State Rights Vs. State Rights: The Trans-Gender Law And The Marijuana Law

Submitted by: kalron27 1 month ago News & Politics

So yesterday, our reality delivered us two interesting talking points when it comes to State Rights. I am honestly confused at this point what the end goal is for those on the Right who want less Federal involvement in a State's right to self govern.

First up we have the reversal of the Trans-Gender Law that protected those in public schools.  This was an obvious outcome of the current Administration but what was not so obvious and possibly considered "Alternative Facts" at this point is that Trump vowed to support LTGBQA rights during his campaign (his tweet below is only 8 months old).  But I digress... this is an obvious move to give rights back to the State... OK cool, I get that.



What I don't get is the press release from Sean Spicer stating that Greater Enforcement of Marijuana Laws is coming to States that have made it LEGAL. If this administration is truly out for the best interest of those who voted them in office, those who want less Federal Involvement on a State Level, then why is this OK? More than half (28 States and D.C., currently) of our States have made medical marijuana legal and 8 have now passed full legalization (recreational and medical), yet here we go again with another "War on Drugs." Spicer directly links Marijuana to the opioid epidemic, when that is completely FALSE. The link to the opioid epidemic is LEGAL PRESCRIPTION DRUGS. 

So again, why is it acceptable to remove rights protecting transgendered individuals, but then turn around and enforce (force) adults to comply with a Federal Law that is beyond obsolete?  My humble opinion... $$$.There is not money to be made off the the transgender issue, but Big Pharma sure as hell hates the idea that you can grow your own medicine. 
There are 73 comments:
Male 38,238
The Union was laid out so the States ruled themselves with a minimum of federal laws/oversight. Now the Feds have taken over. There are too many Federal Laws to count. Time to cut Washington DC down to size. They need to worry about outside threats and leave the States to take care of themselves.
1
Reply
Male 260
Pot now legal to grow your own in the state of CA :D. Most of the rest of the country though? Still gonna get your life ruined for a fucking eighth.
0
Reply
Male 4,919
thething911 Not for long
0
Reply
Male 4,919
Holy Hell, I just voted everyone a +1. You know how rarely that happens?
0
Reply
Male 4,391
The Feds going after pot is all about keeping private prisons up and running to capacity.
0
Reply
Male 4,919
markust123 True and the Trump wants to make Pot illegal everywhere and make penalties a lot harsher. Like in Pa. the penalty for first time possession of a very small amount will increase from one year in prison  to three. Didn't he say he wanted to legalize it a few times early in his run for presidency?
1
Reply
Male 3,274
The Fed should keep it's fat nose out of both.
3
Reply
Male 8,011
We think of America as 1 country. It is. However, it was really envisioned to operate as a bunch of little "countries" combined. That is why they are called "states". Everywhere else a "state" means "country". Basically The United States was like the European Union, but 200 years ahead.

In my mind states should pretty much govern themselves. The federal government should protect us, tax and redistribute wealth, set national standards, provide a parks and infrastructure system, and set laws to ensure that no state takes away rights from people.

Wether people can smoke pot should be up to the state to decide. Whether gay people can get married should not. 

Seems very simple to me.

2
Reply
247
holygod Germany, India, Australia, Brazil all have states, and probably other places too
1
Reply
Male 8,011
barry9a Apologies. That should have been past tense. As in, when the country was founded.
1
Reply
Male 208
holygod On the paper, the USA are one single united nation and the UE is just a collection of states. Still, laws mostly come from individual US States and... the UE parliament. GO figure.
1
Reply
Male 642


If the federal government "married" people your comment would make sense.  But it does not States do that. The limits of power of the federal government is set out in the constitution. As such where in the constitution has the federal government been given the right to define and limit/expand marriage? 
1
Reply
Male 8,011
dang007 You are mistaken. My argument has nothing to do with marriage. My argument is about discrimination. States can choose to marry people or not. However, they can't choose whether to marry someone based on their sexual orientation any more than they can choose wether to marry someone based on their race. 
1
Reply
Male 642
holygod By that argument states can not discriminate when providing any other licenses either.  Blind from birth and want to get a drivers license sure go ahead.  Want to be a real-estate agent or a lawyer sure no discrimination here. How can the state restrict funds for free lunches only to the poor, etc. Now I suppose you could make an argument here related to public safety, public wellbeing, societies interest, etc.  But then that is the same argument the opponents to same sex marriage would make. 
1
Reply
Male 719
dang007 Wow what a reach, blind people are not "discriminated" against there's a same test that's given to everybody equally that if they can't pass, they can't drive... even if you're legally blind if you can pass with the aid of glasses they will ask that you just drive with glasses on...
0
Reply
Male 8,011
dang007 "that is the same argument the opponents to same sex marriage would make" How in the fuck would they? A blind driver is a danger to everyone on the road. Two guys getting married is a danger to........?
1
Reply
Male 642
holygod mischeif954 Bingo, The state has the right to limit who and under what circumstances they give a license, if they feel that the blind can not safely drive then they have the right to "discriminate" against them.  The constitution does not limit the states in this right a point you easily recognize when we are talking about drivers licenses, medical licenses, etc. 
 
Yes one of the arguments made by those against same sex marriage is that it would be and or is damaging to society.  As silly as that argument is.  

The point I am making is not whether or not it  ACTUALLY poses a danger or inflicts some harm to society.  The point is that the ability of states to restrict things under their control are allowed by the constitution, except where the are expressly forbidden by the constitution. Back to the question how does the constitution limit the states rights to provide or deny marriage licenses, without it limiting the right of the states to provide or deny other licenses that it issues?  Or how does the constitution limit the states rights in this matter specifically with regard to same sex marriage with out limiting states rights with regard to other groups.

This is not a question about whether or not same sex marriage should be or should not be legal.

Regarding the same test argument made by mischeif954 I suppose that if everyone has the same test they must pass and obeys the rules of the road, no problem right?  If that is the case why can a state not set one of the "rules of the road" to be that the marriage is to a person of the opposite sex?  What other ways can the state NOT limit marriage, is the number of persons involved in the contract limitable? what about the age of the persons? Again how does the constitution limit the states rights in one case but not the others?
 
0
Reply
Male 719
dang007 Absolutely NOT bingo just another ridiculous reach, the state has a right to give equal test to all who decide apply, it would be bingo say if a requirement was to get counseling beforehand, and non-counseled couple were denied, what you're suggesting is some people believe women can't drive, so women are denied taking the driving test, because of that principle may upset "normal" drivers the blind man is given the right to take the test.

You are wholly denying people their right to apply face value based on assumptions, why is it damaging to society because of procreation? Guess what fertility is not a requirement for marriage ban infertile people from marriage or knock it off...

Multiple spouses... marriage is a marital status awarded to TWO people, you can apply to marry as many people as you want just be aware only 2 of you will be awarded martial status of married all other applications will be denied until the first is ended, again equal application.

Age... laws of consent... to apply for marriage you need 2 legally "consenting" people, the state has a right to determine what is considered consent, but not the right to decide to grant some consenting marriages and some not consenting, because again that would be discriminatory and creepy as there are many other ways a lack of consent is possible besides age...
0
Reply
Male 642
mischeif954 I see you are discriminating between a "test" and a "practice".  Fair enough, does that mean that the state can not place any limits on a practice?  

>>>You are wholly denying people their right to apply face value based on assumptions<<< 
No I am asking a question. 

>>>> why is it damaging to society because of procreation? <<< I never said it was. What I said was that some people state that same sex marriage is damaging to society and use that as an argument that it should not be allowed.  The same argument could be made against group of people being allowed to drive (blind, otherwise handicapped, young, old, etc.) or get married in another way (young, multiple, etc.). Since we all agree with that argument we see no problem with the restriction. It makes sense to us.  We might argue that the constitution allows the states to set these limits because of amendment X. My question has nothing to do with whether or not same sex marriage is good, bad, or otherwise.

Again, what part of the constitution grants states the rights to set some limits on privileges it grants and NOT other limits. Or conversely limits state rights to set some limits but not others.

>>>>Multiple spouses... marriage is a marital status awarded to TWO people, you can apply to marry as many people as you want just be aware only 2 of you will be awarded martial status of married all other applications will be denied until the first is ended, again equal application. <<<<  
Why is your definition of marriage correct, only between two people, while another definition, union of multiple persons, wrong?  Why is one allowed by the constitution and the other not? If the state can define a marriage as a union of two people, how does the constitution limit them from defining it as a union of two oppositely sexed persons?  This second definition was "equally applied."


0
Reply
Male 719
dang007 I get it now you are just posing questions. The point of my response one making an argument against non-hetero marriages does not equally apply the same restrictions to hetero ones. That is a discriminatory practice... Which leads back to what you're posing I agree and understand and have argued your point that no same sex marriages are allowed period whether you are hetero or not. However the legal status of marriage as with interracial marriages had nothing to do with what you're posing now about having to be "insert world view" these stipulations were retroactively inserted, and therefore discriminatory, and extremely dangerous to argue against.

Again with the driving test bad example for your argument, all the people you mentioned have the right to apply and test. There are older, disabled, and legally blind people who do have licenses because they apply and pass the test. You are allowed to bring you're own vehicle if you can pass the written test and operate your vehicle you get a license. A better argument for the case you are trying to make are some states that do not allow ex-felons to vote even after they are completely finished serving there sentence including probation, which IMO is wrong.

It's not MY definition, the institution of marriage which I have no strong feelings for how others define theirs, and the marital status you are applying for with the government are two different things. Marriage can mean whatever one wants it to be, and can be practiced how one wants to practice open, monogamous, polyamorus. The STATUS of marriage granted by the government is limited to 2 consenting people, primary home status exemptions are restricted to one household, state residency is related to one state, you can't get in state tuition costs for FL and Texas, and vote in both state/county/local elections, immigration status you are a citizen or permanent resident not both and again all are applied equally.
0
Reply
Male 642
mischeif954 >>The STATUS of marriage granted by the government is limited to 2 consenting people, primary home status exemptions are restricted to one household, state residency is related to one state, you can't get in state tuition costs for FL and Texas, and vote in both state/county/local elections, immigration status you are a citizen or permanent resident not both and again all are applied equally.<<

>>>>Again with the driving test bad example for your argument, all the people you mentioned have the right to apply and test.<<<

Has any state argued that someone can not apply for a marriage license?  They have restricted how the application must be filled out,  i.e. the two persons must not be of the same sex, but at no time was marriage restricted and not allowed to homosexuals.

We seem to have come full circle.  I still fail to see where, or how, the constitution allows States to limit the status of marriage in some ways but NOT in others.  

I am always interested in how and why someone has come to a conclusion.  
0
Reply
Male 719
dang007 >>They have restricted how the application must be filled out,  i.e. the two persons must not be of the same sex, but at no time was marriage restricted and not allowed to homosexuals.<<

Maybe you missed this part?

"However the legal status of marriage as with interracial marriages had nothing to do with what you're posing now about having to be "insert world view" these stipulations were retroactively inserted, and therefore discriminatory, and extremely dangerous to argue against."

Ex: Marriage was always a union of 2 people, please show me where it was 1st explictly stated that marriage is the union between one cisgender straight male of ONE race and the corresponding female counterpart. Marriage was decided by 2 consenting parties, back when Marriages were brokered between families rather than the individual. As society evolved and individual freedoms were starting to become realized. You have people marrying who they want to and not who was brokered for solely on behalf of interests and social norms. Now you have situations, that never existed before. At the time self interest and social norm would not benefit from marrying into let's say interracial for status and wealth, but when you are making choices based on "love" the choices change. Communities fearing of the legally recognized mixing of races, then go back and say marriage is defined as same race...now They're retroactively saying hetero, then it will be probably be full human opposed to a cyborg, or whatever upsets some world view in this country typically set by the Christian barometer and that's discriminatory.
0
Reply
Male 642
mischeif954 >>Maybe you missed this part? <<<

No you made a distinction between the act as a personal issue and a STATUS (your capitalization) of marriage.  If the STATUS of marriage is determined by the state then that is what we are talking about.  Not what people practice, now or in the past.  If we are doing that then polygamy, practiced by a number of societies in the past should not be regulated either.  Child marriages were also common in previous times.  So back to my question what in the constitution allows the state to prevent child marriages and plural marriages but not same sex marriages.


>>>At the time self interest and social norm......<

Yes but again that is not my question.  Of course people should be free to do what they want as much as possible and not restricted by the beliefs and world view of the majority.  The question is not what should be limited or how it should be limited but what is allowed to be limited and under what circumstances by the constitution.

My personal take is that the tenth amendment specifically notes that "powers" (things that can be regulated) are held by the states and the people, unless they were set out in the constitution for the federal government. The 14th, to me goes a bit further that the "rights" belong to the people not the states. This means all rights.  The right to breath, kick a ball, carry a baseball bat, kiss someone, hit someone, shot a gun, etc. The strict scrutiny standard means that restrictive laws, laws that limit any rights of citizens, are only constitutional if 1)there is a compelling legal interest to have the restriction, 2)that the restriction is narrow in focus, and 3)that the law is the least restrictive means to meet the compelling interest of the state or the federal government.  To me restricting marriage of same sex couples does not meet this standard on any of the three requirements.  

The problem with this is that what meets these criteria are in the eye of the beholder. Some might argue that there is a compelling interest in restricting same sex marriage, other might argue that there is no compelling interest in restricting polygamy.  So what is "constitutional" changes with time as public opinion, and more slowly, the opinions of those on the court.

0
Reply
Male 719
dang007 By a number of societies, but not THIS society... as for as marrying what we consider children which happened in this society refer to my comment on consenting parties, remember women didn't really have rights, once the rights transferred from parties to individuals it becomes 2 consenting individuals the only thing the states have a right to do is to determine the age of consent... 

Hypothetical are cool but you keep asserting that there is some "compelling argument" I understand you don't hold these views, but put forth an example, any compelling argument to my knowledge is not applied equally to hetero's and again that's discriminatory.

>>So what is "constitutional" changes with time as public opinion<< 

And I'd argue that this is only due to try and address contradictions raised due to people who've circumvented the constitution in the 1st place, under the guise of a different "interpretation".

"We the People" is quite clear IMO, but it several times over was "interpreted" as "We the []" if you want to chalk that up "public opinion" that's up to you I chalk it up to -isms and -phobias

I'm personally not against polygamy for others but they'd have to find a way to implement it, while still protecting rights of parties involved require a prenup agreed upon by all parties, but that could be viewed as discriminatory because other marriages aren't required to do so. Where polygamy has been able to exist IMO is in Patriarchies. There's inheritance, do all parties need to consent to adding to the marriage, divorce, power of attorney, medical decisions, etc. Symbolically if you want the ceremony I get it, but if you want some sort of married status for all spouses just because you have x amount of people doesn't mean you'll get x amount of tax breaks i.e kids, can't see the benefit but if people are willing to take on that type of headache more power to them.

I don't understand why polygamy has to packaged with same sex marriage any how...
0
Reply
Male 20,029
holygod It does sounds simple when it's out this way. 
1
Reply
Male 6,404
Trump and Bannon are purposely trying to tear down our institutions so as to create a new regime that they can run unfettered by any restrictions on their power. The media attack is not a distraction it is part of the plan.  To people like trimble this is great news, exactly what his type want.  Complete and utter destruction of what is, and the starting of building something new.  What that something is, I'm afraid of what that may be.

 This is Bannon's stated mission and he is the Master Puppeteer of Trump:
 
 "I'm a Leninist," Bannon proudly proclaimed to the writer Ronald Radosh at a party at his Capitol Hill townhouse in November 2013. "Lenin," he said of the Russian revolutionary, "wanted to destroy the state, and that's my goal too. I want to bring everything crashing down, and destroy all of today's establishment."

0
Reply
Male 65
normalfreak2 Replace "B" with "G" and read this sentence. It still makes sense:

"Trump and Bannon are purposely trying to tear down our institutions so as to create a new regime that they can run unfettered by any restrictions on their power."

This seems scary, as thezigrat said !
1
Reply
Male 4,919
normalfreak2 True, this new government is scary. (right term?)
0
Reply
Male 20,029
normalfreak2 WTF? Did he really say that? Holy fuck.
2
Reply
Male 6,404
fancylad

http://www.snopes.com/bannon-leninist-destroy-state/

it's unproven.  But I trust the source so take it for what it's worth.

It fits into his ideology but it could as well be untrue, but yea it's false until proven true.
0
Reply
Male 260
normalfreak2 So, no. It's not true. It's just as likely from a 4chan post, but you just put it up there like fact anyways. wtg
0
Reply
Male 6,404
thething911 No, I clarified it with a link to where it came from.  I make no bones about it that it's not "proven true".  It's hearsay I don't pretend to cover it as anything other than that.
1
Reply
Male 3,451
Bah, I had a post typed out, but my shoddy internet connection erased it.

The long and short of what that post contained was;
I believe in State rights. I ultimately believe the State knows what's going on in the state better than the Feds.
However, the Feds can supersede the State at any turn.

If Trump feels that regulating bathrooms are a State level task, then it is.
If Trump feels that enforcing the Federal law of "marijuana is illegal", then he may.

This, of course, doesn't mean he's doing the right thing, but he's acting within his rights.
2
Reply
Male 46
DuckBoy87 - The 10th amendment says that the feds can't supersede the state at any turn.
- What Trump feels should not have any bearing on anything. The legislature creates the laws and the executive enacts them. If something is illegal then the president is supposed to enforce those laws. Some legislation does give the executive some leeway in creating the regulations that pertain to that legislation. Of course these rules aren't really followed and we end of with laws that are enforced some times and not enforced other times. And regulations that have no basis in any legislation are created.
1
Reply
Male 3,451
johncourage Welcome to IAB regardless, lol
1
Reply
Male 46
DuckBoy87 Thank you.
1
Reply
Male 3,451
johncourage Nope. You're wrong. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supremacy_Clause
The supremacy clause, Article VI, Clause II states that any laws made by the Federal Government supersedes any State level law. The Federal law is also known as "the law of the land".

The Feds created the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) (21 U.S.C. § 811), under which, marijuana is illegal. Trump has every right to enforce that law.

Similarly, the Obama admin determined that gender identity under Title IX should be enforced by the Feds, which is fine. And the Trump admin determined that that the same thing should be enforced by the State, which is also fine.
0
Reply
Male 46
DuckBoy87 You're wrong. I didn't say Trump didn't have the right to enforce the law. In fact, I said it was his duty to enforce the law.

Also, the supremacy clause doesn't override everything. The federal government cannot make legislation pertaining to anything that is not specifically mentioned in the Constitution.

Also, reinterpreting title ix is not in the power of the executive. The proper path would have been through legislation or court challenge.
0
Reply
Male 6,404
DuckBoy87 Yes he is.  The question I have is.  Is this what "conservatism" is now?  Because it sure as hell doesn't seem very "conservative".
0
Reply
Male 3,451
normalfreak2 That I honestly couldn't tell you. Labels are trifling. The only reason political labels exist is to show idiots who's "wrong".

'Conservatives are supposed to believe this'
'Liberals are supposed to believe this'
'Republican's are supposed to believe that'
'Democrats are supposed to believe that'

As if there is only black and white in a debate, and zero grounds for compromise.
3
Reply
Male 6,404
DuckBoy87 Can't argue with that.  Well said.
2
Reply
Male 2,421
Well first off, it wasn't a "law" to begin with.  It was a letter (from Obama) to schools and Universities that receive federal money citing Title 9 of federal law banning sexual discrimination within schools.  So let us be clear, no law was passed in congress specifically addressing the issue.  We just have some who would lump it under the current title 9 language just as we have many who would say no way.  So what we have here is a situation where people of good conscience are in disagreement. (I personally feel that the public outcry over an issue that pits .04% of the country's population vs. the other 99.96% ...well I find it a bit ridiculous.  We're a kind and decent people and we do our best but governing to such a fine degree of minutia...I find that some things just need to fall through the cracks.  You got a dick?  Men's room.  You got a vag...ladies room.  Suck it up buttercup, you're not that special)  Trump's action kicked it back to the states where it belongs.  As for the MJ issue...hey I'm all for kicking that back to the states as well.  But those who look to Washington for consistency from issue to issue will always seem to be disappointed.    
3
Reply
Male 6,404
dromed Why does the .04 vs 99 matter here?  At what point does a minority constitute worth thinking about?  We are a country ruled by the Minority.  See our election.  So at what point is minority rules not applicable?
0
Reply
Male 3,451
normalfreak2 I would argue that there is a difference between "the minority" vs "the vast minority".

Trump won with a minority. (Something like 46% to 48%)
0.04% is a vast minority.

There is a reason why the Houses require 2/3rds majority on some things.
0
Reply
Male 2,421
normalfreak2 Can you seriously not suss that out from what I wrote?  You want to nit pick this issue to death?  When .04% of the population elects the next president, then we'll have an issue.  I'll say it again cause it's sooooo fucking simple....Dick---->    Vag----->  Your feelings don't matter.

1
Reply
Male 719
dromed That is the most rudimentary thinking I've ever seen... when what may or may not be a transitioning woman who has done everything except reassignment surgery, who make look more of a man than a lot of others, enters the bathroom you've just assigned "her" to (the irrational fear of proponents, not of mine) people will feel safer? How does make any sense?
0
Reply
Male 6,404
dromed Sorry wasn't trying to be confrontational, just challenging part of your reasoning.
0
Reply
Male 6,404
CPAC is not TPAC and these supposed conservatives have shown that in terms of actual conservatives principles they simply have none.

Conservatives believe in "free markets". Trump doesn't. Conservatives "do not" believe in "nationalist economics". How the hell do these people, these supposed conservatives justify a relationship with Trump. I'll tell you how. Power. That's all. They don't care that he has stood conservatism on its head. 

Conservatives believe in smaller government. Donald Trump is not about "smaller" government. He is about a more powerful government. Conservatives supposedly care about deficits. Trump has no interest in deficits.

There are "libertarians" sitting in that conference who watch as Trump imposes government fiat over pot, sex, gender and I'm waiting for the shoe regarding religion. Oh wait he's already done that. 

Conservative convention. No this is no conservative convention. Conservatism like the Republican Party for the moment is dead.
1
Reply
Male 1,329
I too am confused.  Transgenders in the bathrooms isn't something that should be legislated at all.  Use the room designed for your equipment or simply keep it to yourself.  I have no way of knowing that the transitioning woman who wants to become a man is pissing through one set of equipment or another unless they make a spectacle of it.

Perverts in the bathroom is the big scare.  Well, perverts in the bathroom existed before the debate and they will exist after we move on to the next subject.  I get that we want to protect our children and their innocence so I understand the issue to some degree.  I don't want my daughter dealing with a trans boy whipping it out at her in school any more than a normal boy.  Laws won't prevent it from happening though as criminals don't obey the law and neither do people who just want to live their lives without a care for what some bastard wrote down in a book at city hall.


Now on to marijuana. 

1. The drug policies we have now are clearly rooted in racism.  Start with research here then do some more on your own:  drugpolicy.org

2.  Use of Marijuana is likely to reduce domestic violence in comparison to alcohol.
buffalo.edu

ScienceDaily

MPP.org

3.  Marijuana has multiple documented medical uses.  (Sorry, too many good articles to link much.)  Let me Google that for you

So now that i've established independent sources to show that the current drug policy is at best, ill-advised let's talk about the federal role.

The US constitution grants power to regulate commerce amongst the states.  Orgininally this was intended to keep states from levying tarriffs against each other and allow the federal government to control what came in and out of the country.  This interpretation has been challenges many times and so far, activist judges have secured more power than originally intended; the funny / not so funny part is they got it over a case related to a farmer growing his own feed.

Article 1 Section 8
"To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;"

So the feds believe they have the authority to regulate.  I disagree but I can't help but accept they do have sovereignty.  The cited definition may not help my argument but let's dumb it down a bit to they have the means to enforce their will.


Back to the original concept.  How do we reconcile the trans bathrooms and MJ laws?  

We don't.

We are dealing with people who wield power for the sake of wielding power.  I don't care if you're dem or rep, it's two sides of the same coin.  Dems want control over one part of your life, Reps want control over others and in some cases they overlap.  Fuck them all.  We should have voted for Gary Johnson.  Yeah, hes not much of a leader but his ideas on freedom are why I voted for him.

There are too many battles for one person or group to fight, that's exactly how they want it because we're paying for them to overwhelm us while we fight amongst ourselves.  They will never do things that are entirely logical and supportive of individual freedoms.


TL:DR:
Piss where you want and smoke a fucking joint afterwards, just be smart enough about it to avoid being caught.  This country will not be fixed through peaceful means but we all try to avoid violence because there is no guarantee we will get a better group in power when the blood dries.
2
Reply
Male 6,404
insaneai Holy shit.  You are spot on man.  I think we agree with the assessment, we just disagree on the solutions
1
Reply
Male 1,329
normalfreak2 Can you state your solutions in one sentence for each trans bathrooms and MJ?  I'll start with one sentence that covers both, and many more aspects of where I think law should end.

Live how you want so long as you don't cause harm to others.

1
Reply
Male 6,404
insaneai Let me expand a bit.  When I write live as you want as long as you don't cause harm.  I mean that in terms of the financial crisis, or letting schools be dilapidated due to no funding.  If we are hurting people, that's wrong and if the states won't fight for it the federal Government needs to.  With that said I don't want a bloated Federal Government where power can be pooled.  How to stop that is a problem.  I completely agree with that.  I don't want States to have the final say so.  I think they deserve power but I shouldn't have the option of discriminating against someone based on where i live.

I hope that clarifies my position slightly.
1
Reply
Male 1,329
normalfreak2 So we can agree on this.  So am I turning more left or are you turning more libertarian?  

Fuck it, I don't care.  I want to buy a case of beer, light a fire in the back yard and have you drink it with me.  

If I can handle conversations with my in laws who are self proclaimed communists, I can get along with you when we disagree.  If all else fails, we'll drink till we pass out.

1
Reply
Male 6,404
insaneai Sounds like a plan to me!
0
Reply
Male 6,404
insaneai BEAUTIFUL you took the words right out of my mouth.  


Literally you typed what I was typing.
1
Reply
Male 6,404
Republicans or maybe "Conservatives" have taken over the GOP.  Trump has done a masterful job of tapping into the Populist Conservative media.  He's convinced people that he's fighting for them.  Absolutely absurd and no one capable of rational thought should have believed that.  However we are where we are.  He has a long history of not paying people, not following through on his deals, outright extortion attempts, bullying people (See Scottland or the lady that wouldn't move her house or accept his buyout.  He's blamed politicians being bought out, yet he was the one doing the buying.  He's signed a bunch of executive orders that have basically done nothing other than they look great for photo ops.  He's successfully done what the GOP has been trying to do for years.  Convince poor people, under educated people to vote against their own self interests.  He has an uncanny ability to tap into what people are feeling and playing to those feelings.  Have to give him his due.  The good news is I'm white, I'm well off, and I have investments so I'll probably get out fine.  We'll see where we are in 4 years.
0
Reply
Male 20,029
Here's an observation that's floating around about the new war on weed... and this is just an observation, not mine, but it makes sense...

Criminalizing weed puts people in prisons. Privatized prisons make lots of money. Prisoners are cheap labor. Privatized prison stock rose 100 percent this week.

The Republicans are playing a long game.
1
Reply
Male 8,011
fancylad Oh dear fancy it is SOOOOO much more than that.

Statistically speaking:
Drug offenders tend to come from urban areas.
Urban areas tend to vote Democrat.
Prisons tend to be in rural areas.
Rural areas tend to vote Republican.
Prisoners can't vote.
Congressional districts are based on where people live.

Sooooo......

If you take a lot of people out of an urban area where they might have voted democrat and you in-prison them in a rural area that will vote republican you shift the weight of power. It's actually pretty genius.

Democrats controlled the house for 58 of 62 years. 

Towards the tail end of that we had Reagan and Bush's WAR ON DRUGS. Starting in 1980 the incarcerated population went from around half a million to two and a half million in 2014.

Republicans have now controlled the house for 18 of the past 22 years. 


1
Reply
Male 1,195
holygod  I think you are over stating the problem, its true that in some instances there have been cases that have helped to change elections on the local level. but with a total population of 2,200,300 (less than the number for Trump to win a popular vote) and widely separated in different jails (and not all jails are necessarily rural that the problem is not as big as you make out aside from the fact that many states have laws about this called "normal residence rule" that says that if you are forced to be in jail then they count you to be from were ever you were incarcerated. And its getting even harder due to the Census for 2010 making efforts to correct the problem some states even redoing districts to correct any prison gerrymandering.     
-1
Reply
Male 1,195
-1
Reply
Male 8,011
Prison censusing, along with the electoral college, and gerrymandering are how republicans use the (ridiculous and outdated) rules we have in place to control (steal) power while getting fewer votes.
1
Reply
Male 3,451
holygod I don't understand how only republicans use gerrymandering to win. If that were the case, don't you think they would win -every- election?

I'll admit that Trump won PA because of gerrymandering in Philly, but they had to give something up to get that, wouldn't you agree?

I don't disagree that gerrymandering needs to be fixed, mind you.
1
Reply
Male 8,011
DuckBoy87 They absolutely both use gerrymandering. I'm also sure that democrats would have happily taken an electoral victory to Hillary while losing the popular vote. However, it doesn't change the fact that all 3 are wrong and that Republicans seem to gain the advantage using them much more than democrats do.
1
Reply
Male 3,451
holygod Okay, well you cleared up my confusion in your first sentence. Every complaint I've seen about gerrymandering, specifically, points that 'republicans are using it and that's bad'. They never seem to remember that the democrats use it too, and can use to their advantage.

Again, I'm not in favor of gerrymandering.
And I purposely only talked about gerrymandering, because of my confusion on stances.
1
Reply
Male 357
DuckBoy87 Basically Republicans started playing the long game a while back.  They focused on winning state legislatures and goveners, so they could take control of the redistricting.  Then they could engage in some extremely weird (and obvious) gerrymandering.  This isn't to say they are the only ones doing it, just that from what I have seen they are the worst.
1
Reply
Male 6,404
holygod DuckBoy87 it's a combination of a lot of issues.  Gerrymandering alone wouldn't have led to a Hillary Clinton win.  The Electoral College seems to have lost it's purpose.  If he just votes down party lines what's the point?
0
Reply
Male 46
normalfreak2 This past presidential election showed the reason we have the Electoral College. It was originally added to prevent Virginia and other large states from controlling the election. And in this past election it prevented large population areas from controlling the outcome. We are a union of states.
-1
Reply
Male 6,404
johncourage Yea instead we let a bunch of low population land have more voting rights than actual people.  Totally cool right?
1
Reply
Male 46
normalfreak2 It is cool. It is great that we have a system that gives every state a voice instead of just the large ones. God bless America!
-1
Reply
Male 4,919
johncourage Greetings
0
Reply
Male 8,011
johncourage Oh, btw, welcome to IAB.
0
Reply
Male 8,011
johncourage Mother of fuck I can't handle the stupid in this statement. There is zero legitimate rationale to keep the electoral college. 

The only reasons are:
1. It's how is always been done
2. The founding fathers designed it that way
3. You live in a fly over state and like the disproportionate power
4. You are a republican and you're ok with a pointless, archaic system since it overrides the will of the people for you every few elections. 

None of those are good reasons. 

I can't fucking explain basic statistics and demographics on here again and if you don't already grasp them it wouldn't help anyways. 
1
Reply
Male 46
holygod The legitimate reason to keep the electoral college is to preserve this country as a union of states and to prevent large population centers from forcing their will on others.

Thank you, it's nice to be here.
1
Reply