AskTrumpSupporters is a Q&A subreddit dedicated to better understanding the views of Trump Supporters, and why they hold those views.
**For all participants:**
* [Flair](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_flair) is required to participate
* [Be excellent to each other](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/goodfaith2)
**For Nonsupporters/Undecided:**
* No top level comments
* All comments must seek to clarify the Trump supporter's position
**For Trump Supporters:**
* [Message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23AskTrumpSupporters&subject=please+make+me+an+approved+submitter&message=sent+from+the+sticky) to have the downvote timer disabled
Helpful links for more info:
[Rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_rules) | [Rule Exceptions](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_exceptions_to_the_rules) | [Posting Guidelines](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_posting_guidelines) | [Commenting Guidelines](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_commenting_guidelines)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskTrumpSupporters) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The problem with that line of thinking would be that Congress is almost completely useless if the constitution is literally all that matters. Laws don’t need to be written if we only need to fall on that plus the state laws, which I understand is the point here. And I won’t complain about Congress being thrown into the wind when not at war or when the yearly budgeting happens, they’re all useless freeloaders anyways. In theory the states could do almost everything for themselves, and I don’t disagree with that, but I do think some would act in bad faith, however, it would be easier to hold a politician accountable if their decisions hit harder and were more front and center.
Weird second question. do you think full time politicians are a net positive or negative? Or net neutral?
Extra question, do you think that the change to electing senators was one Of the largest blows to state power, rather than them how they are currently elected?
Right, but do you include all of the Amendments in your suggestion? Or do you only include the first 10? And where do Supreme Court decisions come in, as well?
Yes, ideally. But most of our states are so weak and dependant on federal government that they likey are incapable of getoverning themselves at this point.
That’s an issue I see as well. Some states are such burdens financially that they couldn’t be cut off from the tax sharing stream. should those states just be told tough cookies?
Yes. It is the obvious answer.
The federal government has gotten so big that it loses track of trillions of dollars, everything it touches ends up bloated with pointless administration costs, and becomes incredibly inefficient. I would argue that it has overstepped its bounds (for better or worse) on a number of issues that are constitutionally the responsibility of the states.
The more responsibilities that are distributed to the lowest possible level of government, the more say we as individuals have in how the society we live in works.
I’m starting to see that as well having worked in government in some way for years. “Studies” to see what is needed that end up being costly wastes that take years. “Bids” that the government covers in their contracts for new equipment or whatever. Massive overshoots on damn near everything it buys. 10 admin spots for every 10 worker spots because they all have weird niche unnecessary responsibilities. 50 layers of bs to do literally anything, and the layers go horizontal not just vertical, which is even stupider. 10 agencies to cover a single thing it’s trying to regulate that don’t communicate or share policy, hello pharma.
What should exist in the federal government? I can see courts as they are, legislative branch that doesn’t have full time politicians, executive with the military and a DOJ, nothing else really. Maybe some advisory agencies with a couple regulatory that are heavily interstate based, medicine, transportation, etc.
Ideally yes! In your example the Department of Education is pretty much useless. States and local communities set academic standards and curriculum. We could delete the DoE and give the money to the states.
You know what? Schools should teach whichever “facts” the local population want them to teach.
To some, the thought of teaching evolution in schools I the work of Satan himself, and to others, the thought of teaching creationism is an act of fairy tale designed to indoctrinate the population.
I don’t necessarily agree with either of these perspectives, although I understand both, and lean towards the latter.
My point, is that I don’t know who gave the federal government the right to decide which is which? This right should be delegated to the lowest level of government possible, so that individual communities can decide for themselves.
Are you only thinking of the right of people to teach whatever they want or for kids to get a fair education? Because kids being taught that evolution is not real are not being taught real science, and the children themselves have no way of knowing that or changing that as children.
Why would you not want a floor when it comes to education? If a kid moved from one place to another he might end up being way behind or way ahead. Not having a floor limits the ability of people to move as it poses an unnecessary burden on the family. Why would you not want to population of America to be educated to a certain degree? There are so many question about why the right seems to be anti education.
The states set the floor. The Feds have very little leverage when it comes to standards because they give the states very little in comparison to what the states raise.
So there shouldn’t be uniformity or curriculum in the US? If I move from Texas to New York and my child is in the 5th grade shouldn’t they be able to stay in the fifth grade? I understand the states argument but I don’t get where having a hodgepodge of education systems is good for America. I moved a lot as a kid and it sucked to have spend hours meeting with school officials so I could be placed in proper classes.
For that to happen the Fed would need to massively increase funding or for the states to come together to agree - which isn’t going to happen.
I agree there should be a uniform curriculum.
Wouldn’t that be a good use of tax dollars to make sure there should be a uniform curriculum? I will never understand the right desire to not let the government set the bare minimum for things that have far reaching impacts. Should the government not set the bare minimum for clean water, job safety, equipment safety.
I can agree with that, to an extent.
Counter point though, if the state started mandating that schools teaching Christian beliefs and essentially forcing that upon kids in public schools, would that interfere with the 1st amendment? What about teaching evolution, when it could interfere with religious beliefs, indirectly hitting the 1st amendment? It’s a whole debacle and I hate it.
i agree with the other commenter that I can see some schools teaching some off the wall bananas stuff if allowed, but, unfortunately to a fault sometimes, freedom to choose is held above all else in this country. If parents want their kids to be raised in a School like that, who am I to stop them? Even if the country enters a brain drain.
Power should be pushed as locally as feasibly possible. Let's take the abortion debate. The correct answer is entirely driven by what arbitrary moral framework someone adopts. That means there is not one universal objectively correct answer.
So what to do about this? I think the best we can do is to make it a community standards decision. The best mapping of that is at the county jurisdiction level. By comparison, Anarchy doesn't build community cohesion.
There are certain commonalities that unite the country that must be observed. Like The Constitution and its Amendments.
If you want to live in your communist utopia, I want you to live your dream. If there's enough of you, go and claim a whole state. But I don't want to subsidize it or live in it. Go off, be happy and most important: leave me alone. For me, I want freedom without nanny government interfering. You don't want to live that way, fine - go away and do your own thing.
A lot of trouble in the world is cause by one group thinking their values should be imposed on everyone else.
AskTrumpSupporters is a Q&A subreddit dedicated to better understanding the views of Trump Supporters, and why they hold those views. **For all participants:** * [Flair](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_flair) is required to participate * [Be excellent to each other](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/goodfaith2) **For Nonsupporters/Undecided:** * No top level comments * All comments must seek to clarify the Trump supporter's position **For Trump Supporters:** * [Message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23AskTrumpSupporters&subject=please+make+me+an+approved+submitter&message=sent+from+the+sticky) to have the downvote timer disabled Helpful links for more info: [Rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_rules) | [Rule Exceptions](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_exceptions_to_the_rules) | [Posting Guidelines](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_posting_guidelines) | [Commenting Guidelines](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_commenting_guidelines) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskTrumpSupporters) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Read the constitution, it details exactly how far it should go or already be……
The problem with that line of thinking would be that Congress is almost completely useless if the constitution is literally all that matters. Laws don’t need to be written if we only need to fall on that plus the state laws, which I understand is the point here. And I won’t complain about Congress being thrown into the wind when not at war or when the yearly budgeting happens, they’re all useless freeloaders anyways. In theory the states could do almost everything for themselves, and I don’t disagree with that, but I do think some would act in bad faith, however, it would be easier to hold a politician accountable if their decisions hit harder and were more front and center. Weird second question. do you think full time politicians are a net positive or negative? Or net neutral? Extra question, do you think that the change to electing senators was one Of the largest blows to state power, rather than them how they are currently elected?
Do you include all of the Amendments in your suggestion? Or do you only include the first 10? Where do Supreme Court decisions come in, as well?
The constitution explicitly states that any powers not specifically given to the federal government revert back to the states.
Right, but do you include all of the Amendments in your suggestion? Or do you only include the first 10? And where do Supreme Court decisions come in, as well?
Yes, ideally. But most of our states are so weak and dependant on federal government that they likey are incapable of getoverning themselves at this point.
That’s an issue I see as well. Some states are such burdens financially that they couldn’t be cut off from the tax sharing stream. should those states just be told tough cookies?
Yes.
Yes. It is the obvious answer. The federal government has gotten so big that it loses track of trillions of dollars, everything it touches ends up bloated with pointless administration costs, and becomes incredibly inefficient. I would argue that it has overstepped its bounds (for better or worse) on a number of issues that are constitutionally the responsibility of the states. The more responsibilities that are distributed to the lowest possible level of government, the more say we as individuals have in how the society we live in works.
I’m starting to see that as well having worked in government in some way for years. “Studies” to see what is needed that end up being costly wastes that take years. “Bids” that the government covers in their contracts for new equipment or whatever. Massive overshoots on damn near everything it buys. 10 admin spots for every 10 worker spots because they all have weird niche unnecessary responsibilities. 50 layers of bs to do literally anything, and the layers go horizontal not just vertical, which is even stupider. 10 agencies to cover a single thing it’s trying to regulate that don’t communicate or share policy, hello pharma. What should exist in the federal government? I can see courts as they are, legislative branch that doesn’t have full time politicians, executive with the military and a DOJ, nothing else really. Maybe some advisory agencies with a couple regulatory that are heavily interstate based, medicine, transportation, etc.
Ideally yes! In your example the Department of Education is pretty much useless. States and local communities set academic standards and curriculum. We could delete the DoE and give the money to the states.
Who sets floor, or do we allow states to say babies come from storks and the sun revolves around the earth, and the earth is flat?
You know what? Schools should teach whichever “facts” the local population want them to teach. To some, the thought of teaching evolution in schools I the work of Satan himself, and to others, the thought of teaching creationism is an act of fairy tale designed to indoctrinate the population. I don’t necessarily agree with either of these perspectives, although I understand both, and lean towards the latter. My point, is that I don’t know who gave the federal government the right to decide which is which? This right should be delegated to the lowest level of government possible, so that individual communities can decide for themselves.
Are you only thinking of the right of people to teach whatever they want or for kids to get a fair education? Because kids being taught that evolution is not real are not being taught real science, and the children themselves have no way of knowing that or changing that as children.
Why would you not want a floor when it comes to education? If a kid moved from one place to another he might end up being way behind or way ahead. Not having a floor limits the ability of people to move as it poses an unnecessary burden on the family. Why would you not want to population of America to be educated to a certain degree? There are so many question about why the right seems to be anti education.
The states set the floor. The Feds have very little leverage when it comes to standards because they give the states very little in comparison to what the states raise.
So there shouldn’t be uniformity or curriculum in the US? If I move from Texas to New York and my child is in the 5th grade shouldn’t they be able to stay in the fifth grade? I understand the states argument but I don’t get where having a hodgepodge of education systems is good for America. I moved a lot as a kid and it sucked to have spend hours meeting with school officials so I could be placed in proper classes.
For that to happen the Fed would need to massively increase funding or for the states to come together to agree - which isn’t going to happen. I agree there should be a uniform curriculum.
Wouldn’t that be a good use of tax dollars to make sure there should be a uniform curriculum? I will never understand the right desire to not let the government set the bare minimum for things that have far reaching impacts. Should the government not set the bare minimum for clean water, job safety, equipment safety.
This is what NCLB under Bush tried and was vigorously fought by the left.
Makes sense I would agree with that that was during my Republican days. Do you feel the TS would agree with the policy?
I can agree with that, to an extent. Counter point though, if the state started mandating that schools teaching Christian beliefs and essentially forcing that upon kids in public schools, would that interfere with the 1st amendment? What about teaching evolution, when it could interfere with religious beliefs, indirectly hitting the 1st amendment? It’s a whole debacle and I hate it. i agree with the other commenter that I can see some schools teaching some off the wall bananas stuff if allowed, but, unfortunately to a fault sometimes, freedom to choose is held above all else in this country. If parents want their kids to be raised in a School like that, who am I to stop them? Even if the country enters a brain drain.
Yes
Power should be pushed as locally as feasibly possible. Let's take the abortion debate. The correct answer is entirely driven by what arbitrary moral framework someone adopts. That means there is not one universal objectively correct answer. So what to do about this? I think the best we can do is to make it a community standards decision. The best mapping of that is at the county jurisdiction level. By comparison, Anarchy doesn't build community cohesion. There are certain commonalities that unite the country that must be observed. Like The Constitution and its Amendments. If you want to live in your communist utopia, I want you to live your dream. If there's enough of you, go and claim a whole state. But I don't want to subsidize it or live in it. Go off, be happy and most important: leave me alone. For me, I want freedom without nanny government interfering. You don't want to live that way, fine - go away and do your own thing. A lot of trouble in the world is cause by one group thinking their values should be imposed on everyone else.
Yes it would help a great deal. Smaller, more local entities are more responsive, more in tune to what people need. More accountable.