Oh, so I didn't realize you only get one shot at things, and you have to abandon the idea if it doesn't fly.

Well, GOP social issues tend to be on the side on restricting other people's personal behavior. I'll ignore abortion for now because one could argue that there is more than one individual involved. But on issues like weed legalization and gay marriage, it's pretty clear that the Republican line is to limit people's freedoms. I don't think it's any of their business.

Well it took every ounce of political power they had in 08/09 to get that done. How on earth with even less power in congress will the get another shot?
To implement single payer you'd need Democratic supermajorities and I bet even then they'd have a hard time convincing members of their own party to vote for it.

To jump back to this campaign specifically, I think you can't underestimate the influence of Jon Stewart and Steve Colbert. They showed night after night what shit the GOP was pedaling in a way that Fox News just couldn't. I think that's because the GOP is more full of shit, but whether or not that's true, I think the right is losing the media war badly among the population with brains.

this should have been the case anyways. this is so many people want their state to secede. it's not fair for an entire country to be divided on issues that the government was never designed to regulate. all of these social issues that are a total waste of federal resources and an abuse of federal power should be designated to states in their entirety. marijuana, abortion, gay marriage, etc. everything. it does NOT belong at the federal level. it is dividing a country and creating hatred and mistrust and everything that spells anarchy between states and people based on goddamn lines on an electoral votes map.

it's not fair for anyone to have the middle 2/3s (land wise) of a country all believe one thing and the coasts believe the other. i understand that the popular vote and electoral are to ensure that it is a popular opinion. but with such polarized beliefs it is not healthy with this system.

few people would have issues with republicans if they were to abandon social issues. you would still have the original republican ideals that have since become libertarian - pertaining to defense and fiscal issues. you would still have democrats with their social programs.

the parties would still be different but they would NOT be as polarized. think of how many people (myself typically included) that are socially liberal but otherwise fairly conservative. i have to hate every candidate that ever has a chance to win the office.

i know people will be upset if states get to regulate social issues because then they still feel like someone else is in charge of their bodies, civil rights, whatever. here's the deal. you can choose what state to live in. i'm sick of hearing comparisons of gay marriage and right to choose to slavery. it's not the same, it will never be the same. when the north got rid of slavery....the slaves escaped or moved to the north. then when things cooled off, they went where they wanted to be. no, it's not fair to them. but it's not fair to the millions opposed in a region that people with completely different cultures want to change them. this is all a game of give and take...a marathon. all we see now is that everyone is sprinting to take. it's never going to work.

things won't change overnight. no one should be shoving their shit down the opposed throats. change takes time. if this power were granted to the state, i would imagine that a huge chunk of states would start allowing those things within their borders. then it's a bleeding effect.

I haven't studied europe, but i'm sure alex can comment since i know he's only reading political stuff anymore- but i highly, highly doubt that everyone in each respective country immediately all of these movements at once. it's also fair to point out that the size of our country and historic geographic distribution of wealth dictates that we'd have several very distinct cultures at once. those small european countries that everyone uses as a model are equivalent to getting mass, ny, nj, and ri on the same page. it's not that difficult.

Making a country work is not about polarity it's about working together. Not just the government. All special interest groups. Every. Single. One.


please, for the love of God, do not tell me I hate gays, that I don't get it because i'm an entitled heterosexual white man, or anything like that. it's bullshit.

I don't know how much of an effect that really has. I would imagine that most of the people who watch Stewart of Colbert were already in the bag for Obama anyway.

I think Mitt Romney was just a bad candidate. He came across as elitist, soulless, and a flip-flopper. The American public wants to vote for a candidate they'd "like to have a beer with," that (seems to) empathize with their situation, and that sticks to their convictions.

I think among people our age (I realize you're probably much younger than me, but to use the term "younger Americans" very broadly), Stewart and Colbert were and are absolutely huge factors. It was vital for Obama to maximize the younger vote to combat the elderly vote going for Romney. And honestly, who in their teens, twenties, or thirties could watch Comedy Central's news, then watch Fox News and not know which one was truly real?

this should have been the case anyways. this is so many people want their state to secede. it's not fair for an entire country to be divided on issues that the government was never designed to regulate. all of these social issues that are a total waste of federal resources and an abuse of federal power should be designated to states in their entirety. marijuana, abortion, gay marriage, etc. everything. it does NOT belong at the federal level. it is dividing a country and creating hatred and mistrust and everything that spells anarchy between states and people based on goddamn lines on an electoral votes map.

So you basically don't think that the federal government should have any role in enforcing equal protection of our citizens?

Abortion and gay marriage, for me, boil down to equal protection. Instead of allowing each person to make a choice about these issues based on their own feelings and beliefs, you have one group trying to make that decision for you. How does that make sense?

It seems like you basically favor states rights over a strong federal government. I respect that opinion, but states rights is what started the civil war, and having a mish-mosh of rules depending on what state you live in is a recipe for MORE division, not less.

Not to mention a strong federal government is at the core of this country's development.