> decades, possibly a generational timescale to repair.

It will easily take a generation just for people to find solidarity and courage again.

Progress takes real sacrifice. People died fighting for basic dignity and rights. The anti-slavery movement in the US fought monied interests for centuries.

It took real sacrifice for the labour movement to gain rights such as voting, education, housing, health care in the face of deadly opposition from the rich and their legislative puppets.

It just takes a moment of complaceny on the part of progressive-minded people for the rich and their legislative puppets to undo the foundations of democracy.

The risk of undoing progress so quickly is only possible after nearly a century spent centralizing the very authority that makes a quick undo possible.

The executive branch shouldn't have nearly as much authority as it does and anything we want to be difficult to be undone should be protected by law, with a legislative body needing something akin to a 2/3s vote to change it.

Instead we have a massive, powerful executive branch and legislators that can wield way too much power with a simple majority.

Under the constitution, the US federal government has far less power than, say the UK government does in comparison. Yet, if the other branches of government show no interest in constraining it, then it’ll expand rapidly.

I actually wonder if the problem the USA has is that its system has no override function like the UK does under the Parliament Act 1918. I see a lot of frustration that Congress has been deadlocked for nearly 2 decades (mostly by Republicans) so it’s no surprise the average voter demands change and wants the executive branch to take all the power.

A weaker federal government was always our design though. Really until the last century, our federal government was extremely weak and limited in authority. It wasn't until around FDR that we started seeing a shift if power to the federal government, often specifically to the executive branch.

The large executive branch has been growing since steadily since FDR though, that isn't a recent reaction to gridlock. There's a good argument that gridlock is a feature of our system meant to slow it down intentionally. We're seeing now how jarring it can be to have the government completely change source every 4 years, gridlock and bureaucracy help smooth that out.

We could be making it worse by demanding gridlock be avoided through executive actions and similar.

Sure, the system was designed to have gridlock, yet they're supposed to at least be able to operate the government. Currently, like pretty much every year lately, we're heading into March, And We Still Don't Have A Budget.

Now they're talking about keeping the government running on auto-pilot budgets all the way to September. [1] Doesn't even help that it's Rep. Exec. branch, Rep. Senate, Rep. House, Rep. Supreme Court, and Rep. Governor majority. Still a stopgap CR land where nothing gets advanced.

[1] https://www.politico.com/live-updates/2025/03/07/congress/ho...

Agreed the budget should be a non-starter. Meaning, they shouldn't be allowed to punt on agreeing to a budget deadline.

The budget is a weird topic when we consistently spend trillions in debt. I've found it hard for me to take budget debates too seriously when the idea of running such a deficit seems completely against any fundamental financial plan.

I'd care more about budget deadlines and temporary agreements if they were required to agree to a balanced budget.

Compared to historic USA, perhaps, but compared to OTHER COUNTRIES, the US system has insane gridlock and, right now, a very unhappy public. What I’m pointing to is not that more power should shift to the executive but that it should be given to the legislature, and could happen in a way that reduces this gridlock.

Compare to the UK’s Parliament Act, which allows the Commons to override the Lords if it passes the same legislation in two sessions. It means that overriding isn’t free (it takes 1-2 years of focused effort) but critical legislation can’t be blocked. Combined with strict timetables that force rejection of legislation that isn’t passed in its allotted time, you bypass the pocket veto, too. Compromise is preferred but, if the upper house refuses to play ball, the threat of ramming it through anyway always exists to keep it in check.

Honest question (including that since its sometimes hard to tell when written) -

What additional authority doss the US legislative branch need? They have pretty wide authority to create any laws that don't violate our constitutional rights, I don't know how we could really expand that further (but my view is definitely biased since I grew up here).

I think congress would be well within its rights to change their own rules to add time limits on legislation or required expiration on proposed bills, for example.

You’re thinking too high level and not looking at the mechanics. Congress has no power to, say, give the House of Representatives override the Senate and President. In the UK, this is not only possible but happened in 1918. The USA would require a constitutional amendment which falls into the same deadlock problem.

Some things do sit within Congress such as the Senate adopting the insane role allowing filibuster. However, this is also encouraged by the fact the Senate can kill legislation like this. Filibusters rarely happen in the UK Parliament because the majority party can force through legislation they feel is important enough.

You say that deadlock is built in as though this is desirable. However the public just became so frustrated by the system that they just elected a madman to smash it to pieces.

Encouraging compromise and working across the aisle is an excellent property in the US system. But that has broken down and I think part of the reason is there’s no mechanism to break the deadlock that can force parties back to the table.

We definitely agree on needing to better encourage compromise and collaboration. I'd much prefer that to be done by changing incentives rather than expanding powers though.

The US political system is completely broken with regards to lobbying and campaign finance. All the money floating around makes it nearly impossible for representatives to work across the aisle, or to ignore the aisle and vote for what their own state wants regardless of party.

I’m not talking about “expanding” power, merely proposing that the USA learn from other systems that have deadlock breaking systems, with limitations to mitigate abuse. I’m not sure taking money out the system will have the same effect, as we’ve seen Republicans gain a lot of political capital by just being obstructive since 2008.

Here is a example of an alternative system, that I would prefer: the legislative branch is the one that people vote for, (with proportional representation), and the legislative branch then elects the executive branch.

If there is ever a conflict between legislative and executive, then the legislative branch can remove the executive branch.

In other words: the president shouldn't be head of government (only head of state, sort of a figurehead).

Which other major countries have happier publics? The UK public seems at least as unhappy as the USA. UK citizens certainly aren't happy with low economic growth (everywhere outside London), high immigration, tiny houses, and decaying healthcare. Similar issues in Germany, etc.

I would argue that the much higher incidence rate of suicide and mass murder in the US compared to the UK or Germany suggests otherwise. Citizens in other developed countries seem much less prone to irrational, life changing outbreaks, that to me seems consistent with the idea that there is a deep current of unhappiness running through the American population that is causing people to “break”

Suicide rates are more a cultural artifact than a sign of national happiness level. The rates in an number of Arab countries are particularly low, even though people there seem to be deeply unhappy to the extent of trying to escape to Europe.

https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/suicide-r...

The US and Europe are culturally quite close, unlike to Arabia, so I think the comparison actually holds.

There is a compelling argument that the US is culturally much more like a highly developed version of a Latin American country than a European country. Over time I find myself coming around to this idea.

To the extent it's similar to any other culture I agree, the closest feels like brazil (to me) - but it's also very distinct, it's very much it's own thing in a way that few other cultures are (I would probably count the UK as one of those few by the way).

Latin America is all quite similar.

Mainland Europe is quite similar, bar the obvious exception.

Canada?

But the Donald is doing everything he can to stop that.

Canada and the US are very different places, I'm fairly astonished to hear that to be honest.

Canada may as well be British, except Quebec who are somehow more french than the french themselves.

if he is he’s doing a piss poor job of it (which of course is not surprising..) :)

I’d argue a lot of the unhappiness in the UK is a consequence of 5 years of a Tory government choosing not to govern. The public still have a hard time believing this fact because it sounds too insane to be true, no matter how much evidence we have for it!

Also, it doesn’t help that Labour are shit at comms. They’re actually doing what they were elected to do but don’t want to tell the public about it, much like the Biden administration!

But in the UK this effectively gives power to the executive. Our exec are drawn from the legislature, and most ruling party MPs will Have a government position - especially if the majority is slight.

It’s not a perfect system but it’s one that allows a party to push through the change they were voted to bring!

Should a minority of parliament, or the government in general, be able to force through what they think is best?

That seems like the kind of setup that works great until it goes very, very wrong.

It’s not a minority of Parliament though. It requires a majority vote, in two separate sessions, to be forced through (in essence, it takes up to 2 years). It’s not an easy system to abuse at all.

The UK's Constitution is the result of a literal war between the legislative and executive branches. The legislative branch won, and cut the King's head off.

> The executive branch shouldn't have nearly as much authority as it does and anything we want to be difficult to be undone should be protected by law

It doesn't matter if rights are protected by law, if the executive branch has no intention to enforce that law.

Right now the executive branch is plainly violating laws established by Congress, and there is no one to stop them.

The legislative and judicial branches are both expected to hold the executive accountable if it breaks the law. If that doesn't happen our system is fundamentally broken, we might as well throw it out and start over.

Is there any democratic system that is safe from democratically voting to dissolve the democracy and replace it with whatever autocracy/kakistocracy/oligarchy we've got now?

No, that's a fundamental risk built into democracy.

If any minority group has the power to overrule a majority vote, regardless of what the vote is for, then you don't really have a democracy.

No, every country is one election away from this shit-show.

Which is why under no circumstances you should ever elect anyone who will send yours in that direction. Canadians, take note, the CPC only detached its lips from Trump's backside because they needed to come up for air.

At minimum, don't elect people who staged failed coups. They and their supporters will not ever act like they are bound by law.

The executive branch has blatantly violated numerous laws but so far they have still obeyed court orders which explicitly required them to follow those laws. The real Constitutional crisis will come if they decide to openly defy a federal court order.

I would also note that while the current Trump administration has broken federal laws at an accelerated rate, the previous Biden administration did much the same thing on a smaller scale. People here on HN frequently make excuses for Biden's illegal student loan forgiveness program because they liked the results but if we want to preserve the rule of law then it needs to apply to every program. In the long run allowing unchecked growth of executive branch power and the administrative state will be bad for everyone.

https://www.scotusblog.com/2023/06/supreme-court-strikes-dow...

It's quite telling that you see this as remotely comparable to how the executive is being conducted right now.

Its quite telling to me that you don't.

In both cases the executive branch is overstepping legal bounds and attempting to take actions that it isn't legally authorized to do.

Right, continuing a tradition of executive overreach to help indebted students get the dick out of their ass is the exact same thing as dismantling the federal government, installing loyalists, betraying allies, allying with dictators, and promising lots of money to billionaires. I intend for it to be telling that I don't see them as the same. We don't even live on the same fucking planet.

The issue isn't why laws were breached, only that the executive branch intentionally broke them.

The why behind it matters most for how emotional of a response it will invoke, but maybe I'm preaching to the choir here.

I expect "illegal" action in the sense that it will sometimes turn out the executive doesn't have the authority to do it when tested by courts. I expect that to happen when the executive tries to push its agenda past an obstructionist Congress (for better or worse). It's not something I would consider "illegal" in the sense you could go to jail for doing it. But the reasons for acting a certain way absolutely matter here as they always do, and I am much more concerned about sanewashing with both-sideisms. Not just the reasons, but the extent to which he is willing to circumvent established systems of how basically everything works is much more concerning than attempting to pass EOs that are eventually struck down in the courts.

> Not just the reasons, but the extent to which he is willing to circumvent established systems of how basically everything works is much more concerning than attempting to pass EOs that are eventually struck down in the courts.

Hope you don't mind me continuing to pull on this thread, I'm genuinely interested to better understand where you have drawn the line here.

Biden was circumventing established systems when he tried to cancel student debts. He even tried again when the first attempt was blocked. Our higher education system, legal framework around student debt, and the debt industry as a whole was very well established and legally defined.

What is so different with Trump's executive orders? I get that you disagree with them, I disagree with many of them too, but legally I just don't see much light between the two. They both abuse executive orders in an attempt to Dodge existing legislation on the books and make change that the office has no authority to make.

One intended to help relieve people's debts and the other attempts to dismantle the government and remove those who oppose him. I don't understand how you don't understand how they are categorically different actions, even if both are illegal. I feel like I'm taking crazy pills. To reiterate

> dismantling the federal government, installing loyalists, betraying allies, allying with dictators, and promising lots of money to billionaires

while lying about everything.

>People here on HN frequently make excuses for Biden's illegal student loan forgiveness program because

Biden didn't do anything you suggest. You're consuming the propaganda. George Bush made it so that Federal workers with student loans could get them discharged at X years of service. X just happened to fall into Trump's first term.

Trump broke the promise made to people doing their civic duty, Biden repaired it.

Biden never took on more authority than what was established almost two decades ago.

Biden was absolutely trying to cancel, or partially pay for, any federally backed loans and pell grants [1]. It wasn't limited only to federal employees with student debt.

[1] https://www.cbsnews.com/news/student-loan-forgiveness-applic...

I haven't consumed any propaganda. I read the Supreme Court opinion in Biden v. Nebraska. You should do the same instead of making things up.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/22-506_nmip.pdf

Lawyers are paid very well to present the best case possible for their client, you can't honestly believe that every detail of the events are going to be submitted as evidence, right?

How do you distinguish between propaganda and a lawyer arguing a political policy on behalf of the president of the united states, with the understanding that a lawyer should make the most compelling case they possibly can? Its political, its a one-sided view, its cherry picked, and its meant to persuade the target audience to believe a certain point - that sounds pretty propagandistic to me.

That's a total non sequitur. Did you even read it? I linked to the final Supreme Court opinion, not the arguments made by lawyers on opposing sides or exhibits entered into evidence by the trial court.

Its not a non sequitur. The court can only rule based on what was admitted into the record, and that's controlled by the lawyers who as I said earlier are there to make the best case for their client, not the most complete and accurate case.

Again a total non sequitur. Both sides had ample opportunity to present evidence and make their arguments. If you think something was missed or wrongly decided then be specific and provide citations.

In theory, that isn't too far from the system we have. The President was never meant to have so much authority, and Congress already requires a 2/3 majority in order to make certain kinds of decisions, including overruling a presidential veto.

Didn't congress change the rules a few years ago on only needing a simple majority for more things?

I was living out if the country st the time and didn't keep up, I could be mistaken there.

There was some debate whether or not to remove the rule requiring a 60% vote to end filibusters in the Senate. Because this rule still stands, most laws cannot pass without 60 Senators' votes. Budget reconciliation bills, however, can be advanced with only a simple majority of the Senate. Though this is not a recent rules change, much recent legislation has gone through the reconciliation process to avoid the supermajority requirement.

Thanks! That must be the debate I remember happening and thought they actually made the change.

And sadly the Dems were all too willing to consolidate this power in the Executive because of expediency.

Both parties have consolidated power to the executive branch for decades, this isn't a one party problem.

It started with Lincoln and was expanded by Wilson and FDR.

That's fair, Lincoln did kick it off. I've always considered it more that Lincoln crested the precedent that was only really used layer by FDR, but maybe that's ignoring nuance of how powers were expanded between the two.

Before Lincoln states had much more power. Both Lincoln and Wilson curtailed civil liberties. Wilson created the income tax which gave the president a large source of income. FDR created the bureaucracy that spends the income tax money.

No, it's not only executive branch. People voted in Trump adorers to majority in both Senate and House of Representatives.

If the voting public of a democracy fairly elected so many people to office like that, I don't really know what we can complain about.

Democracy would have worked in that scenario, and society would just have bifurcated enough that the slight minority lost most power and very much disagrees with the direction.

Congress does have to act pike adults though and do their job of keeping the executive branch in check. If they don't the system is just fundamentally broken and the only reasonable choice is to throw it out and start fresh.

The word “fairly” is doing a lot of work there. There has been a lot of success on one side to tilt things with redistricting and voter suppression since the 80s.

Just wait till 2028!

Redistricting and voter suppression are definitely a problem. If they were both done in a way that was technically legal though, we can't be too angry about it before we change the laws that allowed it in the first place.

Fairness in the context of an election only means that it was done in accordance to the existing laws. Maybe equal access to voting needs to be on that list too, but I'd expect that to be covered by voting laws.

The purpose of the laws should be to ensure fairness. Fairness is not defined by the law. Unless you consider it was fair for women not to be able to vote, when that was the law.

There have been many attempts to fix districting laws, but of course those changes have to be approved by representatives elected under the previous laws.

It has been difficult to challenge these in court because it’s hard to argue whether a districting is “fair”. There has been a little progress on challenging some districting based on a statistical argument that shows the one-party advantage resulting from the particular districting is extremely unlikely to be the result of chance.

"for people to find solidarity"

That's not going to happen with the way tech/algos are exacerbating the divide.

If you have engineering or product skills, now is the time to take a hard look in the mirror, inventory your interests and concerns, and figure out how to fight fire with fire.

We need to be proliferating alternative, humanistic, empathetic software in the world and putting it into people's hands. It's easier than ever for us to independently build a wealth of defensive infrastructure for the common people.

We already have the tools. The problem is marketing, FOMO, etc. We can use stuff like Cloudflare restrictive DNS, a Pihole with additonal lists (like social media), a VPN, screen time or app usage timers, etc. Will and self-control are what's lacking.

The problem isn't marketing or FOMO. The problem is the average person barely understands what you just said, and we can't expect them all to become domain experts, especially when many people lack the fundamental research skills and experience needed to intuitively grok these technologies.

We have to use our intelligence and expertise to make applications which take care of users and their privacy, without them needing to suddenly become overnight computer experts. Most of the tooling I see today has (understandably) massive UX issues and is largely relegated to at least the mildly technical.

We need new and open Facebooks, TikToks, calendars, operating systems, etc. which protect and empower people but don't complicate their lives and stress them out, which leads to security and privacy fatigue. Even my current operating system, macOS, is so intensely user-hostile and obfuscated off the happy path, despite being heralded as a champion of human-oriented design.

We need a modern GNU-like organization but focused on building the social/web tooling that most people today are using.

Almost anyone who cares about their privacy should be able to Google how to improve it, find an article about VPNs, and sign up for Nord VPN (pretty user friendly and commercials everywhere). Dive just slightly deeper and you can find information on DNS and set the VPN to use the DNS you were recommended.

Most people don't care enough to even ask the questions. Creating competing services were the value differentiation is privacy (likely at the trade off of cost or quality) is bound to fail for that same reason.

You're proving my point, that users have to be protected by software engineers in the same way that pedestrians know nothing of civil engineering but trust that bridges are safe to walk on, and aren't to blame when they fail. It's not a marketing or FOMO issue, it's a matter of culture within our profession and way of life as engineers.

No, that would be a matter of law. Bridges aren't safe because some group of engineers wants safe bridges. They have to meet safety standards set by the government, the engineers need license issued by the government, etc. If you want privacy, you need to change the law to grant it. Trying to make some end-run around market forces is futile. People en masse aren't going to pay for a service with privacy when they can get a free version that does the same stuff but blasts them with ad trackers.

Okay, you can work on changing the law, and the rest of us can work on just building infrastructure now and not waiting for the law to catch up. I don't know about you, but in my current country I have absolutely zero representation with the current oligarchy.

> Trying to make some end-run around market forces is futile

Market forces and the law are two different things, which one are you arguing?

> People en masse aren't going to pay for a service with privacy when they can get a free version that does the same stuff but blasts them with ad trackers

I never suggested anyone pay for anything, this is a straw man argument.

I don't understand your aggressive stance against engineers building better, open alternatives to current offerings. The market is getting hungrier for it, and if a product is genuinely better, "market forces" will do their thing, no run-around needed.

You are mischaracterizing my stances. Please go back and read the comments.

I'm not sure how else to interpret them. Would you like to try clarifying your point?

The workflow goes like this -> R&D -> rl testing -> if broken with deaths -> law to prevent it from happening again

But.. it's a chicken-egg problem. Has there been a law for prevention before an incident happened or is the law formulated after something happens?

.. it's naive to think and say

> Okay, you can work on changing the law, and the rest of us can work on just building infrastructure now and not waiting for the law to catch up.

If it were like this, then no house would be destroyed by earth quake like in Turkey somewhen 2-3 years ago - and Turkey did pass a law some 10 years ago to prevent cheap buildings in earth quake areas.

No bridge would've collapse in Germany - the laws in Germany are one of the toughest making construction very expensive.

And there are much more examples in real world that opposes your "Okay, you can work on changing the law, and the rest of us can work on just building infrastructure now and not waiting for the law to catch up."

The problem is no one wants to pay much money for the better quality, if a little less in quality will do similar job. Compare housing and housw building costs in US and western Europe/Germany.

So, your engineers can do the best things and the market decides. .. yes, ma‘am!

All of those examples are irrelevant because we are talking about software, which is much, much different than your physical examples. Get back to me when we can have open source, community-maintained roads and bridges which can be copied, forked and modified to suit anyone's needs.

Which is increasingly looking intentional

Nah, it's a by-product of giving people what they want to make money. This sort of issue has been building for a long time. It's based on abundance of resources and availability of choices. As we have more time and money to spend on things, we can make more independent choices and take positions on issues that we didnt even think about before. Essentially, the semi-homogeneous population slowly fragments into smaller and smaller factions that are not geographically constrained (thanks to tech).

We've known it is intentional since Cambridge Analytica at the latest.

That wasn't about creating a split but rather taking advantage of an existing split, right?

Potato potato

The problem right now isn’t the rich. The problem is that half of the electorate is on board with this stuff. You can’t rally the people against this when half the population is in favor of it.

I’m sure there’s a good argument that wealthy people and a broadening wealth divide are responsible for this, but it’s too late to attack that now. We need a huge shift in public sentiment if this is going to change now.

Even if the outcome had been different in November. We’d still be in deep trouble. A lot less, but still a lot. The fundamental problem we have right now isn’t that Trump is President, it’s that about 50% of those who bother to vote think he’s worthy of it.

It’s still the wealthy, leaning on social issues to create a democratic majority

Don't think you can address the one while not dismantling the other. Otherwise you're lucky to be trading water.

I think you need the populace on your side first, though. Otherwise how can you change anything if you have neither government nor a majority?

Unfortunately, I don’t see any way to change the minds of the American populace. They’ll have to learn the hard lesson of where this stuff goes. The problem is that we all have to learn that lesson alongside them whether we need it or not.

I hate to say it, but you need a populist leader that blames everything on the wealthy.

What makes you think it will be repaired? I’ll go for America splinters into at least two countries.

For this to happen, the US population is probably too old on average, and too overweight.

Civil wars and the like are usually based on youth bulges, as they need a lot of breathing bodies to fight it out. Preferrably slightly hungry bodies, as hungry people are easier to provoke into fighting.

What is more likely is that significant portions of rural America break off and the part that's left doesn't feel it's worth it to take it back by force.

A lot of rural area across the country have movements to break states into pieces, or join other states. I don’t think most are very serious but at least two of them are serious enough.

One, there are a few counties on Oregon that want to redraw the boundary so that they become part of Idaho. This, I think, is only mildly serious.

The second is the border of Indiana and Illinois, which is serious enough that the Indiana state legislature has voted to create a commission to work on it. It was a bipartisan vote, too. Because there are a number of rural counties in Illinois that would like to join Indiana, and two urban counties in Indiana that say if the option is on the table they’d rather be part of Illinois. Such a thing would need both states to agree and then send it on to Congress, but ultimately I don’t think anything will come of it.

When you look at state funding, these urban counties are sending more tax dollars to their respective state capitols than the states are spending in their counties. In the case of these rural Illinois counties, the state is spending between $5 and $6 per tax dollar collected. Does Indiana really want to take on such welfare queens? And give up some of their few donor counties in exchange? It seems hardly likely!

That’s the rub all across the US. The urbanized areas are subsidizing the rural areas. Are the rural areas prepared to do without such subsidies? They can say “the cities can’t live without the food we grow”, but the entirety of human history shows that the cities always come out ahead in these transactions.

The Jefferson area of CA seems about as serious as Oregon.

With out current structure of governments, as we get around/over 80% urbanization, the rural areas will just get steamrolled and want to break away due to a lack of agency. If you study people in the "western Idaho" area and on the Oregon coast, it would be easy to see that they are two different nations.

Also,do you have e a source for the 5x tax collected number? The 5x seems really high. I couldn't find one for Indiana, but Illinois shows it's <2x.

This study (I think it has since been updated)

https://news.siu.edu/2018/08/081018-research-shows-state-fun...

Shows that on average it is about 3x. There are more detailed per-county numbers available in the actual study.

The real losers are the suburban counties surrounding Chicago. Cook County is only slightly shafted.

Yeah, pretty much in line with what I was seeing. Just depends on where the lines are drawn for downstate/southern.

https://www.farmweeknow.com/policy/state/state-tax-dollars-b...

Right. So anyway, if various states (or the whole country) breaks apart based on urban/rural divides, the urban areas have very little incentive to try to reunite. It’s a losing proposition for the rural areas.

My personal opinion is that our state and nation legislatures have way too few members given our current populations. For example, the US House should have some sort of dynamic membership count: the smallest odd number such that when you run the apportionment algorithm the smallest state has 3 members. That’s probably somewhere around 1100 members (just spitballing).

Economics aren't the only factor, so the rural areas may not care so long as they are free. That also assumes the rural areas keep the same service levels and regulations. It's possible they could create conditions to lure some industries to them. They would also have to raise food prices to deal without subsidies. It's likely many services would see reductions, such as road maintenance, anything heavily relying on grants, and possibly schools. Certainly the colleges in the article would be closed.

Decreasing the ratio of constituents to representatives won't really work. It may work at the margins, but you will still have the mismatch in proportions between urban/rural.

California has multiple times brought up splitting out into multiple states, its made it as a prop a few times too. I think most people want it to happen, its just tough to figure out what the best split would be

I believe the state as a whole added a ballot initiative for 2028 to split from the US

wow. https://www.sos.ca.gov/administration/news-releases-and-advi...

> I think most people want it to happen

I don't believe that at all.

Well, also overweight people can create havoc with drones.

Three countries. Boston Dynamics vs Figure & 1X vs Tesla

The youth are also of poor quality these days. It was one thing in 1860 when a given 18 year old was built like an ox from hauling bales of hay or whatever else. Today most 18 year olds are sedentary. We don’t even do the mile run in gym class anymore.

Flying drones isn’t particularly demanding in terms of strength.

Don't forget school lunch programs were pushed by the military in the 1946 National School Lunch Act (America's Great Age to MAGA) to improve the fitness of potential recruits. Programs the Republicans now attack as 'woke' nonsense.

Well, looking into really old draft records, you will find a lot of disqualified recruits with bad health - tuberculosis, parasites, or general bodily problems caused by malnutrition.

But yeah, there also was a lot of physically strong young people to choose from.

Yes, exactly. Some of the federal farm subsidy and low-income nutrition programs we have today came out of findings in WWII that many potential recruits who had grown up during the Great Depression were literally malnourished: too weak and underweight to be combat effective. While the new HHS secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is kind of wacky and has terrible policies in many areas, he at least recognizes the serious state of youth obesity and poor nutrition.

Has there been a single HHS secretary that did not acknowledge the youth obesity problem?

Our expectations are so low that we ignore the real things that qualified people have done, to pretend that an anti-science wacko has some semblance of sanity.

Halfway to WALL·E

Gen Z are a lot fitter and drink and smoke less than my Gen x peers afaict. What’s more, the 90th centile Gen zer is a -lot- fitter. Not everyone needs to join up…

Let me tell you as a child of the summer of '81:

strong bodies are lackin' wisdom.

Or:

Who do not smoke, not drink, has never lived.

Who knows what the next American civil war would look like.

Despite all the 2nd Amendement talk, it mainly comes down to the military.

The military have the tanks, the air support, the logistics, the surveilence net, the miscelaneous support equipment, and all the training to use everything.

A split within the military, that gets real ugly real fast.

I think any civil war would have a split within the military, because in your premise that they're using tanks and aircraft, some people are not going to want to bomb the place where their mother or child lives, not to mention the supply chain of all that fancy stuff relies on a somewhat functioning domestic society to make and deliver much of the underlying goodies and support.

Yes, almost certainly. But I meant more of a split between those on opposing sides; not between those who refuse to fight at all because they had just been asked to fight the very people they signed up to defend, vs. those who will follow any order.

And then, because there were demonstrably some absolute sadists demonstrably present in the armed forces during my lifetime (e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hooded_Man), perhaps the conscientious objectors will be convinced to fight anyway, to stop the sadists.

It also matters what such a civil war be about — Is it between those who would seize power and those who would prevent it? Is it the same borders as the old Civil War? Is it city-vs-rural?

If there is one (still an if), and if it is Trump vs. the constitution… it's still not impossible for such a conflict to be without a single shot fired. Conversely, if it's between two groups of cities neither of which will consent to the other's choices for president, it could have every major city in the US reduced to radioactive debris.

Lots of destroyed keyboards?

Stealth donations to unauthorized political parties through OnlyFans or meme coins.

Most authors that look at the subject have usually proposed 3+ groups post-balkanization. Tends to depend on whether it's simply an "After America" balkanization or a complete apocalypse scenario. Table top roleplaying games are full of speculative fiction on those kinds of concepts. Nukes, or zombies, and sometimes black swan "magic" tend to be rather popular.

After America would be like the Fall of the Roman Empire, or the collapse of the Chinese Jin (romance of the three kingdoms) and Tang (five dynasties, ten kingdoms) eras, usually because of human bickering over power and control. Occasionally, systems like Shadowrun have a "mild" apocalypse that mostly serves as a catalyst for balkanization. Whatever vestiges of a state remained fall apart under the stress.

Complete apocalypse tends to be something like large scale devastation from a known threat that final gets used (nuclear, biological, dangerous machine sentience) and everybody's too busy dealing with their own issues to care about larger ideas like a continental federal state of "America."

Either way, tends to result in 3+ most of the time. From looking at the Roman Empire and the multiple collapses of China though, it really does not take anything especially dramatic to result in pretty severe balkanization. Often its the old "Blue and the Grey" divide and then most of the West just does their own thing. Occasionally it's more like East Coast, Heartland, and often the West still is not really included.

The result for the West has actually been one of the weirder parts of reading a lot of those settings. Often this undercurrent that the West has never really been a part of "America." The heavily populated East is still mostly fighting over the same issues with each other, the lightly populated West is just some far away land they occasionally pay attention to (mostly California and Texas).

It doesn't help that the tech sector is falling in line. Spearheaded by Musk who is still glorified my many in the industry, other tech giants are following suit. Meta, Google, Amazon, nobody dares challenging the new US order and is playing along. This is really where the HN crowd should realize how much they are involved in this. Tech was one of the bullwarks against right wing fascist takeover. Not anymore, they are playing along. It's going to be dark.

I never thought that. They have always just played along with society. When LGBT rights were fashionable, they were more than happy to jump on that bandwagon and rainbow wash everything for money. Which, is great, don’t get me wrong, but I never thought for one second it was because the leadership truly thought that was important deep down in their hearts (Tim Cook perhaps excepted, but even then not fully, as he still cares about business more than principals, though he has more to lose personally.)

Excellent point. Why would a move a certain crowd likes be out of principle and when the tide turned and a move in the opposite direction happens suddenly be just opportunism? The more realistic/neutral interpretation is that it's all just opportunism in either direction.

Zuck is probably the best example.