Yet you are the one conveniently ignoring the historic facts of Reagan's presidency I outlined above. Perhaps YOU should expand your knowledge of US history in a way that accounts for how your beloved idea of states' rights was used to mask segregation since 1865 and protect Jim Crow-style laws in the South.
Just (re)watch Mississippi Burning for a quick and sobering lesson in history.
Even before then. The South used "States Rights" to defend slavery against abolitionists while using federal authority to force Northern states to remove laws defending runaway slaves and enforce laws that allowed bounty hunters to return runaways in their borders.
I can give you far more examples of the misuse of centralized federal power than states' rights. This country was founded on the idea of states' rights and, to a degree, we still follow that idea. Yes, it was used to defend slavery (which, by the way, wasn't racist in and of itself - rather the aftermath was) but that black mark against states' rights pales in comparison to the number of federal governments that have turned against the people.
I can give you far more examples of the misuse of centralized federal power than states' rights. This country was founded on the idea of states' rights and, to a degree, we still follow that idea. Yes, it was used to defend slavery (which, by the way, wasn't racist in and of itself - rather the aftermath was) but that black mark against states' rights pales in comparison to the number of federal governments that have turned against the people.
This I can agree on. Specific uses of states' rights can be negative, sure, but I strongly disagree that it's a negative idea in the general sense.Like HV said there has to be a balance, I would generally say that things that have to do with upholding individual rights should be national, like legality of gay marriage.
So it's a bad time to vote third party when both major candidates are terrible? Aside from that making zero sense, did either of you vote third party in 2012 when the major candidates weren't as bad as they are today? Or did you come up with some other excuse? How about 2008?
The Libertarian Party is already winning - Johnson/Weld are sitting at 13% in recent polls, more than any 3rd party has gotten in many years. Hopefully they will reach the magic 15% and get into the debates.It's the perfect time to vote 3rd party. Even if he/she doesn't win, it'd send a message, of will to change at the very least. It's totally ridiculous, but in most countries the voting system distills into two parties overtime.
The Libertarian Party is already winning - Johnson/Weld are sitting at 13% in recent polls, more than any 3rd party has gotten in many years. Hopefully they will reach the magic 15% and get into the debates.
The Reps and Dems have a very tight grip on this election (and all elections, really). They don't even allow other parties into the debates.That is weird, this is the first time Ive heard of them and I am following the whole election closer than many Americans, I bet. We know the two big ones have lobbying power up the wazoo and can buy as much news air time as they want so it'd be such a great thing to see a slap on their faces from a movement challenging the status quo.
I must either be understanding this wrong, or you may have written that poorly.This country was founded on the idea of states' rights and, to a degree, we still follow that idea. Yes, it was used to defend slavery (which, by the way, wasn't racist in and of itself - rather the aftermath was) [...]
Obviously the majority of slaves were black. However, they were not picked simply because of the color of their skin. Rather, waring African tribes would sell off the people they conquered into slavery through Middle Eastern slave markets (come to think of it, Muslims in that region still engage in trading people). The French and the Japanese weren't exactly selling off their people - if they did there would be more white and Asian slaves in the US. Slave owners simply bought what was available to them. That said, there were certainly some Chinese and Irish slaves, although few, and there were black slave owners as well. It's like the Model T - people didn't buy black ones specifically, it's all that was available (yes, I realize that that's a pretty horrible comparison, people and cars). There were black soldiers fighting for the confederacy too. It wasn't until after the Civil War and the end of slavery that blacks (former slaves) were treated poorly simply because they were black - e.g. segregation, Jim Crow, KKK, etc.I must either be understanding this wrong, or you may have written that poorly.
I don?t think you've just written "slavery wasn?t based on racism - until afterwards" ... but it reads that way from where I am sitting, so you might wanna explain how you mean that.
Obviously slavery is a horrific concept but it's also a bit sad that every time it gets mentioned, people think of the US. Slavery existed all over the world for thousands of years before the US existed and it's still around to this day, unfortunately. (As an aside, the US was the only country to go to war with itself to end that horrible practice.)
Your comparison to the Model T is apt, but it also points out how human beings were treated as chattel. Now this I can say for sure - there were actually white slaves (as you mention - the Irish), criminals in Europe who paid for their passage across the ocean by selling themselves as indentured servants for a specified period of time. The big difference was that when their term was over (it was often extended), they were free. With black slaves from Africa, laws were specifically made to ensure they remain as slaves, and much worse - the newborn children of slaves were automatically deemed property of the slave-owner, and could be put to work as well. So it's inaccurate to say that blacks weren't treated poorly because of their race prior to the end of slavery. Even during slavery there was a race hierarchy in which black slaves were below white slaves.
This is true but to a degree. Remember, the US had slavery for less than 100 years before uprooting half the country's economy and fighting a very bloody civil war to end it. Other countries basically waited until slavery wasn't economically or politically sustainable, like in Russia, which had serfdom until, I believe, 1861.I don't have a source for this, but my guess is because of how hypocritical it was in the U.S. Other cultures in the past had slavery, but they were very clear about it and the classes in their societies. On the other hand, the U.S. pretended to be the bastion of the free man, an escape from the Old World, a new country where freedom and liberty were extended to all men. Except they weren't. The second part is how long we kept this hypocrisy and system of slavery in place - by the early 19th century the rest of the Western world had banned slavery, but it was still booming in the U.S. South.
Did not know that about white slaves. Interesting...Your comparison to the Model T is apt, but it also points out how human beings were treated as chattel. Now this I can say for sure - there were actually white slaves (as you mention - the Irish), criminals in Europe who paid for their passage across the ocean by selling themselves as indentured servants for a specified period of time. The big difference was that when their term was over (it was often extended), they were free. With black slaves from Africa, laws were specifically made to ensure they remain as slaves, and much worse - the newborn children of slaves were automatically deemed property of the slave-owner, and could be put to work as well. So it's inaccurate to say that blacks weren't treated poorly because of their race prior to the end of slavery. Even during slavery there was a race hierarchy in which black slaves were below white slaves.
Inhumane and immoral as that might be, it's not really racism though.It gets even worse. Virginia (and the other slave states) changed the inheritance laws where slaves were concerned in that they derived their status from their mother rather than father. This was to keep them enslaved even if they had white fathers due to all the raping of slave women from the overseer and master class.
Did not know that about white slaves. Interesting...
Inhumane and immoral as that might be, it's not really racism though.
That's kind of how I look at it as well. I welcome the idea of states' rights and it's one that makes a lot of sense, however historically it's been a justification for discrimination and curtailing of personal freedoms. As mentioned before that is something that we seen happen on both sides of the political spectrum.So as a result - I am not opposed to the concept of states' rights, but its historical use has made me very skeptical about them.
"If [Hillary Clinton] gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do folks. Although, the 2nd Amendment people. Maybe there is, I don't know." Trump said.
His campaign said he was referring to "the power of unification."
I would not rule out a second civil war if Clinton is elected. I think we all know that she will come for the guns harder than anyone before her and, sadly, that might not end well. A lot of people are fed up and a lot of people are on edge.Donald Trump's latest screw up:
[video=youtube;EcxkkrNSv-4]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EcxkkrNSv-4[/video]
He may have been referring to said "power of unification," but tell me honestly - what would his original statement sound to an uneducated person who already hates Clinton? If that's not a provocation to attack a candidate, I don't know what is.