Obama. The Worst President in American History?


#946

Yes it is true.

Supremacy clause. States come begging to the federal government. States make up their own laws because the federal government lets them. When the time comes over a particular issue they smack them down. Why do you think same sex marriage is legal in all 50 states despite some backward ass states like Texas and my own state of Kansas insisting they arent. Its because the Fed says hell yes they are and there isn’t a damn thing you can do about it.


#948

At the expense of individual voters. Like republicans in California or New York.


#949

You might know best what you mean, and not to make too fine a point of it, but we can all see what you say. Even as well as you can.


#951

Democrat Politicians don’t want the states to have their individuality, and to allow certain things or not in each state.

The Democratic Politicians want the government to overthrow the states just like Obama did with gay marriage.


#952

Sure they do.

First of all, they were promised they would have one when they joined the union.

Secondly, they have their own interests just as a state that cannot be reflected in the individual votes of people alone. People will not be aware of their interests as a state, necessarily.

They are fully functioning GOVERNMENTS, with laws that any federal administration can affect, both positively and negatively. They have a right and an interest in who that administrator is.

M


#953

No.

The Constitution GIVES them the right to make their own laws - not a gift at all from the FedGov.

The same Constitution gives them the power to elect presidents.

Take a civics class, quick.

M


#954

NO.

That is the fault of California.

If they want to apportion their Electors based on the popular vote they certainly can. They choose instead to give them all to the party that won the popular vote.

M


#955

You are free to misinterpret what I say and I am free to correct you.

Now, wanna waste more time telling me what I mean and say?

M


#956

Which means that republicans voting for Trump in CA and NY had their votes nullified.


#957

It is typical all across the country that electors go to the winning party in the state’s popular vote, though they are not required to, by law. Maine and Nebraska do not, for instance. And electors can also be “faithless” which means they vote as they want to and now how the state asks them to, but that is extremely rare.

If the California government wants to tell their electors to vote in proportion to the popular vote they can do so.

They won’t, however, because they will want all 55 electors to go to the Democrats.

M


#958

Which continues to mean that republicans living in democratic states have their votes torn up and thrown in the trash. For president only. For everything else their vote counts.


#959

Well, you can also say that Democrats living in certain states have their votes torn up and thrown away.

It’s still the only way that states get a voice in the election of the President. I believe they need it.

You throw out the EC and there is no reason that a candidate will ever visit 80% of the states and address their concerns. They won’t need to.

M


#960

It’s also the only system that guarantees that millions of American votes will get torn up and thrown in the trash. You could have a couple kids that end up living in a democratic state for their entire lives and not once would their presidential vote not get torn up (if they vote like you).


#961

Yes we all know it looks and feels great on our founding document. In practice though it doesn’t work like that. Want an example? Ok.

The National Minimum Drinking Age Act of 1984. That is the one where the where congress passes a law telling the states they couldn’t make their own laws concerning the purchase of alcohol to anything less than what big daddy federal said was the minimum. Signed by the great one himself Reagan.

Guess what? ALL of the states went into compliance regardless of the bellyaching. Why? Cause they weren’t about to give up the nice chunk of highway funds that was going to be withheld if they didn’t.

There are many more examples but they aren’t needed to illustrate that just as I said, the states only get to do what the federal government will let them do, and in the above example letting 18 to 20 year olds purchase alcohol wasn’t one of them.

Quite a few states in the past 15 or so years thought they were gonna be all powerful and pushes out laws stating homosexual people couldn’t marry. What do you know, here we are in 2019 with the SCOTUS telling them to get in line and yes you are going to recognize gay marriage. What did they do? Fell in line.


#962

I’m sorry but the Constitution makes the states soveriegn and the 10th Amendment gives them the power of their sovereignty.

They are not all powerful and neither is the FedGov.

Each has a role in governing the American people. The EC is in place because with out it, the states with the least population would be ignored by the candidates.

There is no question that would be the case and the last election proves it, beyond question.

M


#963

I’ve got time to waste.

I only told you I can see what you post as well as you and I never told you what you “mean” to say so I don’t know what that’s about.


#964

Then don’t be among those who argue with me what they think I really meant when I SAY what I really meant. That’s a tired, old trope that goes on in these forums all the time.

It WASTES my time. If you want to waste your time feel free, but not with me. I will finally just ignore you and anyone else who does so.

M


#965

Thats a lot of verbiage to not even come close to addressing the point I made which is right in front of your eyes every day you wake up. What the constitution says and how our government actually works are two very different things. If it weren’t there would be gay marriages all over the country and you wouldn’t have paid one red cent for Obamacare.

As for the EC, states with the least population are already ignored. Take a look. This image is all the election rallies made by Trump in 2016.

See all that open area in the upper midwest going down through the Texas panhandle. Hell remove Colorado and Iowa, he made less than a dozen stops in all the states west of the Mississippi total.


#966

Candidates that already ignore states do so at their own peril.

Ask Hillary Clinton, who ignored Wisconsin and almost totally ignored Michigan.

She thought she could win on the states she had in the bag - the heavily-populated states - and she was wrong.

That’s why I love the EC and the small-population states love the EC.

And how our government works is the FedGov can make federal law and the states can make state law and the 10th Amendment spells out where the states have their power - even on national issues.

I’ll give you a perfect example: The 10th Amendment establishes that the FedGov cannot compell state and local authorites to arrest persons on federal crimes. That’s why we have all the problems with sanctuary cities, for instance. The state and locals can write laws that prevent their police from becoming defacto federal officers in the federal problem of illegal immigration.

M


#967

Wisconsin and Michigan are not small population states they are both in the top 20 in terms of population. Yes Hillary did ignore said states and that was her fault. It doesn’t change the fact that not only she but Trump did the same thing which was ignore all the smaller states.

You loving the smaller states doesn’t mean anything. The EC doesn’t really do anything to help them the way you seem to think they do. Case in point the most recent election in 2016. Maybe Clinton does make a few more visits to a couple of larger states that were ignored. Maybe she wins those an all those small states mean nothing.

As for how the government works yet again you haven’t been paying attention. The Fed could absolutely compel state and local authorities to do their bidding. In the case of an issue like sanctuary cities, it would be pretty much as simple as telling the states if they don’t help them out reporting illegals they simply won’t devote any monetary funds towards anything else in the state. And the states would cower like little dogs.

Why doesn’t the fed do this? Simple because no one in the GOP especially the president have the nuts to attempt such a situation, never have, probably never will, because they know they couldn’t withstand the political heat from it, and their voters aka you would never hold them accountable to do so. You love lip service and scapegoats. Same reason the stupid ass wall isn’t being built. Congrats.