State's taxes pay for federal funding. If federal funding is pulled for that state, state doesn't need to pay its taxes. Ergo, nothing really changes. 

Trump is a salty b#tch when it comes to democratic states. 

ok so he wants to pull funding to fight those fires? if nothing will be done? but they need money to do something about it... 

It's California's own fault. Years ago they used to do controlled burnings in order to remove mass amounts of under brush that accumulated in case there was a fire it wouldn't spread. Then California banned these burnings because they were "Bad for the environment". So this is what happens.

Cause that's going to help a whole lot... 

@Max_Settings Uhh, no. We used to do those when we had the funding, but our funding for controlling the forest fires of Federally owned forests was decreased, so we don't have the money to do our controlled burns. 

This is what happens when you elect a madman for president of the US hopefully he makes enough enemies that he can't get reelected.

"We don't have the funding to do our controlled burns"  That seems rather bullshit since there is the funding to fight the huge wildfires and whatever else California would rather spend funding on? Whoever in that corrupt state government is claiming there isn't the money to prevent it in the first place should have jail time because people are getting killed from these out of control fires.

Yeah, people are being killed. So by your logic the President should have jail time for being a direct cause of death if he cuts our funding. The President can't win a PR battle where he is literally advocating for more death. 

Then your state should be managing the funds they do have better, instead of politicians pocketing the money and the usual blaming the president for it. Controlled burns don't cost all that much compared to fighting an out of control blaze.

It's because you guys bought a buncha eucalyptus trees from Australia 90 years ago without realizing they're a fire hazard. Not to mention it's been dry as hell in Cali.

But, like, imagine if Trump was actually a good president 

Quote

The President can't win a PR battle where he is literally advocating for more death.

Hmm... 

Quote

Military budget...

Hmm...

Quote

Punching reporters...

Hmm... 

How many calories I'm burning thinking about this:

Why should California get more federal funds when it undermines federal laws and agencies at practically every chance it gets?

I strongly believe in states rights but there also has to be a federal government to keep those states from overreaching.

States' rights, until they try to fix the deficiencies of the federal government with their own state laws

;3c

There's a difference between going against federal law and working within the parameters it has set.

I.E a state trying to enact different immigration laws that go against federal laws and trying to prevent federal agencies from enforcing those federal laws when the state refuses to enforce them.

States have every right to institute freedoms and restrictions that the government hasn't put forth. Net Neturality was greatly supported by the majority of the citizenry, yet the FCC repealed it. It's the state's responsibility to put forth legislation that the citizenry has a strong want and need for. 

I'm really not convinced a majority of people actually knew or cared what it was.

The only ones that cared were people on here and other tech communities who are greatly influenced by the politics of Silicon Valley which has been quickly approaching to killing diversity of thought and creating an echo chamber.

Either way the Supreme Court denied the 2015 hearing on the constitutionality of Obamas Net-Neutrality rules, meaning the states are going to be able to battle this one out and will most likely win. 

I love how you guys make it about Net Neutrality when I was talking about shit like immigration. 10/10.

Gj

Im not really concerned about NN because that sort of stuff falls under the purview of the FCC.

As far as I'm aware states aren't allowed to legislate on something that isn't in their jurisdiction being telecom/internet services.

Yeah but the FCC isn't allowed to legislate on something that isn't in their jurisdiction either. The Supreme Court deciding not to hear their case means that the states more than likely have a case against the FCC. 

The States do the business with the telecom companies, not the feds, and if California wants to install nn rules, the ISPs have no choice but to fight it in court otherwise they lose buisness to ISPs that will follow Californias, and other states, rules. 

Right now, the FCCs right to repeal NN is not a given.  

There probably needs to be a case to determine what jurisdiction FCC has but I'm fairly sure it does have jurisdiction in all 50 states and all the territories.

Doesn't matter if there is an "echo chamber", the vast majority of the people want to see their Internet free from the grasp of ISP's. If an ISP is going to charge Netflix money for faster lanes, it better offer me Netflix for free. There is a clear conflict of interest in an ISP forcing a video competitor to pay a fee for faster service. It's using a dominant position to force competition to shut down or lose market share. The same reasons we play with in the Intel vs AMD discussions apply here, but in this case there's not just one ISP against another, it's all ISP's against video providers. These same ISP's control their own video service, making them direct competitors regardless of "packages". 

If we're talking about immigrants, I don't mind helping refugees. The caravan is coming to a legally established port of entry. It's the job of the federal gov't to vet everyone coming in. If they don't do a good job vetting, they're to blame for the consequences. If the federal government can't apply laws for the people, the states can and should. If the states have to interfere with business, they should especially when it comes to judging monopolies and such. 

I'll be honest about my personal feelings towards netflix is that over the past few years the selection of movies and tv shows has been getting less and less interesting and I mean I understand why they're pushing their original series and movies but not all of their shows are all that good and caring less about non original shows and stuff I feel is maybe not a good idea.

There's a reason I decided to get a TV and Internet package with Comast. Moderately reluctantly but because it'd be easier than paying two different bills. One for Dish Network and another for Comcast's internet.