The Nation Is Divided Into Two Camps: Trump and Anti-Trump

evince said:
there is NO LOGICAL reason to shrink government


its all a meme to give the wealthy MORE POWER
Click to expand...

evince is one of these as cattle need more fences and direction

lynn-m-stone-close-up-of-cow-mooing-in-a-field.jpg
 
Celticguy said:
The proof of the pudding will be seen in prosperity as it always is. Consumer confidence is already soaring in an economy driven by it. Jobs will begin multiplying meaning more cash in pocket and spent.
Whiners gonna whine. The rest of us like an improving way of life. Jobs for ourselves and our kids.
Click to expand...

Exactly, I saw more of my disposable income leave under Obama than at any time in my lifetime, just like my father did when Jimmy Carter was president. I had to go back and do things I hated doing to make up for the income Obama policies stripped from our family.
 
Hillary Destroyer said:
Did I say it was?

Like I said you an impotent little pussy who will do nothing more than screech on a message board but no more than that

You should have stayed away. You are a shell of your former self and exposed as the fraud you are
Click to expand...

:0) I love it when sniveling little bitch-men like you whine about me.

You're just stroking my ego .. validating everything I've said about shit like you.

Try again bitch. :0) See if I give a fuck about what a dumb motherfucker like you thinks about me.
 
Norah said:
I know but I'm just not sure where to start when it comes to details. I think many of the departments in DC could be closed down so that states can decide on their own. Departments like education, EPA, federal reserve, HUD, energy, and many others could be eliminated or cut in half and it wouldn't affect the country due to states already having many of those functions in place.
Click to expand...
good understanding of federalism and the Xth amendment
++
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
The problem with that argument was that the US. Constitution was not written in stone nor was it the intentions of our founding fathers to write it into stone.

The States rights argument is a flawed argument. States don't always know what's best. States don't always do what's right. The notion that those who live in a State only have a obligation and skin in the game to that State and that State only is simply laughable. We are a united nation and what impacts one State often impacts all States.

I mean to say that someone from outside your State has no skin in the game is not only wrong. It's insulting and offense. Try telling that Gold Mother from Michigan that her son who died in a war to protect all our States had no skin in the game in Texas.

You really need to consider other sources of information and think this one through Norah. The State rights argument is a relic from our Civil War. It was wrong then and it's wrong now.
Click to expand...

I wasn't really talking about serving in our county's military as part of the having skin in the game when it comes to local or state politics.
 
anatta said:
good understanding of federalism and the Xth amendment
++
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Click to expand...

Thanks
 
Mott the Hoople said:
The problem with that argument was that the US. Constitution was not written in stone nor was it the intentions of our founding fathers to write it into stone.

The States rights argument is a flawed argument. States don't always know what's best. States don't always do what's right. The notion that those who live in a State only have a obligation and skin in the game to that State and that State only is simply laughable. We are a united nation and what impacts one State often impacts all States.

I mean to say that someone from outside your State has no skin in the game is not only wrong. It's insulting and offense. Try telling that Gold Mother from Michigan that her son who died in a war to protect all our States had no skin in the game in Texas.

You really need to consider other sources of information and think this one through Norah. The State rights argument is a relic from our Civil War. It was wrong then and it's wrong now.
Click to expand...

Your post is idiotic and convoluted. The Founders were very clear on what they thought the Federal government should and more importantly SHOULDN'T do

Your example of gold star mothers is merely to illicit emotion and has zero to do with states rights as no individual state can send someone off to war. You are getting Deshtard stupid.
 
cawacko said:
Did the state's create the war on drugs?
Click to expand...
Long federal history there wit the Dept of Narcotics.
The DEA is a good example of mindless intrusion into the Dr/patient relationship. recall the Xth isn't just about the states and the feds.
The people themselves are also mentioned as co-sovereign ( part of the balance of powers)
 
Norah said:
I know but I'm just not sure where to start when it comes to details. I think many of the departments in DC could be closed down so that states can decide on their own. Departments like education, EPA, federal reserve, HUD, energy, and many others could be eliminated or cut in half and it wouldn't affect the country due to states already having many of those functions in place.
Click to expand...
Seriously? Do you know why these agencies were created in the first place? Do you have evidence that the States could do better? You're naïve to think that States alone would provide better governance without a strong central government.

My guess is that you honestly don't understand how our government works. I mean I work with TCEQ on a daily basis and to say that they could manage environmental compliance better than USEPA is just laughable. The truth is, they wouldn't manage it at all cause with out USEPA, Texas would simply get rid of TCEQ. Anyone who has done environmental work in the State of Texas knows this and they know that any environmental laws that even remotely hinder the gas and petroleum industry, no matter who they harm in the State of Texas, would simply be got rid of.

You're argument is logically weak, lacking in cohesive reasoning and defies the historical facts that brought these agencies into being in the first place.
 
doctordog said:
Exactly, I saw more of my disposable income leave under Obama than at any time in my lifetime, just like my father did when Jimmy Carter was president. I had to go back and do things I hated doing to make up for the income Obama policies stripped from our family.
Click to expand...

your fuck crashed the entire world economy and lied us into a horrible protracted war in the middle east


fucking Vanilla Isis
 
evince said:
your fuck crashed the entire world economy and lied us into a horrible protracted war in the middle east


fucking Vanilla Isis
Click to expand...

ACA fucked us as we had great insurance and lost it with our family doctors that we supposedly could keep before it passed. Double digit interest and inflation is what hurt my father under Carter. You motherfuckers want the US to become a third world country
 
cawacko said:
Good thing the federal gov't always does the right thing for the people
Click to expand...
Strawman. No one is claiming they do. Are you saying we don't need a strong central government? Are you familiar with the articles of confederation which is essentially what State Rights advocates are endorsing?

The States rights argument boils down to this. We are not one nation but 50 nations and as a sovereign nation a State has no obligation to the nation as a whole or our central government. Is this what you believe in?
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Jesus God Amighty!!!

I would take any of the other 17 GOP candidates, including Trmp and the half a dozen Democratic candidates over a dangerous and fanatical ideologue like Cruz. I can think of no politician, not even Trump, that comes even remotely close to being as large a threat to our Republic via extremism and demagoguery than Ted Cruz would.

If Democrats want to salvage something from the huge disappointment of losing the electoral college but winning the popular vote it is this. Donald Trump saved this nation from the tender mercies from the dangerous fanaticism of Ted Cruz.
Click to expand...

Whilst largely concurring with you I fundamentally agree with him that climate science as practiced under the Obama administration was more akin to religion. He may be many things but he's no fool when it comes to scientific matters. Both his parents were mathematicians and he is absolutely right when he said to Aaron Mair the tokenist head of the Sierra Club.“Any good scientist is a sceptic,” said the senator. *“If he’s not, he or she should not be a scientist. But yet the language of the global warming alarmists, ‘denier’ is the language of religion. It’s heretic. You are a blasphemer.”

http://www.cnsnews.com/blog/michael-w-chapman/ted-cruz-climate-change-not-science-its-religion



Sent from my Lenovo K52e78 using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
Trump will announce he is not running for a second term. He will say it's time to explore other options. Simply a polite way of saying..."I get it now. I didn't know what the fuck I was doing in the first place. I'm now the worst president of all time. My huge ego got in the way. Time to go back to filing bankruptcy's and stiffing contractors. Wonder if my new book "The Art of Grabbing Pussy's" will be a hit".
 
Queen Snowflake said:
You don't think they would? Some are still fighting marijuana legalizations and representatives from those state are fighting federal legalization.
Click to expand...
another great example of the power of federalism to check the mindless DC bureaucrats. Justice Brandeis said it best:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laboratories_of_democracy
Laboratories of democracy" is a phrase popularized by U.S. Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis in New State Ice Co. v. Liebmann to describe how a "state may, if its citizens choose, serve as a laboratory; and try novel social and economic experiments without risk to the rest of the country."
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Seriously? Do you know why these agencies were created in the first place? Do you have evidence that the States could do better? You're naïve to think that States alone would provide better governance without a strong central government.

My guess is that you honestly don't understand how our government works. I mean I work with TCEQ on a daily basis and to say that they could manage environmental compliance better than USEPA is just laughable. The truth is, they wouldn't manage it at all cause with out USEPA, Texas would simply get rid of TCEQ. Anyone who has done environmental work in the State of Texas knows this and they know that any environmental laws that even remotely hinder the gas and petroleum industry, no matter who they harm in the State of Texas, would simply be got rid of.

You're argument is logically weak, lacking in cohesive reasoning and defies the historical facts that brought these agencies into being in the first place.
Click to expand...

Well you're being a little tough on me today. The reason why states would struggle to do what the EPA does is because it would be taking on the massive bureaucracy that it has created which is inefficient and can be detrimental to progress and businesses. I would agree with you that some states may relax regulations too much which could result in something bad happening if there is no oversight but that doesn't mean the citizens of that state wouldn't or couldn't demand change locally or even statewide if they felt their waterways, soil, or other resources were being abused by an energy company or other type of business.
 
still not one logical argument as to why government needs to be small to protect the people

its a right wing fucking lie

they cant defend
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top