85 - 15

America's progressive urban heavens feature feces, urine and needles right next to the free sidewalk housing, the affordable fentanyl, the gang shootings and random violence, the rats, the typhus ....
Screw Green Acres - hello city life.

 

Wow how could we possibly know anything that took place 240 years ago?....hmmm.

In other words.....you just pulled it out of yer a**, and you have no interest in explaining why they could ride to say who won a state but they could not ride to report a vote total ( which doesnt make a lick of sense). Which is precisely why you are trying so hard to change the subject.

 

That's a great point. Rural living is not best for those who want more; however, it is well suited for some of those who already have enough. Contentment, at any level, is as precious as a goose that lays golden eggs. Guard the goose. Don't kick the goose. Protect the goose. Don't do anything to mess with it. Don't put it at risk. Don't parade it around town. Just quietly and carefully care for the goose.

It's probably important to note for the young ones reading that contentment without any ambition is just complacency.
True contentment will always have some measure of ambition in it. Complacency is more akin to a rubber duck than a goose that lays golden eggs. So, watch out for that.

 

Not to worry, I hear they have apps for that.

 

That, but for the grace of God, could be anyone of us. Those poor people. For God's sake, let's keep them and their disastrous ideas there.

 

Yes, they entered into it freely, but there is no exit clause. There are a few places in the Constitution that state that the federal government has supremacy over state governments. So, states can ask to leave, but if the federal government says they can't then they can't.

 

If the federal government would violate the constitution such as to nullify it, I could see the states having an argument for exit then. However, all of that already happened. I don't think that we could anymore get our leviathan back into its constitutional box than we could get an oak tree back into an acorn shell.

 

Additionally, every State voted to agree to the Articles of Confederation, every State then seceded from that confederation and voted to ratify the Constitution. Virginia included in their ratification of the Constitution, the right of the people to rescind the delegation of power to the federal government:

"WE the Delegates of the people of Virginia, duly elected in pursuance of a recommendation from the General Assembly, and now met in Convention, having fully and freely investigated and discussed the proceedings of the Federal Convention, and being prepared as well as the most mature deliberation hath enabled us, to decide thereon, DO in the name and in behalf of the people of Virginia, declare and make known that the powers granted under the Constitution, being derived from the people of the United States may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression, and that every power not granted thereby remains with them and at their will: that therefore no right of any denomination, can be cancelled, abridged, restrained or modified, by the Congress, by the Senate or House of Representatives acting in any capacity, by the President or any department or officer of the United States, except in those instances in which power is given by the Constitution for those purposes: and that among other essential rights, the liberty of conscience and of the press cannot be cancelled, abridged, restrained or modified by any authority of the United States."

Considering the history of the secession of the colonies from Britain, the ratification of and subsequent secession from the Articles of Confederation and the ratification of the Constitution, there can be no doubt that the 13 original States were sovereign States. They did not relinquish their sovereignty but merely delegated specific, enumerated powers to the federal government.

 

So nothing in the treaty saying that any of the several sovereign states may not leave?

 

I would never critize how someone chooses to live their life. To each their own. I just took exception to the statement that because I choose t live in a city, I won't ever have anything.

 

every town/city has this. it's not unique to cities, or political affiliation.

 

states can not leave.........texas v white

 

Amen.

Absolutely true. And, thats true even if one ignores the ever increasing requirements that employers are looking for today.

 

I don't believe that is a proper view.

I agree that the CA margin was significant in the total difference, but the margin came from all over the USA.

You could just as easily aggregate the votes using some other criterion and get something that is undoubtedly more meaningful.

For example, you could aggregate the major metro areas (rather than one gigantic state) and see a HUGE partisan divide.

 

Well, I think a lot of these efforts are essentially rescue efforts.

They aren't oriented to preparing employees for a good paying career that will last through changes that are clearly taking place.

I remember an out of work auto worker interviewe in 2016, a middle aged family man, saying, "What do you want me to do, go back to school to learn how to create software?"

By the time this guy got dumped from his good paying job due to the advent of automation it was a little too late.

 

Yes - the Brookings report I posted says pretty much exactly that.

It points out that unlike manufacturing (which will spread out based on factors like resource) high tech will naturally concentrate.

We could create more tech sectors, but it would require significant emphasis by government. Just waiting for high tech to come is not likely to work. In fact, the Brookings report shows areas where high tech is shrinking, as it concentrates in a few other metro areas.

Yes, I was a little surprised at the San Francisco/San Jose divide, but the area is large enough to be worth mentioning as one place, I think. It's essentially one big city from San Francisco to San Jose, and that still ignores UC Berkley areas west of the bay, which is strongly tied.

 

One must understand what is in those purple areas.

And, the Bundy case is NOT EVEN SLIGHTLY about that.

They wanted to steal land from the federal and state governments without paying for it when there are millions of acres of land for sale.

 

They where not stealing land, his family have been using it for a 100 years..

I addressed his/her post she commented no wide open spaces in Ohio its because most of the state is privately owned, most the land in the west is federally owned

 

Once again. The land in purple is owned by the federal government, the land in gray is privately owned







The federal government owns about 640 million acres of land in the United States, about 28% of the total land area of 2.27 billion acres.
Wikipedia › wiki › Federal_lands
Federal lands - Wikipedia

 

The federal government allowed grazing on that land FOR A FEE.

Bundys simply refused to pay their fees and instead used the land as if it were there own - in fact, claiming that it was theirs to use.

The fact that the federal government owns a bunch of near desert does NOT mean that anyone can come and steal it.

Also, there is almost nobody out there. One can buy thousands of acres for very little money - including land that is set up for cattle operations.

And, once again why are you promoting crime?

 

That's not stealing when the federal government owns most of the land available he cant buy it now can he?


They changed the laws in 1993 and he said not going to pay.

And thousands of ranchers supported him.

 

So, if you can't buy something then you can STEAL it???

What the hell?

Take a look at land prices in those areas. There are plenty of huge parcels of land for sale. And, the grazing fees for using the federal land are extremely low and management of that land is organized so that if Bundy's have grazing rights then others do not - it is not a free for all out there.

What other federal stuff do you want to steal? Is it just land?

 

It was government land next to his ranch that his family has been using for a hundred years, I always enjoyed this story because city slickers where so jealous of rural people, they couldn't believe fellow ranchers could take on the government with guns and win, make them run away..


Lol

 

Delete