USA Mid-Term Election Results

[Valsuelm]

It's f**king bull**** that weed (or any drug) is illegal. One would think that the self described, 'conservatives' would be interested in traditional American values, but no; they're just statist radicals. The government has no right to determine what we do or do not consume.

 

As I already said:

 

.......it's a myth that Republicans are against legalizing marijuana and Democrats are for it.

 

It is not a 'conservative' vs. 'liberal' or whomever issue. Never has been.

[Valsuelm]

To be fair the Articles of Confederation era of the US was only ever meant to be temporary. The founders themselves would be the ones to end the idea that the states are sovereign.

 

No. They did not. The idea that the states are sovereign is codified in the U.S. Constitution to this day, though not as much as it was during the first decades and century or so of the republic. There have been a few major blows to the States being in charge. First and foremost would be the U.S. Civil War / War of Northern Aggression. Followed not too far behind by the 16th and 17th amendments, the Federal Reserve Act, and many rulings by FDR's packed SCOTUS.

 

To this day though, the states are indeed Constitutionally in charge of a great deal more than most think they are. The biggest obstacle states probably have these days isn't the federal government itself, but people such as yourself who "don't see what's so great about state's rights". Or worse, the many others for whom the concept of states rights doesn't even exist.

 

As for your concern for state's rights: The usefulness of state's rights is only really a result of a deeper problem; the government governs too much. When the founders established our legal system they intended for the US to develop towards John Locke philosophy, but we lost our way (mainly due to Christian zealots). Deal with the lack of John Locke, and you'll fix the problems with the federal government.

 

Personally, I don't see what's so great about state's rights. Sure, in this case it give us more freedom, but what if weed was federally legal? Would you support an individual state's right to ban it? I say f**k that. I'll accept state's rights only when it conforms to John Locke philosophy; otherwise 'state's rights' can give us things like Jim Crow.

It would behoove you to endeavor to step outside the box you're in in regards to 'conservatives' vs. whomever, and the largely mythical political arm of the Christian zealot club. They have oodles less power than you think, and the vast majority of Christians, like most other folks, aren't zealots of any kind.

Edited November 9, 2014 by Valsuelm

[Valsuelm]

 

Maher is a class A moron. A bitter shallow minded semi comedic hack that seems to find fans from other politically shallow minded, jaded, or bitter folks. If you're going to listen to a modern guy who thinks he's a comedian take on the news at least listen to someone who is occasionally amusing like Colbert or Stewart. No one alive I know of has anything on Carlin or Hicks though, both of whom were far more intelligent and funny than any of the aforementioned.

I do listen to Colbert and Stewart. That doesn't change the fact that Maher is right about this. And about a great many other things as well.

 

"Trickle down economy" has never worked! Not once. Not in any country, anywhere, ever! It is complete and utter nonsense. Tax cuts for the wealthy serves one purpose and one purpose alone. Make the wealthy wealthier! The don't create more jobs, when they get richer, they don't buy more. They just get richer. And the money accumulates on fewer and fewer hands. What makes the wealthy create more jobs and invest more money in production is one thing and one thing only: More demand for what ever it is they make money on.

 

Taxes is about taking money from the rich and put them back in circulation. You want to get a capitalist economy working? Raise the taxes on the wealthy and lower it for the middle and the lowest incomes. They get more money, they spend more money. On stuff. Stuff that other people produce. It is so simple that anyone who's not a greedy, right wing politician or millionaire can see it.

 

Another person in a box, a much smaller one.

 

Think! Look at the evidence and think! Stop regurgitating BS spouted by countless talking heads on TV.

 

The entire dialogue in regards to 'trickle down economics' is a farce. A red herring. It's got as much to do with the real world as the musings of prepubescent kids on where the boogie man goes during the day time.

 

The very rich (and even many others) don't pay much or any income taxes. They never have, and they never will. 501 (c )s and their like are one of the big reasons why, but there are many other ways to avoid taxes, some legal, some illegal.

 

The national income tax is an evil perpetrated upon citizens of nation X by the very rich. It's a superb control mechanism and a nifty way to help smudge the books to justify the fantasy banking system most of the world operates on. It is absolutely no coincidence that the U.S. got it's income tax at the same time the Federal Reserve Banking System was started.

 

You've got a lot to learn.

 

Here's two tips of the iceberg to start at:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H56FUHgqRNE

Edited November 9, 2014 by Valsuelm

[Volourn]

"That was bizarre. I kinda wished the reporter had persisted. I mean he didn't walk away but tried to bully his way out of a question."

 

Reporter should have either pressed charges for threats of murder or dumped HIM over the balcony. he has a clear cut case of self defense.

[Wrath of Dagon]

 

 

I got a laugh out of this

The butthurt is strong with this one. A few left-leaning states voted as expected, this is supposed to prove something? True raising the minimum wage is fairly popular, but mostly only people earning the minimum wage feel strongly about it. And as we have seen, states that want it are perfectly capable of doing it for themselves, it doesn't have to be done at the federal level.

 

 

WOD when do you think Texas will legalize Marijuana for recreational use? I imagine this will take some time as I consider Texas conservative when it comes to these types of issues?

 

Hopefully never. I'd say at least not for 10 years. And there is no dichotomy, Federal law supersedes state, so marijuana is still illegal in all 50 states, the current administration just chooses to ignore the law, as they do in so many other cases.

[Namutree]

 

It's f**king bull**** that weed (or any drug) is illegal. One would think that the self described, 'conservatives' would be interested in traditional American values, but no; they're just statist radicals. The government has no right to determine what we do or do not consume.

 

As I already said:

 

.......it's a myth that Republicans are against legalizing marijuana and Democrats are for it.

 

It is not a 'conservative' vs. 'liberal' or whomever issue. Never has been.

 

While that statement is true; Bruce mentioned conservatives in relation to prohibition. So I talked about prohibition supporting 'conservatives' as they incorrectly deem themselves. I wasn't trying to imply that only the 'conservatives' are for prohibition. 

 

 

 

To this day though, the states are indeed Constitutionally in charge of a great deal more than most think they are. The biggest obstacle states probably have these days isn't the federal government itself, but people such as yourself who "don't see what's so great about state's rights".

 

Let me ask you this. If a state pushes a law like prohibition or forced racial segregation on people; should that blatant violation of their personal/private property be acceptable?

[Namutree]

 

Hopefully never. 

 

Really? The prohibition of marijuana is 10,000x the problem that recreational marijuana use is.

[Hurlshort]

 

 

Hopefully never. 

 

Really? The prohibition of marijuana is 10,000x the problem that recreational marijuana use is.

 

 

I'm going to go out on a limb and say your statistical analysis might be a bit off.  

 

 

I'm for intelligent legalization, but there are a ton of problems that need to be addressed.  The DUI question alone is a huge puzzle.

[Namutree]

 

 

 

Hopefully never. 

 

Really? The prohibition of marijuana is 10,000x the problem that recreational marijuana use is.

 

 

I'm going to go out on a limb and say your statistical analysis might be a bit off.  

 

 

I'm for intelligent legalization, but there are a ton of problems that need to be addressed.  The DUI question alone is a huge puzzle.

 

It was hyperbole. I didn't mean that literally.

[Valsuelm]

 

Let me ask you this. If a state pushes a law like prohibition or forced racial segregation on people; should that blatant violation of their personal/private property be acceptable?

 

 

 

State and Federal laws already force various prohibitions and racial segregations on people. Hello encyclopedia long laundry list of things one cannot do or own legally, and hello 'affirmative action' and other race based government funded things/decisions. In regards to the former, it depends on what we're prohibiting if I find it acceptable or not, though I'm generally against any kind of 'zero tolerance' laws, in regards to the latter it's never acceptable.

 

Your point?

[Valsuelm]

 

 

 

Hopefully never. 

 

Really? The prohibition of marijuana is 10,000x the problem that recreational marijuana use is.

 

 

I'm going to go out on a limb and say your statistical analysis might be a bit off.  

 

 

I'm for intelligent legalization, but there are a ton of problems that need to be addressed.  The DUI question alone is a huge puzzle.

 

 

There is no puzzle in regards to the 'DUi question'. It's already illegal to drive while your ability is impaired in every state in the nation. It's a law that isn't enforced all that often though, as DWI laws (driving while intoxicated, specifically in regards to alcohol) are far more lucrative as well as generally easier for the government to enforce.

 

That said, I think a lot of people would be surprised just how common it is for people to drive while their ability is impaired. Be it from being too tired, popping one's favorite psychotropic, some other legal drug as ordained by big pharma and their locale priest some like to think of as their doctor, texting while driving, putting one's make up on, or whatever else. There's probably not a licensed driver in this forum that hasn't been guilty of driving while their ability was impaired at one point in time or another. Millions of people do it every single day, and there's probably no point in time where there's more of them on the road doing it than that morning 'rush hour'.

 

Intelligent legalization is legalization. That's it. Make it legal, end of story.

Edited November 10, 2014 by Valsuelm

[Hurlshort]

 

There is no puzzle in regards to the 'DUi question'. It's already illegal to drive while your ability is impaired in every state in the nation. It's a law that isn't enforced all that often though, as DWI laws (driving while intoxicated, specifically in regards to alcohol) are far more lucrative as well as generally easier for the government to enforce.

 

 

Exactly, hence the need to approach legalization intelligently.  It is hard to enforce when people are under the influence of pot.  In most states, just the smell or a small amount is enough to get the driver off the road, but if it is a legal substance, that no longer happens.  So we need a better system to police it.

 

 

That said, I think a lot of people would be surprised just how common it is for people to drive while their ability is impaired. Be it from being too tired, popping one's favorite psychotropic, some other legal drug as ordained by big pharma and their locale priest some like to think of as their doctor, texting while driving, putting one's make up on, or whatever else. There's probably not a licensed driver in this forum that hasn't been guilty of driving while their ability was impaired at one point in time or another. Millions of people do it every single day, and there's probably no point in time where there's more of them on the road doing it than that morning 'rush hour'.

 

Intelligent legalization is legalization. That's it. Make it legal, end of story.

 

Wait, what?  So we should just accept that people are going to drive under the influence, and ignore the issue?  

[ShadySands]

Colorado is funding a THC breathalyzer and a Canadian company from Canadia claims to already have a working prototype

 

Sorry, this stuff is newsworthy here

[Valsuelm]

 

 

There is no puzzle in regards to the 'DUi question'. It's already illegal to drive while your ability is impaired in every state in the nation. It's a law that isn't enforced all that often though, as DWI laws (driving while intoxicated, specifically in regards to alcohol) are far more lucrative as well as generally easier for the government to enforce.

 

 

Exactly, hence the need to approach legalization intelligently.  It is hard to enforce when people are under the influence of pot.  In most states, just the smell or a small amount is enough to get the driver off the road, but if it is a legal substance, that no longer happens.  So we need a better system to police it.

 

 

That said, I think a lot of people would be surprised just how common it is for people to drive while their ability is impaired. Be it from being too tired, popping one's favorite psychotropic, some other legal drug as ordained by big pharma and their locale priest some like to think of as their doctor, texting while driving, putting one's make up on, or whatever else. There's probably not a licensed driver in this forum that hasn't been guilty of driving while their ability was impaired at one point in time or another. Millions of people do it every single day, and there's probably no point in time where there's more of them on the road doing it than that morning 'rush hour'.

 

Intelligent legalization is legalization. That's it. Make it legal, end of story.

 

Wait, what?  So we should just accept that people are going to drive under the influence, and ignore the issue?  

 

 

No.

 

As I said, it's already illegal to drive while your ability is impaired. Just because pot becomes legal doesn't mean it's suddenly ok to drive around stoned, any more than it's ok to drive around while your ability is impaired due to all sorts of currently legal substances. The issue is one in your head, not in reality.

Edited November 10, 2014 by Valsuelm

[Valsuelm]

Colorado is funding a THC breathalyzer and a Canadian company from Canadia claims to already have a working prototype

 

Sorry, this stuff is newsworthy here

 

I imagine that will be about as accurate as the BAC breathalyzer, which is to say: not accurate at all. But that won't stop folks from using them, or government contracts aplenty being made to commission their construction.

 

I will find humor in whatever is deemed the 'legal limit' of THC on the breathe though. That will truly be amusing.

Edited November 10, 2014 by Valsuelm

[BruceVC]

 

 

 

There is no puzzle in regards to the 'DUi question'. It's already illegal to drive while your ability is impaired in every state in the nation. It's a law that isn't enforced all that often though, as DWI laws (driving while intoxicated, specifically in regards to alcohol) are far more lucrative as well as generally easier for the government to enforce.

 

 

Exactly, hence the need to approach legalization intelligently.  It is hard to enforce when people are under the influence of pot.  In most states, just the smell or a small amount is enough to get the driver off the road, but if it is a legal substance, that no longer happens.  So we need a better system to police it.

 

 

That said, I think a lot of people would be surprised just how common it is for people to drive while their ability is impaired. Be it from being too tired, popping one's favorite psychotropic, some other legal drug as ordained by big pharma and their locale priest some like to think of as their doctor, texting while driving, putting one's make up on, or whatever else. There's probably not a licensed driver in this forum that hasn't been guilty of driving while their ability was impaired at one point in time or another. Millions of people do it every single day, and there's probably no point in time where there's more of them on the road doing it than that morning 'rush hour'.

 

Intelligent legalization is legalization. That's it. Make it legal, end of story.

 

Wait, what?  So we should just accept that people are going to drive under the influence, and ignore the issue?  

 

 

No.

 

As I said, it's already illegal to drive while your ability is impaired. Just because pot becomes legal doesn't mean it's suddenly ok to drive around stoned, any more than it's ok to drive around while your ability is impaired due to all sorts of currently legal substances. The issue is one in your head, not in reality.

 

 

This is actually a very valid point, I hear what Hurlshot is  saying as I hear similar arguments in South Africa.." we can't legalize Marijuana because people will come to work stoned and be  unproductive " ( this is similar to the concern of people driving on weed )

 

But if you come to work stoned this would be the same as coming to work drunk. You would get fired, just because something is legal and it impacts your senses this doesn't mean people will automatically do it in environments where this is unacceptable. And this applies to driving and working

[Keyrock]

While it was not really surprising, it still was eye opening just how thoroughly the democrats got their asses handed to them.  And you know what?  I'm happy about that.  In fact, I contributed to that.  I've been a democrat my entire life, since I was old enough to understand the difference between democrat and republican.  I became more moderate as I got older, but I always continued to identify myself as a democrat...  until somewhat recently.  I've been steadily losing faith in the party for many years now.  I was never very hard left, in fact, there have always been issues I tended to lean right on, but even the issues I've been heavily in with the left on, like foreign policy, they've lost me.  I wouldn't call myself a republican now, but I also sure as hell don't consider myself a democrat either, whatever the **** that even means these days.

 

Hopefully the dems get just as thoroughly routed 2 years from now as they did a couple days ago.  I have no illusions that a government firmly in control of the right will bring miraculous changes, the fact is that the two party system is so utterly broken that neither dems nor republicans are really the answer, but I sure as hell want the democrats out of power.

[BruceVC]

While it was not really surprising, it still was eye opening just how thoroughly the democrats got their asses handed to them.  And you know what?  I'm happy about that.  In fact, I contributed to that.  I've been a democrat my entire life, since I was old enough to understand the difference between democrat and republican.  I became more moderate as I got older, but I always continued to identify myself as a democrat...  until somewhat recently.  I've been steadily losing faith in the party for many years now.  I was never very hard left, in fact, there have always been issues I tended to lean right on, but even the issues I've been heavily in with the left on, like foreign policy, they've lost me.  I wouldn't call myself a republican now, but I also sure as hell don't consider myself a democrat either, whatever the **** that even means these days.

 

Hopefully the dems get just as thoroughly routed 2 years from now as they did a couple days ago.  I have no illusions that a government firmly in control of the right will bring miraculous changes, the fact is that the two party system is so utterly broken that neither dems nor republicans are really the answer, but I sure as hell want the democrats out of power.

 

Your post doesn't really reveal what issues and decisions the Democrats did that made you lose faith and confidence in them, can you give more detail ?

Edited November 11, 2014 by BruceVC

[Guard Dog]

The US Democrat Party today is a long way from the one you grew up knowing Keyrock. If JFK were around today they wouldn't even have him, let alone nominate him for President. They are very much advocates of aggressive and heavy handed government. They have no respect for individual rights and often regard people who actually have a different political view as enemies to be suppressed. Does that fact that during Obama's admin, and even during Clinton's to a lesser extent the IRS has become "weaponized" to act as the lefts private thought police even surprise you? Does the fact that they have ruthlessly harassed PAC groups that even sounded like they might oppose the President surprise you. Does the idea that the administration considered using military force against American citizens in a local land dispute over grazing fees surprise you? Does the idea that they believe it is perfectly ok for the federal government to compel everyone to enter into a contract with a third party of their choosing surprise you? They are in favor of warrantless spying on our own citizens, invading our homes and seizing private property, secretive courts, secretive legislature sessions, using the courts to subpoena the sermons of pastors in church because they don't like what the pastors said. Does it surprise you that we even had to have a debate over whether it is ok for the US President to order the summary execution of a US Citizen using a drone? 

 

All of this was done by democrats in power. Much but not all of it was from the current administration. Don't get me wrong, I hate the US Republican Party. They are hypocritical, not at all ashamed to use the government stick when it suits them while talking about reducing government. They are a fractious and contentious alliance of three political factions that cannot co-exist but somehow do. But the truth is they are such a lesser evil that the alternative. The more the left takes over the US Democrat party the more they become a threat to life, limb and liberty.

 

They are not all bad. Far from it. But I'd never cast a vote for even one of them because even the good and contentious Democrats empower a political philosophy that is so opposed to everything that I and people like me value it would not be a stretch to call it evil.

[Gorgon]

And in 8 years or so we will have more or less the same discussion about the republicans. It's obvious isn't it, they are all scum. In ancient Rome it was impossible to run for office without having done something the people would remember you for, usually it was military service but it could be building temples and infrastructure. Corruption was very much out in the open, making it that much easier to guess who really owned who, no need for PACs and lobby firms. 

[Keyrock]

Your post doesn't really reveal what issues and decisions the Democrats did that made you lose faith and confidence in them, can you give more detail ?

 

Under the recent-ish democratic regime, federal government has pushed its fingers deeper and deeper in every facet of my life.  The guise of making sure everyone is covered for basic human needs has worn very thin (read: disappeared completely) in my eyes, it's pretty clear it's about control.  Just how far the democrats of today (I'm speaking in broad terms, of course) have shifted away from the moderate left leaning days of decades past toward the socialist far left end of the spectrum scares me.  Both extremes of the spectrum, the far left and the far right, are scary as hell, but while I've personally identified most closely on the majority of issues with the moderate left, especially on social policy and foreign policy (the biggest exception being fiscal policy, where I've always leaned a bit to the right), the far left has always scared me more than the far right, and especially on social policy.  The far left, which is where I see the current democrats shifting toward, absolutely frightens me.

 

Gorgon is right, though.  The two-party system is so utterly corrupt and broken that the right having firm control of the federal government isn't going to improve things a whole lot, but at least maybe the illusion of a shift away from the socialist left will help me sleep better at night, or so I tell myself.

[Hurlshort]

It would be nice if everyone ignored party lines and just voted for who they thought the best candidate is.

[Rostere]

The two-party system follows from game theory, given the current democratic system in the US. If we assume that most people have the same political axis (or possibly several axes which happen to align which each other) as most important factor when deciding which party to vote for, a third party is a nonsensical idea. The only people who are likely to get elected without affiliation to either Democrats or Republicans are people who have jumped ship from one of the parties, or people who were already famous and rich enough to fund their own campaign. It's a system which naturally converges to two (meaningful) choices only for the voter.

 

You could call it "the Nader effect" if you want.

Edited November 11, 2014 by Rostere

[ShadySands]

It would be nice if everyone ignored party lines and just voted for who they thought the best candidate is.

 

Right, we might as well just vote for parties instead of individuals since it seems like that's what most people do anyway

[Guard Dog]

 

It would be nice if everyone ignored party lines and just voted for who they thought the best candidate is.

 

Right, we might as well just vote for parties instead of individuals since it seems like that's what most people do anyway

 

The problem would not be as bad if the political parties did not ruthlessly punish politicians who break with the party line. If you go against party leadership too often, no matter how right you might be or how much you constituency wants you to you will find yourself facing a well financed and leadership endorsed primary challenger.