The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
Please vote in the Forum Structure Poll. Polling will close at 2PM EST on January 21, 2025.
States Rights (Win the battle or Lose the war)
LoisLane
Registered User regular
Registered User regular
Note: This is not a place to discuss Bernie v Hillary. The primary and general election are over. If you want to discuss specific stances that are connected to states rights then go for it but the endless primary doesn't belong here. Period.
With Trump in the White House I have seen many Dems argue about what this means for progressive initiatives enacted by Obama during his two terms. A common suggestion is that we turn the blue states/cities we do have into bastions for liberal policies during these trying times. We can already see forces mobilizing this plan in California and New York.
California
http://time.com/4603482/jerry-brown-donald-trump-climate-change/
New York
What this thread is to discuss how viable these plans of actions are? Currently what we are facing is
-Republican Supreme Court
-Republican Legislative Branch
-Republican Executive Branch
-Republican Media Machine
How far will blue states be allowed to go? Which branch will be the biggest impediments to keeping blue state policies? And are we setting ourselves up for failure when the tables are turned? Will we win the battles but lose the war?
With Trump in the White House I have seen many Dems argue about what this means for progressive initiatives enacted by Obama during his two terms. A common suggestion is that we turn the blue states/cities we do have into bastions for liberal policies during these trying times. We can already see forces mobilizing this plan in California and New York.
California
http://time.com/4603482/jerry-brown-donald-trump-climate-change/
California Governor Jerry Brown said Wednesday that his state would fight President-elect Donald Trump on climate change if the new administration tries to ditch policies that combat global warming—even quipping that California could go as far as launching “its own damn satellite.”
New York
Gov. Andrew Cuomo has echoed these sentiments, promising, though without specifics, that New York State will begin expanding legal assistance for immigrants in the coming year.
What this thread is to discuss how viable these plans of actions are? Currently what we are facing is
-Republican Supreme Court
-Republican Legislative Branch
-Republican Executive Branch
-Republican Media Machine
How far will blue states be allowed to go? Which branch will be the biggest impediments to keeping blue state policies? And are we setting ourselves up for failure when the tables are turned? Will we win the battles but lose the war?
LoisLane on
+1
Posts
We're not going to have a productive conversation with Republicans about this until we are operating with the same definitions.
At the very least, it would give Democrats something to use to win elections. It will show that Democrats actually stand for something and are willing to fight for it.
At best, you will have some states with a decent quality of life.
The first is the right of the states to legislate laws more strictly than the federal government.
The second is where the money goes, comes from and taxation.
Both of these look similar but the argument and ideology behind them is very different.
That being said, both sides want their cake, and want to eat it too, and generally the minority party in the US government is going to want to push for greater states rights for obvious reasons.
Things like this are what make me skeptical of the entire "dogwhistle" construction. I think it's grasping at something real, but it seems highly vulnerable to "When my political enemies say reasonable things, they're ACTUALLY speaking in a secret code, which just further proves that they are evil mutants."
Republicans seem to support state handling of a lot of issues in general. Whether this will change due to their gains in federal power remains to be seen - I think the push for local control is more of an ideological thing for a lot of their base, but it may turn out to have merely been a means to an end. Either way, the Left's proposed policies shouldn't change due to what the right is doing. In an ideal world, the Left shouldn't change its policies based on whether it has power this year - the Left should decide what role the state laws fill in their grand vision of the country, and stand by those things.
I think that's a difficult question to grapple with, and heavily depends on the policy. For example, to what extent do labor reforms make sense as a regional issue? A $15 minimum wage might mean something completely different in rural areas with lower rents. Or gun control? Do people need a different level of access to guns when the nearest police station is an hour away, versus five minutes away? Either way, the Left needs an actual vision on the issue, not just "whatever is politically expedient at the moment."
I've never heard Democrats talk about States' Rights, but generally Democratic states take Federal regulations as a starting point and then strengthen them even more locally.
Republican = states don't have enough rights because the feds are strangling them, Democrat = states need to take the Federal government baseline and make it even better.
Lol What? States Rights is like the great great granddaddy of all dog whistles. Go ask some rural white southerners what the US Civil War was REALLY about.
Not really. State's Rights is a rhetorical device, almost exclusively used by Republicans, this is deployed when they dislike the federal government stepping on them for one of their various shitty policies. Which is abandoned the minute the shoe is on the other foot. It's not so much a different definition as that it's a thing they simply don't care about. What they care about is being able to pass their shitty laws at one level or another and "State's Rights" is a convenient tactic for that.
Democrats in general just ... don't care about the concept very much. The ability of a state to do better then federal regulation is just kinda assumed and not generally argued using the "state's rights" rhetorical device. It's mostly deployed by the left in charges of hypocrisy.
State's Rights is what it's always been. A state's right to be terrible in the face of federal pressure.
When you model republicans that way, it's no wonder they don't want you telling them how to live their lives.
I think both sides are going to have to grapple with this issue when it comes to the state's rights question. We have a very divided country - not just red and blue, but urban and rural. Distinct cultures with distinct needs and values and economies. If one of those cultures holds power in the federal government, should they get to tell the other culture what to do? Assume you don't know WHICH side is going to end up in power. How much power do you want the federal government to have? What issues should be decided federally, and why?
I'm reminded of when ¡Jeb! was saying that federal education standards will go away and all states will be allowed to implement their own ones that will all be good, and somebody asked him how we'll ensure that every state has "good standards," and his answer was basically that they will. But a certain President-elect assures me that we are a country of laws, and need to have certain things as a whole country.
Frame it as a minimum outcome where if it's made in the USA you know it's at least *this* good, make it clear you're leaving methods up to the states to some extent, and encourage them to be better.
Yeah it won't win over the "every regulation is bad" crowd, but it's consistent regardless of the administration.
I'm fairly certain it will be revealed as a means to an end, and for evidence I'd submit North Carolina's HB 2 (in direct response to Charlotte's city ordinance) and any number of states blocking cities from requiring higher than the state standard of minimum wage and/or paid leave
Switch - SW-7373-3669-3011
Fuck Joe Manchin
This "separate culture" thing is pure goosery. That's ignoring how contemporary mass media works. It also ignores how few owners there are in mass media.
There are certainly different facets of media & culture. There are certainly different genres in music, games, movies, and to a certain extent, news. But there's a distinct, overwhelming culture we share. It's so broad and all encompassing a culture that other countries have mandated their media outlets have to produce a certain amount of native media every year instead of just importing everything that the US churns out.
So I'm going to stop this nonsense right there. We are not a culturally divided nation. Nor are we a values divided nation. Every single one one of us wants to live a safe, civil life.
What divides exist are wholly manufactured by those seeking a way to exploit fears and uncertainties.
States like CA provide a huge spigot of federal money that they can't turn off if the Fed goes against them.
But conversely, if the Federal government threatens defunding, it wont really hurt them as much as a state like say Georgia, that owes a great deal of its state spending to Federal dollars. So they can still tell the Fed to get bent, though they'll still take flack from the same rubes that said the Federal government shouldn't be able to defund NC over their bathroom bill.
Better yet, ask Lee Atwater
So the words of a Republican strategist who has been dead for over 20 years is the best window you can find into the secret deep-cover intentions of the modern Republican party? Do you feel comfortable applying this standard to the left?
I propose an alternative theory: The intentions and values of politicans and political movements are best predicted by what they say their intentions and values are. Or through their policies. Not through secret codes. The right has engaged in a huge political movement over the last decade to try to shrink the size of the federal government. Isn't it time to consider that they just...actually want to shrink the size of the federal government? What would they have to do to convince you that that's what they want?
So you think that the cultures of rural and urban America are identical? You don't see any meaningful differences?
As a few counterexamples: People in rural areas are twice as likely to own a gun. They're more likely to be evangelical Christians. They're very different economically - many rural small towns have economies based on one big local business (ie: mines, manufacturing plants), while cities generally don't. They Vote differently. Would you say all of these are just manufactured and don't matter?
Pop culture seems more homogeneous because it actually does come out of only a few places (ie: Hollywood for movies, the various tech areas of cities for most games.) It's coming from the city culture, not the rural culture.
State rights is routinely trumpeted by the party that consistently tries to implement racist policy using the concept as the reason. That you're only aware of conservatives trying to shrink the government for the last decade indicates that you seem to be unaware that state rights has been the rallying cry since the civil war. I see no reason to think it's changed given Trump and other Republicans' intentions to use the federal government as a bludgeon against Muslims and Mexicans.
If you think the GOP believes local control is better, Michigan is going to fucking confuse you, because the state loves to seize political power from black communities, expressly against the will of the voters of this state.
Abolish Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid and replace them with nothing. Military cuts would also help.
Not enacting racist policies would be a good start.
No, but that's because ratfucking has always been the province of the right wing. And Atwater was the architect of the right wing playbook, so yes, we can find valuable insight in what he's said, because he founded the intellectual underpinnings.
And I prefer to look at what people do as opposed to what they say. If a politician says that they want fewer abortions, but then oppose contraception, sex education, and support for single parents, then I have to question their commitment to lower abortion rates, as they are opposed to policies that actually reduce abortion rates.
Its never about births or abortions.
Its about women having sex. With no regard for the man who didn't wear a condom.
Which is precisely my point - when a person's words are in conflict with their actions, look at what they do, not what they say.
Federal spending by President:
Federal spending by control of Congress:
BTW, I deliberately got these from mises.org to anticipate any claims of a liberally biased source: https://mises.org/blog/if-you-want-bigger-government-vote-republican
Yep, definitely the party of smaller federal government there. :rotate:
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
The larger blue states like California and New York can do a lot to fight global warming even under an ecologically-hostile President. We can't enter into foreign treaties, but we can enact policies to cut emissions within our own states.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
I didn't say either of those things and feel like you're just looking for ways to keep people divided from seeing their commonalities.
Yes, people live different lives based on their location. What food they have is a clear example of that. Some people have access to fresh seafood, while others have access to cheap beef. That doesn't mean that either has a different culture.
First "gun culture" is the most manufactured idea of a culture as there has ever been. The NRA of today didn't come about until the 1970s when the group got invaded by a bunch of nutters and staged a leadership coup. And enthusiasm alone for a thing does not give the aspect of a culture any more than a favored painting makes it masterpiece.
Furthermore, economies are never isolated. The whole study of economics is predicated on trade. So again, no. They're not different. Their goods have to go somewhere and what they buy has to come from somewhere. Everywhere is connected to everywhere else. Everything is shared. This is one of the more enraging arguments about tiered minimum wages.
The same can be said of religion. Just because one is more prevalent than another doesn't make a bit of difference. The idea of it came from somewhere. And while I may have philosophical, eccumenical, and theological questions for the practicioners of evangelicals it doesn't mean that the overriding sameness of their faith to that of the vast majority of the citizens report to share means anything. It is shared. It is shared almost universally across the whole of the US.
We have one nation and one culture. The divisions purported to exist for the purposes of your argument are superficial to imaginary.
So, what is your reading of their intentions to overturn defense cuts from the sequester? How does "larger military controlled by the government"="smaller government"?
The last decade of Republican congressional strategy has moved from "Block Democrats from having any success they can point to" in 2006 to a more nuanced approach of "Block Obama from having any success he can point to".
Everything else was window dressing. That has been their only unifying strategy in the last 10 years. You can experiment with this by trying to have Florida Republicans start preaching state rights to sell cuts to Medicare and SS and see how quickly their tune changes against the national party. Everybody hates the big bad federal government until you try to take away THEIR slush fund of federal money. That is the national id of selfishness right now, and the Republicans have just tapped it, thats all.
That's a weird sentiment to me. Would you say that "video game culture" is a thing? Because I consider myself to be part of both gun and video game culture and the similarities are striking.
Yeah
Going forward, Democratic "states rights" will mainly refer to a lack of support for, and sometimes the disruption of, regressive national policies
Compared to a video game group, you've met all your gun friends in real life, so every benefit of having real life nearby friends applies to your gun friends. That is, you'll end up going for pizza and beer after a scheduled target practice night, you'll get invited to random backyard barbeques because one of your gun friends felt like throwing a party, that type of thing. Because that's what happens with real life social groups, no matter what the original purpose of the social group entails.
There's a reason why there's a strong gun culture - it's because you befriend people in real life, who live nearby, who share the same hobby. It's a powerfully feedback loop.
No more a thing than "movie culture" or "music culture" or "wine culture".
These are things people do for their personal edification & entertainment that they are engaged in to different degrees as it suits them. Hobbies. The idea that they have a "culture" unique and separate is used to dupe unwary members of said groups. Sometimes for political purposes, such as gun owners. Sometimes for profits, as in music or video game hobbyists. Sometimes to just make the individual feel better about themselves.
This, along with every other post you've made in this thread, is is very much "I have a hammer, everything is therefore a nail" thinking. Whether or not you think the divisions were manufactured doesn't mean they don't exist.
Let's view education because this one is going to be turned on the side.
Money coming from the fed to the states are kind of just blanket appropriated like they normally would be, and if the state can they reduce their education funding and move it elsewhere because they got fed money buffing the budget.
The standard they meet is the common core.
Now under the GOP, the department of education would not exist, common core would be an option as would evolution. Blue states would largely unaffected. Money coming from the fed for education might be cut or reduced, but that isn't really a new thing. Money might be available in the form of vouchers, which only effects a small number of people, so if you live in a Blue state it's not going to mean much.
If you live in a red state. There is going to be some moderate changes, more religious schools, voucher programs will take their toll, standards will slip. We'll produce less prepared graduates. Internationally we will be less able to compete. We won't see the damage of that for about 15-20 years.
The biggest thing that will come will be vouchers, and the fed will probably tie fed money to vouchers and make schools "compete for students and funding."
It was definitely about states rights
The right of the southern states to overrule the rights of the northern states and reclaim their runaway slaves
-Immigration, I expect Trump to get a ton of resistance on this from states not run by idiot racists. I also don't see him getting much help from SCOTUS on this one either. Kennedy, while unreliable from the view point of many liberals, is not a fucking awful human being that will pull the shit Scalia did. I also foresee Roberts being the smart Republican and knowing damn well that the path forward for the alt-right, is doom for the party. This also gives the military a greater edge in telling Trump to fuck off if he tries to use them to deport people, given they aren't likely to go against the courts on this for Trump. I could see this being a real shit show, if Trump tries the private mercenary side; especially, if we get vets involved on behalf of communities with large immigrant populations (Hell given the composition of our active duty on the demographic end of things, this is an area where I expect the military to be odds with the GOP). I suspect this is largely why we're seeing Trump walk back his shit, not sure if that is him realizing he loses badly or someone managing to beat it into his orange skull. This route also gets harder for Trump is the GOP leaves the filibuster in place, which they might do if enough of the old cold war hawks don't trust him, also possible if some are really fearful that they won't end up fucking themselves long term, with their own shitty legislation.
-Minimum wage. Federal minimum wage increases are effectively on hold until either there is a veto proof coalition in 2018, Trumps and the GOP lose in 2020 or shit gets bad enough that the GOP is forced to do something about it. That said, this is happening at the state level. Now would probably be a great time to push this through because we're going to get a great reminding of why we fucking have it. This has also proven popular with groups that tend to vote Republican. So great way to make the GOP look like shit. Also until the Electoral college gets razed and we move to a different setup for the Senate, probably one of the lefts best tools to build up 30ish state coalition (you use the better minimum wage to attract better educated people, which will attract more profitable business, play your cards right and you can build up a population this is hostile to the current platforms of racism, fuck the poor, anti-intellectualism and businesses running roughshod over people).
-Marijuana legalization. This already looks it's going to be a fight between Trump's administration and states that are legalizing marijuana. Given this seems to be a generation thing, this will probably become a wedge issue that fucks the GOP long term. We'll see how the courts rule on this. I imagine that Trump loses this before 2020 because fighting states on this will be a huge clusterfuck that wastes tax payer money.
-Healthcare. If I were a Democratic run state, I would be moving to get my own universal healthcare in place and then clobbering the shit out of the GOP, when they try to take it away. Also another one up there with minimum wage that could be used to effectively lock the alt right out of state politics. Get people on healthcare and they aren't going to want to give it up.
-Education. I imagine some business are going to push harder for this at the state level, since things are going to be shit at the federal level. I think we actually have a split in the business community on this end. The ones that don't think they need an educated work force would like nothing better than to render all the so called plebes to being ignorant and having no critical thinking skills. The ones that get they need smart workers are gong to be much more hostile to this because ignorant and unthinking workers don't make them money.
-Americans With disabilities. This is somewhat in the vein of education, but the needs of Americans with disabilities isn't just limited to education concerns. I doubt Trump and co understand there is a good reason why ADA ended up having some god damn teeth. Much like a number of other social things implemented in recent decades, they'll probably attack this area because it's convenient. There is probably some areas they'll manage to take down or hamstring, but if the Left wants to live up to it's ideals, this will probably be a place where blue states should step up. Besides they'll be able to capitalize later, when the GOP gets reminded that you can't really shake any family trees without stirring up some bees nests in regards to taking care of Americans with disabilities.
-Climate Change. Pretty sure before the end of 2018, we'll see the rest of the East coast on board with doing something about it because they risk serious economic damage from not confronting it and there are plenty of wealthy types with real estate that is in danger of being inundated. I also expect we'll see the farm lobby join in because extreme weather threatens the well being of the industry and Trump and Co will probably gut the federal programs that mitigate the damage from weather events for farmers. We're also getting more and more people that don't want to deal with nasty ass fossil fuels and we have tech giants that are investing in alternative energy and other countries don't give a fuck why Trump thinks of green energy. I'm not sure where everything is on climate change, not sure if most of the tech is mature enough to be a huge pain for Trump or if it will still be maturing into economic viability into 2020. Granted this one could also get turned on it's head to, since Trump may change his tune if a significant chunk of his real estate empire gets threatened by climate change.
This isn't a given. Kentuckyians loved their Kynect but still voted to fuck it all over.