President Donald Trump!

Post Reply New Topic

While it's true that the war on drugs has jailed far more racial minorities, even though whites indulge in drug use just as much, it has to be remembered that federal drug laws are implemented mostly on the local level, by bigoted law enforcement. It's at the local level where drug busts are usually directed at blacks and Latinos.
As for the federal government wanting us to be poor, and easily controlled - doubtlessly that is true, where corporate interests have dug their claws into. I never said that we should never be suspicious of the government; in fact, that's the only way democracy can work. But that same suspicion should also be directed at state and local government.
The thing is, though, the federal government has become the champion of civil rights, because states more often than not have given into that mob rule you warned about, having taken away rights from African Americans, Asians, Latinos, and Native Americans in the past, and more recently, taking away the rights of LGBT Americans today. States with discriminatory pasts are hardly going to change for the sake of minority citizens, unless they are made to. And the only force that can compel them to change is the federal government.

Last edited by Kraichgauer on 12 Sep 2015, 6:28 pm, edited 1 time in total.

How exactly does the Federal government discriminate against rights???

The War on Drugs really is indefensible in my opinion, it is the modern day moral equivalent of slavery in this country in my opinion and its origins are extremely racist in origin. The Supreme Court extended marriage rights to gays yes, but the federal government also passed DOMA and could of just as easily passed something even more extreme had they the foresight of knowing how quickly public opinion would change on the issue. The powers of the federal government can be abused easier than the power of the states and history hath shown a long list of abuses perpetrated by our central government. The Indian Removal Act, Dredd Scott, fugitive slave laws, I can go on and on.

Our democracy doesn't work because it is too big and not representative, we can better effect change on a state level.

I suppose another radical alternative is to massively expand the House of Representatives so each district represents about 30k people as our founders intended it, the average district now is 700,000 people which is bigger than some states. That would result in having about 10,000 representatives compared the 435 now. The House was suppose to represent the interests of the people and the Senate was suppose to represent the interests of the state and now neither serves those purposes. Lets see them lobby and control who gets elected with that many reps, who knows maybe a few halfway decent people might sneak on in to our congress.

Repeal the 17th Amendment and let state legislatures elect senators, expand the House so each representative has at most 100k constituents. The Senate isn't suppose to be a super double congress with non-proportional representation, that makes zero sense and it is no wonder why our government doesn't function as intended.

But again, little good is achieved in most cases at the state level. States rights more often than not had been the rallying cry for racial repression, and today, it's used to justify homophobia.
While it's undeniable that evil such as the Dred Scott decision, and the Indian Removal Act, had been spawned by the federal government, but so had the Civil Rights Act. It's been the federal government that has since become the defender of personal liberty, all the while when the states have more often than not chosen the path of political reaction and repression. Without the federal government, what is going to keep the states in line in regard to treating all their citizens as equal?

What keeps the federal government in regard to treating citizens as equals? Every problem with state government is present in the federal government just on a much greater scale and with a bunch of added bonuses. There is much much more potential in evil with the abuse of the federal government than on a state level, on a state level in most places you can individually affect change but we have no voice when it comes to the federal government. You are wrong in saying that state's rights can only apply to negative connotations and your home state is evidence of that as it bucked the federal government when it came to gay marriage and marijuana legalization. The concept of self determination is good, what is done with self determination can be good or bad but freedom will always be preferable to bondage. Other contemporary states rights issues just to give you a different connetation of what you've been taught are the death penalty, gun laws, and euthanasia. The 10th Amendment is pretty clear in its intention but that's an amendment are federal government just straight up pretends doesn't exist.

What keeps the government in line with treating all citizens as equals? Essentially, we do. By "we," I mean everyone from voters, to our elected representatives, to protest groups, to - God forgive me for saying this - even lobbyists (sometimes). Now, there are things happening at the federal level that I clearly don't like, such as the growth of the security/police state with the War on Terror, as well as the idiotic Supreme court decisions that money is speech, and that corporations are people. And these things certainly have the potential to make us that much less free, and less equal. As I stated earlier, we need to be suspicious of government, and we must not ever lose our vigilance. But the fact remains, the expansion of civil rights has in modern times been in the hands of the federal government. Sure, my own state of Washington had legalized gay marriage by popular vote, but unfortunately the record of expanding civil liberty has been sparse on the state level. Backward, bigoted states are that way only because they have backward, bigoted citizens who want to exclude people who they deem to be of the wrong color, or who love the wrong people. The federal government has straightened up in recent times on those issues, and are the only force who can make the states follow suit.

Thank you. That was well said and you did my reply for me in a more concise way than I was considering. You are good at capturing things in a succinct and informative manner...

We the people can keep our state governments in line much better than we can the federal government, you have zero impact on what happens in DC but you can affect change on a local level. To say the federal government is the only reason there is civil rights in this country is wrong and ignorant of history, most of the country is not the Deep South and states have constitutions too that they must follow which protect their citizens the same way. People should have a right to self determination, you might not like their decisions in government but they probably don't agree with yours either.

What are you willing to spill blood for? Mind you, we are close friends with lots of countries around world with pathetic human rights records too. Look at Mexico right to our South with one of the most corrupt governments in the world, just the other year the government detained 43 students protesting President Enrique Pena Nieto who went missing and would later turn up in a mass grave murdered by a cartel. You have to keep things in perspective, I think even apart we are closer together than any other country and we'd would have to work together on common issues and shared interests. I think if the US were to break up then so would Canada as they're an unnatural union as well. Does your state Washington have more in common with BC up in Canada or does it have more in common with Mississippi?

The world is different now, divorce is an accepted part of life now so we don't have to doom ourselves forever to unhappy abusive relationship. It's not a suicide pact. Like I said, if you love something let it go.

Maybe another thing they could do is allow states to be created out of other states, California is like the world's 8th largest economy on its own but its citizens don't have nearly the voice that they do in say New Hampshire. There was an idea floated around a couple years ago called Five Californias with would of broken the state apart 5 different ways down cultural lines, besides the disruption it would cause the Senate(I would repeal the 17th amendment if I could) I think would be a positive for all involved.

We can affect change at the federal level. The Civil Rights Act is proof of that.
Sure, the people can effect change at the state level easier. But unfortunately, that change can more often than not be repressive, as Jim Crow and the most recent Anti-LGBT laws all started at the popular level.
As for Washington state having more in common with Mississippi or BC Canada - in all honesty, we probably would feel more at home in BC.
And break California up into smaller states? I always thought that was a sly plot by the right to reduce the electoral power of blue state America.

Why thank you. You're quite the wordsmith, yourself.

The proposal was Six Californias actually, my mistake. Breaking up California would probably create more blue states, 2 would of been solidly blue(Silicon Valley and West California), one would lean blue but is trending purple(Northern California), Southern California would be a swing state, and 2 would lean Republican(Central California, State of Jefferson) Silicon Valley would probably be the further left leaning state in the country I would imagine.

btw, we can continue this discussion in PPR in this thread

viewtopic.php?t=292927

came across a new poll I think is relevant

Socialism fails because of greed.

Everyone wants more stuff, and they will beg the misguided Socialist to keep raising taxes so they can get more stuff.

However, this drives away capitalists, investors, business people, productive people, and hard working people. Who wants to do so much work when they take it all away in taxes anyway?

The nation's attitude changes and now people live to do minimal work, and receive as much welfare as possible.

So, the economy gets worse.

Europe has used to debt to fight off this affliction, but eventually that will end too.

Or so the capitalist right would have us believe when they desert American workers for cheap overseas labor.

The president actually has more power now than he had back then.

Socialism is needed because of greed. Socialism isn't there to give people more stuff. Its purpose is to help those who needs it. Not everyone can get a job, and lots and lots and lots of hard working people don't earn enough to make ends meet, no matter how much they work.

While others earn million and million from doing basically nothing. Is it really greed to ask that these people pay a little bit, decreasing his or her wealth by a fraction so that a greater portion of the country can have a decent life? Or should health care++ only be for the minor, lucky portion that succeededs?

Some succeed, but for every person who succeeds, hundreds and hundreds fail. It's a vastly unfair system that rewards the greedy few while everyone else suffers.