Why NOT to vote Republican

[JaneV2.0]

That's because the Constitution didn't address slavery as that was considered a states issue until it became an issue the Federal Government could use to punish the southern states. ...

So should it still be a states' rights issue, in your opinion?

And the federal government only stepped in to "punish" the South? Not because the ownership of people is an abomination?

[Alan]

So should it still be a states' rights issue, in your opinion?

And the federal government only stepped in to "punish" the South? Not because the ownership of people is an abomination?

It started as an economic issue, the south was becoming more prosperous than the north and the north was beginning to lose money from tariffs as southern ports began to take away their business. If the federal government had only had slavery in mind, the Emancipation Proclamation would have applied equally to all states rather than just the southern ones.

I guess you could say it's always been a states rights issue since the 13th Amendment required the states to ratify it. I believe New Jersey was the last state to ratify the amendment which is why slavery was only outlawed in that state in 1866, well after all the southern states were brought into line using unconstitutional means.

[ApatheticNoMore]

I'm kind of okay with states having more power, but we need to somehow change the funding, but that's hard to do. Like states absolutely will never have more power, and it's silly to pretend they do, when I'm paying more than twice in federal taxes than state taxes, and the federal taxes do not directly trickle back to the states and the states don't have money issuing power really either. So financially the federal government is far more important than the states due to this, it's just a reality. And there is no easy fix, but federal government money trickling back to the states to administer might work. So anyway, I don't think it's much use to pretend states are more powerful than they are.

The states also need to be subject to democratic (small d) rule but that is another although related discussion. But if they are gerrymandered beyond all democratic accountability then they would just be little dictatorships.
Or as they have been called laboratories in autocracy: https://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/...fb4-story.html

Canada seems to do federalism right. I mean their provinces seem highly functional. The U.S. doesn't really seem to do federalism right at all. Maybe our states are just too small. Although in population size some are, some aren't.

[catherine]

I believe New Jersey was the last state to ratify the amendment which is why slavery was only outlawed in that state in 1866, well after all the southern states were brought into line using unconstitutional means.

)
Nope....A Southern state--Mississippi was the last. Texas ratified it 4 years after NJ: (NJ 1866; TX 1870)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirte...s_Constitution

[Alan]

)
Nope....A Southern state--Mississippi was the last. Texas ratified it 4 years after NJ: (NJ 1866; TX 1870)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirte...s_Constitution

That is technically true, although slavery was essentially outlawed by Federal force in both Texas and Mississippi by the Emancipation Proclamation in 1863. I believe the last slaves in the south were freed when federal forces gained control of Texas in 1865 while the last slaves in the north were not freed until New Jersey freed them by amending their state constitution at the same time they voted to ratify the 13th Amendment in 1866.

I did mis-speak when declaring New Jersey as the last state to ratify, I should have said it was the last state to free slaves. Thanks for pointing that out.

[frugal-one]

The US President is not responsible for security at the US capital. Trump had no authority to “authorize a response”; which I think is a good thing that there was no Praetorian Guard to add to the mix.

trump galvanized the thugs to the capital so he should have stopped it.

[frugal-one]

I think some dumb people did some dumb things that day, and some bad people did some bad things. I think criminal actions merit a law enforcement response. But I don’t think the republic was at serious risk of collapse.

I wouldn’t particularly mind seeing DJT eating prison food, but I also think trying to keep fear alive is a desperation move by a party staring down an electoral catastrophe.

Are you watching the hearings? You, obviously, have blinders on.

[frugal-one]

I think that by and large they do. The internet and much of the media give a disproportionate voice to the crazier outliers. One might feel that there are millions seething over Roe or guns or fraudulent voters or rigged elections based on what we hear, but that’s not what I get from regular, unaugmented people.

Haven't you seen the protests all over the country? Sheesh.

[jp1]

Pence did not want to be seen leaving. The optics of him not being there, And the actuality of him being there, are important. It is your own spin that you think he had concern about what Donald Trump had in store for him.

Pence more than didn’t want to be seen leaving. He was well aware of the trump traitors’ plans and well aware that he had refused to participate in them. He didn’t want to leave because he knew they would not bring him back and then simply stick whoever they could get up there in front of congress to pretend to be in charge and then not accept the electoral college vote.

Trump wasn’t going to kill him. Just steamroll him into irrelevance in his absence while the traitors tossed our government aside.

But sure, keep voting Republican because your effing taxes will be lower and people can more easily get guns. Priorities!

[LDAHL]

[/B]

Haven't you seen the protests all over the country? Sheesh.

One frantic zealot gets more coverage than thousands of normals.