Presidential Race 2016

[newtogolf]

12 minutes ago, saevel25 said:

So you think states should have a right to bring back slavery, take away women's and minorities rights to vote? You know all those social issues that were solved by the federal government. 

I know I left myself open for that but no, that's not what I'm saying.  What I am saying is the Federal Government should use it's reach with great care and error on the side of letting the state and the states political and legal process work out issues within the state.  

[Braivo]

55 minutes ago, saevel25 said:

Of course not. There is no way we would survive as a land of farmers. That was a primary industry back then. They were pre-industrial revolution. 

We can go back to less federal intrusion and give states more power. 

 

45 minutes ago, StevenR84 said:

The problem is the states routinely demonstrate that they aren't capable of having the power they have.

 

22 minutes ago, newtogolf said:

The Federal government shouldn't be involved in which state bathrooms people use, abortion or any other social based policy.  

We have a constitution and a Supreme Court. The states should get to decide which laws it wants to enact, then it is up to the Supreme Court to decide if they are constitutional. Simple process. The federal government tries to control states through funding bills and tie-ins. It is not how the system was designed to work. 

[saevel25]

29 minutes ago, Braivo said:

We have a constitution and a Supreme Court. The states should get to decide which laws it wants to enact, then it is up to the Supreme Court to decide if they are constitutional. Simple process. 

When people are citizens of this country, and are be discriminated against because of who they are. Squashing down the rights they should have that others have. It should be up to the federal government to protect those rights. 

32 minutes ago, Braivo said:

The federal government tries to control states through funding bills and tie-ins. It is not how the system was designed to work. 

Exactly. I do agree with that. It honestly violates due process that they get to enact a punishment with out first going through the courts. 

37 minutes ago, newtogolf said:

What I am saying is the Federal Government should use it's reach with great care and error on the side of letting the state and the states political and legal process work out issues within the state.  

I agree. 

[Braivo]

20 minutes ago, saevel25 said:

When people are citizens of this country, and are be discriminated against because of who they are. Squashing down the rights they should have that others have. It should be up to the federal government to protect those rights. 

The rights afforded to all Americans are in the constitution. No need for the federal government to intervene or create laws to guarantee rights that are already there. If a law encroaches on those rights the Supreme Court will rule it unconstitutional and nullify it. Simple. No need for the legislative or executive branches to get involved and complicate the process. 

[StevenR84]

2 minutes ago, Braivo said:

The rights afforded to all Americans are in the constitution. No need for the federal government to intervene or create laws to guarantee rights that are already there. If a law encroaches on those rights the Supreme Court will rule it unconstitutional and nullify it. Simple. No need for the legislative or executive branches to get involved and complicate the process. 

If that was the case, we wouldn't have needed laws against segregation and laws for women to be able to vote. shouldn't have needed those laws, but they were necessary.

 

1 hour ago, Braivo said:

 

 

We have a constitution and a Supreme Court. The states should get to decide which laws it wants to enact, then it is up to the Supreme Court to decide if they are constitutional. Simple process. The federal government tries to control states through funding bills and tie-ins. It is not how the system was designed to work. 

The problem is people will try to skirt those decisions/laws and find other ways to oppose them, the abortion situation in texas as an example. Or Kim Davis a government worker refusing to do her duty and abide by a Supreme Court order. States shouldn't get to decide civil rights issues because clearly, they can't.

[saevel25]

3 minutes ago, Braivo said:

The rights afforded to all Americans are in the constitution. No need for the federal government to intervene or create laws to guarantee rights that are already there.

The founding fathers created the Constitution as something that needed to evolve over time. To think that everything is accounted for in the Constitution is very short sighted. 

Clearly the founding fathers didn't consider the civil rights concept of discrimination. 

[newtogolf]

4 minutes ago, saevel25 said:

The founding fathers created the Constitution as something that needed to evolve over time. To think that everything is accounted for in the Constitution is very short sighted. 

Clearly the founding fathers didn't consider the civil rights concept of discrimination. 

Well it did include that "All men are created equal", the accepted definition of men has evolved to be more inclusive.  Ultimately, it should be worded "All people are created equal". 

[StevenR84]

Just now, newtogolf said:

Well it did include that "All men are created equal", the accepted definition of men has evolved to be more inclusive.  

That was in the Declaration of Independence, and it was included by a slave owner, so it's tough to say they believed what they were writing.

[Golfingdad]

30 minutes ago, Braivo said:

The rights afforded to all Americans are in the constitution. No need for the federal government to intervene or create laws to guarantee rights that are already there. If a law encroaches on those rights the Supreme Court will rule it unconstitutional and nullify it. Simple. No need for the legislative or executive branches to get involved and complicate the process. 

Not meaning to offend, but this is a pretty ignorant statement.  It's been addressed by others, but many of the "rights afforded to ALL Americans" have only been added to the Constitution many, many years after the original document was created.  It took 78 years to abolish slavery, 83 years to allow all races to vote, and 133 years to allow women to vote.

Considering all of that, to think that the work of the Federal Government is done in that regard is pretty darn short-sighted.

[Dave2512]

2016 is the new 1787.

[Chilli Dipper]

1 minute ago, Dave2512 said:

2016 is the new 1787.

What does that even mean?

[Braivo]

19 minutes ago, Golfingdad said:

Not meaning to offend, but this is a pretty ignorant statement.  It's been addressed by others, but many of the "rights afforded to ALL Americans" have only been added to the Constitution many, many years after the original document was created.  It took 78 years to abolish slavery, 83 years to allow all races to vote, and 133 years to allow women to vote.

Considering all of that, to think that the work of the Federal Government is done in that regard is pretty darn short-sighted.

13th, 15th, and 19th amendment to the constitution. Ratified by the 3/4 of the states. I'm not sure how this makes the case for a large, intrusive federal government. 

[Lihu]

2 hours ago, Dave2512 said:

2016 is the new 1787.

 

2 hours ago, Chilli Dipper said:

What does that even mean?

http://www.britannica.com/event/Constitutional-Convention

2 hours ago, Braivo said:

13th, 15th, and 19th amendment to the constitution. Ratified by the 3/4 of the states. I'm not sure how this makes the case for a large, intrusive federal government. 

The issue is that some states create laws that explicitly allowed slavery while staying well within the confines of the constitution as it was written in the mid 1800s. This took an amendment to correct.

https://www.loc.gov/rr/program/bib/ourdocs/13thamendment.html

Prior to this it was open to interpretation, and even after this amendment African Americans were not allowed to vote. Slavery was just outlawed within the confines of the Unites States for non-criminals (open to "interpretation" again. . .). It took the 15th amendment to allow African and other non-white American citizens to vote. Then again with the 19th to allow women to vote. This is probably because the definition of "citizen" did not include women, which was stupid or maybe purposely ommitted?

The fact that it took revisions to these laws is definitive enough evidence that many states were not allowing citizens' their rights. Especially as you noted ratification was not unanimous.

The federal government must have the ability to retain each citizen's individual rights and enforce them if a state denies them.

As far as this transgender bathrooms thing is concerned, they should just make a 3rd bathroom. The "I can't decide room". 

Not sure how presidential hopeful Trump would handle the situation, but I'm sure he'd be more fair than most people think. . .and I agree with the shrinking of the government. The federal government can be just as intrusive but compact at the same time.

[bplewis24]

23 hours ago, Chilli Dipper said:

Combine that with his disregard for American conservative political philosophy, it's difficult to locate any sense of principle in Republicans' support of him.

I think it makes perfect sense.  This is a manifestation of years/decades of an ideological clash of the party leaders/politicians and their base, and was/is inevitable.  When your platform is based on spurious conservative principles that rely on ensuring your base votes against their best interests in matters of fiscal/economic policy as a tradeoff for social and cultural wedge issues, eventually they get sick of voting on those issues as they are presented.  This goes back to the Goldwater Coalition, the Moral/Silent Majority with Reagan, etc.  All that has happened is Trump has dispensed with the dog whistle rhetoric of his predecessors and spoke very plainly about the same issues.  And, surprise!  The base cares less about the dog whistle and more about the underlying policy.  Even though it's bad policy, they believe in it.

But, what doesn't make sense, is their ability to basically block out anything he has said or stood for for the years/decades prior, that conflict directly what some of the things he's saying now.

5 hours ago, newtogolf said:

The Federal government shouldn't be involved in which state bathrooms people use, abortion or any other social based policy.  

That is a pretty absurd generalization, that only takes a few simple examples to illustrate (demonstrated in posts in between ours).

I know I left myself open for that but no, that's not what I'm saying.  What I am saying is the Federal Government should use it's reach with great care and error on the side of letting the state and the states political and legal process work out issues within the state.  

We tried that.  Then we wrote a Constitution because it wasn't working.  And even after the Constitution, it has required decades upon decades of federal legislation to ensure that individual states aren't skirting the ideals within that document.

Quote

 

The rights afforded to all Americans are in the constitution. No need for the federal government to intervene or create laws to guarantee rights that are already there. If a law encroaches on those rights the Supreme Court will rule it unconstitutional and nullify it. Simple. No need for the legislative or executive branches to get involved and complicate the process. 

 

This is pretty naive.  How many people do you think have the means, resources and luxury of being able to wait for the Supreme Court to take up their case of their Constitutional rights being violated?  There are many statehouses in this country that have shown an express willingness to subvert the Constitution and constitutional case law in many different ways (not the least of which is the current effort to make sure abortions are as hard to get as possible).  To put the burden of fighting against that on a particular citizen in a particular state is pretty ridiculous. 

Edited May 12, 2016 by bplewis24

[newtogolf]

4 hours ago, bplewis24 said:

I think it makes perfect sense.  This is a manifestation of years/decades of an ideological clash of the party leaders/politicians and their base, and was/is inevitable.  When your platform is based on spurious conservative principles that rely on ensuring your base votes against their best interests in matters of fiscal/economic policy as a tradeoff for social and cultural wedge issues, eventually they get sick of voting on those issues as they are presented.  This goes back to the Goldwater Coalition, the Moral/Silent Majority with Reagan, etc.  All that has happened is Trump has dispensed with the dog whistle rhetoric of his predecessors and spoke very plainly about the same issues.  And, surprise!  The base cares less about the dog whistle and more about the underlying policy.  Even though it's bad policy, they believe in it.

But, what doesn't make sense, is their ability to basically block out anything he has said or stood for for the years/decades prior, that conflict directly what some of the things he's saying now.

That is a pretty absurd generalization, that only takes a few simple examples to illustrate (demonstrated in posts in between ours).

We tried that.  Then we wrote a Constitution because it wasn't working.  And even after the Constitution, it has required decades upon decades of federal legislation to ensure that individual states aren't skirting the ideals within that document.

This is pretty naive.  How many people do you think have the means, resources and luxury of being able to wait for the Supreme Court to take up their case of their Constitutional rights being violated?  There are many statehouses in this country that have shown an express willingness to subvert the Constitution and constitutional case law in many different ways (not the least of which is the current effort to make sure abortions are as hard to get as possible).  To put the burden of fighting against that on a particular citizen in a particular state is pretty ridiculous. 

At this point all citizens have equal rights, I don't consider which bathroom a transgender uses to be something our federal government needs to get involved with.  We are talking about today and the future, so no need to keep going back to the past for examples.  

[saevel25]

17 minutes ago, newtogolf said:

At this point all citizens have equal rights, I don't consider which bathroom a transgender uses to be something our federal government needs to get involved with.  We are talking about today and the future, so no need to keep going back to the past for examples.  

I don't think it is something the state needs to get involved in either. The only reason these states are making these laws is because they pandering to the extreme republican base that is obsessed with religious social conformity. 

None of this crap was happening 10 years ago, so what changed? The only thing that has changed is that gay rights became a mainstream issue and the conservative extreme can't handle the fact that this country sits left on the social issues. 

[Dave2512]

It's a way for the religious right to show they are still here. A last ditch effort of sorts because younger generations really don't want to deal with silly things like this.

Not surprising it's coming from the southern states. Just wait until legal weed starts heading that way. 

[Lihu]

27 minutes ago, Dave2512 said:

It's a way for the religious right to show they are still here. A last ditch effort of sorts because younger generations really don't want to deal with silly things like this.

Not surprising it's coming from the southern states. Just wait until legal weed starts heading that way. 

Not sure it would change the numbers by more than 10%?