Making sense of the election, 3 weeks away.

[tylerdolphin]

I don`t know about anyone else but I looked at Jill Stein`s policy positions before I decided to entertain the idea of voting for a third party candidate. I agree with her positions more than any of the other candidates. Now it`s just a question of pragmatism or principle imo.

I took a political test posted here and got Jill Stein as my #1 match. I dont know anything about her and didnt bother reading up because I dont have a vote, but I thought it was interesting that they aligned me with a green party candidate when Id never self-align myself with that.

[TheWalrus]

Great points throughout.

I think it's also important to point out that giving the local governments all this power has several dangers in of itself. What would prevent a state like Kansas from deciding that Creationism is right and that it should be taught in place of Evolution? What would stop a state like Oregon from deciding that any kind of fossil fuel wouldn't be allowed to be used within it's state borders? If states had the ability to do that, we'd still see states like Virginia and North Carolina with legal slavery, which is universally agreed to be one of the most significant dark spots in U.S. history. it took the Federal government going in and enforcing that to end it. The Federal government has a role, despite what people would like to believe. Ron Paul's America is something that just isn't pragmatic. It sounds great on paper, but it's just not realistic...

Exactly. Those kinds of things are precisely the danger. Now, some things like slavery are explicitly prohibited by the Constitution, and unless I'm mistaken only the poster Buddy is an anti-federalist around here. But teaching Creationism is a great example. Outlawing soft drinks or other kinds of "unacceptable" foods would be another (your choice of food isn't "speech", it's not discrimination and it's not a civil right).

[phins_4_ever]

I agree with a lot of Stein's positions, though a lot of it is sort of pie in the sky, especially her energy policy. You can't simultaneously end nuclear power, end drilling, end coal, end fracking and end our dependence on foreign oil. Sorry, but hydroelectric, wind, solar and biofuels just doesn't cut it. Not close, not even kind of close.

That's something I've realized as I've gotten older, that there's a difference between caring about the "masses", as it were, in sort of an abstract way... and actually focusing on the issues that affect them, which are principally pocketbook issues. As great as renewables and organics and sustainable products are, if every grocery store in the US were mandated to be like Whole Foods, no one could afford to shop for food. It's just too damn expensive. You'd have to have government run grocery stores run on a voucher system to supplement the high end places, which would be a terrible situation. Similarly, as I mentioned above, her energy policy would lead to a massive increase in energy costs, which would primarily affect, you guessed it, the poor.

You may want to look overseas and see how the EU changes their energy policies. It is greatly successful. I would say they will be largely energy independent in about 50 years at the rate they are going. It is really not a matter if you can or not but if you want to.

[rob19]

I think slavery & creationism are pretty dramatic examples. I don't think 51% of North Carolina believes the Earth is 6,000 years old, or that we should reinstate slavery.

[TheWalrus]

All good points, but I will admit I do admire a guy that will stand up and say the NDAA is unconstitutional when no one else will. I do like a guy that will say the fed is probably a bit corrupt and should be audited, or who'll say the drug war has been a failure, & that gambling & prostitution shouldn't be a criminal matter. That will say the Federal government shouldn’t overstep matters that the state’s people have voted in favor of. He is by far the most financially supported candidate in terms of active military personnel so you figure they probably agree with a lot of his foreign policy. Yes, states like Missouri might be a bit late on the gay marriage train, but isn't that part of being in a democracy? As it stands now though I don't exactly see the federal government itching to jump in on gay marriage.

Actually, I admire a lot of that too. But the end of the federal drug war wouldn't mean Texas or New Mexico or Arizona couldn't take up their own drug wars. It wouldn't mean other states would necessarily change their laws on possession or distribution.

Marijuana should be legal (regulated, but legal), period. It shouldn't be up to this state or that.

[rob19]

Actually, I admire a lot of that too. But the end of the federal drug war wouldn't mean Texas or New Mexico or Arizona couldn't take up their own drug wars. It wouldn't mean other states would necessarily change their laws on possession or distribution.

Marijuana should be legal (regulated, but legal), period. It shouldn't be up to this state or that.

& Yet it's federally illegal. So I'm not exactly sure the federal government always has our best interest in mind either.

[TheWalrus]

I think slavery & creationism are pretty dramatic examples. I don't think 51% of North Carolina believes the Earth is 6,000 years old, or that we should reinstate slavery.

Well, didn't the Texas school board pass a law or institute a standard where intelligent design had to be taught as a parallel theory to evolution in science class? With the result being -- since Texas buys so many books -- that students in many states would be issued books that contain passages to that effect? I remember reading that, though I didn't follow up.

That's not out and out creationism, but it's in the same ballpark, imo.

[TheWalrus]

& Yet it's federally illegal. So I'm not exactly sure the federal government always has our best interest in mind either.

I agree. But at least as a philosophy of government it can get you where you want to go.

[rob19]

What I'm saying is some of you are portraying an image that if anything is left to the state's they'll **** it up beyond all belief when I don't think that's necessarily the case. If you're a Dispensary owner out in California that's breaking no state laws & yet keeps getting raided because it's federally prohibited you might have a case that central government is over regulating. Inversely if you're a gay dude in Mississippi you might have a case that the federal government is under-regulating in certain regards. I think it goes both ways.

[Locke]

What I'm saying is some of you are portraying an image that if anything is left to the state's they'll **** it up beyond all belief when I don't think that's necessarily the case. If you're a Dispensary owner out in California that's breaking no state laws & yet keeps getting raided because it's federally prohibited you might have a case that central government is over regulating. Inversely if you're a gay dude in Mississippi you might have a case that the federal government is under-regulating in certain regards. I think it goes both ways.

Of course slavery is a dramatic example, but Creationism isn't. Even on the state level, it wouldn't necessarily need 51% to pass. It would just need to pass through the local legislature. That's the kind of thing you risk by giving the states too much power. It needs to be a balance of power between the state and federal level. Let the states govern themselves as much as possible, but have the federal government there when you get these insane people who try to teach that Dinosaurs and people lived at the same time...