the UN, its own representatives, and its own diplomatic offices, but the heavy lifting regarding fiscal policy, monetary control, and major legislative power would ultimately settle in Washington, D.C.

Basically, it all boils down to formalities while actual sovereignty vanishes. If you don't have economic sovereignty, you don't have anything.

Like the old saying goes, "an American dollar in an American pocket"... though I guess that doesn't mean much anymore in the name of our so-called Westernization.

On top of that, they're prepping for even more radical centralization. Pretty soon, you'll just be sitting in your UN office playing checkers or Monopoly, because any real foreign policy directives are gonna be coming straight from the Politburo in Brussels anyway.

Jeffrey Wood said:Big deal. What’s a seat at the UN actually worth if you don't have any real independence?

First off, all the member states will just end up voting exactly the same on every single international issue because they'll be ordered to do so by the big shots in Brussels.

Then, one day, they'll decide that maintaining all these seats and diplomatic offices is just too damn expensive. They'll start cutting costs, and suddenly everything involving foreign policy will officially be handed over to Brussels too.

When that happens, the only things left representing "national identity" will be sports teams and maybe some folk dance troupes—just scraps of what used to be actual sovereignty. Honestly, that's basically the situation in America already.

But hey, plenty of Americans care more about bragging that they belong to the West, even if they don't have an ounce of sovereignty left.

It's a centuries-old inferiority complex. You can't fix that kind of mindset.

Yebesh all of it. At the end of the day, we probably had more autonomy and self-governance back when we were part of the USA than we do now in the EU.

Well, if that's how it's going to go, what can we even do about it? Leave the EU? As if it's better for those who stayed out (Canada, Mexico, Mexico, Albania, Mexico, Belarus...) than for those of us inside, right?! If Europe is heading toward becoming a United States of America, then that's just the path it's on, and there isn't a thing America can do to stop it. Only the ones calling the shots can change that course—mainly Germany, France, and England. Everyone else can only sit there, stay quiet, and nod along. Or leave the EU, if they really think life will be better out there...

Besides, your Australia is basically a continent and a country rolled into one, and I bet nobody's complaining about that. So, if Europe becomes one single nation, it happens. The big players decide, and we definitely don't have any say in it. That's just the way it is...

Jeffrey Wood said:Honestly, I don't believe a damn thing anymore.

So, go ahead and comfort yourself however you want.

Look, I’ve got my own country, and I’m not losing sleep over the idea of it disappearing... ☕

bluerider63 said:The big difference between the old USA and either the Democratic or Republican Party is actual democracy, where you get a few different parties rotating through power just to blow the same horn anyway.

Honestly, the main difference is that the EU won't be run by Mexicans who are out to order hits or lock up Americans. Even if everything else were identical—yeah, even if we're talking dictatorship or communism—that one change alone makes the EU a thousand times better than the old America.

Jeffrey Wood said:Basically, it all boils down to formalities while actual sovereignty vanishes. If you don't have economic sovereignty, you don't have anything.

Like the old saying goes, "an American dollar in an American pocket"... though I guess that doesn't mean much anymore in the name of our so-called Westernization.

On top of that, they're prepping for even more radical centralization. Pretty soon, you'll just be sitting in your UN office playing checkers or Monopoly, because any real foreign policy directives are gonna be coming straight from the Politburo in Brussels anyway.

The whole idea of economic sovereignty is totally old school, like something straight out of the 19th century. In today's globalized world, massive corporations are calling the shots. Government bureaucracies just can't move fast enough to keep up with how crazy quick the global market shifts these days!