Comments by "whyamimrpink78" (@whyamimrpink78) on "Mayor Attacked With A Sawed-Off Baseball Bat" video.

  1. +Probus Excogitatoris It seems that politics are not your strong suit. Hence, I have to take this discussion down to a really basic level. Yes all citizens can run for office, the voters decide which ones they support. To assure that those elected govern in accordance to what the voters support you have to keep government as local as possible. You say that the voters want their politicians to act on their behalf, we have that. Look at congress. Congress has a low approval rating but a high retention rate. The reason why is that people don't like other people's representatives, but they like their own. They like the ones they can vote for. How things use to be in the US was a very limited federal government and stronger local government. The more local government is the more control people have over it. You can vote for almost all of your state and local representatives. You know what goes on in your own hometown. You have no clue what goes on in the state next to you, so why should you have any influence on what goes on there? What you want is a strong, centralized government. With that you lose control of the government. You can't vote for the vast majority of the representatives. You can only vote for 2 senators and, at best, a handful of representative. While they may do what you support what makes you think other politicians at other states will? You may complain when a Mitch McConnell does something, well guess what, you didn't vote for him (assuming you are not from KY). The founding fathers set up the country on the basis of a limited federal government and more state rights. With our large diversity a one size fits all policy simply does not work, and at the local level people have more control of the government. I met both candidates for mayor, I met the governor, I met a lot of our elected officials. I have never met the president or any cabinet members and only 1 member of congress out of the 535. Giving more power to the federal government gives them the ability to be bought out. You may say vote them out but guess what, you can only vote for a few. You may say create a law to make it illegal to have money in politics, now how is going to enforce it? The politicians you elected. Now you may say vote them out and vote in ones that will obey and enforce the law but guess what, you can only vote for a view.......you see the cycle being created here? You want to create a law that prevents politicians from doing something, but the only people that enforcing it will be politicians. You say vote them out but you can't when you only vote for a few of them. You have no control of the federal government but you want to give it ability to create more laws and give them the power to enforce them........that is like letting the prisoners control the prison. The country was designed to have the federal government deal with foreign affairs and enforce the constitution on the states. States were to deal with domestic policies and enforce the constitution on the fed. It was a checks and balance system. The people had government but at the state level. They had control of the government. What you want to do is take away the checks and balance part and give all the power to the fed. And when it becomes corrupt you want to create a law to stop it, basically all you are doing is wagging your finger at them saying "no no no" without any consequences. They are not going to stop? They will only stop if you limit their power and give powers back to the states.
    2
  2. +Probus Excogitatoris Obamacare is unconstitutional because it violates the 10th amendment. The federal government is to have no involvement in healthcare. What are "right" common rules? That can be debated and is the exact same problem the founding fathers ran in to in the past. Every state is different. We can't have a one size fits all policy. Yes there is the commerce clause but that is there to only allow freedom of trade between states. If I were to go to a neighboring state I won't get taxed a lot just because I am from another state. That is it. Tax laws, domestic spending, business regulations and so on are purely state laws. As is states act independently for the most part. Any state that decides to to run itself correctly will suffer without bringing down the entire country. And at the state level they can change policy and politicians faster. On the environment, you have the commerce clause again. Individual states can set their own environmental regulations, but states have to respect neighboring states' environment. If, say Oregon were to have relaxed regulations and they allowed a company to be built that polluted water that ran into CA and it exceeded CA's regulations, the federal government will put a stop to that. Oregon will have to change something as in filer the water or have the company stop. That is dealing with commerce between states. It is the same as in how I won't be taxed different if I were to shop at a store in a neighboring state. There are ways to solve these problems without creating a one size fits all policy that simply won't work. We have that organization and oversight, it is all in the constitution.
    2
  3. +Probus Excogitatoris Everything you said can also hold true for liberals, it goes both ways.
    1
  4. +Probus Excogitatoris Yeah it can, just look at their economic policies. Look at Occupy Wall Street for the extreme case.
    1
  5. +Probus Excogitatoris And you just hit the nail on the head in why liberals are not too bright. Their idea of ending political corruption is to add more layers of government, as in to give them more power to they can give it out to the highest bidder. It is similar to giving an alcoholic more alcohol and saying that will stop them from drinking.
    1
  6. +Johnson Adejoh Easy. The government can only be corrupt when one, you give it power, and two, lack the ability to control it. US citizens have very little control of the federal government as seen by the low approval rating of congress but the high retention rating. But liberals love to give more power to the government. When it becomes corrupt their solution is to create a law, that only the government can enforce, saying corruption is illegal. In other words, give them more power. The federal government can't give out power to the largest bidder if it has no power in the first place. As i said with the alcoholic, it can't drink if it they have no alcohol. I compare it to giving a teenage boy keys to a porsche and asking them the get the groceries. They may do it, but they will race the car on top of that. And when they wreck the car that is when there is a problem. All of that would have never happened if you would have never given the keys to the boy to begin with. The federal government would never become corrupt if you don't give it power that can be bought to begin with.
    1
  7. +Johnson Adejoh "The whole point of the movement is getting a constitutional amendment to help curtail the system of big-money bribing politicians and rigging elections" And who is going to enforce that amendment?
    1
  8. +Probus Excogitatoris If you don't want a centralized government then I assume you want a limited federal government and more state right. With that then money in politics is not an issue anymore. The only reason why money in politics is an issue is because the federal government as so much power. You attacking money in politics is you attacking the symptom and not the disease. If you want to cure the disease than remove power from the federal government so it can't be bought. Creating a federal law that "removes money from politics" just ads layers to government that makes the situation worse.
    1
  9. +Probus Excogitatoris I told you what the responsibilities are of the federal government, it is deal with foreign affairs and enforce the constitution on the states. The states were to deal with domestic policies and enforce the constitution on the fed. The states were to make sure the fed. did not step out of line. The fed. is to see that no state and local government violates the constitution. It is that simple. The US is basically 50 sovereign nations but all of them have to follow the constitution. I can move from state to state and know that I will have freedom of speech, a right to a fair trial, can use the same currency and so on. Certain laws such as traffic laws and tax laws may be different, but I will still possess the same rights. Why do you want to kick out Texas? It has one of the strongest economies in the nation. Kicking it out will make things worse. Plus with state rights Texas will have a minimal effect on the nation so it would not matter.
    1
  10. +Probus Excogitatoris Both sides ignore the constitution. Obamacare is completely unconstitutional but it passed. Going back to the New Deal, that was completely unconstitutional but still passed. It passed because FDR threaten to stack the courts to get what he wanted. Fiscal responsibility and the environment are state issues. There never use to be a federal income tax, it was a tax on the states because representation at the federal level and control of the fed. comes from the states, not the citizens. The citizens control state and local government. Almost all of our problems can easily be solved if we simply follow the constitution. Gay marriage for example could have easily been solved by enforcing the 14th amendment. States decide if they recognize marriage or not. If they do then via the 14th amendment they can't discriminate. If they don't then that state won't have gay marriage.....simple. You can take any domestic policy and it can be ran better at the state level.
    1
  11. +Probus Excogitatoris This isn't my interpretation of the constitution but the interpretation of the creators. After the War of 1812 a temporary federal income tax was proposed and shot down because there were still the mentality set of having a limited federal government. They did not want a federal government to be that big. The commerce clause is not vague, it was to allow the federal government to settle any commerce between states. For example, no state can close down it's borders from other US citizens. The founding fathers saw a time when future politicians would become corrupt, that is whey constitution was written in a way to give power to the people and states, not the fed. Look at the bill of rights, they did not give the federal government to potentially have power over the people. I agree that both sides ignore the constitution, my problem is that liberals ignore the idea of checks and balances the constitution puts in place and push for a more centralized government. You brought up the scenarios of how a state could ruin itself financially and their environment but I don't see it. You can see education as an example. If a state really wanted to control the citizens and ruin their state they will do so through education. The federal government, as a whole has no say in public education, states do and yet we don't see states trying to destroy their citizens through education.
    1