re: Try & square the argument: Fed Gov’t can’t regulate state voter rolls for FEDERAL ELECTION

quote:

---

You are a first rate moron. Just too stupid to even grasp that your logic is illogical.

---

The classic personal insult, to avoid addressing the actual issue. If you think I'm an idiot, you must really thing the founding fathers are stupid.

quote:

---

But that is never meant that the states didn't have to follow federal law and creating policies and procedures that vastly increase the likelihood of illegal votes pretty much seems to fall into that category. What the hell is the point of an election at all if you're going to do that? At that point you're pretty much back to having a Confederacy

---

interestingly enough there was basically zero federal oversight of elections pre VRA. If you like big government, just say you like big government.

quote:

---

Forgive me but I'm not seeing it. Lay that logic out for me. How does the federal government making sure that states don't allow illegals to vote translate into unlimited power?

---

Your premise (correct me if I'm wrong) was that it's a federal issue because one state's actions affect anohter state. So, lets say one state has loose gun ownership laws. And a bordering state has strict gun control. So, people buy guns in the neighboring state and smuggle them into the adjoing state. Shouldn't the federal government now have power over all gun ownership?

quote:

---

I know that the states didn't have much oversight but I think you'll have to admit that for most of our country's history you didn't have States literally trying to sabotage the federal government.

---

Huh? You don't think the Civil War and subsequent Jim Crow era weren't a challange to federal government?

quote:

---

JimEverett

---

I'm not arguing contintutaionlity. I'm reminding "republicalns" of their multi-decade history of arguing the opposite position, and how they are now for more government power not less. Like I said above... if you're for big government, say you're for big government. It's weird people have such a hard time admitting that.

quote:

---

Shouldn't the federal government now have power over all gun ownership

---

It does. The Second Amendment.

quote:

---

What another state does in who it allows to vote in FEDERAL elections affects me and mine and people in my state.

---

This is the reason I admire Ken Paxton. That was the State of Texas's legal argument.

How can we unite as a Constitutional Republic

-if some states don't assure that people who vote for president are entitled to vote. AND
-that the votes are properly counted?

quote:

---

But do we have a country or not? By definition if we have a country then it's got centralized government. Now you will probably find me some places on the internet saying that it's probably time for some states to say frick this and go their own way. Because you are right the federal government is just as prone to corruption as any of the state governments. But the question simply comes back to this. Are we One Nation or are we not?

---

It's always been a tension. And it's why we have both population based representation (house), equal representation (senate) and the electoral college (rather than popular vote).

I think the problem here is.. we're trying to enact and enforce immigration law via regulating elections to obtain a desired result. That's bass ackwards for a representative republic. And it's the same concept that democrats want to force state to allow everyone (including illegals) to vote. Rigging elections to get the result you want is a road to tyranny, it doesn't really matter who's doing it.

At the end of the day... enforce the border (which is CLEAR duty of the federal government), and none of this is a big issue. That is the issue we should be addressing instead of handing more power to the federal government.

quote:

---

Otherwise yeah we do have to have some kind of central organizing Authority on at least some level. If you have some clever solution for avoiding that problem please let me know.

---

I don't. Collectivism is always going to suck. Centralized power sucks too. I think the thing to consider is what is better? I get the argument that some state's actions have an outsized affect on other states. But you seem to be aruging that putting that power into one executive's hands is better. I'm not seeing the advantage of that, especially when a future exec could be Joe Biden, Kamala Harris, AOC, etc. I'll take 1/50 influence over 100% any day.

quote:

---

addressing the actual issue

---

The made up issue in your mind was addressed. Its clearly in my post to you.

quote:

---

But you seem to be aruging that putting that power into one executive's hands is better.

---

What I'm really arguing is that the actual federal government including more than just the president should be putting a stop to individual states sabotaging the government. Unfortunately there's enough people in one of the parties in the federal government to be happy to let it happen. Our Founders really didn't anticipate what you do when the country really has already balkanized just not officially yet. I think they assumed that while there would be disagreement everybody was going to try to maintain the Union. But I don't think any rational person can actually be arguing today that the Democrats are trying to maintain the Union. I mean I guess they want to maintain the union if they can Lord over the rest of the states but that barely counts. It's only falling to the executive because there's literally no other alternative. Either we will balkanize or the executive will stop it. Now frankly I'm of the opinion that my grandchildren will live to see a United States that no longer has 50 states. Hell my children might live to see that. And I don't even think that's a bad thing. I think that like many countries in the history of the world we have already divided to the point of no return. Let's face it. If the United States didn't exist right now could you get the 50 to join a union? No fricking way. You'd be lucky if you got three or four countries out of the 50 different states. But bottom line. If you're going to preserve the country there really is only one way and that's to put a stop to the states that are trying to sabotage it. So I guess my basic argument is which do you want? To preserve the country in which case I don't see any extra alternatives or go ahead with the balkanization? My personal preference is the second but assuming we're trying to do the first.........