Blowbacks for the Ds

[william the wie]

Thanks for turning up a blowback I missed. Since most state income taxes are stated as a percentage of federal income tax there is much greater incentive to bug out than I accounted for

 

[danielpalos]

Any Thing and every Thing for the common defense but virtually nothing for the General Welfare, right wingers?

Y'all make it seem, like only helping the rich get richer faster, is capitally worth it, under our form of Capitalism.

More divide and conquer bullshit? That all ya got?

I am a federalist, this is my doctrinal mission: We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Two things.

The Preamble to the US Constitution does not have the force of law like the Constitution.

promote the general welfare does not mean monetary payments to anyone.

it is the doctrinal mission of any federalist; it is the federal doctrine's mission statement.

It appears that the Federalists need to revaluate their mission.

why so? our Founding Fathers did an Most Excellent job, in my opinion.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Loss of tax base and increased SALT. This primarily due to

Loss of swing/red state senate races due to energizing the GOP base with their mishandling of the Kavanaugh nomination.

The unraveling of the witch hunt due to declassification. In addition to reputational damage some Elected Ds will be rolled over on by Comey, Mueller, Rosenstein et al. The bright side for the Ds is that due to gerrymandering there is little likelihood of permanent seat loss but that will be rough on their leadership in both houses.

If the unconstitutionality of sanctuary status is up held on appeal many of their state and local officials will be in big trouble.

Are there other blowbacks that I missed?

The Democrats will take control of the House next month and possibly the Senate.

Yeah and Hillary is going to be President!

He was stupid enough to believe that 2 years ago too.

The Republican Party must be pretty stupid too

The GOP Just Cut Bait on Four Republican Incumbents Running in Tight Races

 

[danielpalos]

The Power to provide for the General Welfare is General; it means whatever Congress says it means, as long as it provides for the general welfare.

So, that means Federal Power is unlimited?

That's the refrain. If we interpret the general welfare clause that way, there's really no need for the rest of the Constitution.

why do you believe that? maybe some on the left simply don't understand that the Use of mere socialism, is to be for that which is Expressly enumerated.

we have a Bill of Rights; what is not covered?

 

[dblack]

why do you believe that? maybe some on the left simply don't understand that the Use of mere socialism, is to be for that which is Expressly enumerated.

we have a Bill of Rights; what is not covered?

Daniel, I'm not gonna wade through your stoner horseshit.

 

[Darkwind]

More divide and conquer bullshit? That all ya got?

I am a federalist, this is my doctrinal mission: We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Two things.

The Preamble to the US Constitution does not have the force of law like the Constitution.

promote the general welfare does not mean monetary payments to anyone.

it is the doctrinal mission of any federalist; it is the federal doctrine's mission statement.

It appears that the Federalists need to revaluate their mission.

why so? our Founding Fathers did an Most Excellent job, in my opinion.

yes they did, but they also held a very deep and firm conviction that there is no need so great that the members could or should vote from the national treasury to support a person, organization, or group.

To them the general welfare did not mean giving of the treasury, but supporting the institutions and concepts the help and keep us free. By free, that pertains to the Bill of Rights and against foreign invasion.

An example would be, an army is amassing on one of our borders. They would form an army which consisted of volunteer and conscripted regulars and state militias and fight to repel the invaders because that would promote the general welfare of the nation.

 

[danielpalos]

Loss of tax base and increased SALT. This primarily due to

Loss of swing/red state senate races due to energizing the GOP base with their mishandling of the Kavanaugh nomination.

The unraveling of the witch hunt due to declassification. In addition to reputational damage some Elected Ds will be rolled over on by Comey, Mueller, Rosenstein et al. The bright side for the Ds is that due to gerrymandering there is little likelihood of permanent seat loss but that will be rough on their leadership in both houses.

If the unconstitutionality of sanctuary status is up held on appeal many of their state and local officials will be in big trouble.

Are there other blowbacks that I missed?

The Democrats will take control of the House next month and possibly the Senate.

Yeah and Hillary is going to be President!

He was stupid enough to believe that 2 years ago too.

The Republican Party must be pretty stupid too

The GOP Just Cut Bait on Four Republican Incumbents Running in Tight Races

there is no power to provide for the general warfare or common offense in our federal Constitution.

 

[DrLove]

It will probably be a dud.

Most people in favor of that movement have jobs, families, and other responsibilities. Not to say that anyone protesting on the left does NOT have jobs, families, etc., it just seems like the left always has people with availability to protest.

Well agree that their little march will be a massive dud.
But keep in mind that progressives are energized while the old Teabagger movement pretty much burned out.
Keep in mind also that most of the big Marches - Women's March, March for Our Lives etc have been held on a Saturday.

 

[danielpalos]

why do you believe that? maybe some on the left simply don't understand that the Use of mere socialism, is to be for that which is Expressly enumerated.

we have a Bill of Rights; what is not covered?

Daniel, I'm not gonna wade through your stoner horseshit.

no argument? merely unsubstantiated opinion?

you have to substantiate, any now unsubstantiated opinion.

or, you are not really really serious, for equality purposes.

 

[Cellblock2429]

Loss of tax base and increased SALT. This primarily due to

Loss of swing/red state senate races due to energizing the GOP base with their mishandling of the Kavanaugh nomination.

The unraveling of the witch hunt due to declassification. In addition to reputational damage some Elected Ds will be rolled over on by Comey, Mueller, Rosenstein et al. The bright side for the Ds is that due to gerrymandering there is little likelihood of permanent seat loss but that will be rough on their leadership in both houses.

If the unconstitutionality of sanctuary status is up held on appeal many of their state and local officials will be in big trouble.

Are there other blowbacks that I missed?

/—-/ Has anyone else noticed the Muller investigation has faded away from the news? Wonder if he’s slithering away in disgrace

 

[danielpalos]

I am a federalist, this is my doctrinal mission: We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Two things.

The Preamble to the US Constitution does not have the force of law like the Constitution.

promote the general welfare does not mean monetary payments to anyone.

it is the doctrinal mission of any federalist; it is the federal doctrine's mission statement.

It appears that the Federalists need to revaluate their mission.

why so? our Founding Fathers did an Most Excellent job, in my opinion.

yes they did, but they also held a very deep and firm conviction that there is no need so great that the members could or should vote from the national treasury to support a person, organization, or group.

To them the general welfare did not mean giving of the treasury, but supporting the institutions and concepts the help and keep us free. By free, that pertains to the Bill of Rights and against foreign invasion.

An example would be, an army is amassing on one of our borders. They would form an army which consisted of volunteer and conscripted regulars and state militias and fight to repel the invaders because that would promote the general welfare of the nation.

i am the federalist, not You.

The power to provide for the general welfare is general, not major, specific, or common under our common law.

 

[danielpalos]

Thanks for turning up a blowback I missed. Since most state income taxes are stated as a percentage of federal income tax there is much greater incentive to bug out than I acc

State treasuries would benefit from higher paid labor paying more in taxes and creating more in demand; it is a left wing goal.

vote Blue not Red!

 

[danielpalos]

Loss of tax base and increased SALT. This primarily due to

Loss of swing/red state senate races due to energizing the GOP base with their mishandling of the Kavanaugh nomination.

The unraveling of the witch hunt due to declassification. In addition to reputational damage some Elected Ds will be rolled over on by Comey, Mueller, Rosenstein et al. The bright side for the Ds is that due to gerrymandering there is little likelihood of permanent seat loss but that will be rough on their leadership in both houses.

If the unconstitutionality of sanctuary status is up held on appeal many of their state and local officials will be in big trouble.

Are there other blowbacks that I missed?

/—-/ Has anyone else noticed the Muller investigation has faded away from the news? Wonder if he’s slithering away in disgrace

what charts are you reading?

 

[Darkwind]

Two things.

The Preamble to the US Constitution does not have the force of law like the Constitution.

promote the general welfare does not mean monetary payments to anyone.

it is the doctrinal mission of any federalist; it is the federal doctrine's mission statement.

It appears that the Federalists need to revaluate their mission.

why so? our Founding Fathers did an Most Excellent job, in my opinion.

yes they did, but they also held a very deep and firm conviction that there is no need so great that the members could or should vote from the national treasury to support a person, organization, or group.

To them the general welfare did not mean giving of the treasury, but supporting the institutions and concepts the help and keep us free. By free, that pertains to the Bill of Rights and against foreign invasion.

An example would be, an army is amassing on one of our borders. They would form an army which consisted of volunteer and conscripted regulars and state militias and fight to repel the invaders because that would promote the general welfare of the nation.

i am the federalist, not You.

The power to provide for the general welfare is general, not major, specific, or common under our common law.

It is so broad as to be specific. You can claim to be a federalist, that does not alter the fact that the phrase "general welfare' is not a license for the federal government to do as it pleases.

Let's try to remember the purpose and function of each aspect of our government. The Federal government has no authority to act in areas of social issues, those are the purview of the States. The feds are to act as arbiters in disputes between the States, and as a national defense, with the President acting as our spokesperson to the world.

 

[danielpalos]

it is the doctrinal mission of any federalist; it is the federal doctrine's mission statement.

It appears that the Federalists need to revaluate their mission.

why so? our Founding Fathers did an Most Excellent job, in my opinion.

yes they did, but they also held a very deep and firm conviction that there is no need so great that the members could or should vote from the national treasury to support a person, organization, or group.

To them the general welfare did not mean giving of the treasury, but supporting the institutions and concepts the help and keep us free. By free, that pertains to the Bill of Rights and against foreign invasion.

An example would be, an army is amassing on one of our borders. They would form an army which consisted of volunteer and conscripted regulars and state militias and fight to repel the invaders because that would promote the general welfare of the nation.

i am the federalist, not You.

The power to provide for the general welfare is general, not major, specific, or common under our common law.

It is so broad as to be specific. You can claim to be a federalist, that does not alter the fact that the phrase "general welfare' is not a license for the federal government to do as it pleases.

Let's try to remember the purpose and function of each aspect of our government. The Federal government has no authority to act in areas of social issues, those are the purview of the States. The feds are to act as arbiters in disputes between the States, and as a national defense, with the President acting as our spokesperson to the world.

Congress is delegated the Power to Tax to Solve any given problem of our Republic.

 

[Darkwind]

It appears that the Federalists need to revaluate their mission.

why so? our Founding Fathers did an Most Excellent job, in my opinion.

yes they did, but they also held a very deep and firm conviction that there is no need so great that the members could or should vote from the national treasury to support a person, organization, or group.

To them the general welfare did not mean giving of the treasury, but supporting the institutions and concepts the help and keep us free. By free, that pertains to the Bill of Rights and against foreign invasion.

An example would be, an army is amassing on one of our borders. They would form an army which consisted of volunteer and conscripted regulars and state militias and fight to repel the invaders because that would promote the general welfare of the nation.

i am the federalist, not You.

The power to provide for the general welfare is general, not major, specific, or common under our common law.

It is so broad as to be specific. You can claim to be a federalist, that does not alter the fact that the phrase "general welfare' is not a license for the federal government to do as it pleases.

Let's try to remember the purpose and function of each aspect of our government. The Federal government has no authority to act in areas of social issues, those are the purview of the States. The feds are to act as arbiters in disputes between the States, and as a national defense, with the President acting as our spokesperson to the world.

Congress is delegated the Power to Tax to Solve any given problem of our Republic.

Well, no. They do have the power to levy tax, but they are still constrained by the Constitution. This kind of statement lends Me to believe that you think that every problem can be solved by government, or by just throwing enough money at it. That is fundamentally flawed.

 

[WillowTree]

Loss of tax base and increased SALT. This primarily due to

Loss of swing/red state senate races due to energizing the GOP base with their mishandling of the Kavanaugh nomination.

The unraveling of the witch hunt due to declassification. In addition to reputational damage some Elected Ds will be rolled over on by Comey, Mueller, Rosenstein et al. The bright side for the Ds is that due to gerrymandering there is little likelihood of permanent seat loss but that will be rough on their leadership in both houses.

If the unconstitutionality of sanctuary status is up held on appeal many of their state and local officials will be in big trouble.

Are there other blowbacks that I missed?

The Democrats will take control of the House next month and possibly the Senate.

Yeah and Hillary is going to be President!

He was stupid enough to believe that 2 years ago too.

The Republican Party must be pretty stupid too

The GOP Just Cut Bait on Four Republican Incumbents Running in Tight Races

They are! Stupid as shit!

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

words are fundamental, right wingers. our federal doctrine is writing. Order is not anarchy or chaos.

"In order to" does not mean "law and order" or "in an orderly fashion." It means "so that" or "to make it possible."

You should not argue constitutional interpretation if you have such a limited of an understanding of proper English usage and meaning.

 

[danielpalos]

why so? our Founding Fathers did an Most Excellent job, in my opinion.

yes they did, but they also held a very deep and firm conviction that there is no need so great that the members could or should vote from the national treasury to support a person, organization, or group.

To them the general welfare did not mean giving of the treasury, but supporting the institutions and concepts the help and keep us free. By free, that pertains to the Bill of Rights and against foreign invasion.

An example would be, an army is amassing on one of our borders. They would form an army which consisted of volunteer and conscripted regulars and state militias and fight to repel the invaders because that would promote the general welfare of the nation.

i am the federalist, not You.

The power to provide for the general welfare is general, not major, specific, or common under our common law.

It is so broad as to be specific. You can claim to be a federalist, that does not alter the fact that the phrase "general welfare' is not a license for the federal government to do as it pleases.

Let's try to remember the purpose and function of each aspect of our government. The Federal government has no authority to act in areas of social issues, those are the purview of the States. The feds are to act as arbiters in disputes between the States, and as a national defense, with the President acting as our spokesperson to the world.

Congress is delegated the Power to Tax to Solve any given problem of our Republic.

Well, no.

lol. Yes, they are; limited by our federal Constitution. it is in writing.

 

[danielpalos]

words are fundamental, right wingers. our federal doctrine is writing. Order is not anarchy or chaos.

"In order to" does not mean "law and order" or "in an orderly fashion." It means "so that" or "to make it possible."

You should not argue constitutional interpretation if you have such a limited of an understanding of proper English usage and meaning.

lol. i am the federalist, not You. i know my own doctrine.