You down in Richmond?

Im up in Nova the bluest part of the state

Yeah my whole town is blue as can be.

WE just renamed some of our schools because they were named after some big name Democrats who were party leaders for decades.

Also they turned out to be hardline segregationists.

You don’t say!

Im shocked

Dems and segregation?

Maybe it was before

the

parties

switched

I was being sarcastic

@Beemann
> If they both eventually fail dont they both never work ever?
A. Your system doesn't "eventually fail", it never gets off the ground.
B. That's like asking if drinking water really works to hydrate you, since you eventually have to drink more water.
> Also it doesnt appear to be an eventuality.
Assuming you're not living in a fantasy world, it absolutely does.
> Consolidated power gets abused pretty quickly, while decentralised power takes time to centralize, all components being roughly equal
Not really. Additionally, decentralization makes accountability much harder. Finally, we were talking scope of government, not centralization.

I'm not sure what Beeman and Kevin are talking about.

Also I foresee taxes, gun laws, and comical redristricting comming soon to the Old Dominion.

@The Bitter Draught Dont you know the parties swtiched sometime after 1960 and before FDR?

The US ran the system I'm talking about, until it was undermined primarily in the last hundred years or so. Decentralization is a sliding scale. It's not dictatorship or ancapistan. Further,
1) decentralization means that you are ruled by a more-local body, which is more accountable
2) scope of government is a factor of centralizarion

@Beemann Coudn't you also describe it as the power of a local government who is more responsible vs a remote yet still authoritarian system?

Local can certainly be totalitarian or loose.

I wouldn’t describe it as a switch per se.

Switch in popularity maybe but the Republicans were never a party of segregation

A smaller/more locsl system can still attempt to be totalitarian, but the more local you get, the harder it is to maintain control like that

Dont you know the parties swtiched sometime **after 1960** and before **FDR?**

@Beemann What. No. Local warlord or lord?

Lmao @ VA

Local warlords dont often maintain power

General Lee where r u pls help

They can maintain for a generation.

The Congo is a mess because nobody has the power to control more than a small area at a time, and everyone wants power

@FitnessByHeatherHeyer Didn't you get the Memo? All Civil War statues are celebrations of slavery and literally proto hitler.

@Beemann I mean sure, also because they violently kill and rape each other 24/7, and everyone has a blood fued.

Right but that's obviously not a sustainable model at any scale

I think a powerful leader often is the ONLY way to be bring peace to really violent seperate groups.

I think that depends on the existing circumstances of the separation. Usually it works that way for a reason. It also may not be sustainable

Yugoslavia fell apart. We'll see how the Balkans do going forward

@Beemann Yep, my point is though that no goverment other then brutal totalitarianism seems to hold those crazy places together.

It takes a generation or two of murder to make everyone calm down enough to work together, then aggressive redoctrination

@Old Man Hound you lost me. What party switch are you referring to?

Sometimes the larger force enhances or creates the animosity

@The Bitter Draught It was sarcasm. The party switch that was supposed to have happened to explain how the south went Red. The Joke is it happened after 1960 and before FDR (who died in 1945)