Politics & Stuff

[Vesper 28,773]

[11Drogba 2,000]

@Fulham Broadway

Who are those two gentlemen who sit behind Theresa May in every video? They look like they are really there for the regular working class people. I can tell this just by looking at their faces.

 

[Fulham Broadway 16,832]

Just now, 11Drogba said:

@Fulham Broadway

Who are those two gentlemen who sit behind Theresa May in every video? They look like they are really there for the regular working class people. I can tell this just by looking at their faces.

 

Phil 'spreadsheet' Hammond is one think the other one is Damian Hinds. 

She's delaying the vote now, thinks she will get a better deal in the January sales...

[11Drogba 2,000]

1 minute ago, Fulham Broadway said:

Phil 'spreadsheet' Hammond is one think the other one is Damian Hinds. 

She's delaying the vote now, thinks she will get a better deal in the January sales...

I would hide their smug faces, but they are there every time she speaks. Not good for that party. They remind me this TV show.

 

[Fulham Broadway 16,832]

45 minutes ago, 11Drogba said:

I would hide their smug faces, but they are there every time she speaks. Not good for that party. They remind me this TV show.

 

Classic show -loved Rik Mayall. 

They should do an Israeli one with 'teflon' Netanyahu and his dodging corruption charges 

[manpe 10,861]

Mueller Exposes Putin's Hold Over Trump

Just over a week ago, on Friday December 7, the Special Counsel’s Office headed by Robert Mueller for the first time outlined in a court filing the grand narrative of the Russia Probe. The court filing revealed what many had long suspected, that Trump and his family had used, or tried to use, his presidential candidacy, and then his presidency, to enhance their own wealth.
... snip

Interesting reading. What a dick Donald is.

 

 

[Warning_Hazard 156]

What jibs my scruff is people/celebs/libtards/media associating brexit (bremain?) with old Trumpy pants!

 

[Vesper 28,773]

54 minutes ago, Warning_Hazard said:

What jibs my scruff is people/celebs/libtards/media associating brexit (bremain?) with old Trumpy pants!

 

It's a contard thing (if we are going to start rolling around in the pejorative-strewn mud of shallow and vapid insults ie. libtard)

Btw, I am a social democrat with certain left libertarian leanings, and I supported Leave from a leftist perspective. The EU is at heart, a neoliberal construct, run by the banksters, multinational firms, and the oligarchic tip top of the pyramid-inhabiting rentier classes.

It was and is designed to systemically extract wealth from the vast base of said pyramid and courier it in an ever-upward, ever more narrow stream to uber elite. One of it's chief mechanisms in doing this is have an ever more mobile, ever more fluid and anxious floating free pool of labour, shuttled around from hapless and helpless nation-state to nation-state, destroying wage standards, hard-won union worker environs, and straining social services (not to mention social cohesion) wherever it free-flows into.

That all said, Trump is well an truly correctly identified with the mostly xenophobic, if not outright racist (in projection of narrative and more than likely core beliefs as well) repugnant parts of Leave. He plays off a rancid, shop-soiled form of RW populism combined with a lowest common denominator, completely quotidian brand of white nationalism-lite.

 

What Brexit and Donald Trump have in common
An anti-Trump petition goes viral in Britain, but not in pro-Leave constituencies

https://www.economist.com/bagehots-notebook/2017/01/30/what-brexit-and-donald-trump-have-in-common

 

Trump, Brexit and the Transatlantic Relationship: The New Paradigms of the Trump Era

https://journals.openedition.org/lisa/10235

 

“The convictions that leaders have formed before reaching high office are the intellectual capital they will consume as long as they continue in office.”
Henry Kissinger, The White House Years

Donald Trump became the 45th President of the United States on 20 January 2017, thus proving wrong a certain number of pundits, observers and scholars who had judged his election most unlikely. His election represents an unprecedented situation: Donald Trump, a multi-millionaire businessman and TV reality celebrity, who had never held public office before became the present incumbent of the White House. After an aggressive, divisive and populist campaign, his victory caused much fear and doubt abroad, raising questions about Trump’s foreign policy choices and the US’s role in global affairs in this new era. This article aims to assess the extent to which the relationship between the US and the EU is impacted by Trump’s presidency. His support for Brexit, his biting attacks against NATO and blistering criticisms of the EU’s trade practices during the election campaign foretold a radical change. Also, Donald Trump’s main pledge of “America First” during the campaign sent a clear message to all America’s partners and signalled a new era in US foreign policy, an era in which the national interest would prevail over other considerations, thus establishing a clear rupture with his predecessor’s more inclusive concept of “common security for our common humanity.”1 In American Foreign Policy, Bruce Jentleson underlines that “following the national interest is the essence of choices to be made in a nation’s foreign policy.”2 All American leaders prior to Trump pursued the national interest and made choices which could best serve the American economy and security. But those choices, as Jentleson points out, were made “within the context of the international system.”3 This is where the Trump era marks a dramatic change in foreign policy strategy: all decisions, partnerships, trade agreements will be subordinated to the supreme interest of his country regardless of traditions, principles or ethics.

Bruce Jentleson distinguishes 4 core concepts that define American national interest: power, peace, prosperity and principles, the famous “4 Ps” of foreign policy.4 Foreign policy is often a mix of the “4 Ps” with some objectives prevailing over others, but power, without a doubt, is the concept that best defines “the essence of choice” in Trump’s foreign policy strategy.5 Power, domination and strength are key words to characterise Trump’s relationship with foreign countries. He imposes his decisions unilaterally, he humiliates his partners and deliberately causes chaos to better assert himself as a most powerful leader. We will see that this is particularly true as regards his attitude towards Brexit and Theresa May, the British Prime Minister. His support for Brexit was nothing but egotistical opportunism and Theresa May suffers today the consequences of Trump’s unpredictable behaviour. Also, behind this domineering attitude lies the desire to restore the image of the United States as the supreme world power, an image that some on the right deemed dented by Obama’s supposedly weak presidency. Prosperity also looms large in Trump’s foreign policy strategy. “America First” means that the economic benefit of his nation will be sought at all costs, even if this entails major rifts with allies or major breaches in the World Trade Organisation’s provisions. On the other hand, principles and peace seem to have very little place in Trump’s foreign policy approach. His repeated attacks against NATO and his unilateral decisions show his deep-seated contempt for international institutions or multilateralism. So far, he has already taken a series of unilateral measures which have had a tremendous impact on the geopolitical order, the most significant being his decision to withdraw from the Iranian nuclear deal on 9 May 2017.

In this changing world of new paradigms (protectionism, nationalism and unilateralism), new powers (China and Russia) and new threats (North Korea), what place is left for the transatlantic relationship? Is the transatlantic relationship an outdated paradigm for Donald Trump? What values and ideals will the US and the UE continue to share and defend together? Those are the main questions this paper will raise to get a better insight into Trump’s approach to the European Union and assess the role that Trump will assign to the transatlantic relationship during his term in office.

The Transatlantic Relationship: A Cornerstone in the History of American Foreign Policy

snip

[Warning_Hazard 156]

3 hours ago, Vesper said:

It's a contard thing (if we are going to start rolling around in the pejorative-strewn mud of shallow and vapid insults ie. libtard)

Btw, I am a social democrat with certain left libertarian leanings, and I supported Leave from a leftist perspective. The EU is at heart, a neoliberal construct, run by the banksters, multinational firms, and the oligarchic tip top of the pyramid-inhabiting rentier classes.

It was and is designed to systemically extract wealth from the vast base of said pyramid and courier it in an ever-upward, ever more narrow stream to uber elite. One of it's chief mechanisms in doing this is have an ever more mobile, ever more fluid and anxious floating free pool of labour, shuttled around from hapless and helpless nation-state to nation-state, destroying wage standards, hard-won union worker environs, and straining social services (not to mention social cohesion) wherever it free-flows into.

That all said, Trump is well an truly correctly identified with the mostly xenophobic, if not outright racist (in projection of narrative and more than likely core beliefs as well) repugnant parts of Leave. He plays off a rancid, shop-soiled form of RW populism combined with a lowest common denominator, completely quotidian brand of white nationalism-lite.

 

What Brexit and Donald Trump have in common
An anti-Trump petition goes viral in Britain, but not in pro-Leave constituencies

https://www.economist.com/bagehots-notebook/2017/01/30/what-brexit-and-donald-trump-have-in-common

 

Trump, Brexit and the Transatlantic Relationship: The New Paradigms of the Trump Era

https://journals.openedition.org/lisa/10235

 

“The convictions that leaders have formed before reaching high office are the intellectual capital they will consume as long as they continue in office.”
Henry Kissinger, The White House Years

Donald Trump became the 45th President of the United States on 20 January 2017, thus proving wrong a certain number of pundits, observers and scholars who had judged his election most unlikely. His election represents an unprecedented situation: Donald Trump, a multi-millionaire businessman and TV reality celebrity, who had never held public office before became the present incumbent of the White House. After an aggressive, divisive and populist campaign, his victory caused much fear and doubt abroad, raising questions about Trump’s foreign policy choices and the US’s role in global affairs in this new era. This article aims to assess the extent to which the relationship between the US and the EU is impacted by Trump’s presidency. His support for Brexit, his biting attacks against NATO and blistering criticisms of the EU’s trade practices during the election campaign foretold a radical change. Also, Donald Trump’s main pledge of “America First” during the campaign sent a clear message to all America’s partners and signalled a new era in US foreign policy, an era in which the national interest would prevail over other considerations, thus establishing a clear rupture with his predecessor’s more inclusive concept of “common security for our common humanity.”1 In American Foreign Policy, Bruce Jentleson underlines that “following the national interest is the essence of choices to be made in a nation’s foreign policy.”2 All American leaders prior to Trump pursued the national interest and made choices which could best serve the American economy and security. But those choices, as Jentleson points out, were made “within the context of the international system.”3 This is where the Trump era marks a dramatic change in foreign policy strategy: all decisions, partnerships, trade agreements will be subordinated to the supreme interest of his country regardless of traditions, principles or ethics.

Bruce Jentleson distinguishes 4 core concepts that define American national interest: power, peace, prosperity and principles, the famous “4 Ps” of foreign policy.4 Foreign policy is often a mix of the “4 Ps” with some objectives prevailing over others, but power, without a doubt, is the concept that best defines “the essence of choice” in Trump’s foreign policy strategy.5 Power, domination and strength are key words to characterise Trump’s relationship with foreign countries. He imposes his decisions unilaterally, he humiliates his partners and deliberately causes chaos to better assert himself as a most powerful leader. We will see that this is particularly true as regards his attitude towards Brexit and Theresa May, the British Prime Minister. His support for Brexit was nothing but egotistical opportunism and Theresa May suffers today the consequences of Trump’s unpredictable behaviour. Also, behind this domineering attitude lies the desire to restore the image of the United States as the supreme world power, an image that some on the right deemed dented by Obama’s supposedly weak presidency. Prosperity also looms large in Trump’s foreign policy strategy. “America First” means that the economic benefit of his nation will be sought at all costs, even if this entails major rifts with allies or major breaches in the World Trade Organisation’s provisions. On the other hand, principles and peace seem to have very little place in Trump’s foreign policy approach. His repeated attacks against NATO and his unilateral decisions show his deep-seated contempt for international institutions or multilateralism. So far, he has already taken a series of unilateral measures which have had a tremendous impact on the geopolitical order, the most significant being his decision to withdraw from the Iranian nuclear deal on 9 May 2017.

In this changing world of new paradigms (protectionism, nationalism and unilateralism), new powers (China and Russia) and new threats (North Korea), what place is left for the transatlantic relationship? Is the transatlantic relationship an outdated paradigm for Donald Trump? What values and ideals will the US and the UE continue to share and defend together? Those are the main questions this paper will raise to get a better insight into Trump’s approach to the European Union and assess the role that Trump will assign to the transatlantic relationship during his term in office.

The Transatlantic Relationship: A Cornerstone in the History of American Foreign Policy

snip

is it bad that i read a bit and then got to the part about leavers being racists and my jaw almost destroyed my teeth with clenching and i started scanning and adjusting my christmas hat?

you only mentioned monay but its more than that. Its patriotism and a sense of what makes England well England, Not racism etc.

I served 11 yrs, My dad was a fast jet nav and his dad a legendary wellington bomber pilot who helped the allies invade italy by getting to rome etc.

Now we are being screwed by ze germans and random eurocrats and its crap, Im a qualified and experienced aero/elec engineer and its wrecked so much, The americans (esp mil) will and do give most of the work i do so meh to europe on work etc.

my best mate was in portugal until the euro ripped it apart, only a few countries like the eu and that's because it makes them rich.

Germany again tore poland apart this time by buying all the industrial sectors and closing them down, poland now in midst of a restart and booming but also with a crazy far right like germany (3rd largest party in germ) italy also getting shafted.

If anything, the eu is more relatable to trumpy toes!

Trump is just a russian asset being gently stroked like blofeld's cat!

Remainers are way more extreme lets be real. 'the end is nigh'  'nuffa ref' pseudo babble cult!

Dont forget that pig boy tried re negotiations but eu nazis threw baguettes and sausages at us

we saved all of themmmmmm

EU says: 'no u' to everything

no surrender

im a racist dont tell me? lmao nope

 

 

 

[Vesper 28,773]

34 minutes ago, Warning_Hazard said:

is it bad that i read a bit and then got to the part about leavers being racists and my jaw almost destroyed my teeth with clenching and i started scanning and adjusting my christmas hat?

you only mentioned monay but its more than that. Its patriotism and a sense of what makes England well England, Not racism etc.

I served 11 yrs, My dad was a fast jet nav and his dad a legendary wellington bomber pilot who helped the allies invade italy by getting to rome etc.

Now we are being screwed by ze germans and random eurocrats and its crap, Im a qualified and experienced aero/elec engineer and its wrecked so much, The americans (esp mil) will and do give most of the work i do so meh to europe on work etc.

my best mate was in portugal until the euro ripped it apart, only a few countries like the eu and that's because it makes them rich.

Germany again tore poland apart this time by buying all the industrial sectors and closing them down, poland now in midst of a restart and booming but also with a crazy far right like germany (3rd largest party in germ) italy also getting shafted.

If anything, the eu is more relatable to trumpy toes!

Trump is just a russian asset being gently stroked like blofeld's cat!

Remainers are way more extreme lets be real. 'the end is nigh'  'nuffa ref' pseudo babble cult!

Dont forget that pig boy tried re negotiations but eu nazis threw baguettes and sausages at us

we saved all of themmmmmm

EU says: 'no u' to everything

no surrender

im a racist dont tell me? lmao nope

 

 

 

You obviously did not draw much from my own statement about me being anti EU FROM THE LEFT

I took offence at your use of the slur 'libtard'. It is close-minded and reactionary, and very much erroneously implies some sort of monolithic group think amongst people on the left side of the political spectrum.

Both so-called LW AND so-called RW factions were split on Brexit. Some of Remainers supported that stance for nefarious reasons, as did some of the Leave side. To say that there was absolutely zero amounts of xenophobia and racism driving SOME of Leave vote is just patently untrue, just as it would also be false to say that all of the Remainers came to the table with completely pure-as-the-driven-snow hands. The Blairites (my ideological foes within our Labour Party) most definitely do not have good intentions.

 

[Sideshow Luiz 2,310]

26 minutes ago, Warning_Hazard said:

is it bad that i read a bit and then got to the part about leavers being racists and my jaw almost destroyed my teeth with clenching and i started scanning and adjusting my christmas hat?

you only mentioned monay but its more than that. Its patriotism and a sense of what makes England well England, Not racism etc.

I served 11 yrs, My dad was a fast jet nav and his dad a legendary wellington bomber pilot who helped the allies invade italy by getting to rome etc.

Now we are being screwed by ze germans and random eurocrats and its crap, Im a qualified and experienced aero/elec engineer and its wrecked so much, The americans (esp mil) will and do give most of the work i do so meh to europe on work etc.

my best mate was in portugal until the euro ripped it apart, only a few countries like the eu and that's because it makes them rich.

Germany again tore poland apart this time by buying all the industrial sectors and closing them down, poland now in midst of a restart and booming but also with a crazy far right like germany (3rd largest party in germ) italy also getting shafted.

If anything, the eu is more relatable to trumpy toes!

Trump is just a russian asset being gently stroked like blofeld's cat!

Remainers are way more extreme lets be real. 'the end is nigh'  'nuffa ref' pseudo babble cult!

Dont forget that pig boy tried re negotiations but eu nazis threw baguettes and sausages at us

we saved all of themmmmmm

EU says: 'no u' to everything

no surrender

im a racist dont tell me? lmao nope

 

 

 

I don't think she's calling anyone a racist.  You have your reasons to vote leave, just as she supported leave for her own reasons.  I think she was referring to a portion of leavers who did vote leave for xenophobic reasons, and their relationship to the same portion of Trump supporters.  That portion of unfortunately tarnishes everyone who did vote leave.  It's a truth.  In the same way that the idiot racists at our club (of which I think there's the same percentage at every club, more or less) tarnishes all of us supporters.

[Warning_Hazard 156]

1 hour ago, Sideshow Luiz said:

I don't think she's calling anyone a racist.  You have your reasons to vote leave, just as she supported leave for her own reasons.  I think she was referring to a portion of leavers who did vote leave for xenophobic reasons, and their relationship to the same portion of Trump supporters.  That portion of unfortunately tarnishes everyone who did vote leave.  It's a truth.  In the same way that the idiot racists at our club (of which I think there's the same percentage at every club, more or less) tarnishes all of us supporters.

yeah ok so every european/eastern euro/middle eastern/irish/jewish/african etc is racist when hating the english, Taking jobs for tiny wages killing wage rates, bombing kids and women at pop star concerts, Beheading a royal guard, bombing pubs, Buses etc crazy foreign gangs, Taking the pez living off a country they hate, no integration, Sending money out the economy, Pushing crazy agendas upon us and claiming this and that then using the left for gains/protection etc etc then? not at all.

crazy immigration has ruined the country, esp unskilled imo and those people affected are pissed from here all across to ukraine! look at brussels just this week!

Australia have it right imo.

leftys just point to some EDL and try to use it as ammo to misdirect the truths even some say have another vote literally not accepting a vote saying no one knew wah wah its crazy. most voted for a no deal like the ballot said lol..

17+ million in the biggest vote turn out ever said screw this crap.

its undeniable and you have an agenda to do anything else but accept it and move on.

definition of a representative democracy 

i lost my cares when a muslim tried to tell me not to hold hands with my mrs in east ldn 2 days after coming bk from tour!

[Warning_Hazard 156]

43 minutes ago, Vesper said:

You obviously did not draw much from my own statement about me being anti EU FROM THE LEFT

I took offence at your use of the slur 'libtard'. It is close-minded and reactionary, and very much erroneously implies some sort of monolithic group think amongst people on the left side of the political spectrum.

Both so-called LW AND so-called RW factions were split on Brexit. Some of Remainers supported that stance for nefarious reasons, as did some of the Leave side. To say that there was absolutely zero amounts of xenophobia and racism driving SOME of Leave vote is just patently untrue, just as it would also be false to say that all of the Remainers came to the table with completely pure-as-the-driven-snow hands. The Blairites (my ideological foes within our Labour Party) most definitely do not have good intentions.

 

im not even right.

know of jordan peterson?

im common sense lol

libtards is the name i give to those so far left they are the same as far right.

Chairman Mao loved identity politics! its commie AF

[cosmicway 1,323]

Brexit sucks.
Once upon a time the Soviet Union was trying to break up the European Union, using its vast network of spies and saboteurs to create discontent.
The Tories of the era resisted, as was natural for them to do, but not now.
Now they are doing Putin's job and we see the old ghosts of ultra-nationalism one by one returning from their graves. Mosleyites-Lepenists-Afd.
International communism is also searching for a formula to revive themselves.
It's like Norwegian zombies.

 

[11Drogba 2,000]

9 hours ago, Vesper said:

The EU is at heart, a neoliberal construct, run by the banksters, multinational firms, and the oligarchic tip top of the pyramid-inhabiting rentier classes.

It was and is designed to systemically extract wealth from the vast base of said pyramid and courier it in an ever-upward, ever more narrow stream to uber elite. One of it's chief mechanisms in doing this is have an ever more mobile, ever more fluid and anxious floating free pool of labour, shuttled around from hapless and helpless nation-state to nation-state, destroying wage standards, hard-won union worker environs, and straining social services (not to mention social cohesion) wherever it free-flows into.

Vesper do you think Europeans would be better off if there was no EU? I thought one of the main purposes is to prevent another world war. 

The historical roots of the European Union lie in the Second World War. Europeans are determined to prevent such killing and destruction from ever happening ... From https://europa.eu/european-union/about-eu/history/1945-1959_en

[Vesper 28,773]

53 minutes ago, 11Drogba said:

Vesper do you think Europeans would be better off if there was no EU? I thought one of the main purposes is to prevent another world war. 

The historical roots of the European Union lie in the Second World War. Europeans are determined to prevent such killing and destruction from ever happening ... From https://europa.eu/european-union/about-eu/history/1945-1959_en

You do not need a full blown centralised state apparatus at continental level to prevent wars between genuine democracies. You also certainly do not need nor want a unified currency scheme (the euro) for 19 nation states, yet each with their own fiscal policy at domestic levels.

Germany has been the huge winner in the euro sweepstakes, as it is a massive exporting nation, thus needs a cheap currency to keep acceptable profit margins. With all the turmoil, if Germany still had the Deutsche Mark, it would be blown sky high on the FOREX markets (say 3 quid or more to mark) and Germany's export profits would be eviscerated.

On the other end of the spectrum, you have the PIGS nations who have been forced into suicidal bouts of austerity regimes, just to keep their books in balance under the ever-watching eye of the ECB (in Germany! Of course).

The EU and the euro were always a contrivance of the banks, by the banks, and for the banks, with multinational predatory capitalism in a synchopated goose-step.

Their are plenty of other confederations of our continent that can be implemented without the loss of sovereignty, fiscal-monetary linkage breakdown, and the socio-cultural upheaval that is tearing peoples apart at a domestic poltical level.

[11Drogba 2,000]

22 minutes ago, Vesper said:

You do not need a full blown centralised state apparatus to prevent war between democracies. You also certainly do not need nor want a unified currency scheme (the euro) for 19 nation states, yet each with their own fiscal policy at domestic levels.

Germany has been the huge winner in the euro sweepstakes, as it is a massive exporting nation, thus needs a cheap currency to keep acceptable profit margins. With all the turmoil, if Germany still had the Deutsche Mark, it would be blown sky high on the FOREX markets (say 3 quid or more to mark) and Germany's export profits would be eviscerated.

On the other end of the spectrum, you have the PIGS nations who have been forced into suicidal bouts of austerity regimes, just to keep their books in balance under the ever-watching eye of the ECB (in Germany! Of course).

The EU and the euro were always a contrivance of the banks, by the banks, and for the banks, with multinational predatory capitalism in a synchopated goose-step.

Their are plenty of other confederations of our continent that can be implemented without the loss of sovereignty, fiscal-monetary linkage breakdown, and the socio-cultural upheaval that is tearing peoples apart at a domestic poltical level.

But England was not part of the euro currency. About Germany winning, in general, countries which are good at technical fields and innovation do better in capitalist system.

I don't know all the details I am sure many of the laws and regulations are in favor of corporations instead of public, it is even worse in the US. I am just not sure that every country leaving the EU would make things better for Europe.

 

[Vesper 28,773]

41 minutes ago, 11Drogba said:

But England was not part of the euro currency. About Germany winning, in general, countries which are good at technical fields and innovation do better in capitalist system.

I don't know all the details I am sure many of the laws and regulations are in favor of corporations instead of public, it is even worse in the US. I am just not sure that every country leaving the EU would make things better for Europe.

 

It wouldn't be a complete dissolution, obviously. Of the euro, yes, but not of some sort of continental compact. Something along the the the European Economic Community perhaps. Having lived in the US for a couple of years whilst reading for my MBA, I can assure you we do not want to go down the United States of Europe route. The Ameri an federalist system is approaching an inflection point sometime over the next 20 years or so where it will be in danger of a breakdown spiral.

Their lower house (House of Representaives) is linked to their elections of their Presidents via the Elecroral College. The number of electors is 538, which is arrived at by adding the number of high house (The Senate, 2 per state x 50 states) seats, 100, plus the number of lower house seats, 435, plus 3 for their Capitol, the District of Columbia. 

The problem is, they have not truly increased the size of their House of Representatives since 1913, when the population was only 100 million. It is close to 330 million now, with no increase in House size.

This has meant that the largest states are short-changed in number of House members (and thus Electoral College votes for President, which is completely why Trump won from a systemic standpoint) to the point where one Wyoming (smallest state in population) POTUS Electoral vote is worth almost FOUR California Electoral votes. 

Not only does this effect their Presidential races, but law making as well, as the small states carry far too much power in the House.

The largest states are almost all Democratic Party-dominated in nature, with the exception of Texas, and, to a lesser extent, Florida. These large states and large cities in general keep growing, yet lose more and more voting power each year. I call it constitutional kettling (after the police action of kettling mob crowds by splitting them up, then pushing them into dead end streets).

Combined with ultra dodgy gerrymandering of House districts, and also horrid voter suppression, it has allowed the RW Republican party to be vastly OVER represented at the Federal and also state levels.

The real nail in the coffin will come in terms of their Senate, fixed at 100 seats, 2 per state, no matter how big or small. Due to population drift and growth, by the early to mid 2030's or so, 30% of the US population will control SEVENTY percent (70 seats) of the Senate. 70% percent of the population will only have 30% (30 seats) of the Senate.

That tiny minority controlling 70 seats is mostly made up of a much more rural, poorer, much more white, conservative, fundie religious, less educated populace (ie it will be far more RW than the vast majority of the nation.)

Again, this will result in incredible overrepresented numbers of RW Republicans. The Senate confirms the third branch of government in the US, their federal courts, most importantly their Supreme Court, which is already skewed to the right,  and may end up 8 conservatives, only 1 liberal if Trump is re-elected, or even before, it the old-aged liberals and the one with bad diabetes die in the next 2 years.

Their national union simply cannot absorb these incoming further electoral distortions and remain whole with dramatic changes, but most would take a Constitutional Amendment, which, under their system is insanely hard to do.

There is one that doesnt (and this doesnt NOTHING to sort their Senate issues): raise the size of the House of Representatives from 435 to at least 1001 or more and thus you can much more equally distribute law making and Electoral College voting power. It only takes an Act of Congress, but the small states and especially the Republicans (who have ruthlessly, brilliantly, and often illegally gamed the American governmental system over the last 50 os so years) will viscously fight that increase in House seats.

I leave you with this thought. IF the US House had the same number of constituents per member that the UK House of Commons does, it would 3,250 seats. If it had the same as here in Sweden, it wouldn't have 435 members, it would have over TWELVE THOUSAND. 

They are headed for a breakup by 2040 or so, surely by 2050 unless massive changes are made.