Feds Not Welcome, But Fed Money Is?

Topic's posts

Posts in total: 30

Earlier in his presidency, the people of New York and California said Trump was not welcome in their states. Their governors instructed state officers not to cooperate with federal officials.

But now we find that they welcome federal money to fight the Covid 19 virus. Federal money is fine but federal officials aren't?

If I were President Trump, I would send no federal resources to those states, or to cities calling themselves sanctuary cities. If the chief executive of the federal government is not welcome in your state, why should federal officers be there?

Childish hypocrites, the lot of them. And none of them will notice that Trump has not thrown it back in their faces.
--> @ethang5
And none of them will notice that Trump has not thrown it back in their faces.
and neither will those who scream at the sky, it's as if it doesn't matter to him, that he is helping everyone anyway and equally, hmmm

he's even said nice things about some of the hate filled, authoritarian governors
--> @ethang5
If I were President Trump, I would send no federal resources to those states, or to cities calling themselves sanctuary cities. If the chief executive of the federal government is not welcome in your state, why should federal officers be there?

And that would make you a poor president--not that the lot of them merit much credit or respect with which to start. Whenever one presumes responsibility for a person, a group, let alone the masses, it isn't prudent to dwell on gripes and nuisances. Focus on solutions rather than one's emotions.
--> @Athias
I think it is better sometimes to look at the long term larger picture.

Governors saying a president is not welcome and sanctuary cities degrade cohesion and national unity. It makes a country weaker and less able to meet challenges. Telling them "no" would  also show that there are real world consequences to voters for electing morons.

Of course I would not withhold federal funds so that people die, but I would make those Governors rethink the value of federal officers, and certainly knock them down a peg or two off their self-righteous high horse.

In my estimation, that would make for an excellent president, and a stronger nation.
--> @ethang5
During a time of crisis? Bad time to make a point. I see where you're coming from but rising above the petty political jargon of governors is what makes a good leader, not taking the worst possible time to make a political point.


How about that $1200 being sent to everyone eh?

I can safely say that I don't like the idea of the federal government handing out checks willy-nilly. I don't much care who is writing the checks because I form my political positions based on whether I like a certain idea rather than whether I like the person proposing the idea.

I wonder if Ethan can say the same. He was saying he disliked government handouts a few months ago, I am curious whether he can demonstrate any consistency of thought by continuing to do so now that it is a politician with a red tie writing the checks.
--> @ethang5
Governors saying a president is not welcome and sanctuary cities degrade cohesion and national unity. It makes a country weaker and less able to meet challenges. Telling them "no" would  also show that there are real world consequences to voters for electing morons.
And what of non-voters, and those who voted against these governors? Does the current situation make the same discrimination as you do? That is not a solution--neither a long-term nor short-term one. It's a reaction that exploits a panic.


Of course I would not withhold federal funds so that people die, but I would make those Governors rethink the value of federal officers, and certainly knock them down a peg or two off their self-righteous high horse.
Should he seek their kowtow/obeisance or their cooperation?

In my estimation, that would make for an excellent president, and a stronger nation.
I disagree. It makes for a petty president--not that Trump isn't petty. There are times to flex, and there are times to dust off your shoulders. This isn't the time for the former.

--> @ethang5
very good point
--> @KingArthur
...rising above the petty political jargon of governors is what makes a good leader,
That's just it. What those governors did was not petty political jargon. It struck at the heart of our national identity. Federal and state authority is a emotive issue, we fought a civil war over it. Those governors are traitors.

not taking the worst possible time to make a political point.
It is in fact the best possible time to make that point, and it isn't only a political point, it is much more.

Not everything is political, nor should everything be boiled down to just politics.
--> @Athias
And what of non-voters, and those who voted against these governors? Does the current situation make the same discrimination as you do?
Is there a moral law that says I should make the same discrimination as it does? That is life, we are all affected by the majority and by chance.

That is not a solution--neither a long-term nor short-term one. It's a reaction that exploits a panic.
It is a disincentive to unpatriotic behavior. It teaches that negative behavior will bring about negative consequences. Your view here is very cynical, akin to calling marriage, prostitution. You think it's to exploit panic, but that is because to you, everything is politics. It's to clearly demonstrate the connection between their behavior and the consequence.

Should he seek their kowtow/obeisance or their cooperation?
Why should he seek either? He already has their cooperation, as they have come running to him with their palms outstreatched. And he is president, with authority over the federal government, he doesn't need them to kowtow.

I disagree. It makes for a petty president--not that Trump isn't petty.
Yes, I notice that even though Trump is behaving opposite to a way you are calling petty, you still call call him petty.

There are times to flex, and there are times to dust off your shoulders. This isn't the time for the former.
I disagree. For this would not be just flexing or posturing. It is much more important than that. All civilisations so far have declined and died. This is one of the reasons why.

The members get fat and privileged, used to being immune from the consequence of their self destructive behavior. And the civilisation crumbles, from the inside out, from people who mistake selfishness for freedom.
--> @Dr.Franklin
Thanks Doc. I knew you'd be able to see the point even if you have a different view.
--> @Discipulus_Didicit
I can safely say that I don't like the idea of the federal government handing out checks willy-nilly.
I agree, whether I can "safely" say it is another matter.

I don't much care who is writing the checks because I form my political positions based on whether I like a certain idea rather than whether I like the person proposing the idea.
Long arms make self-back patting easy.

I wonder if Ethan can say the same.
He can, but since that is already obvious, he doesn't have to.

He was saying he disliked government handouts a few months ago, I am curious whether he can demonstrate any consistency of thought by continuing to do so now that it is a politician with a red tie writing the checks.
How have you interpreted this post as me advocating govt. handouts?? I said nothing about my position on the issue, I was noting the disconnect between governors and states rejecting federal officers but accepting federal money.

That seems inconsistent to me. President Trump, the head fedinista, you say is not welcome in your state, and you instruct your state officials not to cooperate with federal officials (breaking the law in doing so) but you run to the feds for money as soon as a crisis hits your state?

I have not said whether I personally like or dislike the handout, I'm only saying it is hypocritical for states, governors, and sanctuary cities to want it.

The majority of people who like Trump, like him because of his policies, not because of the color of his tie. That is reserved for the lemmings in blue.
--> @ethang5
How have you interpreted this post as me advocating govt. handouts?

I haven't.

Your opening post does not state your stance on the $1200 handout one way or the other. That is why I asked what your stance on it was.

If you had stated your stance then I would not have asked your stance.

So what do you think about the $1200 handout then? You seem to imply you don't like it based on the quote "He can, but since that is already obvious, he doesn't have to."

You like it or dislike it?
--> @Discipulus_Didicit
He was saying he disliked government handouts a few months ago, I am curious whether he can demonstrate any consistency of thought by continuing to do so now that it is a politician with a red tie writing the checks.
It was a clumsy save for you. I'm used to much more polished from you.

You like it or dislike it?
Is your question on topic?

It is a ridiculous waste of money, and most of it will be stolen before it gets to the people.
--> @ethang5
It was a clumsy save for you. I'm used to much more polished from you.

Huh? Are you still trying to convince yourself that post 6 was claiming you took the stance that Trump's handout is a good idea? Try rereading it. Here, let me help:

I am curious whether [ethan] can demonstrate any consistency of thought by continuing to [state a dislike for government handouts] now...

See the problem yet or do you need it simplified a bit more?

I am curious whether ethan can demonstrate any consistency of thought...

Still don't get it?

I am curious...

Let me spell it out for you then. If I believed that you had taken the stance that Trump's handout was a good idea then I would not have "been curious" as to whether you thought Trump's handout was a good idea. If I thought I knew the answer I would not have asked the question. This is how words work.

I will restate it another way in case you still don't get it:

1) In the hypothetical world where I accuse you of liking Trump's handout I would say something like "you like Trump's handout"

2) In the hypothetical world where I do not know how you feel about Trump's handout but wanted to know I would say something like "I am curious how you feel about Trump's handout"

3) Post 6 (the post made in reality) matches with the second hypothetical, not the first. This means that reality does not match with the hypothetical where I was accusing you of liking Trump's handout. In other words I was not accusing you of liking Trump's handout (which you said I was doing in post 12).

I dislike being forced to make such a hyper-reductionist post but it seems to be the only way to get you to comprehend simple concepts at times.
--> @Discipulus_Didicit
I dislike being forced.....
No one forced you to do anything.

Methinks thou doth protest too much.
--> @ethang5
Is there a moral law that says I should make the same discrimination as it does? That is life, we are all affected by the majority and by chance.
That's not "life"; that's a conscious decision. Withholding the assistance of federal officers to make a point to politicians and their base, possibly at the expense of non-complicit parties, especially during a media orchestrated panic, is petty.

It is a disincentive to unpatriotic behavior.
No, it doesn't. At best, you can argue that it addresses the governors' undermining the "chain of command" but it has nothing to do with patriotism.

It teaches that negative behavior will bring about negative consequences.
No it would teach the lesson, "Don't mess with Trump." In order to teach the lesson of which you speak, the consequences have to result from a direct action. It would be like my stating that I wouldn't help my son with his homework because he didn't listen to me when I told him not to play with fire.

Your view here is very cynical
Skeptical is more apropos.

akin to calling marriage, prostitution.
Legal marriage is prostitution.

You think it's to exploit panic, but that is because to you, everything is politics.
Your point is political; hence your mention of the optics, i.e. "And none of them will notice that Trump has not thrown it back in their faces." Why would any of that matter if the point is to hypothetically teach them that actions have consequences?

It's to clearly demonstrate the connection between their behavior and the consequence.
No it isn't. It's merely to reciprocate reactionary behavior.

Yes, I notice that even though Trump is behaving opposite to a way you are calling petty, you still call call him petty.
He isn't behaving petty in this situation (that would be counterintuitive especially given our discussion.) But has he exhibited behavior that as a composite would inform the characterization, "petty"? Yes.

I disagree. For this would not be just flexing or posturing. It is much more important than that.
The importance you are arguing is letting these "sanctuary" governors "know how you feel," rather than providing solutions. The image of democratic government alleges a system of public servants, not a group of lords functioning within the auspices of their king--allegedly. What would be the long term reverberations if one public servant purposefully withheld resources--as you suggested--from another public servant in a time of "crisis"?

All civilisations so far have declined and died.
That is not the least bit true.





--> @Athias
Your view here is very cynical, akin to calling marriage, prostitution.

Legal marriage is prostitution.
Thank you. I believe I can rest my case.
--> @ethang5
Thank you. I believe I can rest my case.
What case? Your analogy had little relevance, much less an explanation. But yes, marriage under common law (legal marriage) is very much like prostitution in that each party is leveraging the other in order secure resources under a binding commercial contract. I do not argue against long-term relationships, or marriage in and of itself, but the State's incarnation of "marriage" is akin to that of a pimp, and those who participate are their hos.



--> @ethang5
Methinks thou doth protest too much.
<br>

If that thought is based on logic rather than an emotional reaction of being butthurt because your error was pointed out then you would accept a debate on the topic.

It actually is just you being butthurt though, meaning you will decline.
--> @Discipulus_Didicit
Lol. A debate with you?

But this is just like the taunts from 3rd grade, "If you don't then you're chicken"

You who are motivated by the gallery will never understand why this particular taunt doesn't move us.

I can almost feel your butthurt.
--> @Athias
Thank you. I believe I can rest my case.

What case?
The one where you show how cynicism has wrecked your thinking.

Your analogy had little relevance, much less an explanation.
You will supply the explanation, showing the relevance. Observe.

But yes, marriage under common law (legal marriage) is very much like prostitution in that each party is leveraging the other in order secure resources under a binding commercial contract. I do not argue against long-term relationships, or marriage in and of itself, but the State's incarnation of "marriage" is akin to that of a pimp, and those who participate are their hos. 
Again, thank you. The help was not needed, but welcome.
--> @ethang5
The one where you show how cynicism has wrecked your thinking.
And the subject of this discussion is how "cynical" my thinking is? I thought it was about what the president ought to have done during this "panic," particularly his response to sanctuary governors, and the hypothetical situation where you were president. Your allegation of "cynicism" is nothing more than a tone argument, which is an inept derailment tactic.

You will supply the explanation, showing the relevance. Observe.
Exactly: I had to supply the explanation. But you have yet to demonstrate its relevance. I entertained the point in order to express my perspective of legal marriage--in retrospect, that was a mistake on my part.
--> @Athias
Thank you. I believe I can rest my case.

What case?
The one where you show how cynicism has wrecked your thinking.

And the subject of this discussion is how "cynical" my thinking is?
Since I saw that your cynicism has made you incapable of rationally contributing to this discussion, yes.

I thought it was about what the president ought to have done during this "panic," particularly his response to sanctuary governors, and the hypothetical situation where you were president.
Actually, it was about how hypocritical they were to want federal help but reject federal law. You decided that Trumps response was politics and responded that way.

Your allegation of "cynicism" is nothing more than a tone argument, which is an inept derailment tactic.
Derailment from what? You are intelligent Athias, when a person says, for example, that marriage is prostitution, what more is there to say? You seem to believe simply saying something is a "tone" argument, or what ever designation you slap onto a discussion, makes it so. You are very intelligent, but you may be autistic.

You will supply the explanation, showing the relevance. Observe.

Exactly: I had to supply the explanation.
Which is why I didn't need to.

But you have yet to demonstrate its relevance.
Well, considering you said The analogy had very little explanation or relevance, this is progress.

It is the same cynicism that informs your opinion of what motivates my suggestion of what Trump should do, and what motivates people to marry. You are not emotionally able to rationally discuss this.

I entertained the point in order to express my perspective of legal marriage--in retrospect, that was a mistake on my part.
How was it a mistake? Do you think my analogy of people who see marriage as being prostitution was a guess?

Not everything is win or lose. I respect your opinion and support your right to both have it and express it.

But if you look at a young couple in love, willing to sacrifice for each other, build a family together, and share the joys of life, and your take is that marriage is very much like prostitution in that each party is leveraging the other in order secure resources under a binding commercial contract, there is not much I can say to you.

Go in peace young man. You have done no wrong.
--> @ethang5
The one where you show how cynicism has wrecked your thinking.
You allege that I'm cynical; once again, "skeptical" is more apropos.

Since I saw that your cynicism has made you incapable of rationally contributing to this discussion, yes.
You have yet to demonstrate this cynicism, not that it has any relevance outside of your capacity to let me know how you feel. And this isn't about rational contributions, this is about derailment. You're focusing on what you allege my state of mind is, or what my impressions are, rather than the arguments I provided. As far as this tangent, you've only argued ad hominem.

You decided that Trumps response was politics and responded that way.
Quote me. I remember my response being this:

And that would make you a poor president--not that the lot of them merit much credit or respect with which to start. Whenever one presumes responsibility for a person, a group, let alone the masses, it isn't prudent to dwell on gripes and nuisances. Focus on solutions rather than one's emotions.

Governors saying a president is not welcome and sanctuary cities degrade cohesion and national unity. It makes a country weaker and less able to meet challenges. Telling them "no" would  also show that there are real world consequences to voters for electing morons.
And what of non-voters, and those who voted against these governors? Does the current situation make the same discrimination as you do? That is not a solution--neither a long-term nor short-term one. It's a reaction that exploits a panic.

You're the one who argued exploiting a "panic" in order to make a point about "patriotism," which is just a circumventing reference to obedience.

Derailment from what?
Justifying the withholding of federal officers outside of your emotional capacity.

You are intelligent Athias
But...

when a person says, for example, that marriage is prostitution, what more is there to say?
Where did I state that marriage was prostitution? I stated "legal marriage" is prostitution for the reasons I've already mentioned. "Legal" is an important qualifier.

You seem to believe
Seem is neither an argument, nor an observation. It's your impression; and impressions are irrelevant.

simply saying something is a "tone" argument, or what ever designation you slap onto a discussion, makes it so.
No. Gauging an argument for its logical inconsistencies validates my rendering your argument one of "tone." It was not made on whim. My arguments are always logically consistent. Being aware of all of the logical inconsistencies comes with the territory. And yes, you did make a tone argument.

You are very intelligent
But...

but you may be autistic.
How are the two mutually exclusive? And I "may" be autistic? No, I'm not autistic. That's just another ad hominem.

Which is why I didn't need to.
My explanation was provided after the fact.

It is the same cynicism that informs your opinion of what motivates my suggestion of what Trump should do,
Once again, you are alleging this cynicism and using it to argue ad hominem.

and what motivates people to marry.
Non sequitur. I never argued what motivated people to marry. I argued the motivations under legal marriage.

You are not emotionally able to rationally discuss this.
My emotional capacity is irrelevant in logical discussion.

How was it a mistake? Do you think my analogy of people who see marriage as being prostitution was a guess?
I should have never entertained it because it's an irrelevant tangent. But entertain it I will since we've already gone this far with it.

Not everything is win or lose.
Don't remember stating that it was.

But if you look at a young couple in love,
Couples shouldn't be "in love." "In love" is like an adrenaline rush--it requires novelty and escalation. One ought to "love" like one loves a family member, the characterization of which would include loyalty, intimacy, and consideration.

willing to sacrifice for each other, build a family together, and share the joys of life, and your take is that marriage is very much like prostitution in that each party is leveraging the other in order secure resources under a binding commercial contract, there is not much I can say to you.

What is that you saw when I stated this?:

But yes, marriage under common law (legal marriage) is very much like prostitution in that each party is leveraging the other in order secure resources under a binding commercial contract. I do not argue against long-term relationships, or marriage in and of itself, but the State's incarnation of "marriage" is akin to that of a pimp, and those who participate are their hos.