Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
As a voter in Wyoming, please don't call my opportunity to voice my choice and opinion regarding government a "fluke". Thank you.
At the risk of going off topic.
Please re-read my post. I wasnt calling you opportunity to vote a fluke, I said the election was. Now I'll be more specific, the circumstances leading up to the election was a fluke. Never in election history did such dramatic, earth shaking things happen a month before an election. And your mistaken if you dont think that didnt effect the outcome. I'm not saying Obama wouldnt have won, but MacCaine was slightly ahead before the crises. So that was a fluke in election history. That would make it harder to gauge public sentiment in Wyoming using the polling data of the last election. Thank you.
Please re-read my post. I wasnt calling you opportunity to vote a fluke, I said the election was. Now I'll be more specific, the circumstances leading up to the election was a fluke. Never in election history did such dramatic, earth shaking things happen a month before an election. And your mistaken if you dont think that didnt effect the outcome. I'm not saying Obama wouldnt have won, but MacCaine was slightly ahead before the crises. So that was a fluke in election history. That would make it harder to gauge public sentiment in Wyoming using the polling data of the last election. Thank you.
Not off-topic at all. I totally understand that you weren't calling my opportunity to vote a fluke. But I reread your post and it appears you ARE calling my vote a fluke. You said:
"This election was something of a fluke because of the 'Bush Factor', the bankning crises and the economy fell off a cliff a month before the election. If I'm not mistaken McCaine/Palin were slightly ahead just before this. So it might be hard to gauge public sentiment in Wyoming by the last election."
As a resident of Wyoming, having lived here I would guess at least a few more years than you, Ct_bow, I don't think it is hard at all to gauge public sentiment in Wyoming from the last election. McCain/Palin were ahead in WY and got the majority of the vote.
I guess I'd like to see your information that influences you to believe those who voted for Obama were influenced by something called the 'Bush Factos'. Everyone I know who voted for Obama was influenced by their personal choice and opinion regarding the issues, and many of those cross party lines in WY. At least in my community, people tend to vote for the issues, not necessarily the party, which does make it a bit difficult to gauge sentiment.
Maybe you can clarify exactly what you were calling a fluke. On yet another reread, it looks like you are calling the results of the last election a fluke, which would be everyone's vote.
Not off-topic at all. I totally understand that you weren't calling my opportunity to vote a fluke. But I reread your post and it appears you ARE calling my vote a fluke. You said:
"This election was something of a fluke because of the 'Bush Factor', the bankning crises and the economy fell off a cliff a month before the election. If I'm not mistaken McCaine/Palin were slightly ahead just before this. So it might be hard to gauge public sentiment in Wyoming by the last election."
As a resident of Wyoming, having lived here I would guess at least a few more years than you, Ct_bow, I don't think it is hard at all to gauge public sentiment in Wyoming from the last election. McCain/Palin were ahead in WY and got the majority of the vote.
I guess I'd like to see your information that influences you to believe those who voted for Obama were influenced by something called the 'Bush Factos'. Everyone I know who voted for Obama was influenced by their personal choice and opinion regarding the issues, and many of those cross party lines in WY. At least in my community, people tend to vote for the issues, not necessarily the party, which does make it a bit difficult to gauge sentiment.
Maybe you can clarify exactly what you were calling a fluke. On yet another reread, it looks like you are calling the results of the last election a fluke, which would be everyone's vote.
I first started this thread because I was curious to know how strong the sentiment was in WY regarding state soverignty and the 10 Ammendment movement building across the country. CptnRn stated ;
Quote:
It is also not as if Wyoming has a united opinion on things, in the last presidential election, 33% of the state voted Democratic.
And I responded;
Quote:
This election was something of a fluke because of the 'Bush Factor', the bankning crises ..................... So it might be hard to gauge public sentiment in Wyoming by the last election. How has Wyoming voted in years past? Were they more united?
You seemed to have overlooked the part I emphasized. The context of my post was given the public sentiment towards Bush and the crises that came out of nowhere and slammed the economy 1 month before the election, it might be hard to gauge public sentiment because I'm sure the circumstances (something of a fluke)swayed the polling numbers in Obama's favor. Maybe not yours, but some people did in fact change their vote, perhaps the fence sitters? That's why I asked how WY voted in the past. That would probably be a better gauge of the sentiment in WY regarding the original topic of the 10th Amm., because nothing earth shatttering happened just before those elections. I dont know, that's why I asked.
ddb_wy, there was no intention on my part to ridicule anyone's vote, including yours. But I was commenting on the circumstances just before the election, the impact it had on the results and gauging public sentiment regarding state soverignty and the 10thA, not Obama. This has nothing to do with the topic of my original post. And since you seem so offedned by my comments and defensive of your Obama vote (voter's remorse?) may I suggest you start a new thread. I would love to join. In the meantime, enjoy your Obamacare, it's the best healthcare Chinese money can buy, because I would like to continue with the original topic.
Speaking to your topic, CT_bow, there is and has been strong sentiment in Wyoming to maintain states' rights. I'm not sure what you mean by "soverignty," however. I don't get around like I used to, but I've never heard anyone in favor of Wyoming becoming a sovereign nation. Most people I know, whether it be the guys in the coffee shop, local and state politicians, or our Representative/Senators in Washington, want less federal government and more control given back to the states. That's not anything new here. Wyoming has been fighting the federal government over states' rights for as long as I've lived here, nearly 40 years. They've fought until money was lost, but it's tough for a little state like Wyoming to win battles with the federal bureaucracy.
I'm also not sure what you mean by not enforcing federal laws. To my knowledge, our city, county and state law enforcement officers enforce city, county and state laws, not federal laws. Isn't that normally left up to the FBI? Maybe I'm mistaken... not a law enforcement guy....
Wyoming can and will seceed from the "Nation". But that doesn't mean that we will seceed from the "Bill of Rights". We Believe in our nation. Be it good or bad.
We have too much land, oil, coal, that is National owned. It's not Wyoming owned. So we have land to be able to DEMAND things, but we can be turned down. The BLM, Oil Land, etc... Is still owned by "The People" of the nations. Its not ours!!!!! We can try to claim it, but it won't do any good.
We've been fighting for state rights for a lot of years. Just haven't figured out quite how to do it. It is certainly more complicated then what you demand.
Speaking to your topic, CT_bow, there is and has been strong sentiment in Wyoming to maintain states' rights. I'm not sure what you mean by "soverignty," however. I don't get around like I used to, but I've never heard anyone in favor of Wyoming becoming a sovereign nation. Most people I know, whether it be the guys in the coffee shop, local and state politicians, or our Representative/Senators in Washington, want less federal government and more control given back to the states. That's not anything new here. Wyoming has been fighting the federal government over states' rights for as long as I've lived here, nearly 40 years. They've fought until money was lost, but it's tough for a little state like Wyoming to win battles with the federal bureaucracy.
I'm also not sure what you mean by not enforcing federal laws. To my knowledge, our city, county and state law enforcement officers enforce city, county and state laws, not federal laws. Isn't that normally left up to the FBI? Maybe I'm mistaken... not a law enforcement guy....
Thanks WyoNewk. You can think of 'state soverignty' as the same as states rights. Each state is soverign with its own constitution, it's own set of laws and it's own form of government. According to the Constitution the Federal Govt does not give power to the states. It's the other way around, each individual soverign state gives power to the Federal Govt over few specific things. Such as the authority to collect taxes, print money, negotiate treaty's with foriegn nations, regulate interstate commerce, establish post offices, post roads, declare war or peace, raise armies, and a few other things not relevant to this discussion. It's shocking to our ears but that's all the power the federal govt has constitutionaly. All other powers are RETAINED by the states. Thats why many laws are different from state to state, because each state is soverign.
As far as enforcing federal laws, every state does it. The federal laws are called the United States Code. Each state adopt's the US Code as part of their state laws. They are not forced to but they wont recieve federal money if they dont. I'll use the 55 MPH speed limit back in the 1970's (I'm pretty sure it was signed into a federal law, I might be wrong but the analogy still works). Wyoming adopted the federal law into their code and tavfeling faster than 55MPH became illegal in WY. But what if the Wy legislature didnt adopt the federal law into their code? And then the Govenor issued an edict to all Wyoming Law Enforcement officials not to enforce the federal law? And what if all 50 states did the same thing (I know it might be a pipe dream but go with me on this)? All the states are within their rights because they are soverign states according to the 10th Ammendment and the federal govt does not have the authority to order them. The govt would never have the resources to enforce this law wiithout cooperation of the states.
This could apply to any laws you want. Enviornmental, building codes, intrastate commerce (not interstate), motor vehicle laws, crimianl laws, civil laws, agricultural laws, education, hunting, fishing, trapping....fill in the blank. I hope this all made sense.
But when you said;
Quote:
there is and has been strong sentiment in Wyoming to maintain states' rights..............Most people I know, whether it be the guys in the coffee shop, local and state politicians, or our Representative/Senators in Washington, want less federal government and more control given back to the states. That's not anything new here. Wyoming has been fighting the federal government over states' rights for as long as I've lived here, nearly 40 years
That's like music to my ears. Maybe these State Soverignty Acts that are passing in the state capitol's will gain momnetum and lead us back to the nation set up by the constitution.
Wyoming can and will seceed from the "Nation". But that doesn't mean that we will seceed from the "Bill of Rights". We Believe in our nation. Be it good or bad.
We have too much land, oil, coal, that is National owned. It's not Wyoming owned. So we have land to be able to DEMAND things, but we can be turned down. The BLM, Oil Land, etc... Is still owned by "The People" of the nations. Its not ours!!!!! We can try to claim it, but it won't do any good.
We've been fighting for state rights for a lot of years. Just haven't figured out quite how to do it. It is certainly more complicated then what you demand.
I hear ya ElkHunter. I think you and a few other states like Texas have been trying but its hard trying to go it on your own. But like I said, this State Soverignty movement seems to be gaining momentum across the nation. This current administration is throwing alot of fuel on that fire and I dont think it plans on stopping. If enough states ban together, which they are doing, they can put the power back where it belongs, in the hands of the people.
Speaking to your topic, CT_bow, there is and has been strong sentiment in Wyoming to maintain states' rights. I'm not sure what you mean by "soverignty," however. I don't get around like I used to, but I've never heard anyone in favor of Wyoming becoming a sovereign nation. Most people I know, whether it be the guys in the coffee shop, local and state politicians, or our Representative/Senators in Washington, want less federal government and more control given back to the states. That's not anything new here. Wyoming has been fighting the federal government over states' rights for as long as I've lived here, nearly 40 years. They've fought until money was lost, but it's tough for a little state like Wyoming to win battles with the federal bureaucracy.
I'm also not sure what you mean by not enforcing federal laws. To my knowledge, our city, county and state law enforcement officers enforce city, county and state laws, not federal laws. Isn't that normally left up to the FBI? Maybe I'm mistaken... not a law enforcement guy....
Unless the federal government collapses as the Soviet Union did, secession, or a full assertion that Wyoming is a sovereign nation, seem unlikely. But what should cause grave concern to those who believe that states are nothing more than administrative subdivisions is the fact that secession is even being mentioned. This would have been inconceivable five years ago. But people are angry. So are their representatives. Since the latter days of the Bush administration, and continuing into the Obama administration, it's been clear that there are two classes in this country. One class is composed of favored corporations that can count on limitless aid from the federal government. The other class is composed of those who are paying for it. A large number of citizens are well aware that they have been betrayed by both parties.
As far as law enforcement is concerned, states almost always render aid and assistance to federal agencies. One common service is the arrest of persons in the course of traffic stops who are sought on federal warrants. I do not believe that states are required to do this. We are now seeing a debate here as to whether law enforcement officers in Wyoming should do it.
Twenty years ago, few thought to see the demise of the Soviet Union. But a year later it was gone. It could happen here.
ddb_wy, there was no intention on my part to ridicule anyone's vote, including yours. But I was commenting on the circumstances just before the election, the impact it had on the results and gauging public sentiment regarding state soverignty and the 10thA, not Obama. This has nothing to do with the topic of my original post. And since you seem so offedned by my comments and defensive of your Obama vote (voter's remorse?) may I suggest you start a new thread. I would love to join. In the meantime, enjoy your Obamacare, it's the best healthcare Chinese money can buy, because I would like to continue with the original topic.
Easy now, Ct_bow. I just don't offend that easily. And you aren't ridiculing my vote, just calling it a "fluke". I get all that! My original response was short, brief, and polite.
As a voter in Wyoming, please don't call my opportunity to voice my choice and opinion regarding government a "fluke". Thank you.
I was simply disagreeing with your assumption that democrats who voted for Obama in WY did it on a fluke. Disagreements arise all the time on this board. I certainly hope threads aren't only welcome to those who agree with OP'ers.
And I have no voter's remorse nor do I think this is off-topic. The discussion regarding states' rights led to the discussion of what the public sentiment is in WY - and when CptnRn gave us info about election results, you said they were a fluke. I simply joined the conversation, as did other posters.
Sorry I got your dander up, Ct_bow. Let the Succession discussion continue without any dissenting viewpoints. . . . . .
Wyoming can and will seceed from the "Nation". But that doesn't mean that we will seceed from the "Bill of Rights". We Believe in our nation. Be it good or bad.
We have too much land, oil, coal, that is National owned. It's not Wyoming owned. So we have land to be able to DEMAND things, but we can be turned down. The BLM, Oil Land, etc... Is still owned by "The People" of the nations. Its not ours!!!!! We can try to claim it, but it won't do any good.
We've been fighting for state rights for a lot of years. Just haven't figured out quite how to do it. It is certainly more complicated then what you demand.
ElkHunter, I'm confused by your statement "Wyoming can and will seceed from the "Nation". It seems to be contradicted by all of your subsequent comments. Could you explain what you meant?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
