|
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 01:44 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.
That's because Danglers has shown time and time again that he knows nothing about anything beyond the talking points of the day. He knows politics and he has a side but he doesn't know a single thing about a single and every time I've seen him pressed on what he thinks is a good idea beyond bashing the Democrats ideas he will whip out incomplete talking points that don't constitute a plan and continue blaming liberals.
When someone has,both no depth of kbowledge, but thinks they do to the point where they will argue with videotape proving there argument is wrong it's hard to even have a conversation because conversations require both sides being willing to listen and,make arguments grounded in realty.
I find most other conservative posters,on here rather enlightening because they aren't posting to "win" the debate which is a foolish notion. If both sides of a conversation did not leave it feeling like they gained insight then you both "lost".
|
On November 18 2017 02:30 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On November 18 2017 02:18 Stratos_speAr wrote: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.
The point isn't specifically about Medicaid expansion.
The point is that you consistently tout "states' rights" as some kind of intrinsic good, when in fact that are many situations in which they lead to horrendous outcomes.
The problem with your argument is that you in no way acknowledge the issue that Farv is trying to address by arguing for the states to be forced to expand Medicaid. You're arguing against it purely because it's a liberal idea, not on the merit of the discussion. This is why so many people don't respect how you discuss politics.
|
Oh, hell.
I think there are lots of questions about its legitimacy,” Clinton said in response to Berman’s question on whether it was a legitimate election. “And we don’t have a method for contesting that in our system. That’s why I’ve long advocated for an independent commission to get to the bottom of what happened.”
|
Damnit, she needs to go away already lol.
|
On November 18 2017 02:25 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +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.
IIRC it's also the smart money/ people with the means migrating from Wisconsin to Minnesota. One's loss is another's gain here.
|
On November 18 2017 02:45 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +On November 18 2017 02:25 Stratos_speAr wrote: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. IIRC it's also the smart money/ people with the means migrating from Wisconsin to Minnesota. One's loss is another's gain here.
Well, the Twin Cities is one of the best metro areas in the country to live in, and with Wisconsin trending the way it is, I'm not even remotely surprised at all of the economic migration from Wisconsin over the border.
|
On November 18 2017 02:40 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On November 18 2017 02:30 Danglars wrote:On November 18 2017 02:18 Stratos_speAr wrote: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. The point isn't specifically about Medicaid expansion. The point is that you consistently tout "states' rights" as some kind of intrinsic good, when in fact that are many situations in which they lead to horrendous outcomes. The problem with your argument is that you in no way acknowledge the issue that Farv is trying to address by arguing for the states to be forced to expand Medicaid. You're arguing against it purely because it's a liberal idea, not on the merit of the discussion. This is why so many people don't respect how you discuss politics.
Then you need to put the brakes on over-generalization and read. I take issue with his example of Medicaid Expansion to represent fucked-up non-coercive schemes, arbitrary lines, and general statutory efficacy. It's one of the stupidest examples to bring up and the Supreme Court was dead-on for calling it a violation of the constitution for not giving states the ability to voluntarily and knowingly accept the changed terms of the program. If you're not willing to argue on that supreme court decision, and instead you want to allege I'm only against it because it's a liberal idea, go find some other progressive buddies to hyuk about conservatives over beer.
I think federalism and state rights in general should be the default position. It's more of a prevention of centralized authority and planning to override state citizens when they are in the minority rather than some good-in-every-case prophesy. It's one of those principles that harkens to protecting "We the People." The founders were justifiably scared that a centralized authority in Washington DC would presume to tell everybody what to do, and not represent their citizen's interests. There would be no tenth amendment if this was not the case. If you like centralized power because sometimes you get benevolent national representatives and malicious or craven state representatives, go preach revolution and a new constitution supported by the changed social contract.
|
On November 18 2017 02:42 Nevuk wrote:Oh, hell. Show nested quote +I think there are lots of questions about its legitimacy,” Clinton said in response to Berman’s question on whether it was a legitimate election. “And we don’t have a method for contesting that in our system. That’s why I’ve long advocated for an independent commission to get to the bottom of what happened.”
Can we not talk about contested elections in the United States of God Damn America? We operate on a “you bought it, you own it system.” If congress and the rest took the eye off the ball and let the election get sullied by misinformation, that is still the result of the election. We don’t try to rewrite what happened.
|
United States42419 Posts
The Founders also liked to own people. They'd be unfit to teach a civics class at a local high school today. An appeal to authority that goes back to them is a pretty weak appeal to authority.
|
The founders also disagreed with how strong the federal government should be and what is would be able to do. And by “disagreed”, I mean they got in fist fights over it while hashing out how to this whole nation of states thing should work. The way they set up the federal government and the powers they granted it was a compromise. And their opinions changed drastically after they governed for a while.
|
My take on the pathetic and incomplete nods towards the Founding Fathers frequently brought up in defense of ideas in lieu of substance is that many, if not most, of them would consider these gymnastic backwards glances pretty stupid, but hey, historical revisionism is easy when US politics is all Whose Line Is It Anyway.
|
i dont remember signing a contract when i became a citizen
|
If you want a new constitution with broader federal power over the states, amend it or revolt and sign a new one. The only one in existence agreed to by the states is the current one. It respected abuse of power by a centralized authority. Today's operation of Washington DC and federal agencies shows it was right to try and curtail it. It would take novel length kwizach post to show how and why state rights were eroded and the pros and cons resulting from it.
|
On November 18 2017 03:06 farvacola wrote:
My take on the pathetic and incomplete nods towards the Founding Fathers frequently brought up in defense of ideas in lieu of substance is that many, if not most, of them would consider these gymnastic backwards glances pretty stupid, but hey, historical revisionism is easy when US politics is all Whose Line Is It Anyway.
A good look at the federalist papers and founders writings show that they were right about the protections against elites in centralized authority, and their eventual eroding came at high cost to the American citizen. The reasons span from elected authorities seizing powers for themselves, cowardly representatives going along with it or opposing weakly, and citizens untaught and uninterested in civics ... or the decline in civic education.
But they owned slaves guys, let's just ignore everything they said and did!
|
What the fuck are you talking about? We were talking about tax policy, which is totally within the power of the federal government. You are the one that went off on safari to talk about abuse of federal power and overreach. Again, you are arguing with fictional people.
|
On November 18 2017 03:08 Danglars wrote:
If you want a new constitution with broader federal power over the states, amend it or revolt and sign a new one. The only one in existence agreed to by the states is the current one. It respected abuse of power by a centralized authority. Today's operation of Washington DC and federal agencies shows it was right to try and curtail it. It would take novel length kwizach post to show how and why state rights were eroded and the pros and cons resulting from it.
That's such a shit argument when huge components of the Constitution have been read out of existence by mere jurisprudence alone. The 9th Amendment can be construed as an incredibly broad grant of Constitutional federal power relative to the defense of rights infringed on by states, and yet, because it's hard to interpret, it basically isn't even acknowledged anymore. Oh yeah, totally ignore the Guarantee Clause too...
This is where the lawblogz legal education has its limits; the Constitution is a very poor herald for much outside its contextual, iterative use by judges in service of their holding or as a barebones manual for basic federal processes.
|
On November 18 2017 03:06 IgnE wrote:
i dont remember signing a contract when i became a citizen
You well know it's more a question of determining the legitimacy of state authority. They violate the social contract, you overthrow the government. See: The declaration of independence, leviathan, life, liberty, estate.
|
don’t want to derail for a stupid question.
|
It's hard for me to take people arguing the founding fathers didn't want any coercion from the federal government seriously when the necessary consequence of that is that the federal government cannot provide money to the states in any way without immortalizing those grants in perpetuity, since any removal of funds could then be coercive to states. There is at the very least a bare minimum of coercion potential implicit in having a semi-autonomous federal government that regulates interstate commerce and can remove its own laws.
|
Oh my god, stop talking about the federalist papers like they are prescriptive to how the government should work. They were written to convince a skeptical populace about the merit of a federal government, not as a guideline as to its limits. Again, the founding fathers opinions on government changed after they governed. Seriously, anyone who knows the history of the federalist papers would avoid using them in an argument about how the US government should function in the modern era.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
