|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On November 18 2017 01:15 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2017 23:59 IyMoon wrote:On November 17 2017 23:56 Plansix wrote:On November 17 2017 23:48 Stratos_speAr wrote:On November 17 2017 23:32 Danglars wrote:
The long-term political impact is minimal for resignation. Wisconsin governor is a Democrat and simply appoints another Dem to finish his term. Hey. HEY. It's Minnesota. Dick. We're not Wisconsin. It is deeply offensive that he insinuated you folks would elect Scott walker. I am waiting for the apology from Danglers and for the ethics investigation on if he should be expelled from this forum or not Apology from Who? lol If you meant to say my name, I'm sorry to have accidentally implied that Minnesota had a great governor like Walker. Really, there's too much Paul Ryan on my mind as I hope he takes measures to combat all this sexual misconduct in his chamber.
Damn it! you caught me with a misspelling on the internet so I lose this round 
|
On November 18 2017 01:03 farvacola wrote:
Any "big liberal states get favoritism at the federal level" nonsense requires that a believing audience know nothing substantive about how successful conservatives have been in terms of keeping federal schemes non-coercive relative to states/localities. The Supreme Court's 2012 ACA Medicaid Expansion decision is one among a long line of 5-4 partisan decisions that significantly impact federal statutory efficacy. This highly arbitrary line-drawing in terms of federal power arguably starts with Edelman v. Jordan/Milliken v. Bradley, though the sentiment certainly stretches back and takes on different forms depending on the era. Back in the Lochner Era, state governments, especially those in the west, were the ones carrying the torch in terms of progressive and robust regulation, especially in the workplace; the conservative Supreme Court conjured up some pretty fucked up proto-Randian freedom of contract bullshit that stifled the majority of these laws until FDR had had enough.
At the end of the day, the point is that conservatives have long been fighting for the rights of state governments that do not want to provide services to their poor, elderly, disabled, or the otherwise misfortunate. Thus, both the federal statutes themselves and the jurisprudence that interprets them have carved out this lopsided situation where the successful, service-giving states end up consuming proportionately less from the feds while the poorly run red states that do everything in their power to reduce budgets and cut services end up relying on federal dollars to a far greater extent. All of the incentives are fucked.
Sorry if the Supreme Court said the feds can't coerce states by bureaucratic fiat. You might think your sunny policies are just great for the unfortunate, but you can't demand people that disagree comply or face consequences.
Go play in your own state and don't screw with others.
|
There's no need to be sorry, this regressive sentimentality for a local control that routinely shows itself unable to keep up to pace with the rest of the world will do its own kind of apologetics in due course. Your wiffle-waffling, secretly unabashed love for Trump works well enough for me anyhow 
|
On November 17 2017 18:53 GreenHorizons wrote:
Wonder what was in the water in 2007? All I want to know is who drove up 2010's total. That must have been something pretty damn bad.
I went to congress in 2007. My congress critter, Ben Chandler iirc met with his constituents. Pretty normal. The weird part is when his staff says "BTW, he wants a picture of himself touching every one of his constituents who visits him." So... That was a thing.
|
On November 18 2017 01:27 farvacola wrote:There's no need to be sorry, this regressive sentimentality for a local control that routinely shows itself unable to keep up to pace with the rest of the world will do its own kind of apologetics in due course. Your wiffle-waffling, secretly unabashed love for Trump works well enough for me anyhow
Your blatant hatred and mistrust of federalism is on pure display here. If the fed can hold states over a barrel on Medicaid, you resent freedom, period. Now go live in a foreign country that allows their federal government to do all out of compassion, or have the decency to argue for constitutional amendments to erode state rights instead of trying to do it all through the back door.
You make Trump necessary, and that's my pretty sad conclusion about you and the current stable of elected politicians.
|
yeah yeah, people like me made people like you vote for Trump, we've all hear this before. Luckily, Weinstein-esque white male fragility is having its day in the sunshine and folks are catching on quite quickly.
It'll all be ok when the bad people stop doing things that make you support horrible people, I promise.
(also lol at the go live in a foreign country....no you go live in a foreign country, nah nah boo boo)
|
On November 18 2017 01:36 farvacola wrote:
yeah yeah, people like me made people like you vote for Trump, we've all hear this before. Luckily, Weinstein-esque white male fragility is having its day in the sunshine and folks are catching on quite quickly.
It'll all be ok when the bad people stop doing things that make you support horrible people, I promise.
(also lol at the go live in a foreign country....no you go live in a foreign country, nah nah boo boo)
Well, you just stated your political opinion about unconstitutional intrusion on states. You're okay making states the victim of federal whim (incidentally, the kind of things that ordinarily would restrict Trump's power). Trump is a sad indictment of the political system, almost as bad as the system that gave rise to his necessity in the first place. I don't blame you for trying to dodge out and whine that it's all male fragility from the margins.
Owning up to it carries a cost, after all.
|
I’m still struggling with the idea that Walker is a great governor. He gutted unions, which has resulted in lower pay for teachers, higher turnover and less capable students. He is only a good governor if you like don’t give a shit about your kids, their education or the future prospects of the state.
Edit: Also, Danglars might be responsible for about 85% of the hostility towards conservatives in this thread.
|
On November 18 2017 01:43 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On November 18 2017 01:36 farvacola wrote:
yeah yeah, people like me made people like you vote for Trump, we've all hear this before. Luckily, Weinstein-esque white male fragility is having its day in the sunshine and folks are catching on quite quickly.
It'll all be ok when the bad people stop doing things that make you support horrible people, I promise.
(also lol at the go live in a foreign country....no you go live in a foreign country, nah nah boo boo) Well, you just stated your political opinion about unconstitutional intrusion on states. You're okay making states the victim of federal whim (incidentally, the kind of things that ordinarily would restrict Trump's power). Trump is a sad indictment of the political system, almost as bad as the system that gave rise to his necessity in the first place. I don't blame you for trying to dodge out and whine that it's all male fragility from the margins. Owning up to it carries a cost, after all.
The key to understanding why I find your take on things so ridiculous is to focus on why I would consider my previous statements as absolutely not equivalent to "making the states the victim of federal whim." The federal government is incredibly fucked up, but it is abjectly inaccurate to describe passed federal law as anything remotely resembling a whim, and that's by design. By using that word, you're telegraphing a pretty blatant lack of understanding with regards to what actually goes into the lawmaking process, be it rule-making, legislation, or executive order.
|
On November 18 2017 00:40 IyMoon wrote:
So has anyone else been seeing this argument pop up for getting rid of SALT
"Big liberal states are being subsidized by smaller states by paying less in federal taxes so I am happy to see it gone"
I don't get it, almost every big state pays more to the fed than it revives (I think NY is right on the cusp) so how does this argument make sense.
Danglers, xDaunt?
It's a shot at taxing the opposition more.
If they really wanted a clean slate, they'd tax municipal bond interest and adjust for cost of living as well.
|
On November 18 2017 01:43 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On November 18 2017 01:36 farvacola wrote:
yeah yeah, people like me made people like you vote for Trump, we've all hear this before. Luckily, Weinstein-esque white male fragility is having its day in the sunshine and folks are catching on quite quickly.
It'll all be ok when the bad people stop doing things that make you support horrible people, I promise.
(also lol at the go live in a foreign country....no you go live in a foreign country, nah nah boo boo) Well, you just stated your political opinion about unconstitutional intrusion on states. You're okay making states the victim of federal whim (incidentally, the kind of things that ordinarily would restrict Trump's power). Trump is a sad indictment of the political system, almost as bad as the system that gave rise to his necessity in the first place. I don't blame you for trying to dodge out and whine that it's all male fragility from the margins. Owning up to it carries a cost, after all.
Its funny how those states being 'intruded on' are the ones that rely on federal money to exist in the first place.
"I can't exist without you paying me, but damn if I will let you have any say in how I spend your money'
It would be funny if you didn't turn 180 and use the exact same argument against 'lazy liberals sitting on their couch with government welfare money'.
|
On November 18 2017 01:48 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On November 18 2017 01:43 Danglars wrote:On November 18 2017 01:36 farvacola wrote:
yeah yeah, people like me made people like you vote for Trump, we've all hear this before. Luckily, Weinstein-esque white male fragility is having its day in the sunshine and folks are catching on quite quickly.
It'll all be ok when the bad people stop doing things that make you support horrible people, I promise.
(also lol at the go live in a foreign country....no you go live in a foreign country, nah nah boo boo) Well, you just stated your political opinion about unconstitutional intrusion on states. You're okay making states the victim of federal whim (incidentally, the kind of things that ordinarily would restrict Trump's power). Trump is a sad indictment of the political system, almost as bad as the system that gave rise to his necessity in the first place. I don't blame you for trying to dodge out and whine that it's all male fragility from the margins. Owning up to it carries a cost, after all. The key to understanding why I find your take on things so ridiculous is to focus on why I would consider my previous statements as absolutely not equivalent to "making the states the victim of federal whim." The federal government is incredibly fucked up, but it is abjectly inaccurate to describe passed federal law as anything remotely resembling a whim, and that's by design. By using that word, you're telegraphing a pretty blatant lack of understanding with regards to what actually goes into the lawmaking process, be it rule-making, legislation, or executive order.
You called the first time states have gotten back some actual decision-making authority "highly arbitrary line-drawing in terms of federal power," which presumes a shifting line justifies calling any statement made on the line arbitrary. Of course states like federal money with few strings attached. They were probably wrong to accept it in the first place given future court treatments and federal demands (like expansion, which they partially pay for).
I acknowledge a lot of thought and deliberative processing goes into federal legislation. My perspective, like you probably know but flit over now, is state business and state citizens through their state representatives should have the power to say if they want to fund medical care for people at 133% of the federal poverty level. The federal prerogative to simply pass legislation saying to states "You increase this now" with the implicit understanding that noncompliance threatens all medicaid funding is federal whim. A majority of representatives in Washington DC say it should be so, therefore the collective states must make it so, or else. I don't care if you spend two months to decide that Sally needs to pay Jerry 100$, if you have the force of law backing up your decision, Sally's finances are subject to your collective whim because Jerry gets no say. I think you have the intelligence to understand my angle for calling it that.
You show a lack of regard for separate authorities between State government and Federal government and that is what I take issue with. I can admit that the Supreme Court's treatment of that line has varied over the years. I think this one should have been easy to call crossing the line (Surprisingly enough, liberal justices Kagan and Breyer agreed).
|
On November 18 2017 01:43 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On November 18 2017 01:36 farvacola wrote:
yeah yeah, people like me made people like you vote for Trump, we've all hear this before. Luckily, Weinstein-esque white male fragility is having its day in the sunshine and folks are catching on quite quickly.
It'll all be ok when the bad people stop doing things that make you support horrible people, I promise.
(also lol at the go live in a foreign country....no you go live in a foreign country, nah nah boo boo) Well, you just stated your political opinion about unconstitutional intrusion on states. You're okay making states the victim of federal whim (incidentally, the kind of things that ordinarily would restrict Trump's power). Trump is a sad indictment of the political system, almost as bad as the system that gave rise to his necessity in the first place. I don't blame you for trying to dodge out and whine that it's all male fragility from the margins. Owning up to it carries a cost, after all.
The mental gymnastics that go on in arguing that a terrible and counterproductive leader is "necessary" are really quite something.
|
On November 18 2017 01:34 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On November 18 2017 01:27 farvacola wrote:There's no need to be sorry, this regressive sentimentality for a local control that routinely shows itself unable to keep up to pace with the rest of the world will do its own kind of apologetics in due course. Your wiffle-waffling, secretly unabashed love for Trump works well enough for me anyhow Your blatant hatred and mistrust of federalism is on pure display here. If the fed can hold states over a barrel on Medicaid, you resent freedom, period. Now go live in a foreign country that allows their federal government to do all out of compassion, or have the decency to argue for constitutional amendments to erode state rights instead of trying to do it all through the back door. You make Trump necessary, and that's my pretty sad conclusion about you and the current stable of elected politicians.
What a lazy argument.
States rights doesn't automatically mean freedom. History has shown this time and time again.
States rights often result in crushing oppression (e.g. systemic discrimination against black Americans by southern states) and horrific economic policies that disenfranchise the poor, minorities, disabled, etc.
Aren't you in the law profession Danglars? I would expect some more sound logic than this.
|
On November 18 2017 02:18 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On November 18 2017 01:34 Danglars wrote:On November 18 2017 01:27 farvacola wrote:There's no need to be sorry, this regressive sentimentality for a local control that routinely shows itself unable to keep up to pace with the rest of the world will do its own kind of apologetics in due course. Your wiffle-waffling, secretly unabashed love for Trump works well enough for me anyhow Your blatant hatred and mistrust of federalism is on pure display here. If the fed can hold states over a barrel on Medicaid, you resent freedom, period. Now go live in a foreign country that allows their federal government to do all out of compassion, or have the decency to argue for constitutional amendments to erode state rights instead of trying to do it all through the back door. You make Trump necessary, and that's my pretty sad conclusion about you and the current stable of elected politicians. What a lazy argument. States rights doesn't automatically mean freedom. History has shown this time and time again. States rights often result in crushing oppression (e.g. systemic discrimination against black Americans by southern states) and horrific economic policies that disenfranchise the poor, minorities, disabled, etc. Aren't you in the law profession Danglars? I would expect some more sound logic than this.
No, xDaunt is the lawyer. Danglars, as far as stated, has no legal education.
|
This is quite the graphic.
![[image loading]](https://static01.nyt.com/images/2017/11/16/opinion/16edsall1/16edsall1-master675.png)
[N]ationally, Trump mostly lagged behind Romney. But in the limited selection of communities where his message hit home, it really hit home, with large gains over Romney really running up the score. These places were very heavily white.
...
Trump’s vote skyrocketed in very white suburbs. In the more racially diverse suburbs, particularly those that had been diverse for more than a decade, the white vote for Trump did not increase over Romney’s vote. But in the very white suburbs, particularly in very segregated areas of the Midwest and Northeast, Trump’s vote jumped enormously over Romney’s.
www.nytimes.com
|
On November 18 2017 01:44 Plansix wrote:
I’m still struggling with the idea that Walker is a great governor. He gutted unions, which has resulted in lower pay for teachers, higher turnover and less capable students. He is only a good governor if you like don’t give a shit about your kids, their education or the future prospects of the state.
Edit: Also, Danglars might be responsible for about 85% of the hostility towards conservatives in this thread.
It was either pure trollbait or Danglars is a complete moron. Considering Danglars usually makes himself sound fairly intelligent, I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and just assume he was trolling..
Minnesota vs. Wisconsin is one of the most clear-cut examples of straight up progressive economic policy vs. conservative economic policy over the last half decade or more. Wisconsin has adopted a plethora of conservative economic policies that have completely tanked its economy, with crumbling infrastructure, horrendous and underfunded education, poor economic stability and a waning job market. Meanwhile, Minnesota (since governor Dayton took office) has enacted a steady stream of progressive policies that have given us a huge budget surplus while significantly reducing unemployment, increasing median incomes, improving education metrics, etc.
This isn't a discussion. If you want to try to argue against it, then enjoy being wrong, because the gulf in economic and social performance between these two states has been embarrassing. Minnesota is one of the best states to live in in the U.S. over the past 7 or so years, while Wisconsin is fast becoming a joke akin to places like Alabama and Mississippi.
It's almost as blatant as touting all of these conservative economic policies after Kansas's little experiment over the last several years.
|
On November 18 2017 01:54 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On November 18 2017 01:43 Danglars wrote:On November 18 2017 01:36 farvacola wrote:
yeah yeah, people like me made people like you vote for Trump, we've all hear this before. Luckily, Weinstein-esque white male fragility is having its day in the sunshine and folks are catching on quite quickly.
It'll all be ok when the bad people stop doing things that make you support horrible people, I promise.
(also lol at the go live in a foreign country....no you go live in a foreign country, nah nah boo boo) Well, you just stated your political opinion about unconstitutional intrusion on states. You're okay making states the victim of federal whim (incidentally, the kind of things that ordinarily would restrict Trump's power). Trump is a sad indictment of the political system, almost as bad as the system that gave rise to his necessity in the first place. I don't blame you for trying to dodge out and whine that it's all male fragility from the margins. Owning up to it carries a cost, after all. Its funny how those states being 'intruded on' are the ones that rely on federal money to exist in the first place. "I can't exist without you paying me, but damn if I will let you have any say in how I spend your money' It would be funny if you didn't turn 180 and use the exact same argument against 'lazy liberals sitting on their couch with government welfare money'.
Add another layer of hypocrisy when the exact same discussion is had about welfare. Conservatives routinely push for welfare recipients to be drug tested, screened for attempts to obtain work, and to have what they can buy with welfare limited to an approved list of items.
"BUT STATES! BUT STATES!" is literally the only argument I ever hear about this. Apparently, being a state has some magical power that allows you to completely ruin your constituents' lives just because you feel like it. The only real justification for this is "the rule of law" (i.e. that the Constitution sets us up as a federal republic), however 1) conservatives routinely disrespect the rule of law when it doesn't suit them, and 2) the Constitution has been wrong plenty of times. Our current system highlighting the role of state governments doesn't make it even remotely ethical.
|
On November 18 2017 02:18 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On November 18 2017 01:34 Danglars wrote:On November 18 2017 01:27 farvacola wrote:There's no need to be sorry, this regressive sentimentality for a local control that routinely shows itself unable to keep up to pace with the rest of the world will do its own kind of apologetics in due course. Your wiffle-waffling, secretly unabashed love for Trump works well enough for me anyhow Your blatant hatred and mistrust of federalism is on pure display here. If the fed can hold states over a barrel on Medicaid, you resent freedom, period. Now go live in a foreign country that allows their federal government to do all out of compassion, or have the decency to argue for constitutional amendments to erode state rights instead of trying to do it all through the back door. You make Trump necessary, and that's my pretty sad conclusion about you and the current stable of elected politicians. What a lazy argument. States rights doesn't automatically mean freedom. History has shown this time and time again. States rights often result in crushing oppression (e.g. systemic discrimination against black Americans by southern states) and horrific economic policies that disenfranchise the poor, minorities, disabled, etc. Aren't you in the law profession Danglars? I would expect some more sound logic than this.
Surely this isn't the best description you can do on the fed holding states over a barrel on Medicaid.
A dictator can use absolute power to help poor, minorities, and the disabled. I certainly wouldn't want to cede that power to him given freedom from dictatorial power sometimes has bad results. If you want to get back on board, read the 13th amendment and tell me if it should've just been ordinary federal law.
|
On November 18 2017 02:21 Doodsmack wrote:This is quite the graphic. Show nested quote +[N]ationally, Trump mostly lagged behind Romney. But in the limited selection of communities where his message hit home, it really hit home, with large gains over Romney really running up the score. These places were very heavily white.
...
Trump’s vote skyrocketed in very white suburbs. In the more racially diverse suburbs, particularly those that had been diverse for more than a decade, the white vote for Trump did not increase over Romney’s vote. But in the very white suburbs, particularly in very segregated areas of the Midwest and Northeast, Trump’s vote jumped enormously over Romney’s. www.nytimes.com
That red line doesn't seem like something that best represents the data points in the picture.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
