/e: actually I'll stay on topic



And debate it for the next 10 years, in 50 different rooms with 5000 different ppl. Ethics legislation is more effective nation wide.

This post was edited by Knaapie on Feb 23 2017 04:44am

#TrumpTrain

Just what America and first world civilization needs!

It's really this simple Cam, good law is based on one thing, Addressing a problem that is factually shown to exist.

The entire trans bathroom rights issue is not factually backed, it's based on fear, taboo, and feelers.

One side the democrats have a small pile of anecdotes which along with populism drove them to right the protection law.

One side the republicans reacted to this in fear and have zero facts on their side, zero cases of this new law (which was not even shown to be needed by the feds tbh) causing abuse issues that they claim.

Now we have the option to let that unnecessary law stand or kick it back to the states where it will be litigated, in all 50 states. your assertion that some would let it be is a fantasy, its not facts. In all 50 states GOP PAC's would fund efforts to legislate this, left wing PAC's would respond. Court time would be taken up. etc. This is the facts of the matter, in no way would this be a regional only effect.

You can attempt to frame this as a "states rights issue" but its not, its far deeper than that. its an issue of good vs. bad law, and more accurately bad law vs. worse law. it wouldn't matter where this bad law was being written state or federal because that's not at all what i'm talking about. You can credit people for being sheep and not realizing this is not a factually backed issue and defaulting to state's rights but i guess when i call someone not an idiot i include actually looking at facts instead of defaulting to their (and my) preferred style of state side governance.

again, i am a supporter of state's rights in all effective areas, this has nothing to do with that. if you want to clap back feel free to bring in actual facts to back this issue that would necessitate further legislation, state, federal, judge judy, doesn't matter. Facts.

if you aren't backing laws based on facts, and instead only default to state's rights every time you are an idiot.

This post was edited by thesnipa on Feb 23 2017 08:04am

Dismissing the entire other side as having no merit or facts on their side at all.. An incredible and untrue claim.
Prevalent sexual assault is not the only reason to hold a position, nor is the issue binary. There are a plethora of potential solutions to accommodate transgender students and to protect the interests of others as well.

Your own admission that the 'law' was not even shown to be needed undermines many of your other points, and supports the view that it should be left up to the states rather than dictated by the feds.


Its a guideline, not a law.


I didn't say what they would do one way of the other.
Opposing feds dictating the issue is not equivalent to advocating for each state to dictate one way or the other or to litigate the issue.


On the other hand, Your own hysteria about every single state necessarily legislating it and leading to all sorts of terribly expensive dystopian lawsuits and problems IS the fantasy, not facts.
God forbid the courts have to properly sort things out, that would just be unthinkable!



As I was saying, and as you have completely missed, your feelings and predictions about number of lawsuits are irrelevant to whether it should be left to the states and whether all who differ from you are 'idiots'.
Not everyone who isn't an "idiot" has to agree with your own facile definition of "good law" nor do they have to throw out federalism when your feelings and fears say so.
The feds were not meant to dictate every little issue to all the states, regardless of how many lawsuits you think there will be.
Throwing up your hands and wanting to make things a federal issue when you think there will be lawsuits, and branding everyone who disagrees an idiot, actually demonstrates that you are the idiot.

This post was edited by cambovenzi on Feb 23 2017 09:19am

No it shows that i'm for the more realistic and pragmatic compromise to end the issue rather than re-litigating it. I get it though, you can't get off state's rights. like you're incapable. even when the topic is of liberty and fiscally responsible government behavior and you look like a fucking hypocrite. This is the end result of you taking most of your ideas from a book and not applying much of your own thought, not dealing with facts, and not realizing that in some instances liberty and what's right is at odds with the federal/state law dynamic. in which cases it presents one of the few reasons a federal government should exist in the first place.

and let's be real fucking honest, you're triggered because you felt lumped in with someone we both agree IS an idiot (chris) and felt the need to paint a picture in which you can have his same stance without being an idiot. and so far all you've done is dodge a request for facts that necessitate further legislation, over and over and over. because at the core of this conversation there is one truth, you can't EVER admit that state's rights isn't the right call here. you've put all your chips on that square and are unable to actually argue ANYTHING other than "state's rights state's rights". at the same time, in reality for anyone actually able to predict the OUTCOME rather than the GOVERNANCE, we will all pay a bunch of money to debate legally what the freedom of a group of people is to use the bathroom they want, with zero facts on the actual negative outcomes that this could present and how the law's specifically will address these negative outcomes to be worth their litigation costs. You've chosen state's rights over liberty, pragmatism through compromise, facts, and fiscal responsibility. are state's rights more important to you than those things? if you're going to only answer one thing let it be that. Regardless i'm sensing an impass and won't be responding any further, so address any or all as you please.

USA is closer to 3rd world countries nowadays. And Trump is trying to make it even more so..

There is no hypocrisy there.
First we're idiots for not agreeing with your opinion, now i'm a hypocrite, and am not realizing liberty can be at odds with federal/state law dynamic and a string of other personal claims?

All fabricated claims and assumptions not substantiated based on what I have said.
Do you have a problem scumbag?

If you look closely I have said very little about my own position and have not declared that what states do is always better from a libertarian or fiscal perspective.
Rather than not dealing in facts I challenged your mud slinging and outrageous untrue claims.



I rightly recognize that it is despicable and unfounded to label all people who have a different opinion than you "idiots", especially when there are valid and/or subjective reasons for holding different positions.

Instead of addressing my points you accuse me of being incapable of saying anything besides 'states rights' and insult me.
You cant seem to process the basic idea that not everyone is an idiot for disagreeing with your opinion and you keep going back to a cost/benefit story of legislation.
Intelligent people are quite capable of having different criteria, different preferences, different feelings, and coming to different conclusions.

You falsely assume that opposing federal dictates are necessarily in opposition to liberty on this issue. one of MANY false assumptions you have made here.
You appear incapable of having an honest or civil conversation today. I'm out. Call me when you are ready to apologize and get your act together.

This post was edited by cambovenzi on Feb 23 2017 10:23am

I see a lot of "false assumptions" and other bits along those lines. I asked a simple question, how is this going to states factually justified beyond simply "state's should decide things like this"? it's that god damn simple. i don't see you offering ANY facts that talk about how in this context, trans bathroom laws, need to be a state decided issue. And how that need is worthy of the money it will cost us as tax payers moving forward. it's that simple. you can spend as much time as you want throwing around false assumption labels and ragging on me for thinking people are idiots for being less informed by facts on this specific issue and differing ideas of what laws should entail than someone who has legal experience but to be quite honest if you can't address how trans rights NEED to be a state decided issue i'll call you an idiot. want to know why? because that's not an irredeemable label and there's a difference between being an idiot permanently and being an idiot on a single topic. you're not an idiot entirely at all, but we've all got soft spots.

if you want to make an argument on behalf of god know's who not based on your own stances be my guest, present any facts that directly support this being an issue that states should decide that doesn't include "fed govt bad, state govt gets it right more". that's an argument for state's rights, which i'm not arguing.

i'll call you if you want though, pm me ur number. i'll congratulate you for baiting out another response after i said you wouldn't.

This post was edited by thesnipa on Feb 23 2017 10:34am

The left's boogeyman is on stage with Reince at CPAC talking(you can rewind to see the whole thing):