Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[G-Flex]

What I'd like to see is a political candidate in favor of greater power to the states. The federal government has been taking power from the states, and the states from the local, for a long time.

This is a completely natural process. As time progresses, culture becomes more even/similar across the nation, as do the laws. People move around and communicate a lot more these days, and people and culture are much less regional. We're living in the age of the Internet and mass media, not the Pony Express.

[jryan]

What I'd like to see is a political candidate in favor of greater power to the states. The federal government has been taking power from the states, and the states from the local, for a long time.

This is a completely natural process. As time progresses, culture becomes more even/similar across the nation, as do the laws. People move around and communicate a lot more these days, and people and culture are much less regional. We're living in the age of the Internet and mass media, not the Pony Express.

So you feel the experience of living in California is no different from Texas or Massachusetts or Virginia?  I'm thinking your wrong.

You simply WANT all other places to be like the place that you like, but not everyone wants what you want.

[G-Flex]

What I'd like to see is a political candidate in favor of greater power to the states. The federal government has been taking power from the states, and the states from the local, for a long time.

This is a completely natural process. As time progresses, culture becomes more even/similar across the nation, as do the laws. People move around and communicate a lot more these days, and people and culture are much less regional. We're living in the age of the Internet and mass media, not the Pony Express.

So you feel the experience of living in California is no different from Texas or Massachusetts or Virginia?  I'm thinking your wrong.

You simply WANT all other places to be like the place that you like, but not everyone wants what you want.

That is not what I said whatsoever. I didn't say that every place in the country is culturally identical, just that they are more similar than they were 50, or 100, or 250 years ago. The trend is toward culture becoming less provincial. You are taking that idea and turning into a bizarre, extreme version of itself that I am not trying to support.

[Maggarg - Eater of chicke]

I still lol at people calling Obama a socialist.

[scriver]

I completely understand people who want less federal control over their laws. I hate what the EU is doing to Sweden's laws. For example, Sweden has previously had a very strict control over what animals are taken into the country (leading to a country with very few parasites and animal diseases that are common abroad), but from the start of this year we do no longer require de-wormization on import which is going to make the problem with Echinococcosis worms spreading (which I have ranted on before in itself) much more dire. Because obviously, requiring people to show some responsibility goes against their beloved "free trade". And suddenly I won't be able to let my children eat berries directly from the woods any more.

Seriously, fuck the Union. I'm going to stop now, because I feel a full on rage coming if I continue.

[GlyphGryph]

Scriver understands the states-rights people, at least. Although trade stuff was one of the first rights states lost in the US, really.

[RedKing]

Yeah, interstate commerce was mostly deregulated centuries ago for us. It's a double-edged sword. In some areas of regulation (think environmental) the Federal level exists as a bottom floor, not a ceiling. California can pass its own environmental regulations which are stricter than the Federal ones. The Federal regulations exist to keep places from going the other route and deregulating "in the name of free trade" and letting companies turn their state into a toxic landfill.

But on an issue like immigration, the Federal rules act as both a floor (so you don't have a state saying "Everybody's welcome! No paperwork required!") and a ceiling. (Hence the court battles over Arizona's immigration laws).


I don't know of the particulars of the EU environmental/trade thing, but from what you describe, it's the EU acting as a ceiling rather than a floor on regulation, which is a shame. As a Southerner, I've heard the glories of States' Rights extolled night and day. But it's funny how it's always a popular issue with whichever party is NOT running the White House. During the Bush years, the states-rights argument was mostly invoked for things like euthanasia in Oregon and medicinal marijuana in California. So at least in the United States, it's come to be just another convenient rhetorical position to use when you're the minority party. The same people who insist that states should have the right to ban gay marriage would become ardent Federalists if there was a Federal law barring gay marriage. *shrug*

[Frumple]

Isn't what was said here in the thread is that the major states-rights pusher (Paul, iirc) is trying to use 'state's rights' as code for 'let's ignore the Constitution on a state level'?

S'one of those things I get a bit jittery about. There's states in the US that could definitely drum up a voting majority that would remove minimum wage (Leading to a permanent underclass and millions more starving and homeless), compulsory/free education (ditto), criminalize stuff like homosexuality, atheism, probably practicing Islam, the list goes on.

Then there's money, from what I understand. Florida, at least, can't even keep its schools from degenerating in quality with federal funding; I can only imagine what sort of nightmare would ensue if fed money drew out -- which would be the case if federal power was reduced and more power was allocated on the state level.

There's definitely reasons for more local control (Tends to be more efficient, if nothing else), but I'm not entirely convinced upping the power of state's rights is something that would work, from both a logistical standpoint and a humanist one.

[DJ]

Why is there no Vermin Supreme in the OP?

[Nadaka]

What I'd like to see is a political candidate in favor of greater power to the states. The federal government has been taking power from the states, and the states from the local, for a long time.

This is a completely natural process. As time progresses, culture becomes more even/similar across the nation, as do the laws. People move around and communicate a lot more these days, and people and culture are much less regional. We're living in the age of the Internet and mass media, not the Pony Express.

So you feel the experience of living in California is no different from Texas or Massachusetts or Virginia?  I'm thinking your wrong.

You simply WANT all other places to be like the place that you like, but not everyone wants what you want.

The problem with states rights in the US is that for most people that I hear use it, it is a code word that racists, sexists and theocrats use to mean: we want crazy backwards laws that infringe on the rights of minorities, but there are enough sane people in the nation that our only hope is to do it locally. This includes people like Ron Paul.

pseudo edit: Frumple: yes I did say that.

[RedKing]

Isn't what was said here in the thread is that the major states-rights pusher (Paul, iirc) is trying to use 'state's rights' as code for 'let's ignore the Constitution on a state level'?

S'one of those things I get a bit jittery about. There's states in the US that could definitely drum up a voting majority that would remove minimum wage (Leading to a permanent underclass and millions more starving and homeless), compulsory/free education (ditto), criminalize stuff like homosexuality, atheism, probably practicing Islam, the list goes on.

Then there's money, from what I understand. Florida, at least, can't even keep its schools from degenerating in quality with federal funding; I can only imagine what sort of nightmare would ensue if fed money drew out -- which would be the case if federal power was reduced and more power was allocated on the state level.

There's definitely reasons for more local control (Tends to be more efficient, if nothing else), but I'm not entirely convinced upping the power of state's rights is something that would work, from both a logistical standpoint and a humanist one.

Well one of the major problems with state's rights arises when you're dealing with the legal status of a person being different in different states. This is a large part of what led to the Civil War: certain people could be considered free citizens in one state and property in another. Now we face potential situations where two people are a married couple in some states, an unmarried couple in others (and if some had their way, a pair of criminals in yet other states). Or if states somehow try to ignore jus soli in their interpretation of the law, you could have people who are natural-born citizens in some states and illegal immigrants in others. Which leads to real antebellum-style conflicts: if you're a legal citizen of New Mexico, drive across Arizona, get stopped for a busted taillight and wind up being deported out of the United States....that's the kind of shit that gets people ANGRY.



Back more on topic, I'm kinda boggling at how quickly Gingrich and Perry are becoming anti-capitalist populists. How dare a venture capital company buy a troubled firm and raid its assets?! Romney is evil for making money and laying people off. And several thousand Occupiers say "Uhhh, yeah. We've been trying to tell you that for how many months now?"

Curiously, Ron Paul--the candidate who seems most tailored to a populist, anti-Wall Street tirade--has yet to jump on Comrade Gingrich's Glorious Attack of Opportunity Front, and has defended both Romney and Bain Capital and even venture capitalism as a concept. On a deeper level, it is very much in line with Randian beliefs (Ayn Rand would have seen venture capital firms as the epitome of Objectivism -- picking and choosing the best and brightest to survive and helping slaughter the "unfit" companies). Just curious to see how that plays out among his base.

Oh and incidentally, *love* the Daily Show's title for their SC primary coverage: "In The South of Madness" 

[GlyphGryph]

I love that Colbert is apparently polling above Hunstman. Considering he's not running, that's impressive.

[Wayward Device]

Though to be fair, at least some of that support comes from Rapture-ites who think that Israel is important to bringing about the second coming of Jesus, or something along those lines. In other words, they only support Israel because they think it's prophecy.

I know this is from a few pages back but i couldn't resist. Basically, for the Rapture to happen, Israel has to come back (we're sort of there on this one), all the Jews (I think this includes the lost tribes, but don't quote me on that) have to return (that's right, ALL of them) and the Temple of Solomon must be rebuilt (which would likely be as hard if not harder as getting every Jew in the world to move to Israel, as the Al-Aqsa Mosque, the third holiest site in Islam, is built directly atop the ruins, discounting the Wailing Wall.) IIRC This should trigger the appearance of Jesus II, rapturing all real Christians. Then the whole seven years of apocalyptic war I've heard the theory that it'll be Jesus II + whatever goodish but not good enough people are left vs Demons, The Antichrist and all sinners everywhere, but there is little scriptural evidence for this.   

Sorry to post a deraily post like this one in this excellent and informative thread, but I just had to mention the above facts. After all, there are people out there for whom this is a rough roadmap of how things in the middle east should pan out.     

[RedKing]

And also a reason why certain groups are so adamantly opposed to any "two-state solution" that would give East Jerusalem to the Palestinians: the Temple Mount and al-Aqsa Mosque are in East Jerusalem. 

But yeah...probably best left for a different thread. Though it does bring up an interesting point: foreign policy has been almost utterly absent from the public discussion during the primaries. I know "it's the economy, stupid" but at some point you do need to know that the schmuck you're voting for has some grasp of the outside world and our place in it. Other than some random "I'd bomb Iran" / "I'd re-invade Iraq" / "My opponent is evul for speaking Chinese" asshattery, it's been all about jobs and who can out-fundie who.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

I love that Colbert is apparently polling above Hunstman. Considering he's not running, that's impressive.

Colbert is always running. For everything. In every state.