4 ms·

1. The GOP is much less interested in expanding the federal government than other parties. This is FUD. 2. States couldn’t ban interstate travel before. They c

1. The GOP is much less interested in expanding the federal government than other parties. This is FUD. 2. States couldn’t ban interstate travel before. They can’t now. Why is a non-issue even being discussed? More FUD. 3. Is misleading at best. The primary charge was against the shooter. They said the mother MAY face similar charges as she initiated the argument and stayed in the situation by choice. 4. Perhaps we need laws to disallow police using personal data? At any rate an easy way around this is to use a calendar. Or keep it in your head like my wife and I do. Spreading FUD will not help.

fabian2k 4y ago
The GOP is perfectly happy to interfere in the most private parts of their citizens lives as long as it fits their agenda. The whole "states rights" thing is a smoke screen, that only applies for topic they disagree with.
- tekknik 4y ago
  The states rights thing is not a smoke screen. They are not interfering with private life. They are in fact removing a falsely enumerated “right” and returning the decision to the states. States can easily say abortion is legal based on their voters thoughts and opinions. If the voters don’t want abortion legal in their state then why should those outside the state have say? Isn’t this democracy?
  - mlyle 4y ago
    > If the voters don’t want abortion legal in their state then why should those outside the state have say? Isn’t this democracy? Hopefully you understand that the reason why we have a constitutional democracy is to protect minority interests. If voters in a state don't want interracial marriage to be legal, should people outside the state have a say? It's only been since 1990 or so that a majority of people in most states supported interracial marriage.
    - jmyeet 4y ago
      > ... protect minority interests "As practiced, to have minority rule" FTFY. So what about the minority interests of gay people? Trans people? Enslaved people? Let's not forget that "states' rights" as an argument was famously used to justify chattel slavery. Those pushing "states' rights" aren't the least bit interested in protecting minority interests. They're only interested in protecting their own interests. Period. It's "states' rights" when it serves them and a Federal issue when it serves them. > If voters in a state don't want interracial marriage to be legal, should people outside the state have a say? Yes. if you even have to ask...
      - mlyle 4y ago
        ??? I have to imagine you've misread the thread and think that I'm saying states should be able to unilaterally restrict minority interests. I'm actually arguing against someone who made that argument. > > If voters in a state don't want interracial marriage to be legal, should people outside the state have a say? > Yes. if you even have to ask... That's called a rhetorical question. Person I replied to said that majority of people in a state should determine if abortion is legal. I say that the purpose of the judiciary and a well-crafted representative democracy doesn't just allow the majority of the people of a state to run roughshod over an unpopular minority-- whether that minority wants to be trans, have interracial marriage, or get an abortion.
      - tekknik 4y ago
        So your argument is we remove states borders?
    - tekknik 4y ago
      No, people outside the state should have no say on the laws of that state. Otherwise we end up with every state being CA. How does this logic of minority rule hold up against things like the 2nd amendment?
      - mlyle 4y ago
        Make up your mind-- sounds like you don't like states' rights for firearms, but do for abortion laws. As said to you before: "In practice, very few people truly believe in a consistent ideology either way about states' rights. You'll find Democrats that believe things should be left to the states when it benefits them and when Republicans are in power. And you'll find Republicans eager to expand federal spending and powers when they occupy the institutions of power."
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
timeon 4y ago
"FUD" is poor argument.

fabian2k 4y ago

The GOP is perfectly happy to interfere in the most private parts of their citizens lives as long as it fits their agenda. The whole "states rights" thing is a smoke screen, that only applies for topic they disagree with.

tekknik 4y ago
The states rights thing is not a smoke screen. They are not interfering with private life. They are in fact removing a falsely enumerated “right” and returning the decision to the states. States can easily say abortion is legal based on their voters thoughts and opinions. If the voters don’t want abortion legal in their state then why should those outside the state have say? Isn’t this democracy?
- mlyle 4y ago
  > If the voters don’t want abortion legal in their state then why should those outside the state have say? Isn’t this democracy? Hopefully you understand that the reason why we have a constitutional democracy is to protect minority interests. If voters in a state don't want interracial marriage to be legal, should people outside the state have a say? It's only been since 1990 or so that a majority of people in most states supported interracial marriage.
  - jmyeet 4y ago
    > ... protect minority interests "As practiced, to have minority rule" FTFY. So what about the minority interests of gay people? Trans people? Enslaved people? Let's not forget that "states' rights" as an argument was famously used to justify chattel slavery. Those pushing "states' rights" aren't the least bit interested in protecting minority interests. They're only interested in protecting their own interests. Period. It's "states' rights" when it serves them and a Federal issue when it serves them. > If voters in a state don't want interracial marriage to be legal, should people outside the state have a say? Yes. if you even have to ask...
    - mlyle 4y ago
      ??? I have to imagine you've misread the thread and think that I'm saying states should be able to unilaterally restrict minority interests. I'm actually arguing against someone who made that argument. > > If voters in a state don't want interracial marriage to be legal, should people outside the state have a say? > Yes. if you even have to ask... That's called a rhetorical question. Person I replied to said that majority of people in a state should determine if abortion is legal. I say that the purpose of the judiciary and a well-crafted representative democracy doesn't just allow the majority of the people of a state to run roughshod over an unpopular minority-- whether that minority wants to be trans, have interracial marriage, or get an abortion.
    - tekknik 4y ago
      So your argument is we remove states borders?
  - tekknik 4y ago
    No, people outside the state should have no say on the laws of that state. Otherwise we end up with every state being CA. How does this logic of minority rule hold up against things like the 2nd amendment?
    - mlyle 4y ago
      Make up your mind-- sounds like you don't like states' rights for firearms, but do for abortion laws. As said to you before: "In practice, very few people truly believe in a consistent ideology either way about states' rights. You'll find Democrats that believe things should be left to the states when it benefits them and when Republicans are in power. And you'll find Republicans eager to expand federal spending and powers when they occupy the institutions of power."
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]

timeon 4y ago

"FUD" is poor argument.