> It’s also an extremely bias and dangerous narrative being spun. Today, states like California claim to be a “sanctuary state”, which lets them capture extra e

> It’s also an extremely bias and dangerous narrative being spun. Today, states like California claim to be a “sanctuary state”, which lets them capture extra electoral votes. Or Colorado ignoring drug laws. I see no issue with states having the ability to make laws that contradict the federal government, so long as it is an expansion of rights. Allowing states to constrict the rights of its citizens will always result in a tyranny of the majority. Again, I don't care about the mechanisms I care about the outcomes. "States Rights" have always been a thing, but it is only invoked as a rallying cry when trying to pass legislature that goes against the moral grain of the majority of the country. Californians don't need to say "States Rights" to pass weed and immigration laws, it is understood that they can mind their business. Southern States need to cry about "States Rights" during slavery, segregation, abortion, and now voter suppression, because their views are nationally unpopular and considered backwards my a majority of Americans. Again, your inability (or unwillingness) to understand the difference between a state increasing net freedom and encroaching on human rights is the source of my frustration. > Regardless, the condescension is think in this conversation is breathtaking Whatever you perceive as condescension is because you have so far seemed incapable of understanding that my entire point has been about the outcomes rather than the process of legislation. I don't care who has what power if that power is only being used for negative means. Do you really care about the structure of government if the outcome is bad for everyone? Your inability to reconcile that fact leads me to believe that you are either naive or hold reactionary viewpoints that you wont explicitly list. After all you have said that you think the 1964 Civil Rights act was overall bad. There is no "both sides" to human rights, that is what you continuously fail to understand and why I assume you are either naive/uneducated or a reactionary. > I don’t need to actually take stances to have discussions. I enjoy mulling over ideas and considering others viewpoints. Unfortunately, this has devolved to name calling. Except you're incapable of factoring in the real-world harm that occurs to people. Politics is not something that you can look at like a mechanical system to be arranged in any sense. Certain arrangements cause untold human suffering. You also immediately referred to The 1619 Project pejoratively as "Marxist". You are defensive of reactionary policies like abortion bans and hesitant when it comes to anything left-of-center like the Civil Rights Act or a history book on Slavery. YOU have shown me your bias and only take offense when I ascribe it to you. If that's name calling then show some objectivity. Whatever partisanship has come through on my side comes through in the defense of human rights. I despise both parties as corporatist and would vote for whoever is trying to maximize human liberty. However in the current paradigm the Republican party seeks to restrict it more than the Democratic party, although I would consider both to be fascist. > Such as the above ^ states are closer to a democracy in the US. The federal government is a republic, state governments are closer to and can be a direct democracy (e.g. Californians propositions). This may have been error on my part. I was using "anti-democratic" as shorthand to mean "harms minority groups", a democracy is better for the majority in-group, but allows them to have tyranny over minority groups. A republic may restrict the majority group from total control, but it allows minority groups to have some protection. Again, I don't care if a system is a republic or a democracy, I care about how that power is used.