5 ms·

The election outcome itself was the consequence of gross, systemic failure throughout the entirety of the United States' citizenry, society, institutions, and g

The election outcome itself was the consequence of gross, systemic failure throughout the entirety of the United States' citizenry, society, institutions, and government. The best thing for the States to do at this point would be to hold a Constitutional Convention and dissolve the government of the United States as unfit for any purpose, after which their citizens can decide how they wish to proceed.

deleted 5mo ago
[deleted]
zulux 5mo ago
Not an easy idea when about ten states have enough nuclear weapons to glass the earth.
hattmall 5mo ago
Damn, a few years of Trump and your solution is to dissolve the US? Really?
- defrost 5mo ago
  That was essentially the advice given by Benjamin Franklin, although he suggested turning it off and then on again before a Despot appears otherwise it would be inevitable that a Despot would appear.
  - hattmall 5mo ago
    Ah, good old Benjamin "Fake News" Franklin, or should I say SILENCE DOGOOD.
    - defrost 5mo ago
      Certainly had more of interest to say than John Barron ever did.
- collingreen 5mo ago
  Really. Going back to the drawing board after watching some major issues break the country is how we got this constitution in the first (second) place. The founders clearly suggested this as an intentional pressure valve to avoid the terrible catastrophe that is civil war or the dissolution of the union. When values diverge in such extreme ways (values, not politics or preferences) it is very hard to continue to see each other as fellow citizens working toward some shared future. Mix in severe inequality and a broken, corrupt justice system and there is a very real sense of impending escalation. With the failure of the judicial and legislative branches to control corruption, we might be risking everything by NOT trying to find new middle ground. There was a pew research poll in March [0] showing half of Americans think people in the opposing political party are morally bad people, not just people with different views or priorities. People openly tell each other they are "ruining the country" over things like "should the US spend tax money helping illegal immigrants in any way" or "should trans people have the same rights as they were born with" or "should the government protect known pedophiles from consequences" or "should women have to put their life on the line carrying a rape pregnancy to full term" or "should there be investigations when protesters are shot and killed by immigration agents" or "should the president be above the law". Both sides think their take on these questions is the only reasonable one and anyone on the other side is either delusional or downright evil. Last time values diverged until the breaking point was because a huge chunk of people were willing to die in order to keep owning other people and another huge chunk of people were willing to die to prevent it. The resulting war caused more American deaths than all the others combined. Despite this, plenty of people still proudly fly the rebel flag today. Another continental Congress to reauthor (renegotiate?) the Union is a monumental undertaking that is extremely dangerous for the stability of the country so it shouldn't be considered lightly. Civil war is far worse though so hopefully we can collectively navigate our way back to calmer waters. [0] https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2026/03/05/in-25-country-survey-americans-especially-likely-to-view-fellow-citizens-as-morally-bad/ https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2026/03/05/in-25-countr...
  - mindslight 5mo ago
    Dissolving the Constitutional government isn't a "middle ground". Rather it's exactly what the big-money supporters behind Trump have wanted from the start - whether it's big tech looking to become the domestic government, or other countries looking to take the US down a few pegs. I agree that we likely need a few Constitutional amendments, but that is a far cry from dissolution. The amendments I believe we need: 1. Ranked Pairs voting to break out of this lesser of two evils race to the bottom. Get rid of the Electoral College merely because it's straightforward rather than quibbling about out how it could work with non-plurality voting. 2. Independent executive agencies chartered by Congress. Heads of which are independent executives elected just like the President. 3. Triple the number of senators (reducing this effect of moribund "senior" senators that benfit their state due to pull). National elections run every year (we shouldn't have to wait until "midterms" to course correct, and would also diminish the stark divide between "election promises" and "results") 4. Repudiation of Citizens United, and this general nonsense that corpos possess the natural rights of individuals. (something similar might happen at the state level, as states are actually the governments that charter corpos to exist/operate in the first place) 5. Repudiation of Wickard v Filburn and followup decisions that have allowed the federal government to characterize everything as interstate commerce. The federal government should only be able to get involved when states have a disagreement. The first two are the critical foundation. Note that the overall effect is for an individual's vote to be more than a single bit of information. The last three might not be strictly necessary, but relieve the pressure from the path dependence of where we're at.
prewett 5mo ago
Have you seen countries without a government? The US government is definitely fit for purpose. It successfully keeps order, for one thing. The government in a representative government isn't the problem, the people are the problem. In this case we have an intransigent Left and an incompetent Right wanting not-Left. Both sides want to "win", and in that situation, everybody loses. I think the ancient Greeks called this "stasis", and if the polis couldn't get out of stasis, the state failed. I believe the failure modes were either getting conquered or getting a tyrant. But we could choose to work together.
- watwut 5mo ago
  The issue is entirely om the right side here. This is simply not both side issu. America has far right party and center party. It keeps to blame left whenever its far right push for own goals. The anti democratic and heavily corrup republicam goverment is product of right wing bubble. It has little to do with left.
  - imtringued 5mo ago
    [flagged]
    - notarobot123 5mo ago
      We're off-topic but it's genuinely interesting that you see these as "leftist" beliefs about men. Isn't this mostly the set of views on masculinity in the "manosphere" which is very much aligned with "rightist" beliefs? I agree there is an apparent tone of misandry in some of the rhetoric of the left but the actual beliefs you cite are (with the exception of a few) things men on the right say about other men.
    - ahartmetz 5mo ago
      This is "identity politics leftism", which is an incredibly useful (to political donors) distraction from economic leftism. Economic leftism is not what the donors want, hence the center party with added idpol bullshit distraction and the right wing party.

deleted 5mo ago

[deleted]

zulux 5mo ago

Not an easy idea when about ten states have enough nuclear weapons to glass the earth.

hattmall 5mo ago

Damn, a few years of Trump and your solution is to dissolve the US? Really?

defrost 5mo ago
That was essentially the advice given by Benjamin Franklin, although he suggested turning it off and then on again before a Despot appears otherwise it would be inevitable that a Despot would appear.
- hattmall 5mo ago
  Ah, good old Benjamin "Fake News" Franklin, or should I say SILENCE DOGOOD.
  - defrost 5mo ago
    Certainly had more of interest to say than John Barron ever did.
collingreen 5mo ago
Really. Going back to the drawing board after watching some major issues break the country is how we got this constitution in the first (second) place. The founders clearly suggested this as an intentional pressure valve to avoid the terrible catastrophe that is civil war or the dissolution of the union. When values diverge in such extreme ways (values, not politics or preferences) it is very hard to continue to see each other as fellow citizens working toward some shared future. Mix in severe inequality and a broken, corrupt justice system and there is a very real sense of impending escalation. With the failure of the judicial and legislative branches to control corruption, we might be risking everything by NOT trying to find new middle ground. There was a pew research poll in March [0] showing half of Americans think people in the opposing political party are morally bad people, not just people with different views or priorities. People openly tell each other they are "ruining the country" over things like "should the US spend tax money helping illegal immigrants in any way" or "should trans people have the same rights as they were born with" or "should the government protect known pedophiles from consequences" or "should women have to put their life on the line carrying a rape pregnancy to full term" or "should there be investigations when protesters are shot and killed by immigration agents" or "should the president be above the law". Both sides think their take on these questions is the only reasonable one and anyone on the other side is either delusional or downright evil. Last time values diverged until the breaking point was because a huge chunk of people were willing to die in order to keep owning other people and another huge chunk of people were willing to die to prevent it. The resulting war caused more American deaths than all the others combined. Despite this, plenty of people still proudly fly the rebel flag today. Another continental Congress to reauthor (renegotiate?) the Union is a monumental undertaking that is extremely dangerous for the stability of the country so it shouldn't be considered lightly. Civil war is far worse though so hopefully we can collectively navigate our way back to calmer waters. [0] https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2026/03/05/in-25-country-survey-americans-especially-likely-to-view-fellow-citizens-as-morally-bad/ https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2026/03/05/in-25-countr...
- mindslight 5mo ago
  Dissolving the Constitutional government isn't a "middle ground". Rather it's exactly what the big-money supporters behind Trump have wanted from the start - whether it's big tech looking to become the domestic government, or other countries looking to take the US down a few pegs. I agree that we likely need a few Constitutional amendments, but that is a far cry from dissolution. The amendments I believe we need: 1. Ranked Pairs voting to break out of this lesser of two evils race to the bottom. Get rid of the Electoral College merely because it's straightforward rather than quibbling about out how it could work with non-plurality voting. 2. Independent executive agencies chartered by Congress. Heads of which are independent executives elected just like the President. 3. Triple the number of senators (reducing this effect of moribund "senior" senators that benfit their state due to pull). National elections run every year (we shouldn't have to wait until "midterms" to course correct, and would also diminish the stark divide between "election promises" and "results") 4. Repudiation of Citizens United, and this general nonsense that corpos possess the natural rights of individuals. (something similar might happen at the state level, as states are actually the governments that charter corpos to exist/operate in the first place) 5. Repudiation of Wickard v Filburn and followup decisions that have allowed the federal government to characterize everything as interstate commerce. The federal government should only be able to get involved when states have a disagreement. The first two are the critical foundation. Note that the overall effect is for an individual's vote to be more than a single bit of information. The last three might not be strictly necessary, but relieve the pressure from the path dependence of where we're at.

prewett 5mo ago

Have you seen countries without a government? The US government is definitely fit for purpose. It successfully keeps order, for one thing. The government in a representative government isn't the problem, the people are the problem. In this case we have an intransigent Left and an incompetent Right wanting not-Left. Both sides want to "win", and in that situation, everybody loses. I think the ancient Greeks called this "stasis", and if the polis couldn't get out of stasis, the state failed. I believe the failure modes were either getting conquered or getting a tyrant. But we could choose to work together.

watwut 5mo ago
The issue is entirely om the right side here. This is simply not both side issu. America has far right party and center party. It keeps to blame left whenever its far right push for own goals. The anti democratic and heavily corrup republicam goverment is product of right wing bubble. It has little to do with left.
- imtringued 5mo ago
  [flagged]
  - notarobot123 5mo ago
    We're off-topic but it's genuinely interesting that you see these as "leftist" beliefs about men. Isn't this mostly the set of views on masculinity in the "manosphere" which is very much aligned with "rightist" beliefs? I agree there is an apparent tone of misandry in some of the rhetoric of the left but the actual beliefs you cite are (with the exception of a few) things men on the right say about other men.
  - ahartmetz 5mo ago
    This is "identity politics leftism", which is an incredibly useful (to political donors) distraction from economic leftism. Economic leftism is not what the donors want, hence the center party with added idpol bullshit distraction and the right wing party.