« prev   random   next »

0
0

Is there any truth to this?

By WineHorror1 follow WineHorror1   2020 Oct 6, 8:14pm 387 views   7 comments   watch   nsfw   quote   share    


Trump declared a national emergency relating to Covid, correct? This is what gives these governors the power to enact these insane rules, correct? If so, Trump is to blame, correct?
1   SunnyvaleCA   ignore (1)   2020 Oct 6, 8:31pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag      

Trump's declaring of a federal emergency doesn't have bearing on state governors enacting various emergency actions in their own states. Trump's federal act doesn't give governors special powers (as far as I know) and governors are free to enact their own state-of-emergency actions on their own, which they have done independently of the federal government.

Trump has declared national emergency to gain federal power to, for example, steer production of masks and other PPE. From this perspective, it seems that the federal government (with Trump directing at the helm) has actually done an adequate job in spite of decades of inadequate preparation. (i.e.: there are no reported shortages of ventilators or hospital beds). Let's keep our fingers crossed. Trump has also put in place the capability of massively producing vaccine and vaccine deployment if such a vaccine is found.

Trump has not declared the powers of the Insurrection Act of 1807, which would let him send military troops to quell riots and looting without an invitation. That is why he keeps asking governors and mayors if they would like help in keeping law and order. Except for protecting federal property on state lands, he needs to be invited in. The portland mayor responded in writing, which should be Republican re-election gold in a normal world, since it places riots and looting problem squarely with the Democrat mayors and governors: https://www.portland.gov/wheeler/news/2020/8/28/mayor-wheelers-open-letter-president-trump
2   WineHorror1   ignore (2)   2020 Oct 6, 8:52pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag      

SunnyvaleCA says
Trump's federal act doesn't give governors special powers (as far as I know) and governors are free to enact their own state-of-emergency actions on their own, which they have done independently of the federal government.

1) So, what gives them the right to do these things?
And
2) what would keep these governors from keeping businesses closed and require masks permanently?
3   SunnyvaleCA   ignore (1)   2020 Oct 6, 8:56pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag      

WineHorror1 says
1) So, what gives them the right to do these things?
And
2) what would keep these governors from keeping businesses closed and require masks permanently?

In our federation of states, those powers not specifically enumerated in the constitution are remanded to the states. The governors act under each of their states' state constitutions and laws, which includes emergency power to deal with emergencies.

Anti-Trump governors intend to keep businesses closed until Trump is no longer president. So you have a month or 4 years+1 month to go. States will go bankrupt, but that's seen as a feature, not a bug. When the federal government goes full-on Democrat, the federal taxpayers will bail out the bad financial policies of the Democrat-run states. That's why it's so important to get Kamala in there — for the bailouts.
4   WookieMan   ignore (7)   2020 Oct 7, 12:45am     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag      

SunnyvaleCA says
When the federal government goes full-on Democrat, the federal taxpayers will bail out the bad financial policies of the Democrat-run states. That's why it's so important to get Kamala in there — for the bailouts.

This is why I always say that local elected officials and policies are substantially more important than POTUS. IL is currently looking for a constitutional amendment to allow the legislature to create a progressive tax instead of a flat tax like we have now. I can live with 4.9% or whatever it currently is, but our tax structure is going to look more like CA if passed with super high taxes on producers.

I've said it in other threads, if your progressively taxed our votes should be counted progressively. The more you pay in taxes the more your vote is worth, with a cap of course. Base it on the figures paid. $5 is 1 vote, $50 is 2, $500 is 3 and so on and so on. Sure there are wealthy limousine liberals in a lot of places, but generally the wealthy vote conservative. Fact is if I have more skin/money in the game, shouldn't I have more say over how it's used? The poor and in most cases lazy are obviously going to vote for free shit 10 out of 10 times. Hell, maybe it would motivate people more knowing their vote is worth more if they can make more.
5   WineHorror1   ignore (2)   2020 Oct 7, 5:07am     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag      

WookieMan says
SunnyvaleCA says
When the federal government goes full-on Democrat, the federal taxpayers will bail out the bad financial policies of the Democrat-run states. That's why it's so important to get Kamala in there — for the bailouts.

This is why I always say that local elected officials and policies are substantially more important than POTUS. IL is currently looking for a constitutional amendment to allow the legislature to create a progressive tax instead of a flat tax like we have now. I can live with 4.9% or whatever it currently is, but our tax structure is going to look more like CA if passed with super high taxes on producers.

I've said it in other threads, if your progressively taxed our votes should be counted progressively. The more you pay in taxes the more your vote is worth, with a cap of course. Base it on the figures paid. $5 is 1 vote, $50 is 2, $500 is 3 and so on and so...

I'm not so sure that's the right idea...progressive voting. Hasn't money fucked a ton of shit up politically? Aren't the rich in charge already?
6   SunnyvaleCA   ignore (1)   2020 Oct 7, 10:29am     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag      

WineHorror1 says
I'm not so sure that's the right idea...progressive voting. Hasn't money fucked a ton of shit up politically? Aren't the rich in charge already?
I've been in favor of "progressive vote weighting" for decades. At least as a thought experiment. It takes "no taxation without representation" and takes it to the next level. I believe it would make the government much more spendthrift, as those that are paying most of the taxes would be those who had the most voting power. That's the opposite of what we have now, where those people paying no/low taxes are always happy to have larger government providing more services, as they won't be paying for them.

Of course, it could go horribly wrong somehow, but I'm just not sure how. Maybe the achilles heal would be that other kinds of taxes (that somehow aren't counted in the vote weight) are levied, while a tiny group of people are the only ones who pay the taxes that give vote weight. Those people could remain in power forever by controlling which taxes count for the voting.

A possible added bonus: It seems like it could drastically cut down on the effects of non-citizens voting (assuming they aren't paying a lot of taxes). And if non-citizens are paying a lot of taxes ... maybe that's the kind of person we want to make a citizen anyway, since they would appear to be most productive.
7   Tenpoundbass   ignore (16)   2020 Oct 7, 10:42am     ↓ dislike (1)   quote   flag      

WineHorror1 says
1) So, what gives them the right to do these things?
And
2) what would keep these governors from keeping businesses closed and require masks permanently?


More Karens, than there are Commie Ass Kickers.

about   best comments   contact   one year ago   suggestions