350
Comments (10)
sorted by:
4
TheThreeSeashells 4 points ago +4 / -0

A lot of black-pillers in here today acting like they can. This will likely turn out no differently than any of Obama's similarly empty actions in relation to gun control. If anything, it will be just another push for states to start asserting their rights even more than they've been doing.

3
War_Hamster 3 points ago +3 / -0

That's exactly the conclusion we came up with tonight at a Patriot meeting.

States Rights needs to become part of the public discourse.

2
FAhayek 2 points ago +2 / -0

Been spreading that since 2008. The left should want it just as bad, with legal weed being a popular reason. I always said, if Bernie Sanders wanted to run for anything he should have run for Governor of Vermont where he's from. He could try his socialism there and people would flock to Vermont. If it worked, it worked!

but we all know why it wouldn't work, because it would require resources from other states to function and everything would be sucked up dry then they'd need help from other states, wouldn't let people leave, etc and it'd get ugly quick. Lol, 1st year would be dope tho, but all the artistic murals, street music and chanting can't fill your stomach with food and won't keep the heat on in winter.

And we can most likely assume that Bernie was either too afraid to run for Governor because he may have actually won that, and then he'd actually have to govern people and that's hard work. He'd actually have to nut-up and prove Socialism could work. Nope! not Bernie!

1
War_Hamster 1 point ago +1 / -0

Interesting turn of the conversation to Bernie. I'm not sure that happened, but I mostly agree with your conclusions.

Going back to the original topic, Dem states won't vote for States Rights because their whole religion is based on the strong central gov't. The State must not be questioned!!!!

That's reason #1765c to repeal the 17th Amendment.

2
TheThreeSeashells 2 points ago +2 / -0

I don't even think of any Federal level "representatives" as an answer to anything anymore. They're just people collecting a check at this point. We assert states rights which lead to "virtual secession" which will hopefully give states more of a taste for the actual thing further down the road.

1
War_Hamster 1 point ago +1 / -0

We need to put some efforts into the purple states. I'm still hoping for a Convention of States to really change our course.

1
TheThreeSeashells 1 point ago +1 / -0

I had hopes for the CofS but there's not enough support for it. I think the biggest problem is it requires all the states to get together and our side is useless when it comes to that. The best route is via "Virtual Secession" which is essentially what's been going on in many states: Taking action to override unlawful Federal actions. States don't need to organize together and can take individual action. My hope is that it eventually leads to all those states finally realizing they essentially have a coalition and take the next step. Whether that be a legitimate push for a CofS or actual secession, that's fine with me.

The problem with a lot of people on our side is they expect people to go from zero to 100 immediately. If it's not "here's everything you demanded in one lump sum" it's not good enough. We can't devour the whole meal by opening our mouths and pouring the food in. We have to take it bite by bite. I'm not saying we "eat" slowly, but just that the "all-or-nothing right now" approach will never work and while our side complains and calls for an armed uprising that will never happen, the enemy will just keep on "eating."

2
EvilGuy 2 points ago +2 / -0

Yup this clown show doesn't stop until we stop it.

We need to quit waiting for someone else to take action for us.

1
deleted 1 point ago +1 / -0
1
WildRiot 1 point ago +1 / -0

Blue states will champion the new EO, some red will fight it in court where it eventually loses