You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–] [deleted] 1 point 14 points (+15|-1) ago 

[Deleted]

0
2

[–] QuickMafs 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

They still won't give us any of that either, do you seriously expect these people to actually be consistent?

1
1

[–] klobos 1 point 1 point (+2|-1) ago 

This is a good thing. States rights over federal rights. The way it is supposed to be. Now states can choose to be sanctuaries and prosper or fail from their decisions. This should be applied to every major issue, like abortion, for example. Let states decide and after a few short years we would see which decisions are good and which aren't.

0
3

[–] InyourfaceNancyGrace 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

Just so we refuse them federal aid when they become the burning piles of refuse they're setting themselves up to be. I'm sick of pouring money into cities with failed policies that refuse to change the policies that made them failures in the first place.

0
1

[–] DanglingGoatBalls 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

Let states decide and after a few short years we would see which decisions are good and which aren't.

That would work if the (((Governors))) and (((Mayors))) were not (((controlled))). Even though the red states didn't do the virus lockdown as hard as the blue states they still played the game enough to seriously fuck the health of medium and small businesses.

I seriously doubt there are hardly any Governors left that are not Freemasons.

0
0

[–] RedBullTrooper ago 

That was my first thought too.

It’s a back handed way of winning.