I mean. Yeah. But I don't deserve it.If Trump don't make you happy,this should
View attachment 266874
Yes. It is too binary. And that's a problem you have. Binary thinking reduces the resolution you can apply to reality. If you model reality where only two outcomes are possible, you'll keep being wrong about stuff. To you it seems like if someone isn't nibbling Trump's mushroom, then they must absolutely hate Trump. That's binary thinking.Too binary?
Yes. It is too binary. And that's a problem you have. Binary thinking reduces the resolution you can apply to reality. If you model reality where only two outcomes are possible, you'll keep being wrong about stuff. To you it seems like if someone isn't nibbling Trump's mushroom, then they must absolutely hate Trump. That's binary thinking.
It's my opinion that Trump isn't what America needs right now. And I'm sorry if that causes you discomfort. It shouldn't. But I'm not too sorry that I'll stop saying it. You should be able to handle people saying things you don't agree with. It's just one guy's opinion on the internet. It doesn't hurt you if someone doesn't adore Trump. But that someone doesn't adore Trump does not make them a neverTrumper, or whateverthe**** you're calling them these days.
I see that whole thing as nuanced. There wasn't a means encoded in the constitution for having a peaceful separation. I think there should have been. There should be. But there wasn't. And there still isn't.Now do secession and union by consent compared to union by force.
I see that whole thing as nuanced. There wasn't a means encoded in the constitution for having a peaceful separation. I think there should have been. There should be. But there wasn't. And there still isn't.
Where does it say how a state can secede? What's the process? I think a state should be able to secede, but I think the other states have a stake in that too. There are federal resources and lands in all states. How does that get disposed? I think you put a lot more into that which is not delegated is reserved than there is.I am reminded of what folks who came before me said....that nuance you're smelling is cow ****.
The constitution of the States is very clear...that which is not delegated is reserved.
I'll add that what one delegates to an agent, one can recall.
I've been here since late 2015, but I've read quite a few older threads just for fun on occasion, and I think Mr. "It used to be peace and love here" might be misremembering. Lots of those early 2010s threads have more than a couple of shooters in them, and they didn't get that way because everyone was joining in on a group production of Kumbaya.You remember MrJerrell? Banned for his caustic comments. He ain’t the only one.
The entire constitution amongst the States that created the delegated common state is a contract of retained rights and powers.Where does it say how a state can secede? What's the process? I think a state should be able to secede, but I think the other states have a stake in that too. There are federal resources and lands in all states. How does that get disposed? I think you put a lot more into that which is not delegated is reserved than there is.
Don't assume that because I disagree with you on a few parts that I'm the blind one. But anyway, I'm not saying that the lack of specific language granting states the ability to secede implies that they can't. I say it as a practical matter. The constitution doesn't say how it should be done. So I ask the question, how should it be done? The state just gets to claim it's no longer a part of the union? It's that simple? Does it get to keep federal resources? I think not. Both are stakeholders in the union. There needs to be some legal means to secede. Or when secession is contested, there will be violence.The entire constitution amongst the States that created the delegated common state is a contract of retained rights and powers.
What you are looking for is directly in front of your blind eye in the 9th and 10th.
I've been here since late 2015, but I've read quite a few older threads just for fun on occasion, and I think Mr. "It used to be peace and love here" might be misremembering. Lots of those early 2010s threads have more than a couple of shooters in them, and they didn't get that way because everyone was joining in on a group production of Kumbaya.
Don't assume that because I disagree with you on a few parts that I'm the blind one. But anyway, I'm not saying that the lack of specific language granting states the ability to secede implies that they can't. I say it as a practical matter. The constitution doesn't say how it should be done. So I ask the question, how should it be done? The state just gets claim it's no longer a part of the union? It's that simple? Does it get to keep federal resources? I think not. Both are stakeholders in the union. There needs to be some legal means to secede. Or when secession is contested, there will be violence.
I find it disingenuous that you formulate a binary, [someone else] not Trump and then insist it is not binary thinking simply because one term is a variable which can only have one value for any particular solutionYes. It is too binary. And that's a problem you have. Binary thinking reduces the resolution you can apply to reality. If you model reality where only two outcomes are possible, you'll keep being wrong about stuff. To you it seems like if someone isn't nibbling Trump's mushroom, then they must absolutely hate Trump. That's binary thinking.
It's my opinion that Trump isn't what America needs right now. And I'm sorry if that causes you discomfort. It shouldn't. But I'm not too sorry that I'll stop saying it. You should be able to handle people saying things you don't agree with. It's just one guy's opinion on the internet. It doesn't hurt you if someone doesn't adore Trump. But that someone doesn't adore Trump does not make them a neverTrumper, or whateverthe**** you're calling them these days.
There is as I read it. All it needs is an amendment. Not that it is a practical outcome but it is a possible one.I see that whole thing as nuanced. There wasn't a means encoded in the constitution for having a peaceful separation. I think there should have been. There should be. But there wasn't. And there still isn't.
Where is the specific language for adding new states?Don't assume that because I disagree with you on a few parts that I'm the blind one. But anyway, I'm not saying that the lack of specific language granting states the ability to secede implies that they can't. I say it as a practical matter. The constitution doesn't say how it should be done. So I ask the question, how should it be done? The state just gets to claim it's no longer a part of the union? It's that simple? Does it get to keep federal resources? I think not. Both are stakeholders in the union. There needs to be some legal means to secede. Or when secession is contested, there will be violence.
Binaries are common in normal communication. I've made this point before, and obviously it needs restating. The kind of binary thinking we're talking about here is setting up a false dilemma or false dichotomy. It excludes other possibilities.I find it disingenuous that you formulate a binary, [someone else] not Trump and then insist it is not binary thinking simply because one term is a variable which can only have one value for any particular solution
Article IV, Section 3, Clause 1.Where is the specific language for adding new states?
I think it can. It's not explicit, but I think that if a state, or group of states wants to leave, it would require the state legislatures and the federal legislature to approve it. To get in you have to have everyone's approval. It seems to be that to leave, the same would apply. So I don't think it's the case that a state can just leave at it's sole will.There is as I read it. All it needs is an amendment. Not that it is a practical outcome but it is a possible one.
If the government can add states, where is it established that it cannot by the same mechanisms remove one?
The bee has a different take.Assuming this goes through as advertised I would imagine that he'll be booked, post bond, and go home. As much as the left leadership is praying for some sort of 1/6 redux I don't see it happening.