FYI Amstel doesn't understand the internet. No one is surprised.

i think legalized marijuana and gay marriage are both perfect examples of why states should be in charge and not the fed. a few sates made the change, now more and more are... meanwhile the fed is goddamn locked up, good luck getting anything done there.

unless you're wanting them to take away more of your freedoms or something.
 
i think legalized marijuana and gay marriage are both perfect examples of why states should be in charge and not the fed. a few sates made the change, now more and more are... meanwhile the fed is goddamn locked up, good luck getting anything done there.

unless you're wanting them to take away more of your freedoms or something.
Well, if the Repubs didn't block anything and everything that even might potentially be suggested by a Dem...
 
  • Gravy
Reactions: Mr. Argumentor
Well, if the Repubs didn't block anything and everything that even might potentially be suggested by a Dem...

it's pretty clear people are different, why not let states set whats best for the majority of their own instead of forcing one law on everyone across the nation? so people in texas want different things then NY? our nation is set up to allow that... the fed gov just disagree's with that very simple idea.
 
it's pretty clear people are different, why not let states set whats best for the majority of their own instead of forcing one law on everyone across the nation? so people in texas want different things then NY? our nation is set up to allow that... the fed gov just disagree's with that very simple idea.
Oh I get it. My point was that it's pretty clear that we, as a nation, want weed and gays to marry. I'm pretty sure the Obama administration would be willing to give us both. I would welcome more state autonomy as well though.
 
Oh I get it. My point was that it's pretty clear that we, as a nation, want weed and gays to marry. I'm pretty sure the Obama administration would be willing to give us both. I would welcome more state autonomy as well though.

you're right, the nation does want it, but if you let each state decide it becomes a non issue. passing a law a fed level is like doing a project in one giant swoop, doing it at a state level is like breaking it up into 50 parts and going at it.

guess which one is more successful?

you also have to remember, the nations favor didn't turn towards legalized pot until cali had med marijuana, then other states slowly followed suit. same with gay marriage, 10 years ago it had zero support but it got few in a few states and the nations attitude has slowly changed over.
 
its the UNITED states of america. Not the nation states of america.

There is basic stuff that should be universal.
 
  • Gravy
Reactions: Duke
it goes both ways though. pot never should've been outlawed... abuse of fed level power. never would've happened if it was always up to the states.

you also significantly reduce the effectiveness of lobbyists and other special interest groups since going after 50 states for specific things would be nearly impossible for them. however going after 50 states for things the general public wants... easy.
 
Right now only a couple states 'matter'. The EC has nothing to do with that though. I think as more and more states outlaw gerrymandering, things should start to get better.
as long as we have a FPTP system we will be stuck with two nearly identical parties. gerrymandering is a big part of the problem but fixing that won't make the small states matter.

the EC does absolutely nothing to fix the issue of smaller states getting more attention. it fails miserably to do the one thing you said it was created for while at the same time ensuring that people have unequal amounts of power based purely on where they live. nothing but negatives, not a single positive. the EC is a problem in that it can allow a winner with 22% of the population and allow a situation where some of the electors can ignore the will of their states, further concentrating power for...what purpose exactly? to fail to solve a problem

the electoral college is a relic of the past and needs to be excised like a cancer from our society
 
a weak fed and strong state government would fix most of these problems.

fed simply has too much power over our lives, and they're to far removed for any of us to control it. most decisions should be state by state.

then all states would matter, at least to themselves.
the states get things wrong a lot more often than they get them right

sure, a couple of them have weed but some of them keep fighting to courts to keep gays from getting married

it's been like this over and over and over again. the states are terrible at social issues and half of them - the ones that argue for more states rights - tend to fuck things up harder than the rest and are only saved from their own idiocy because the federal government pumps more money into them than they ever put in

the states can operate as administrative units for organizations but the idea that they should retain any form of sovereignty is foolish
 
You could say that about any level of government. At the end of the day, if people don't like how the state is running - move.

that isn't an option for some people and even if it was why take it? why should the people of one state get fucked over when there are better ways to do things
 
you're right, the nation does want it, but if you let each state decide it becomes a non issue. passing a law a fed level is like doing a project in one giant swoop, doing it at a state level is like breaking it up into 50 parts and going at it.

guess which one is more successful?

you also have to remember, the nations favor didn't turn towards legalized pot until cali had med marijuana, then other states slowly followed suit. same with gay marriage, 10 years ago it had zero support but it got few in a few states and the nations attitude has slowly changed over.
I hope you realize that gay marriage is getting traction primarily from FEDERAL judges overruling state laws and in some cases the very constitutions of those states

the federal government is the one making marriage equality a reality in the states that are fighting tooth and nail against it. just like it did in the civil rights era, the states have to be dragged kicking and screaming into the modern age. they're going to keep whining and crying about it but it's utterly insane to tell a gay man he has to move to another state, away from his family and home, just because some people think states rights are more important than human rights.
 
half the people feel like they're getting fucked over regardless. drastically reduce it by letting states choose, cause its a fuckton easier to change a states view's than it is the entire nation.

once again... pot and gay marriage...
 
that isn't an option for some people and even if it was why take it? why should the people of one state get fucked over when there are better ways to do things

Would pot have ever been legalized if the feds had total control of it? no.

the 50 experiments works. If people want pot they know where to get it. The pot biz owners are going to the 'next most likely' states to expand and lobby. It's near impossible to move 1/2 the country (washington) to get things done, but much easier one state at a time. Will there be holdouts? Sure. I remember when IN didn't sell alcohol on Sundays. Anywhere. We'd drive 45 minutes to OH to get it. Do people eventually change due to antiquated State laws? Would IN sell on Sundays if the feds said there shall be no alcohol sales on Sunday? That's the whole purpose of the states.
 
  • Gravy
Reactions: plot
yeah the weed thing is one of those where the states got it right

BUT IT DOESN'T MAKE UP FOR GETTING GAY MARRIAGE OR CIVIL RIGHTS OR HELL EVEN FUCKING SLAVERY WRONG

That was the point. One example of the states getting it right. One. It's a great thing. But it's a failure at everything else when it comes to ensuring all Americans are treated equally. It fails economically because some states end up propping up others usually because their education systems are so broken because they can't manage them to the federal government's standards.

You are not a citizen of your state, you are a citizen of the country. Start adjusting.
 
Dude, you're all up in arms about shit that is changing anyway. It's like you think it would never change. It will. You realize that not due to supreme court rulings, but generational education, is the reason Gay marriage will happen. SCOTUS will bring it around sooner and piss off a bunch of people, but in 20 years, there will only be 10% of the population breathing that is against it. And they'll be in old folks homes. SCOTUS or not.

How is it that the entire northern states eased out of slavery without a decree?

All this shit about presidents 'freeing the south,' making Gay marriage legal, it's a crock. All they did was expedite it. That's it. Here's your fucking medal, there's a new marathon full of social issues next year. We're all moving forward. With or without legislators, with or without states, with or without neighbors, whether we like it or not. The vast vast vast majority of the population is moving forward.
 
yes it's changing but it could have been simply changed with one fell swoop. that's the point, it could have been fixed by a federal government that said "it's legal, you all have to recognize and accept licenses from other states" and shut them all up

I never said supreme court rulings, I said federal judges. Districts judges are striking down bans harder than blue states can legalize it.

It shouldn't take 20 years. It shouldn't have taken this long. People who think like this shouldn't get to hold back something as basic as treating all citizens equally. That should be one of the foundations of our society, not an afterthought that gets used as political ammunition.

It's not a crock, the south was freed from the tyranny of the confederacy, those rebel scum. Emancipation wasn't expedited, it wouldn't have happened without the ass kicking they so richly deserved.

The problem is that we're not all moving forward. Some states vote in judges that are willing to defy federal orders. Some states are still trying to fight it. They don't want to move forward. They shouldn't have that choice because it holds everyone else back and impacts the people in those states.
 
Hold on. In your example, the only way that formula can work is 'IF' the other two people exactly split the remaining 66% of the votes. Not all that likely. I don't hear you campaigning against the Electoral College too.

We have 3 main parties and the party that won the most seats each elction had the following percentages of the vote.

1974 - 39.25%
1979 - 43.87% Conservative
1983 - 42.44% Conservative
1987 - 42.23% Conservative
1991 - 41.93% Conservative
1997 - 43.21% Labour
2001 - 40.7% Labour
2005 - 35.19% Labour
2010 - 36.05% Conservative, 28,99% Labour, 23.03% Lib/Dem, 11.93% Other

The 'Other' will grow at our next election (UKIP). No-one knows at whose expense so might be closer to a 4 way tie.

Not once has the centre party been anything other than 3rd in the polls.
 
We have 3 main parties and the party that won the most seats each elction had the following percentages of the vote.

1974 - 39.25%
1979 - 43.87% Conservative
1983 - 42.44% Conservative
1987 - 42.23% Conservative
1991 - 41.93% Conservative
1997 - 43.21% Labour
2001 - 40.7% Labour
2005 - 35.19% Labour
2010 - 36.05% Conservative, 28,99% Labour, 23.03% Lib/Dem, 11.93% Other

The 'Other' will grow at our next election (UKIP). No-one knows at whose expense so might be closer to a 4 way tie.

Not once has the centre party been anything other than 3rd in the polls.

I'm OK with this for one main reason. The party that's in power can't fuck things up royally because there's too many 'other voters' that can change parties or vote differently at the next election. Right?