Jump to content
BSUTOP25

POLL: Should The Union Peacefully Dissolve?

Would it be better to dissolve the Union?  

30 members have voted

  1. 1. Would it be better to dissolve the Union?

    • Yes, let's slice this +++++er up and live the way we want to live
    • No, we are better as a whole through compromise and constitutional federalism


Recommended Posts

6 minutes ago, Akkula said:

So was Trump, by the electoral college without a majority of voters.  Indirectly selected...no?

No. Davis was exercising Presidential power for almost a year before he was “elected.” Not like Trump.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, thelawlorfaithful said:

No. Davis was exercising Presidential power for almost a year before he was “elected.” Not like Trump.

This whole thing gets me wondering...can you really have an "election" and be considered "duly elected" if you can't win the office without a majority of the voters?  Can you really be trying to "overturn the results of the 2016 election" if there was really no election?  Perhaps the proper term was the "selection" of the new president.  You should really only get to use the word "elected" if you actually get a majority of the vote and win the electoral college, no?

  • Idiot 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Akkula said:

This whole thing gets me wondering...can you really have an "election" and be considered "duly elected" if you can't win the office without a majority of the voters?  Can you really be trying to "overturn the results of the 2016 election" if there was really no election?  Perhaps the proper term was the "selection" of the new president.  You should really only get to use the word "elected" if you actually get a majority of the vote and win the electoral college, no?

Nope, sorry. Trump was elected and we all agreed to the rules. There is a process to change the rules if that’s what you want, we all agreed to that as well. There’s also the roll of the iron dice, but I suppose you’d have to start sympathizing with Jefferson Davis a little more than you’d like to take that route.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, NVGiant said:

Absolutely. Automation, freer trade, shifting energy sources, inequity built into the system, etc. have all put enormous pressure on the middle class and below.

Andrew Yang Speech GIF

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

1 hour ago, thelawlorfaithful said:

Davis was selected, not elected. Read a book, just one book.

so many yer mom possibilities here

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Jackrabbit said:

I am not allowed to buy healthcare insurance from an out of state company.  We have one provider.

Isn't that a "state" problem?

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, renoskier said:

I was more focused on his first statement regarding the 10th. Don't really understand how he moves from his first sentence to executive authority in his second.

Anyway, I'm still wondering what federal law or "executive action" has negatively impacted anyone here personally.

The tenth amendment specifically defines what the federal gov is allowed to do. We ignore it because it is not taught anymore.

Executive orders should only be used in an emergency and require congress to vote on it within 30 days.

Congress giving unelected govt bureaucrats decision powers happens all the time..... is very wrong

All are examples of us stupidly voting our rights away for a few federal  trinkets.

Now we fight each other rather than fighting the cause of it all.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, renoskier said:

Isn't that a "state" 

Its both...while on that...the federal govt should have zero involvement in our healthcare system to start with.   It has no authority in the constitution.

I was trying to give something specific...but in general  many unwanted regulations drive up consumer costs.

IRS taxes on small businesses have created an unholy alliance between accountants, banks and the IRS.   That one is huge for me.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, renoskier said:

Isn't that a "state" problem?

No, the ACA set up state level exchanges specifically. Shoulda had a provision for multiple states to be able to band together to make a mid state sized common market but political will from both parties hasn't been there since 2010 to fix anything about the ACA.

Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, happycamper said:

No, the ACA set up state level exchanges specifically. Shoulda had a provision for multiple states to be able to band together to make a mid state sized common market but political will from both parties hasn't been there since 2010 to fix anything about the ACA.

No, the ACA set new standards but state regulation was set by the McCarran-Furguson Act (1945).

https://www.ncsl.org/research/health/out-of-state-health-insurance-purchases.aspx

Insurance firms in each state are protected from interstate competition by the federal McCarran-Ferguson Act (1945), which grants states the right to regulate health plans within their borders. Large employers who self-insure are exempt from these state regulations. The result has been a patchwork of 50 different sets of state regulations and the cost for an insurer licensed in one state to enter another state market is often high. The Affordable Care Act (ACA) set new standards, but retained the strong context of state regulation combined with expanded minimum federal standards.

So, maybe @Jackrabbit was right, a Federal law was passed to give the states more rights? :shrug:

And President Trump is trying to get around this with an EO, which jackrabbit is opposed to.:facepalm:

United States map of States to allow out-of-state health insurance sales

 

But actually, Wyoming does allow Out-of Sate Insurance sales. Wyoming was the first state, in March 2010, to enact a signed law based on the free-market model but also including a multi-state compact related to federal health reform.

Phuck, I'm confused!

  • Cheers 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Akkula said:

That is kinda like saying, "Well, I don't deny that pornography exists...I do deny that pornography is pervasive throughout society.  I make the assumption that most people are kind and good people."

Many people won't admit even to themselves that they like porn or that they are racist.  This is not a subject that many share with their closest friends and relatives.  But somehow...all this porn...is being watched by someone.  

I think people tell themselves, "it is justified that blacks get killed by police more because of XYZ"  when you pile that on top of all the other systematic injustices that are experienced by blacks.  You don't have to be the slavemaster with a whip in your hand to be a part of the problem.  

Right wing denialism or racism, climate change, gun violence, etc., are all problems.  The idea if you don't agree on the premise that race is a problem there is no reason to fix it...so you default to the prior racist status quo. 

FWIW, I have 0 doubt you are a white supremacist.  No denial here.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, thelawlorfaithful said:

He who can seize it and keep it.

sexist

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, halfmanhalfbronco said:

Gun control advocacy is white supremacy.  @Akkula=Clan lover.

This is a fun game you created Akkula!

Any truth to the claim that the second amendment and all the gun culture was really put into place to put down slave revolts and to allow slaveholders to defend themselves against abolitionists?

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Akkula said:

Any truth to the claim that the second amendment and all the gun culture was really put into place to put down slave revolts and to allow slaveholders to defend themselves against abolitionists?

You just want black people to be as vulnerable as possible. 

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, NVGiant said:

I don't know what percentage. And there is truth to what you say. That denying the existence of systematic racism can be a form of enabling white supremacy. But calling everyone who disagrees with us a racist doesn't get us anywhere either. I want to convince them, not dominate them. 

What history shows you that southerners are open to being convinced?  They had to have their slaves taken out of their cold dead hands in the civil war.  They had to have federal troops overpower them to allow integration.  They didn't give up jim crow because they were convinced.....

Overpowering seems to be about the only thing they understand, historically speaking.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.




×
×
  • Create New...