~46~ Lame Duck Unfit Uncle Joe Biden ~46~

[Typical Lax Dad]

You never mentioned what policy/legislation passed in LA that was enforced in Des Moines? Asked three times. Give me three examples?

you and MD are starting to get annoying.

With a little time I am sure I could give you a lot more than three policy decisions made in LA that impacted Des Moines. I am not saying these are bad, I am just saying that they were effectively foisted upon the country by LA's combination of buying power and ability to make local regulatory decisions (which ironically, is actually what I am calling for just in different packaging). Here are a few that pop to mind immediately:
- auto mpg standards
- lead free gasoline
- various labeling disclosures for potentially cancerous substances

Not sure what you are talking about here:

Unfortunately politicians are for “or the people”…..what people put in place these Springing restrictive abortion laws? Whe deh at? Not referendums being voted on today….the springing laws….

what exactly is a "Springing law"? My understanding of the "or to the people" line in the 10th amendment is that unless a right is taken from the people and given to the United States via the Constitution, or taken from them by their state, then all remaining rights are theirs - eg Freedom.

Los Angeles mandated those standards?

"Trigger laws" are laws that are passed by a legislative body but only go into effect once a certain thing happens. That specific event will "trigger" it into becoming enforceable law.

“Trigger laws are often passed so that a law can go into effect as soon as possible once conditions allow.

13 States Have Abortion Trigger Bans—Here's What Happens When Roe Is Overturned
The Guttmacher Institute has compiled a list of states with trigger laws related to abortion. It is organized by laws that go into effect immediately, laws that go into effect in 30 days, and laws that require an additional step to go into effect.”

This isn’t like a “springing” lien. I am certain you will recognize the difference.

https://www.npr.org/2022/05/26/11014795 ... eir-voters

[Typical Lax Dad]

Timely:

https://www.npr.org/2022/09/25/11250247 ... ical-party

[HooDat]

Absolutely...took all that base document and 9 other amendments before they got around to that one...making my point rather decisively that the constitution is definitely not "primarily dedicated to enshrining the power of the states juxtaposed to the limited powers granted the federal government."
Far from it.

You are right! Of course the Constitution and its Amendments are in order of importance, how could I be so stupid. So the right to bear arms is far more important than the prohibition of slavery or the women's right to vote! Thanks for clarifying that one.

The Constitution is not a very long document. It was heavily negotiated. Every word is there for a reason. Every word.

Unfortunately, the construct of the clause doesn't exactly make clear that the individual is preeminent, though you and I would agree that would be the 'best' interpretation.

I don't see any other way to interpret that clause, but maybe because I am seeing what I want to see. The only thing that could weaken that interpretation in my understanding of the meaning is that the Constitution does nothing to restrict how the individual States can enact their laws.

thanks for the wind power 'example' though I don't see where the conflict with the states is on that one, but happy to get educated as to that...and why it should be a states rights matter.

I believe your question was asking for examples of policy decisions made at the federal level that were incorrect and should instead be made at the state level. I am not a supporter of wind power, esp not for the long run solutions we need. The federal government went all in on financially supporting wind power through complex tax schemes that benefited the industry and wall street while eliminating taxes for profitable banks, other consistent income generating businesses and the very, very wealthy. Perhaps, and I understand this is just a perhaps, if these types of decisions were made at the state level, support for better alternative clean sources of power would have been available. Competition is a great thing. Instead the Feds sucked all the oxygen out of the room for the past 30 years.

Again, any examples of where States are currently, not just historically, taking away rights from individuals?

there are plenty, not going to list them since I never made this assertion. But another great thing about the United States and a little bit of "brotherly" competition between them is that citizens can vote with their feet as well as at the ballot box.

[a fan]

You never mentioned what policy/legislation passed in LA that was enforced in Des Moines? Asked three times. Give me three examples?

you and MD are starting to get annoying.

The disconnect is: HooDat, what you REALLY meant was that policy/legislation is passed in WashDC, where there are more reps speaking for those in LA. Los Angeles County has 18 Congressmen, for example. The entire State of Iowa has just 6.

TLD and MDLax took you literally-----that a law passed in California or LA is being enforced in Des Moines. That's not what you meant.

[Typical Lax Dad]

You never mentioned what policy/legislation passed in LA that was enforced in Des Moines? Asked three times. Give me three examples?

you and MD are starting to get annoying.

The disconnect is: HooDat, what you REALLY meant was that policy/legislation is passed in WashDC, where there are more reps speaking for those in LA. Los Angeles County has 18 Congressmen, for example. The entire State of Iowa has just 6.

TLD and MDLax took you literally-----that a law passed in California or LA is being enforced in Des Moines. That's not what you meant.

This is why I ask direct questions and look for direct answers. It’s not that hard. Ask me a question. I will answer it. I can’t read minds.

[HooDat]

You never mentioned what policy/legislation passed in LA that was enforced in Des Moines? Asked three times. Give me three examples?

you and MD are starting to get annoying.

The disconnect is: HooDat, what you REALLY meant was that policy/legislation is passed in WashDC, where there are more reps speaking for those in LA. Los Angeles County has 18 Congressmen, for example. The entire State of Iowa has just 6.

TLD and MDLax took you literally-----that a law passed in California or LA is being enforced in Des Moines. That's not what you meant.

This is why I ask direct questions and look for direct answers. It’s not that hard. Ask me a question. I will answer it. I can’t read minds.

Well yes and no - the examples I gave were California state laws that had the economic impact of impacting Iowa as well. Now, I understand that no cop in Iowa is going around enforcing CA labeling or emission standards, but the economic reality is that if CA passes consumer laws, they may as well be national laws because anyone selling in the US isn't going to make two sets of products. And I say, well played to CA. They are the only state that has flexed their muscles on this - and I suspect that TX is the only other state that has the size and economy to do something similar, but they don't do it the same way.

But yes there is also the the fact that the large cities in the US could easily pass bills in the House that say things like: no one can own a large pick-up truck, or no one can own more than 15 acres of land - I'm making those up but I hope I make my point that there are laws that could seem benign and "obvious" to someone who lives in a different part of the country that are antithetical to how people live in another part of the country. Which is why we have the Senate, and states rights, etc.

[Typical Lax Dad]

You never mentioned what policy/legislation passed in LA that was enforced in Des Moines? Asked three times. Give me three examples?

you and MD are starting to get annoying.

The disconnect is: HooDat, what you REALLY meant was that policy/legislation is passed in WashDC, where there are more reps speaking for those in LA. Los Angeles County has 18 Congressmen, for example. The entire State of Iowa has just 6.

TLD and MDLax took you literally-----that a law passed in California or LA is being enforced in Des Moines. That's not what you meant.

This is why I ask direct questions and look for direct answers. It’s not that hard. Ask me a question. I will answer it. I can’t read minds.

Well yes and no - the examples I gave were California state laws that had the economic impact of impacting Iowa as well. Now, I understand that no cop in Iowa is going around enforcing CA labeling or emission standards, but the economic reality is that if CA passes consumer laws, they may as well be national laws because anyone selling in the US isn't going to make two sets of products. And I say, well played to CA. They are the only state that has flexed their muscles on this - and I suspect that TX is the only other state that has the size and economy to do something similar, but they don't do it the same way.

But yes there is also the the fact that the large cities in the US could easily pass bills in the House that say things like: no one can own a large pick-up truck, or no one can own more than 15 acres of land - I'm making those up but I hope I make my point that there are laws that could seem benign and "obvious" to someone who lives in a different part of the country that are antithetical to how people live in another part of the country. Which is why we have the Senate, and states rights, etc.

It is the United States of America. Not every state is on its own. Just how it is. In balance, the system has been beneficial to millions and millions of folk.

Seems like people in LA are not setting laws for people in Des Moines. Iowa has 2 senators just like California. You want them to have an equal number of congressmen to make things equal? Is that what the words on the constitution says?

Who said people want to eliminate states rights? I don’t know what “may as well mean”….. 100’s of million of people don’t see it that way. Can’t be what passes in California (now it’s not LA) is applied to Iowa (was Des Moines).

[MDlaxfan76]

Absolutely...took all that base document and 9 other amendments before they got around to that one...making my point rather decisively that the constitution is definitely not "primarily dedicated to enshrining the power of the states juxtaposed to the limited powers granted the federal government."
Far from it.

You are right! Of course the Constitution and its Amendments are in order of importance, how could I be so stupid. So the right to bear arms is far more important than the prohibition of slavery or the women's right to vote! Thanks for clarifying that one.

That's a specious argument as the Constitution did not include either of those very important amendments at it's initial phase; indeed, it is further demonstration that the founding documents were quite incomplete, and in some rather significant ways should not be considered as sacred.

Of course, my noting that it was the 10th Amendment not the first, much less the base document, was intended as tongue in cheek...the point is that there's a heck of a lot in the Constitution that refutes any notion of "primarily dedicated to enshrining the power of the states juxtaposed to the limited powers granted the federal government."

The Constitution is not a very long document. It was heavily negotiated. Every word is there for a reason. Every word.

Yes, and also deeply flawed, necessitating further amendments and SCOTUS interpretations.

Again, the "reason" for its flawed compromises was to secure slave holding states' participation.

Unfortunately, the construct of the clause doesn't exactly make clear that the individual is preeminent, though you and I would agree that would be the 'best' interpretation.

I don't see any other way to interpret that clause, but maybe because I am seeing what I want to see. The only thing that could weaken that interpretation in my understanding of the meaning is that the Constitution does nothing to restrict how the individual States can enact their laws.

Exactly. The grammar seems to leave that quite open...was that intentionally vague so as to allow states to assume they could restrict individual rights? Likely.

thanks for the wind power 'example' though I don't see where the conflict with the states is on that one, but happy to get educated as to that...and why it should be a states rights matter.

I believe your question was asking for examples of policy decisions made at the federal level that were incorrect and should instead be made at the state level. I am not a supporter of wind power, esp not for the long run solutions we need. The federal government went all in on financially supporting wind power through complex tax schemes that benefited the industry and wall street while eliminating taxes for profitable banks, other consistent income generating businesses and the very, very wealthy. Perhaps, and I understand this is just a perhaps, if these types of decisions were made at the state level, support for better alternative clean sources of power would have been available. Competition is a great thing. Instead the Feds sucked all the oxygen out of the room for the past 30 years.

Wait, how do you imagine that states would have made different, better decisions? I'll leave the debate as to whether wind power (and solar and..) might well be debatable as to whether they're the optimal strategies, but states certainly don't have any advantages to making these national scale decisions.

Not sure what the relationship was with "eliminating taxes for profitable banks" has to do with your point, but I think you're talking about federal tax policy, not state tax policy...states can tax as they wish and can give tax breaks as they wish, if I'm not mistaken.

Again, all of this is federal matters...disagree with them, vote against them, etc...but it's of course federal.

Again, any examples of where States are currently, not just historically, taking away rights from individuals?

there are plenty, not going to list them since I never made this assertion. But another great thing about the United States and a little bit of "brotherly" competition between them is that citizens can vote with their feet as well as at the ballot box.

Ohh, so if we decide in Florida that women who cheat on their husbands should be stoned, women will vote with their feet?

How about if we decide that anyone helping them leave the state to avoid stoning is a criminal and should be stoned...leave with their feet?

Come on, HooDat, if "there are plenty" of instances in which states are removing the rights of individuals, then how can you prefer that states have such power???

so, we're left with women and men who are ok with stoning women who cheat?

[MDlaxfan76]

You never mentioned what policy/legislation passed in LA that was enforced in Des Moines? Asked three times. Give me three examples?

you and MD are starting to get annoying.

With a little time I am sure I could give you a lot more than three policy decisions made in LA that impacted Des Moines. I am not saying these are bad, I am just saying that they were effectively foisted upon the country by LA's combination of buying power and ability to make local regulatory decisions (which ironically, is actually what I am calling for just in different packaging). Here are a few that pop to mind immediately:
- auto mpg standards
- lead free gasoline
- various labeling disclosures for potentially cancerous substances

Not sure what you are talking about here:

Unfortunately politicians are for “or the people”…..what people put in place these Springing restrictive abortion laws? Whe deh at? Not referendums being voted on today….the springing laws….

what exactly is a "Springing law"? My understanding of the "or to the people" line in the 10th amendment is that unless a right is taken from the people and given to the United States via the Constitution, or taken from them by their state, then all remaining rights are theirs - eg Freedom.

I think what you are trying to say is that you don't like the effects of capitalism when regulated by a state when that state has a lot of purchasing power.

For instance, I don't like the effect Texas has on textbooks, dumbing down through activist demands. You don't like California's influence on the auto industry (perhaps).

The state can't force an industry to adapt its standards in other markets, but the economics of meeting that standard in that jurisdiction obviate building alternative offerings for other states.

That's indeed why these sorts of commercial activity would be better addressed through national uniform standards, if I follow your logic.

correct?

[Farfromgeneva]

You never mentioned what policy/legislation passed in LA that was enforced in Des Moines? Asked three times. Give me three examples?

you and MD are starting to get annoying.

With a little time I am sure I could give you a lot more than three policy decisions made in LA that impacted Des Moines. I am not saying these are bad, I am just saying that they were effectively foisted upon the country by LA's combination of buying power and ability to make local regulatory decisions (which ironically, is actually what I am calling for just in different packaging). Here are a few that pop to mind immediately:
- auto mpg standards
- lead free gasoline
- various labeling disclosures for potentially cancerous substances

Not sure what you are talking about here:

Unfortunately politicians are for “or the people”…..what people put in place these Springing restrictive abortion laws? Whe deh at? Not referendums being voted on today….the springing laws….

what exactly is a "Springing law"? My understanding of the "or to the people" line in the 10th amendment is that unless a right is taken from the people and given to the United States via the Constitution, or taken from them by their state, then all remaining rights are theirs - eg Freedom.

I think what you are trying to say is that you don't like the effects of capitalism when regulated by a state when that state has a lot of purchasing power.

For instance, I don't like the effect Texas has on textbooks, dumbing down through activist demands. You don't like California's influence on the auto industry (perhaps).

The state can't force an industry to adapt its standards in other markets, but the economics of meeting that standard in that jurisdiction obviate building alternative offerings for other states.

That's indeed why these sorts of commercial activity would be better addressed through national uniform standards, if I follow your logic.

correct?

Or if there wasn’t a near monopoly on the educational textbook industry.

[CU88]

Nice to have a POTUS who isn't thinking of dropping an A Bomb on a hurricane nor lying about its projected path...

[HooDat]

Or if there wasn’t a near monopoly on the educational textbook industry.

agree 100% - would be nice to have a Teddy Roosevelt again...

[youthathletics]

Nice to have a POTUS who isn't thinking of dropping an A Bomb on a hurricane nor lying about its projected path...

Yet we have one that can barely find his exit on a stage and shakes hands with ghosts.....not much difference to be honest.

Hurricane is coming, get vaccinated NOW. https://twitter.com/thewillwitt/status/ ... ya2wtnAprQ

[MDlaxfan76]

Nice to have a POTUS who isn't thinking of dropping an A Bomb on a hurricane nor lying about its projected path...

Yet we have one that can barely find his exit on a stage and shakes hands with ghosts.....not much difference to be honest.

Hurricane is coming, get vaccinated NOW. https://twitter.com/thewillwitt/status/ ... ya2wtnAprQ

so stupid by the GOP...when was that press conference?...
Way before hurricane season.

It was about vaccinations and encouraging people not to wait until the scramble that happens during hurricane season...it wasn't about an imminent hurricane, much less this one hitting Tampa shortly.

"to be honest", there's a world of difference between the sociopathic idiot liar and a guy who has lost a step but continues to have his wits and basic human decency.

But if your intent was to troll us using a clip and statement you knew was asinine and phony, congrats, you got me to bite.

[youthathletics]

Nice to have a POTUS who isn't thinking of dropping an A Bomb on a hurricane nor lying about its projected path...

Yet we have one that can barely find his exit on a stage and shakes hands with ghosts.....not much difference to be honest.

Hurricane is coming, get vaccinated NOW. https://twitter.com/thewillwitt/status/ ... ya2wtnAprQ

so stupid by the GOP...when was that press conference?...
Way before hurricane season.

It was about vaccinations and encouraging people not to wait until the scramble that happens during hurricane season...it wasn't about an imminent hurricane, much less this one hitting Tampa shortly.

"to be honest", there's a world of difference between the sociopathic idiot liar and a guy who has lost a step but continues to have his wits and basic human decency.

But if your intent was to troll us using a clip and statement you knew was asinine and phony, congrats, you got me to bite.

Yes, this was when he was ramping up the mandate to jam it down our throats or risk losing your job...even worse. Then to only walk it back when the deadline approached.

[MDlaxfan76]

Nice to have a POTUS who isn't thinking of dropping an A Bomb on a hurricane nor lying about its projected path...

Yet we have one that can barely find his exit on a stage and shakes hands with ghosts.....not much difference to be honest.

Hurricane is coming, get vaccinated NOW. https://twitter.com/thewillwitt/status/ ... ya2wtnAprQ

so stupid by the GOP...when was that press conference?...
Way before hurricane season.

It was about vaccinations and encouraging people not to wait until the scramble that happens during hurricane season...it wasn't about an imminent hurricane, much less this one hitting Tampa shortly.

"to be honest", there's a world of difference between the sociopathic idiot liar and a guy who has lost a step but continues to have his wits and basic human decency.

But if your intent was to troll us using a clip and statement you knew was asinine and phony, congrats, you got me to bite.

Yes, this was when he was ramping up the mandate to jam it down our throats or risk losing your job...even worse. Then to only walk it back when the deadline approached.

yup, so just a troll move by the GOP to try to tie it to Ian as if he said it as the storm was approaching.

[kramerica.inc]

Vaccine Mandate is no longer really followed in the DC NoVa area. It’s not enforceable or traceable or standardized, and the contractors now know it.

No bases or contracting offices are asking for proof. Because they don’t even know what “proof” is.

“You vaccinated?”
“Yup.”
“Ok. Good enough for me.”

[HooDat]

a guy who has lost a step but continues to have his wits and basic human decency.

let's be honest with ourselves here - Biden has NEVER had much in terms of "wits" and has NEVER been a decent human being.

Sure the meme culture made him seem all soft and cute with the Obama Bro image, but the guy has been on the side of segregationists, anti-choice, anti-desegregation, anti-gay marriage. He cheated in college. Should I go on...?

You might like him better than Trump, but let's not put lipstick on a pig and call it Grace Kelly.

[a fan]

a guy who has lost a step but continues to have his wits and basic human decency.

let's be honest with ourselves here - Biden has NEVER had much in terms of "wits" and has NEVER been a decent human being.

Sure the meme culture made him seem all soft and cute with the Obama Bro image, but the guy has been on the side of segregationists, anti-choice, anti-desegregation, anti-gay marriage. He cheated in college. Should I go on...?

You might like him better than Trump, but let's not put lipstick on a pig and call it Grace Kelly.

+1

But he did pass the infrastructure bill. A bill that will help TrumpNation more than they will ever understand.

[HooDat]

But he did pass the infrastructure bill. A bill that will help TrumpNation more than they will ever understand.

ah, the irony !!