PILOT SPIN
Spin Zone => Spin Zone => Topic started by: Jaybird180 on March 04, 2016, 08:08:34 AM
-
When asked questions about marriage, legalizing marijuana, employment and many other topics I've noticed that it's SOP for republican candidates to punt to the states (10th Amendment), which sounds good on the surface. IMO it's a politicians way of refusing to answer how he feels or believes about the issue.
I say water-board them until they answer.
-
When asked questions about marriage, legalizing marijuana, employment and many other topics I've noticed that it's SOP for republican candidates to punt to the states (10th Amendment), which sounds good on the surface. IMO it's a politicians way of refusing to answer how he feels or believes about the issue.
I say water-board them until they answer.
you don't believe in the 10th?
-
Why does it matter what someone running for federal office believes about an issue that is state jurisdiction?
Far more stuff should be left to the states and keep the Feds noses out of it.
-
When asked questions about marriage, legalizing marijuana, employment and many other topics I've noticed that it's SOP for republican candidates to punt to the states (10th Amendment), which sounds good on the surface. IMO it's a politicians way of refusing to answer how he feels or believes about the issue.
I say water-board them until they answer.
Why? You want your politicians to be extra-Constitutional?
The 10th sounds good on the surface. It also sounds good deep down as well.
This is a serious question. Why do you think such issues should be handled at the Federal level?
-
I don't think they should be handled at the federal level, but some of the questions are actually good questions and would have allowed me to better understand the core values of the candidates. But OTOH, why does it matter when its outside the scope of the job, kinda like getting
a blow job oral sex in the Oval Office, right?
-
kinda like getting a blow job oral sex in the Oval Office, right?
nope.
do you understand that he lied about it under oath?
-
I don't think they should be handled at the federal level, but some of the questions are actually good questions and would have allowed me to better understand the core values of the candidates. But OTOH, why does it matter when its outside the scope of the job, kinda like getting a blow job oral sex in the Oval Office, right?
The core value of the candidate that it does show is that he doesn't feel the need to inject himself into issues that are none of his business, and none of the business of the office being sought.
Unlike the current occupant of that office who insists that he be the centre of every issue.
-
nope.
do you understand that he lied about it under oath?
...in a sexual assault case.
-
I thought it was consensual
-
I thought it was consensual
The mere fact that we get confused over which one we're talking about speaks volumes.
-
I thought it was consensual
How old are you?
The suit wasn't with Monica Lewinski; that was consensual.
Google Paula Jones. That was the sexual assault case that led to discovery that led to Clinton's denial under oath ("It depends on what the definition of 'is' is") that led to his impeachment.
-
Clinton LIED UNDER OATH. End if story, and was disbarred and impeached.
-
The Wikipedia article I read said congress acquitted him
-
I don't think they should be handled at the federal level, but some of the questions are actually good questions and would have allowed me to better understand the core values of the candidates. But OTOH, why does it matter when its outside the scope of the job, kinda like getting a blow job oral sex in the Oval Office, right?
By saying it's a 10th Amendment issue, that does tell you about their core values. It tells you they believe in the enumerated powers and what should and should not be a federal issue.
-
The Wikipedia article I read said congress acquitted him
He was impeached, by the House. The Senate failed to convict.
-
Come on! If a state can't solve its own issues, be it education, gay marriage, police, AND SO ON, the Federal government CERTAINLY CANNOT.
AND SHOULD NOT.
GIVE 'EM BACK TO THE STATES!
Sorry for shouting. Watched debate too long last night.
-
The new progressive mantra requires everyone to ignore states rights, because totalitarian control (for the purpose of enriching a small cadre of corrupt officials) is the progressive (you can substitute COMMUNIST because that is what progressive stands for) way.
-
When asked questions about marriage, legalizing marijuana, employment and many other topics I've noticed that it's SOP for republican candidates to punt to the states (10th Amendment), which sounds good on the surface. IMO it's a politicians way of refusing to answer how he feels or believes about the issue.
I say water-board them until they answer.
They smartly avoid giving sound bites to the Leftist media.
-
If a state legalizes something that is illegal at the Federal level it is still illegal. For example, marijuana businesses have difficultly carrying out financial transactions with banks due to Federal rules. These issues should be fair game for any candidate for Federal office. Only by making something legal at the Federal level can it be made illegal at the state level.
-
If a state legalizes something that is illegal at the Federal level it is still illegal. For example, marijuana businesses have difficultly carrying out financial transactions with banks due to Federal rules. These issues should be fair game for any candidate for Federal office. Only by making something legal at the Federal level can it be made illegal at the state level.
Actually, no.
If something is expressly declared "legal" at the federal level, presuming that it comes within the authority of the federal government, then states cannot declare same to be illegal within the state.
Only when the feds remain silent do the states retain authority.
-
Actually, no.
If something is expressly declared "legal" at the federal level, presuming that it comes within the authority of the federal government, then states cannot declare same to be illegal within the state.
Only when the feds remain silent do the states retain authority.
Explain municipalities where you can't purchase alcohol. Last I checked it was legal under federal rules.
-
Explain municipalities where you can't purchase alcohol. Last I checked it was legal under federal rules.
No, there are no federal laws permitting or prohibiting alcohol.
-
If something isn't illegal then its legal. Duh. So there are no Federal rules prohibiting the sale of alcohol, yet lots of municipalities restrict it or forbid it outright. Clearly municipalities (and states, I suspect) can have restrictive laws against things that the Fed doesn't regulate.
-
If something isn't illegal then its legal. Duh. So there are no Federal rules prohibiting the sale of alcohol, yet lots of municipalities restrict it or forbid it outright. Clearly municipalities (and states, I suspect) can have restrictive laws against things that the Fed doesn't regulate.
There is a difference between the feds making something "legal" and them not doing anything about it.
For example, take immigration. The feds have provided rules for immigration. States and localities cannot then ban immigration into their area.
But alcohol is covered in two ways. 1) The feds have not legislated in the area, thus leaving the field open to state and local laws, and 2) The 21st Amendment (Section 2) expressly provides for state bans on alcohol, placing that power squarely within the State sphere of influence.
-
The new progressive mantra requires everyone to ignore states rights, because totalitarian control (for the purpose of enriching a small cadre of corrupt officials) is the progressive (you can substitute COMMUNIST because that is what progressive stands for) way.
We have become the Soviet Union where a big, central government must control everything.