"You have no say in this at all" - Stephen Miller

[Dutch Uncle]

Yet it is. That you think it is "benevolent" notwithstanding, the same actions taken by either side appear to them to be "reasonable", but centralizing authority is what the founders tried to avoid with our Constitution. Stop trying to end run and grab power over things the Feds do not have power, fight against it every time, and you will make me believe you are a libertarian. As long as you continue to drink the leftist bathwater and pretend that power grabs aren't power grabs because you like the idea then all you are is another leftist fascist that wants to centralize power. Always ready to cede anything to the centralized power Cartels so longas you think all the states "should do" what you want like you want it...

"Benevolent", like morals, is relative. What one person considers moral, another may consider immoral and vice-versa. That's why a Republic/Democracy elects reps to voice opinions and come to a mutual agreement about standards, laws, etc.

Thanks for projecting MAGA ideology onto me as being a liberal because I understand what mutual agreement means and you, who are a MAGA supporter, think other states shouldn't be allowed to work together.

The 13 colonies came to a mutual agreement about the Constitution which both guarantees rights and limits the Federal government. MAGAts want to destroy the Federal government like you are suggesting and the Constitution which allows it. I disagree. Yes, I'm a Libertarian, but I still see the need for a coordinated national defense and an elected body to negotiate with other nations. You seem to think each state should do their own negotiations and have their own militaries. Fine, but IMO that's not only inefficient, but could pit states against each other, or allow foreign powers to do the same, and weaken We, the People, against our enemies.

 

[Damocles]

"Benevolent", like morals, is relative. What one person considers moral, another may consider immoral and vice-versa. That's why a Republic/Democracy elects reps to voice opinions and come to a mutual agreement about standards, laws, etc.

Thanks for projecting MAGA ideology onto me as being a liberal because I understand what mutual agreement means and you, who are a MAGA supporter, think other states shouldn't be allowed to work together.

The 13 colonies came to a mutual agreement about the Constitution which both guarantees rights and limits the Federal government. MAGAts want to destroy the Federal government like you are suggesting and the Constitution which allows it. I disagree. Yes, I'm a Libertarian, but I still see the need for a coordinated national defense and an elected body to negotiate with other nations. You seem to think each state should do their own negotiations and have their own militaries. Fine, but IMO that's not only inefficient, but could pit states against each other, or allow foreign powers to do the same, and weaken We, the People, against our enemies.

States can work together, they just should never cede to a centralized Federal "authority". The States got together to create the Federal Government, the creation does not and should never supersede the creator. If the Federal government can end run the 10th Amendment to the constitution in your favor, they can end run the constitution in the favor of another. Again, First law of 2 party government, all actions can also be taken by the other side, it is why checks and balances are in place to stop that kind of mess.

Pretending that calling me names changes your shame makes no difference to me. you support fascism that you think is "benevolent" and are incapable of introspection. You need to be accurate in order for your "names" to sting and you are far off the mark.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

States can work together, they just should never cede to a centralized Federal "authority". The States got together to create the Federal Government, the creation does not and should never supersede the creator. If the Federal government can end run the 10th Amendment to the constitution in your favor, they can end run the constitution in the favor of another. Again, First law of 2 party government, all actions can also be taken by the other side, it is why checks and balances are in place to stop that kind of mess.

Pretending that calling me names changes your shame makes no difference to me. you support fascism that you think is "benevolent" and are incapable of introspection. You need to be accurate in order for your "names" to sting and you are far off the mark.

Good and agreed; the states can and should work together. Agreed on ceding power, but look at our reps in Congress who have ceded power to the WH. We, the People, have done this to ourselves. It wasn't done to us by the evil Jews, Deep State or "Federal government".

Burning down the house just because it needs a little TLC is stupid but that's exactly what the MAGAts want to do.

 

[Into the Night]

"Benevolent", like morals, is relative. What one person considers moral, another may consider immoral and vice-versa. That's why a Republic/Democracy elects reps to voice opinions and come to a mutual agreement about standards, laws, etc.

Thanks for projecting MAGA ideology onto me as being a liberal because I understand what mutual agreement means and you, who are a MAGA supporter, think other states shouldn't be allowed to work together.

The 13 colonies came to a mutual agreement about the Constitution which both guarantees rights and limits the Federal government. MAGAts want to destroy the Federal government like you are suggesting and the Constitution which allows it. I disagree. Yes, I'm a Libertarian, but I still see the need for a coordinated national defense and an elected body to negotiate with other nations. You seem to think each state should do their own negotiations and have their own militaries. Fine, but IMO that's not only inefficient, but could pit states against each other, or allow foreign powers to do the same, and weaken We, the People, against our enemies.

DON'T TRY TO HIDE BEHIND THE CONSTITUTION YOU DESPISE!

 

[Into the Night]

States can work together, they just should never cede to a centralized Federal "authority". The States got together to create the Federal Government, the creation does not and should never supersede the creator. If the Federal government can end run the 10th Amendment to the constitution in your favor, they can end run the constitution in the favor of another. Again, First law of 2 party government, all actions can also be taken by the other side, it is why checks and balances are in place to stop that kind of mess.

Pretending that calling me names changes your shame makes no difference to me. you support fascism that you think is "benevolent" and are incapable of introspection. You need to be accurate in order for your "names" to sting and you are far off the mark.

The States can form their own militias when necessary to defend that State.
They HAVE ceded some authority to a federal government. They came together and ordained the Constitution into power.

The Constitution clearly gives the federal government authority to defend the States from enemies both within and without the borders of the United States.

Yes...this includes going in and restoring peace in L.A. by putting down these enemies. The rioting is insurrection.

 

[Into the Night]

Good and agreed; the states can and should work together. Agreed on ceding power, but look at our reps in Congress who have ceded power to the WH. We, the People, have done this to ourselves. It wasn't done to us by the evil Jews, Deep State or "Federal government".

Burning down the house just because it needs a little TLC is stupid but that's exactly what the MAGAts want to do.

DON'T TRY TO HIDE BEHIND THE CONSTITUTION YOU DESPISE!
DON'T TRY TO CALL THE DEMOCRAT RIOTS IN L.A. PEACEFUL!

 

[Dutch Uncle]

DON'T TRY TO HIDE BEHIND THE CONSTITUTION YOU DESPISE!
DON'T TRY TO CALL THE DEMOCRAT RIOTS IN L.A. PEACEFUL!

Random words. No apparent coherency.

 

[Scott]

The States can form their own militias when necessary to defend that State.
They HAVE ceded some authority to a federal government. They came together and ordained the Constitution into power.

The Constitution clearly gives the federal government authority to defend the States from enemies both within and without the borders of the United States.

Yes...this includes going in and restoring peace in L.A. by putting down these enemies. The rioting is insurrection.

One man's insurrection is another man's freedom fighting. Most J6ers probably have a good understanding of this. One thing I think some may have forgotten is why these riots started. Wikipedia's page on the LA protests (a title which is being contested) get into it:
**
Beginning on June 6, 2025, protests against immigration raids have taken place within Los Angeles County, California, United States. Protests began in Los Angeles when Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) raided several city locations under the pretext of illegal immigration, among other supposed violations.

On June 6, protests against the raids turned into street riots when protestors clashed with the Los Angeles Police Department and ICE. On June 7, protestors clashed with federal forces in Paramount and Compton during raids.
**

Source:

June 2025 Los Angeles protests - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

There's a question that really should be asked- were the ICE raids a good idea? I strongly doubt it. Raids generally entail some degree of violence, and violence tends to beget more violence. From this, we get to a more important question- what's the best way to -end- the protests, or "unrest" as I imagine the more right wingers would like to call it? I suspect that looking into the reasoning for the raids would be the best place to start. Trump, on the other hand, seems to think that adding yet more violence by sending the National Guard and even considering sending in military marines is the way to go. I really don't think this line of reasoning will lead anywhere good. As a right winger here pointed out, one man has already died. How many more might die if things continue this way?

 

[Into the Night]

Random words. No apparent coherency.

You mimicry won't save you, Sybil.

 

[Into the Night]

One man's insurrection is another man's freedom fighting. Most J6ers probably have a good understanding of this. One thing I think some may have forgotten is why these riots started. Wikipedia's page on the LA protests (a title which is being contested) get into it:
**
Beginning on June 6, 2025, protests against immigration raids have taken place within Los Angeles County, California, United States. Protests began in Los Angeles when Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) raided several city locations under the pretext of illegal immigration, among other supposed violations.

On June 6, protests against the raids turned into street riots when protestors clashed with the Los Angeles Police Department and ICE. On June 7, protestors clashed with federal forces in Paramount and Compton during raids.
**

Source:

June 2025 Los Angeles protests - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

There's a question that really should be asked- were the ICE raids a good idea? I strongly doubt it. Raids generally entail some degree of violence, and violence tends to beget more violence. From this, we get to a more important question- what's the best way to -end- the protests, or "unrest" as I imagine the more right wingers would like to call it? I suspect that looking into the reasoning for the raids would be the best place to start. Trump, on the other hand, seems to think that adding yet more violence by sending the National Guard and even considering sending in military marines is the way to go. I really don't think this line of reasoning will lead anywhere good. As a right winger here pointed out, one man has already died. How many more might die if things continue this way?

So you support the rioters, illegal aliens, and organized crime.

 

[ThatOwlWoman]

Forcing action on others is nationalizing, we cede way too much power to the Federal government through their bribe systems.

Calling it "standards" and saying it doesn't matter to you because you think you like those standards just means you have no ability to object when other "standards" that you dislike are demanded when the "other side" gains power. Political laws of 2 party systems, every action you take can be taken by the other side in a way you will not like.

That is not how "nationalize" is defined. And so what if a new admin. comes in and reverses a national standard? The same thing can happen in the states when a new party has the majority.

The whole point of having national standards in things like highway and bridge construction, education, clean air/water/soil/food/drugs, human civil rights and equality, health, emergency assistance, etc. is so that even the poorest states are on the same footing as the wealthier states. All citizens can expect the same standards for these things will not vary if they move to another states. This is the function of a central govt.

Instead of trying to turn the country into a misshapen, mismatched patchwork quilt of confusion, we allow the feds to oversee things that affect us all. Why you apparently believe that this is a bad thing I don't grok.

 

[Damocles]

That is not how "nationalize" is defined. And so what if a new admin. comes in and reverses a national standard? The same thing can happen in the states when a new party has the majority.

The whole point of having national standards in things like highway and bridge construction, education, clean air/water/soil/food/drugs, human civil rights and equality, health, emergency assistance, etc. is so that even the poorest states are on the same footing as the wealthier states. All citizens can expect the same standards for these things will not vary if they move to another states. This is the function of a central govt.

Instead of trying to turn the country into a misshapen, mismatched patchwork quilt of confusion, we allow the feds to oversee things that affect us all. Why you apparently believe that this is a bad thing I don't grok.

Right... Because if everyone must do it your way, it isn't like centralizing power and stuff, until the rightwing use the same to pass a policy that says that the cops are "federal agents" whenever the feds come on down into your state and that they "must aid" as "all federal agents must", make sure that you pass it or you won't get highway funds...

Then suddenly States' Rights matter, and it is a power grab.

As I said. Hypocritically you agree with one so it "cannot be" federalizing something or an end run around the 10th, but as soon as the other side is up there planning the same kind of thing it suddenly is a terrible power grab and should never happen.

While I agree with you that it should never happen, I think it should never happen, you just think it is fine so long as you think it is benevolent.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

That is not how "nationalize" is defined. And so what if a new admin. comes in and reverses a national standard? The same thing can happen in the states when a new party has the majority.

The whole point of having national standards in things like highway and bridge construction, education, clean air/water/soil/food/drugs, human civil rights and equality, health, emergency assistance, etc. is so that even the poorest states are on the same footing as the wealthier states. All citizens can expect the same standards for these things will not vary if they move to another states. This is the function of a central govt.

Instead of trying to turn the country into a misshapen, mismatched patchwork quilt of confusion, we allow the feds to oversee things that affect us all. Why you apparently believe that this is a bad thing I don't grok.

So, California setting its own standards for things like pollution, definition of hazardous materials, what products can and can't be sold there, etc., isn't somehow a "misshapen, mismatched, patchwork quilt of confusion?"

 

[Scott]

So you support the rioters, illegal aliens, and organized crime.

No, I support due process and dealing with undocumented/illegal immigrants in a way that respects the fact that most of them are just trying to make a decent living. I also note you didn't respond to my mentioning of the January 6 event. What do you think of those involved in that event?

 

[ThatOwlWoman]

So, California setting its own standards for things like pollution, definition of hazardous materials, what products can and can't be sold there, etc., isn't somehow a "misshapen, mismatched, patchwork quilt of confusion?"

States are free to set even more draconian envtl. standards than the federal limits. They just can't lessen them. Just like states can enact stricter gun control laws than federal law has but they cannot ban gun ownership.

 

[Lionfish]

That is not how "nationalize" is defined. And so what if a new admin. comes in and reverses a national standard? The same thing can happen in the states when a new party has the majority.

The whole point of having national standards in things like highway and bridge construction, education, clean air/water/soil/food/drugs, human civil rights and equality, health, emergency assistance, etc. is so that even the poorest states are on the same footing as the wealthier states. All citizens can expect the same standards for these things will not vary if they move to another states. This is the function of a central govt.

Instead of trying to turn the country into a misshapen, mismatched patchwork quilt of confusion, we allow the feds to oversee things that affect us all. Why you apparently believe that this is a bad thing I don't grok.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

States are free to set even more draconian envtl. standards than the federal limits. They just can't lessen them. Just like states can enact stricter gun control laws than federal law has but they cannot ban gun ownership.

No, they cannot. California gets a waiver to do so. I think that's a bad idea. The reason is pollution is an interstate issue, not just a state one.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

You mimicry won't save you, Sybil.

LIF. Grow up.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

 

[ThatOwlWoman]

So, California setting its own standards for things like pollution, definition of hazardous materials, what products can and can't be sold there, etc., isn't somehow a "misshapen, mismatched, patchwork quilt of confusion?"

No, why would it be? California is a single state. States are permitted to make federal regulations tougher; they cannot weaken them. Until Roe v Wade was overturned, states could not ban abortion outright. They could, however, make it more difficult to obtain. Now, of course, we have some states where it is almost totally illegal (MO is one of them), and others where it is not. Abortion is a good illustration of the mismatched, misshapen quilt of laws pertaining to that medical procedure. We have some states (MO, again, is one of them) threatening to prosecute female residents of that state who leave the state in order to obtain an abortion. That is a good example of why the procedure should be addressed at the national level.