Comments by "whyamimrpink78" (@whyamimrpink78) on "Wolf-PAC Shows Strength In Special Election" video.

What did North Carolina do?
2
Money in politics is nothing more than a symptom of disease. The disease is a federal government with too much power. If you limit the powers of the federal government to what is listed in the Constitution than it will have nothing to sell and thus money in politics will be almost a non-problem. Liberals love to expand the federal government, give it a lot of power, and then complain when people with money buy off politicians to do them special favor or Trump gets in power and creates a cabinet full of millionaires. If they did not have the power to begin with than that would not happen. Limit the powers of the federal government, and stick to smaller more local government.
1
Don the Con, defense spending is constitutional.
1
Don the Con, there is a role for the federal government and it is listed in the Constitution. Everything else is left up to the states because the more local government is the easier it is to control. Defense spending is federal because it deals with foreign affairs. Now is there corruption involved? Somewhat. But with that it is focused on only one area. The alternative is getting rid of the military. You are never going to outlaw money in politics as politicians, who create and enforce the laws, will find loopholes.
1
I agree that the Pentagon has problems, but if the federal government is responsible for less than we can focus on the Pentagon more. Also, why do you want to give more power to the corrupt federal government? My argument is that it is corrupt to begin with so limit its power to control it easier.
1
"as states have way too often shown they are not willing to treat all their citizens fairly" How? Please explain. And if there were a case it is most likely covered in the Constitution which places limits on all governments.
1
Don the Con, Jim Crow Laws were unconstitutional via the 14th amendment. All of our problems can be solved by the constitution and if you look all throughout history you can cite the Constitution as a way to solve these problems. So when you look at Jim Crow Laws I see something that violated the 14th amendment and can be resolved that way. The Constitution is limitations on all governments to limit corruption and an overpowering government. On marriage you don't have a right to marriage so that becomes a state issue. In my opinion the Supreme Court made an incorrect ruling on gay marriage as no amendment covers that thus it becomes a state issue. But again, the constitution is the standard and it covers basically everything.
1
" sounds like modern progressivism would not like the idea of federal supremacy if the president did not share their interests" This is a great point. Typically liberals want to expand the federal government. I usually counter with the idea of how would they like it if the federal government made laws they didn't agree with, like make gay marriage illegal federally? At the state level you can create what you want. Kyle from Secular Talk wants a healthcare system where the federal government mandates that all states create a medicare for all system. I feel that the states should have a choice. Someone pushing for federal supremacy will support what Kyle does. My counter argument is how would they feel if republicans came in an made any form of medicare system at any level illegal? That is where federal supremacy falls apart. It is boom or bust at that point.
1
"issues of basic civil rights, equal protection, healthcare, equal education funding.." There is another side to the argument as well and that is controlling the government to make sure it remains the servants. Take education for example. Public education can be great as it can provide opportunity to people. At the same time it can also be used for indoctrination. With 50 states running their educational systems if one state does use it for indoctrination it will get exposed as citizens move and travel in and out of that state. Also it leads to competition. 50 states fighting and being creative to be the best as opposed to 50 states regressing to the norm.
1
" It didn't really matter whether Jim Crow laws were unconstitutional or not" It does because that is the standard. If we followed the standard than we wouldn't be having these problems. The one president who violated the Constitution the most was FDR with his many social programs he created. Now you may feel he was right in doing so, but that tore apart the standards to where Jim Crow Laws could last as long as they did. "Right from Johnson sending the national guard to Ole Miss i think it was or Brown v Board of Education" That was not federal power but instead enforcing the Constitution, in this case the 14th amendment. " or ofcourse the Civil Rights Acts of 63 and 64." Which were a mixture of unconstitutional and unnecessary due to the 14th amendment. "Yes if you dig hard enough you can justify anything via the constitution just like you can justify anything via the bible." Not comparable as the Constitution is law, the Bible is ideology. "Without the power of the executive, it really doesn't mean much and that executive power has to be exercised by yes trampling over states rights when the states don't want to act properly. " Define acting properly? By what standard do you base that off of? Say a state does something you don't like but it is within the bounds of the Constitution and the citizens voted for it. Why do you feel the need to enforce you ideas on them? You don't live there nor do you pay taxes there. Acting properly is subjective and is the exact reason why the founding fathers created state rights. They could not agree on what the federal government should run in terms of domestic issues. "It's not very likely that you will take away people's healthcare without severe political backlash. If the GOP takes away the ACA and leaves millions uncovered, they will pay in the midterms." How so? The Democrats have been paying since they created the ACA. But the ACA is a great example of why we should leave these issues to the states. 60 senate democrats could not agree on one bill for the longest time. I remember when 59 did but one from Nebraska didn't as it will cost his state too much money. That is why healthcare reform was so challenging to being with, not every state agrees with it. But now we passed the ACA and it is a mess. Now look at how hard it is to change. At the state level these laws are much easier to change. So the ACA is a great example of why the states should control this. " For the record, by supremacy, I dont mean the federal govt completely bosses the states around with no retort whatsoever. I mean just altering the balance of power. " Altering it to what? What is your standard? Mine is the Constitution and everything is clearly written in the Constitution. We have to have standards to create laws. I go back to FDR. He broke those standards and it created the mess we have now.
1
"Just like Texas' does with teaching creationism and climate denial." Texas does not teach that, but if they want their citizens to be ignorant then why should you care? That state will be held back economically. If you don't live there, pay taxes there nor vote there then it does not matter. TX actually has a very strong education system. I agree that basing resources on zip code is a problem, but that is another discussion.
1
"A bit revisionist history. Jim Crow laws lasted as long as they did because of inaction, not because of action." All the Supreme Court had to do was rule them unconstitutional. To me this is another example of why we need state rights. If we need education reform we will be sitting around for years waiting for the federal government to take action when the states can do it quickly. "Johnson sending the national guard to Ole Miss and Brown v Board of Education was federal power at its rawest form. " No, it is enforcing the Constitution. Both the federal government and the states can enforce the Constitution if they need to. "Again you can justify anything by the constitution just as you can justify anything by the bible." Again, not comparable. The Constitution is the standard when it comes to law. The Bible is ideology for religious people and is not used at all in creating laws in this country. "The Brown v Board deciision relied on the Equal Protection Clause" Which is the 14th amendment. " but again the actual execution of the law has to come from the federal government if the states are unwilling to." Ok, now say the president abuses their power. The states, through Congress, can impeach him and remove him from office if they feel it is necessary. That is the states using the Constitution to control the federal government. It goes both ways. "By making comments like this, I think you're speaking based off of libertarian theory and not based off of the reality in the pre-civil rights South. " No, I am basing it off of reality. "The passage of the civil rights acts specifically and directly put into motion the end of unequal application of voter registration requirements and de jure racial segregation." Voting laws are created mainly by the states. If they create a law they can't discriminate based off of race via the 14th amendment. Thus the Civil Rights Act was unnecessary in that regards because a standard was already on the books. All the SC had to do was enforce it to see that voting laws were equal across all races. " I think you need to study this a bit more and the surrounding circumstances. " I have studied it. The standard was already on the book in the Constitution, all we had to do was enforce that. "When you don't allow all your citizens living in your state basic political rights, then that is not acting properly. I hardly think this is a radical standard. " If a state is denying Constitutional rights than that government is not working within the bounds of the Constitution. The only rights you have are listed in the Constitution. The standard you defined is not radical, I would agree. But in other comments you want the federal government to enforce educational standards and marriage laws both of which are 1. not rights 2. not listed in the constitution as the responsibility of the federal government "And regarding the ACA, I guarantee you if the GOP repeal that thing and leave people uncovered, they will pay politically next year." Doubtful as most who will be uncover are poor to begin with and don't vote. Also, the Republicans are not defending many seats this upcoming mid term. If the economy is booming and if they do the repeal gradually they will be fine.
1
""States rights" have never been claimed other than to deny rights." As a whole that is not the case as the Constitution prevents that. "Some states are working feverishly right now to deny voting rights to minorities" That is not happening at all. "Sure, States could clean up their own act but the only thing that kept them from denying voting rights up until recently was federal mandates. " Again, no states are denying anyone voting rights.
1
If you want money out of politics than limit the powers of the federal government. Follow the constitution and if you do that than the federal government has nothing to sell. If it has nothing to sell than money will be out of politics. Liberals want to expand the federal government but than complain when politicians are bought out or Trump creates a cabinet full of millionaires.
1