The problem with rights is they're not universal laws. They are something we made up for the good of the people, based on consensus. The reason for the rights that initially were written in, is because they were widely agreed upon. Eventually at least. This is why the Federal Gov should not be pushing states around. If the state is against rights the Gov is promoting, then the state should be given the time to make changes, or decide not to. You can bet if certain states knew that the Gov would end up with as much power as it has, and would push rights and laws, etc, that they may be against, without the power to stop it, they very well may have never joined in the first place.

In terms of leaving people behind, it happens all the time, everyday, in every way. That's life. Just because the Federal Gov decided to make up a new right and push it on the states, shouldn't mean that they have to just bend over and accept it. Sure this sounds fine when the rights seem worthy to some, but what about if they don't seem worthy to others, or many even? If the Gov can just force rights on states and their people immediately, what about if and/or when they decide to force them to do something unthinkable? Should the states just blindly obey? What's good and what's not, exactly?

A Federal Gov with less power means less efficiency in terms of getting done what it decides it wants to, but leaves people with more freedom and choice to their lives, and existing rights in general. If new rights truly make sense, eventually they will be agreed upon and pushed through. Until then, whoever wants those rights, is free to do as they please until then for the most part. Protest, move to another state that has instated the right for the time being, move back if your state eventually agree's to implement it, etc.

Is force more preferable over choice? Is efficiency more preferable over existing rights?

Interesting to hear you say this right after saying "rights trump efficiency". How did we get from an assertion that rights are what we should be focusing on, to "the problem with rights...."?

As for your arguments here, I don't buy it:

1) If the state is against rights the Gov is promoting, then the state should be given the time to make changes, or decide not to: Why though? There isn't really any argument here.

2) In terms of leaving people behind, it happens all the time, everyday, in every way. That's life: That isn't a defense of anything. Its kind of fucked, actually. Injustice being common is in no way a defense of injustice, and saying that justice will come eventually does nothing to those who are suffering under the current system.

3) If the Gov can just force rights on states and their people immediately, what about if and/or when they decide to force them to do something unthinkable?: Hence why we have checks and balances in our federal government system.

4) A Federal Gov with less power means less efficiency in terms of getting done what it decides it wants to, but leaves people with more freedom and choice to their lives: No it doesn't. It leaves STATES with more freedom and choice. States can then choose to use that freedom to deprive people of freedoms, as they often do.

The point is those initial rights didn't just pop into existence, and weren't scientifically proven. They were instated based on consensus and choice. Meaning new rights should follow the same process. Which means you should let the states decide on their own, and if they don't want it for now, then that's their choice. If they later decide they should because it's the right thing to do, or they pay for it financially, etc, they will eventually make it so.

1) I already said, if and/or when the Gov decides to force the states to instate the unthinkable, because the Gov knows best, then what?

2) So you're saying if I want justice, and I think that justice is death, I should be able to kill someone on the spot because waiting would be unacceptable?

3) Those checks and balances are why the Gov shouldn't be forcing the states to bend to their will, and why the states may take longer or disagree.

4) Freedom does not mean anyone can do whatever they want, whenever they want. Freedom means being as free as possible based on what the system allows.

0) I mean, rights weren't always decided on by consensus. A little thing called "The Civil War" happened to get some of those to be instated. But even if the Civil War never happened, and all rights were decided on by consensus and choice and holding hands, the fact that this happened in the past is not an argument for how things should be. There is no assertion of correctness within that statement. You keep saying "should" but you have not proven it.

1) And I already said, we already have checks and balances in place within the federal government to ensure that doesn't happen. However, that point is actually meaningless here, because what you are talking about is the power to make change. Whether or not the federal government chooses to grant non-"unthinkable rights" now has no influence on their power to grant "unthinkable rights" in the future, so this is entirely irrelevant.

2) No. That is dumb. And I have no idea what you are trying to say with that comparison (as per usual). I am saying that the Federal Government shouldn't sit idly by while the states infringe on individual rights.

3) You forgot to make an argument here... oops (also, see point 1).

4) So if the system were to put me into slavery, I would be free if I exercised my right to walk around for an hour after work, because that is "being as free as possible based on what the system allows". You seem to have made a really bad argument here. I will give you a moment to rethink and rephrase, because holy shit, that is a bad argument.

Just because things were a certain way in the past, doesn't mean they should be that way now?

Then why are you constantly using examples based on past knowledge to make your points now? Why not just make everything up? Maybe because it wouldn't be widely accepted or justified?

You fucking me right now?

You should not even have to ask that question, because it is incredibly bad. Literally every bad policy or decision throughout all of history proves that, no, just because things were a certain way in the past, doesn't mean they should be that way now.

That doesn't mean just make everything up, it means utilize the available knowledge in order to create the best outcomes. Like, dude...maybe you need a break. Take a week and get back to me...

Quick thought about he 2016 election popular vote.  While Trump lost the popular vote by ~3 million votes, he actually lost the total vote by much more than that.  When you add in everybody that voted against Trump, it was 63 million for Trump and 74 million against Trump (Clinton, Stein, Johnson and others).

That's 46% of the vote which fits in almost perfectly with his highest level of support.  But it really goes to show that the majority of the voting public never supported him in the first place.

But who is president?  Who is being impeached?  Who is proclaiming that the majority of Americans wanted (still want) Trump as president?

This also further shows how antiquated the electoral college is.  It wasn't really a 48.9% to 51.1% disparity, it was a 45.9% to 54.1% disparity. Far larger than the margins that are often discussed.

It's only been two days, TWO DAYS, into 2020, and already we're on the brink of World War III.

Thanks for nothing in advance, America, and Iran too. We're likely all gonna die because you two are nations lead heartless fanatical idiots, about to take the rest of the world down with you.

Since 2016, America's contributed almost nothing good to the world, and Iran hasn't contributed anything good to the world IN IT'S ENTIRE EXISTENCE.

Honestly, if World War III does happen, if Iran and Turkey both end up reduced to smoldering craters, will the world really be losing anything important?