Master Troll Activated!! Trump Wins!

[Whiskey]

Example of a leftist view of the Democratic Party: I Hate the Democratic Party, and You Should Too. Whiskey should get a kick out of this.

Snippets:

"The second presidential term of Donald Trump is progressing like an oil spill, with various factions of his administration merging into a formidable and aggressive policy machine, delivering new shock and terror each day — even to those who expect it. A bleary-eyed American populace, still wondering why the Democratic Party has turned losing into an Olympic sport, nonetheless looks to them for some form of opposition."

"The Democratic Party is an organization dedicated to advancing capitalism. Its historical strategy of cautious reformism has never aimed at advancing the working class but rather at providing just enough concessions to keep them in line, depending on the circumstances."

"... the Democratic Party would rather lose everything than unleash the power of the working class."

"... much work remains to put [the Democratic Party] in the dustbin of history. If it is not the Left that finishes them off, it will be the Right."

Thanks man.

I do not love it. But I accept it. I surrender to it, for what it is worth.

Some of those comments are surprisingly populist. The complaints can be interchangeable between the parties. They are very much the same.

Thanks Bret.

[Whiskey]

Yep. And the more one asks about the distinctions, the more it becomes apparent. Not that they are actually Nazis, but that there is no daylight, at all, between the parties when it comes to government. Slightly different outcomes, but same government.

I keep asking for examples of differences in government, none offered. I am becoming more convinced.

Your example: abortion.

Democrats prefer Federal control so that any citizen has access.

Republicans argued for State control so that they had a better chance at denying access.

Which is more authoritarian and/or allows some people to control what others are allowed to do?

Over to you, to avoid the question and to throw another namecalling tantrum.

Bad data. Everyone knows. From Kentucky to any other state, State control will not yield abortion bans in all red states.

Less federal dictation is less authoritarian. Clearly, in my two examples, the only examples offered, this one favors republicans for less authority on the federal level.

[canpakes]

Your example: abortion.

Democrats prefer Federal control so that any citizen has access.

Republicans argued for State control so that they had a better chance at denying access.

Which is more authoritarian and/or allows some people to control what others are allowed to do?

Over to you, to avoid the question and to throw another namecalling tantrum.

Bad data. Everyone knows. From Kentucky to any other state, State control will not yield abortion bans in all red states.

Less federal dictation is less authoritarian. Clearly, in my two examples, the only examples offered, this one favors republicans for less authority on the federal level.

“At the federal level” so that they can exert greater control of the citizenry at the state level than the Federal law could ever have done.

Data looks good. With the Federal guarantee on abortion access removed, more US citizens are now restricted or outright and completely denied access that was available to them under so-called Federal ‘control’, and this has happened through Republican enforcement.

Nice try at doublespeak, though.

[Whiskey]

Bad data. Everyone knows. From Kentucky to any other state, State control will not yield abortion bans in all red states.

Less federal dictation is less authoritarian. Clearly, in my two examples, the only examples offered, this one favors republicans for less authority on the federal level.

“At the federal level” so that they can exert greater control of the citizenry at the state level than the Federal law could ever have done.

Data looks good. With the Federal guarantee on abortion access removed, more US citizens are now restricted or outright and completely denied access that was available to them under so-called Federal ‘control’, and this has happened through Republican enforcement.

Nice try at doublespeak, though.

Nothing double about it. Regardless of the outcome, the Republicans opted out at the federal level, where the democrats would like the feds to step in, lay down the law, and dictate the outcome for everyone. On a process level, the republicans in this example wanted less dictated from the top and more local authority. If only the feds would opt out of more. Hell, I am fine if they opt out of just about everything but the military and Yellowstone.

[canpakes]

“At the federal level” so that they can exert greater control of the citizenry at the state level than the Federal law could ever have done.

Data looks good. With the Federal guarantee on abortion access removed, more US citizens are now restricted or outright and completely denied access that was available to them under so-called Federal ‘control’, and this has happened through Republican enforcement.

Nice try at doublespeak, though.

Nothing double about it. Regardless of the outcome, the Republicans opted out at the federal level, where the democrats would like the feds to step in, lay down the law, and dictate the outcome for everyone.

Nope. That’s just more doublespeak from you. Guaranteeing that you can make the choice for yourself does not dictate your outcome to you, regardless if it happens at the State, Federal or Local level.

Outlawing a choice is more authoritarian - and is an actual example of your available options or choices being dictated to you. More choice is not less free. More control by others over your choices is more authoritarian.

If you keep trying to make your doublespeak stick, try repeating it another dozen times. It might not work, though.

[Whiskey]

Nothing double about it. Regardless of the outcome, the Republicans opted out at the federal level, where the democrats would like the feds to step in, lay down the law, and dictate the outcome for everyone.

Nope. That’s just more doublespeak from you. Guaranteeing that you can make the choice for yourself does not dictate your outcome to you, regardless if it happens at the State, Federal or Local level.

Outlawing a choice is more authoritarian - and is an actual example of your available options or choices being dictated to you. More choice is not less free. More control by others over your choices is more authoritarian.

If you keep trying to make your doublespeak stick, try repeating it another dozen times. It might not work, though.

In this case the feds said we ain't makin a choice. The states can. More of that, please. That is less authoritarian.

[canpakes]

Nope. That’s just more doublespeak from you. Guaranteeing that you can make the choice for yourself does not dictate your outcome to you, regardless if it happens at the State, Federal or Local level.

Outlawing a choice is more authoritarian - and is an actual example of your available options or choices being dictated to you. More choice is not less free. More control by others over your choices is more authoritarian.

If you keep trying to make your doublespeak stick, try repeating it another dozen times. It might not work, though.

In this case the feds said we ain't makin a choice. The states can. More of that, please. That is less authoritarian.

Nope.

Before, the Feds guaranteed that you could make your own choice, and that your choice could not be limited or denied by others.

Now, the Feds simply say that it doesn’t care if you are able to make your own choice, or not, and that others (and other sources of authority) are free to dictate your options to you or deny them outright.

You are arguing in favor of the State here only because some States are now able to impose restrictions on others where they could not before. In this case, you are hoping for and arguing for more control and authoritarianism.

If the 2A was eliminated at the Federal level, do you think that your State will continue to guarantee the same right of ownership? If not, are you made more free by losing your freedom at the State level instead of having it guaranteed at the Federal level?

Of course not.

As mentioned before, when the authority wielded by the Feds or the Stare is the same type, it is not so much the existence of authority (which always exists in some measure) as what is done with it.

[Whiskey]

In this case the feds said we ain't makin a choice. The states can. More of that, please. That is less authoritarian.

Nope.

Before, the Feds guaranteed that you could make your own choice, and that your choice could not be limited or denied by others.

Now, the Feds simply say that it doesn’t care if you are able to make your own choice, or not, and that others (and other sources of authority) are free to dictate your options to you or deny them outright.

You are arguing in favor of the State here only because some States are now able to impose restrictions on others where they could not before. In this case, you are hoping for and arguing for more control and authoritarianism.

If the 2A was eliminated at the Federal level, do you think that your State will continue to guarantee the same right of ownership? If not, are you made more free by losing your freedom at the State level instead of having it guaranteed at the Federal level?

Of course not.

As mentioned before, when the authority wielded by the Feds or the Stare is the same type, it is not so much the existence of authority (which always exists in some measure) as what is done with it.

Perfect. The process, if returned to the states, yields a fascist result. The closer it gets the people or states is more authoritarian than the feds dictating a single solution for the country if the outcome is not the one the non-fascists want. Do I have that right?

[canpakes]

Nope.

Before, the Feds guaranteed that you could make your own choice, and that your choice could not be limited or denied by others.

Now, the Feds simply say that it doesn’t care if you are able to make your own choice, or not, and that others (and other sources of authority) are free to dictate your options to you or deny them outright.

You are arguing in favor of the State here only because some States are now able to impose restrictions on others where they could not before. In this case, you are hoping for and arguing for more control and authoritarianism.

If the 2A was eliminated at the Federal level, do you think that your State will continue to guarantee the same right of ownership? If not, are you made more free by losing your freedom at the State level instead of having it guaranteed at the Federal level?

Of course not.

As mentioned before, when the authority wielded by the Feds or the Stare is the same type, it is not so much the existence of authority (which always exists in some measure) as what is done with it.

Perfect. The process, if returned to the states, yields a fascist result. The closer it gets the people or states is more authoritarian than the feds dictating a single solution for the country if the outcome is not the one the non-fascists want. Do I have that right?

No. The fact that ‘authority’ exists is not the problem; rather, it’s what is done with the authority that is the problem.

You’re trying to distract away from your conflation between power guaranteeing/protecting choice, and power dictating choice. Matters not what level - Federal, State, County, Municipal, whatever. Guaranteeing a choice isn’t authoritarian. Dictating a choice is more authoritarian and controlling. You know this too, which is why you avoid discussing that point and keep trying to distract with doublespeak. You’re trying to sell your desire to control the options of others as an example of greater freedom for them. It isn’t.

Maybe try to extend your claim to the 2A, as suggested earlier. Tell me how striking the right to bear arms from the Constitution and ceding that power to the States would yield you a greater chance to own firearms.

[Whiskey]

Perfect. The process, if returned to the states, yields a fascist result. The closer it gets the people or states is more authoritarian than the feds dictating a single solution for the country if the outcome is not the one the non-fascists want. Do I have that right?

No. The fact that ‘authority’ exists is not the problem; rather, it’s what is done with the authority that is the problem.

You’re trying to distract away from your conflation between power guaranteeing/protecting choice, and power dictating choice. Matters not what level - Federal, State, County, Municipal, whatever. Guaranteeing a choice isn’t authoritarian. Dictating a choice is more authoritarian and controlling. You know this too, which is why you avoid discussing that point and keep trying to distract with doublespeak. You’re trying to sell your desire to control the options of others as an example of greater freedom for them. It isn’t.

Maybe try to extend your claim to the 2A, as suggested earlier. Tell me how striking the right to bear arms from the Constitution and ceding that power to the States would yield you a greater chance to own firearms.

I am looking at the process. And the process is clear. The feds punted the authority to the states with regards to abortion and to some extent with education. What the states do with that is up to them and to their voters. I don't give a crap what Mississippi or Rhode Island do. Don't care. Doesn't matter to me.

Your interpretation of that is that the punt was authoritarian because the outcome could be authoritarian, meaning not what you like. My interpretation is that the feds punted the authority.

We both agree, I believe, that the feds have the authority to enforce the constitution. The change to the constitution would require 2/3 of the states to ratify. I don't believe either party disagrees with that and a hypothetical, as if that were not the case, is pointless.

We are back to my point - with the exception of education and abortion, both sides rest the authority of the feds evenly and exactly - outcomes may vary.