Quote:
Originally Posted by mickmoranis
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
I'm thinking that you think Trump's going to do any of that is like thinking he's going to start speaking the way you want him to.
Democrats could do this change locally States like California Washington I mean there's a ton of them New York they all could be doing these things but they don't. if you want these things to be done it has to be done by democrats and it has to be done in their states and if you wanted to change you've got to talk to them not to Trump.
|
Your thinking is off. Federal level will always pander to business interest with the best interest of the nation being damned. State's rights only extend to the point of where interstate business interest isn't infringed upon, see: FCC being complicit in net neutrality removals, saying states can enact their own regulations, states enact net neutrality regulations, FCC chair Pai screeches autistically at states doing what he explicitly said they could, businesses file suit with the support of the FCC to stop net neutrality laws at the state level (commerce clause will come into play and the American people, consumers, will likely be fucked). Businesses controlling a privatized back door government regulation (controlling information via the internet for the government based upon a person's ability to pay (poor v rich) for better internet access or access to specific websites) is akin to insurance requirements on firearms in that the first amendment would be infringed upon due to access being based upon income as with what you had said that no insurance regulation for the ownership of guns could be constitutional due to a financial burden upon the citizen.