Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 dogma wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:

I lived in Carbondale, Illinois for the first half of the year and it is a very very liberal town. We had a Bernie sign out in our yard, it was stolen within a week. Some people are messed up.

It also plays host a school of ~17,000 that doesn't have a particularly liberal student body. While your assessment of "messed up" was likely correct, I think it may be for reasons you did not intend.

The student body is the most liberal thing about Carbondale.

 whembly wrote:

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
I noticed something interesting today, albeit very anecdotal. I went out for a drive to the range, which is a ways, a 45 minute ride through suburban and then semi-rural areas. I only saw 2 lawn signs after passing through a handful of towns - one homemade one with some guy running for congress, and one for Gary Johnson. That's it. Kind of odd, with the election what so close - the last few elections this place was practically wallpapered with signs.

There's one yard sign in my neighborhood and it's for a mayoral candidate that I know nothing about. Our dedicated Democrat family just away so there probably won't be any Clinton yard signs since they're gone.

National politics? I haven't seen jack.... but, I wonder if I'm just habitually ignoring those...

I've been hearing from my friends working in both Parties that many local organizations are being told to avoid door knocking, how campaign signs generally end up in yards, regarding the Presidential election. Instead they're supposed to push (by proxy) for House, Senate, State, and local elections by phone with the hope that the voter spoken to ticks R or D all the way down.

 whembly wrote:
Is pay for play legal if you're at least qualified for the position? I wanna know...

[url=http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/leaked-papers-appear-to-reveal-dem-pay-for-play-scheme/article/2601866?

"Appears" is the word that reveals the story to be yet another Republican spin/lie.

 Dreadwinter wrote:

The student body is the most liberal thing about Carbondale.

I'll default to you, but the 4 times I've been to SIU Carbondale have not left with me the impression that it is liberal to the point that a guy can claim his sign was taken down by conservatives.

"Little Miss Flint met both Trump and Obama this year."







http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-us-2016-37381452

"US election: Trump campaign acknowledges Obama was born in US"

http://uk.businessinsider.com/donald-trump-obama-birth-certificate-ted-cruz-canada-2016-1?r=US&IR=T


" The Republican presidential front-runner continued: "I mean, I have my own theory on Obama. Someday I'll write a book. I'll do another book. It'll do very successfully. "

He said that after CNN anchor Wolf Blitzer said that some people saw a connection between Trump's questioning of Obama's birth certificate and his recent declaration that voters should be concerned about Sen. Ted Cruz's (R-Texas) Canadian birthplace.

Trump, when asked, has repeatedly suggested that Cruz could get tripped up by the constitutional requirement that presidents are "natural-born" citizens."


https://www.buzzfeed.com/andrewkaczynski/trump-questioned-obama-birth-certificate-in-2014-despite-cam?utm_term=.qwDDx4KzB#.upDD0yL3O

" In one 2014 exchange with Irish TV, for instance, he defended his birtherism at length.
“You questioned his citizenship during his campaign, and you said afterwards if he produced that long-form birth certificate, you’d produce your tax returns. But you didn’t do it, did you?” asked Ireland TV3’s Colette Fitzpatrick in May 2014.
“Well, I don’t know — did he do it?” Trump said. “If I decide to run for office I’ll produce my tax returns. Absolutely. I would love to do that. I did produce a financial statement even though I wasn’t even running. I did produce a financial statement and it was shocking to some because it was so much higher than people thought possible.”
Fitzpatrick was referencing when Trump said in 2011 that he would release his tax returns if Obama released his birth certificate. (Trump has not released his tax returns.)
“The president should come clean,” Trump added about Obama in the 2014 interview. “He should have come clean over the years. If you remember the very famous story where I offered him $5 million if he showed some basic records and he never took me up on it. And that would be for charity. So charities would have benefited and it would have been a great thing.”
“But he is a citizen and he produced that long form birth certificate,” host Fitzpatrick said.
“Well, a lot of people don’t agree with you and a lot of people feel it wasn’t a proper certificate,” Trump said."

.. still waiting on those tax returns right...?




That's in one day.

Extraordinary.

I'm sorry, I'd like to look through all the ridiculously awful things he did today, but I'm still screaming inside from that terrifying Trump close-up.

And outside. I'm screaming outside too.

Be strong, child. I'm sorry we couldn't prevent that.

Trump is the better candidate. The alternative would just play out an Alinsky wet dream for the nation.

I was hoping for Ron Paul personally. That whole liberty thing appeals to me...... /shrug. That and I don't really care for the notion of painting our rights totally subject to the whims of the national masses or a few judges. Statehood is the way to go. I'd rather risk slavery again or inequality under the law than putting all states under a progressively harsh yoke. At least with real federalism, states suffer from their own bad decisions, which can lead to evolution, while centralization tends to make way more graveyards.

Pretty much, reds8n. To walk away from his lies about Obama's birthplace, Trump first played dumb earlier today when asked about the issue. Then later the same day his campaign released a new lie, claiming birtherism started with the Clinton campaign, something that's been known to be plainly false for years.

The Democrats ought to set up a Trump Lie Counter web page. You could pretty much just code it to add a random 1-5 lies per hour and it would be fairly accurate.

Of course it would do no good because Trump's core supporters obviously don't care that he is a total liar. They just say Clinton is equally bad.

 kveldulf wrote:
Trump is the better candidate. The alternative would just play out an Alinsky wet dream for the nation.

I was hoping for Ron Paul personally. That whole liberty thing appeals to me...... /shrug.

Interesting. Because Ron Paul and Donald Trump are basically polar opposites in terms of policy, but both play to that same kind of uniquely American rejection of the basic importance of government.

And I guess the other similarity is they both flirt with racist extremists.

I'm not saying your racist, kveldulf, you've said nothing to suggest that at all. But it has gotten me wondering about anti-federalist movements, is there a reason for the racial elements in most of these movements? Maybe something going back to rhe civil war?

 sebster wrote:

 kveldulf wrote:
Trump is the better candidate. The alternative would just play out an Alinsky wet dream for the nation.

I was hoping for Ron Paul personally. That whole liberty thing appeals to me...... /shrug.

Interesting. Because Ron Paul and Donald Trump are basically polar opposites in terms of policy, but both play to that same kind of uniquely American rejection of the basic importance of government.

And I guess the other similarity is they both flirt with racist extremists.

I'm not saying your racist, kveldulf, you've said nothing to suggest that at all. But it has gotten me wondering about anti-federalist movements, is there a reason for the racial elements in most of these movements? Maybe something going back to rhe civil war?

And what is the basic importance of government? I admit, government is necessary. I reckon Paul does to (and I meant Rand, not Ron, but I like both). As to what makes you think they are anarchists, I'm curious? Paul is a classical liberal, much like his father.

Oh and I'm not trying to equivocate the Paul and Trump. I just really don't want Hillary in it. Furthermore, Trump does say things that seem good and feasible - other than a literal border wall. The thing is, he promises on one hand but will he deliver? His track record doesn't exactly reassure.

As far as Ron or Rand Paul, or Trump, for the matter being racist: I don't think so. I'm not sure where you got that from, or how you define racist (which from the PC crowd can be very liberal)

And if you're subtly bringing the race card as the chief problem for our politics, your kidding? right? Even going back to the civil war, the US civil war, that wasn't even a matter of slavery until later on. That was started for different reasons that was later tooted as liberation. I'm not saying that abolition was bad, but that not even then was it a main goal in the beginning. It was the main theory of government that was at stake.

We've been through all this numerous times.

The southern states tried to break away from the union specifically because they were afraid that slavery was going to be abolished.

And what was the primary reason for these disagreements about theory of government? Slavery. The right to own slaves is clearly identified as the major cause for secession in the Confederates' own reasoning. No amount of spin can change that fact.

I'm not going to comment on Trump's supposedly "good ideas" until you've clarified which ones you're talking about.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
We've been through all this numerous times.

The southern states tried to break away from the union specifically because they were afraid that slavery was going to be abolished.

Nullification was an irritation the southern states experienced by northern states - in the beginning. That was over runaway slaves escaping to free states. Thereafter, the escalation that blew things up involved tarriffs, and if memory serves me right, congress may have been bypassing the general welfare clause (rail roads - as an example).

Then Lincoln said this:
“I would save the Union. … If I could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it; and if could save it by freeing all the slaves, I would do it. … What I do about Slavery and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save this Union.”

/shrug

Yes, but the south was afraid that slavery was eventually going to be abolished, because most northern states were planning to or had already abolished slavery and the general popular feeling was slavery.

Secession precipitated the war.

Therefore you can see that from the southern viewpoint the war was fought over the issue of slavery.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
And what was the primary reason for these disagreements about theory of government? Slavery. The right to own slaves is clearly identified as the major cause for secession in the Confederates' own reasoning. No amount of spin can change that fact.

I'm not going to comment on Trump's supposedly "good ideas" until you've clarified which ones you're talking about.

Keeping the union together.

 kveldulf wrote:
Statehood is the way to go. I'd rather risk slavery again or inequality under the law than putting all states under a progressively harsh yoke.

That's very brave of you. Do you by chance happen to be white?

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Yes, but the south was afraid that slavery was eventually going to be abolished, because most northern states were planning to or had already abolished slavery and the general popular feeling was slavery.

Secession precipitated the war.

Therefore you can see that from the southern viewpoint the war was fought over the issue of slavery.

Hmm.... well I hate to say it, but it looks like I'm wrong. I was doing some fact checking, found this lengthy thing by David Barton's site. My bad. Here's an excerpt:

"Ironically, southern apologists claim that the Confederacy was formed to preserve “states’ rights,” yet the Confederacy expressly prohibited any state from exercising its own “state’s right” to end slavery. Clearly, the Confederacy’s real issue was the preservation of slavery at all costs – even to the point that it constitutionally forbade the abolition of slavery by any of its member states."

http://www.wallbuilders.com/libissuesarticles.asp?id=92

Either way, I do have some reservation about the claim that most political heat since has centered around racial tension or racial inequality. What I meant by the theory of government, and there being a difference occurring at this time, was the matter of centralization.

 kveldulf wrote:
I was hoping for Ron Paul personally. That whole liberty thing appeals to me...... /shrug. That and I don't really care for the notion of painting our rights totally subject to the whims of the national masses or a few judges. Statehood is the way to go. I'd rather risk slavery again or inequality under the law than putting all states under a progressively harsh yoke. At least with real federalism, states suffer from their own bad decisions, which can lead to evolution, while centralization tends to make way more graveyards.

Why do you favor oppression by state governments instead of freedom? Why should our rights be subject to the whims of state masses? By your own arguments state governments should be weak and all power should be given to city governments. After all, if centralization leads to more graveyards then we should actually avoid centralization, not just transfer power to a level of government where conservatives have a majority.

 Henry wrote:

 kveldulf wrote:
Statehood is the way to go. I'd rather risk slavery again or inequality under the law than putting all states under a progressively harsh yoke.

That's very brave of you. Do you by chance happen to be white?

Oh please don't throw some polarizing scorn/trap at me. Surely you can see the logic? If people = inherently bad / imperfect, then splitting power = good; It limits corruption. Yes there's the chance that states screw average Joe, but then again, there's at least the chance for people to leave those environments vs complete uniformity with no escape from national draconian laws (other than attempting to move out of the country).

Georgia listed slavery first among their reason for secession:

For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery.

Mississippi seemingly also thought that it was about slavery:

Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery - the greatest material interest of the world.

South Carolina was less explicit, but still identified the encroachment on states' rights as being about slavery:

The people of the State of South Carolina, in Convention assembled, on the 26th day of April, A.D., 1852, declared that the frequent violations of the Constitution of the United States, by the Federal Government, and its encroachments upon the reserved rights of the States, fully justified this State in then withdrawing from the Federal Union; but in deference to the opinions and wishes of the other slaveholding States, she forbore at that time to exercise this right. Since that time, these encroachments have continued to increase, and further forbearance ceases to be a virtue.

Texas would require me to post a semi-wall-of-text quote, but they explicitly call out slavery as the crux of the issue. Virginia similarly identified grievances against "Southern Slaveholding States" as the reason for secession.

In short, the Confederate States themselves admitted that slavery was the crux of the issue.

(Text sourced from the Civil War Trust at http://www.civilwar.org/education/history/primarysources/declarationofcauses.html)

There is nothing wrong with changing your mind about an issue because your awareness of the facts changes. In fact it is a very good thing and does you credit!

Since the Civil War there has been a lot of political heat about inequality between the races, between the sexes, between rich and poor, between urban and country dwellers. This I think is a normal part of life and it's better to talk it out that shoot it out.

The point about the centralisation of government is what issues are best decided at what level. It's obvious that foreign policy has to be decided at the national level. It's less obvious that driving licence tests have to be decided at national level if people are riding horses and rarely go more than 20 miles from their home.

However when people can be driving their cars between different states just to get to work, a common standard makes sense, and it should cover all the states, and therefore it should be decided at the national level.

Should the national government care about what materials are used for house building in different areas from an aesthetic perspective? It seems a decision that could be done better at the local level, probably at town level rather than the state level even.

 Peregrine wrote:

 kveldulf wrote:
I was hoping for Ron Paul personally. That whole liberty thing appeals to me...... /shrug. That and I don't really care for the notion of painting our rights totally subject to the whims of the national masses or a few judges. Statehood is the way to go. I'd rather risk slavery again or inequality under the law than putting all states under a progressively harsh yoke. At least with real federalism, states suffer from their own bad decisions, which can lead to evolution, while centralization tends to make way more graveyards.

Why do you favor oppression by state governments instead of freedom? Why should our rights be subject to the whims of state masses? By your own arguments state governments should be weak and all power should be given to city governments. After all, if centralization leads to more graveyards then we should actually avoid centralization, not just transfer power to a level of government where conservatives have a majority.

Washington dealt with the extreme of 'states rights' during the Whiskey rebellion. He saw that if people were allowed to throw a revolt for every little thing, our national identity could be taken advantage of. Thus he dealt with them. They may have been right though. Herein lies the prime example to respect authority, but know when the boundary has surely been crossed. The revolutionary war had a laundry list to revolt over.

I state this tangent because I think it relates to where this conversation is going: that some centralization is necessary for a national identity but not completely. The idea for our national govt is meant to be an interface for the states to foreign powers, not just some homogeneous entity. Equally in turn, we cannot be utterly sovereign states, doing what we will without recourse - that's like the Italian states of old. This is where the compact of what states must understand, before they are even admitted, a basic view as to how to operate together, and where that ends. Furthermore, the matter of life, liberty and property, and how the bill of rights ought to further respect this, is not invented by the constitution, but secured by it; that these truths exist essentially above and outside of government. It's meant to be a strong statement about where legitimate government really begins and ends - for the people abroad. Jefferson described appropriate government looking like a pyramid - which I agree with: that the further government is, the less enforcement (or power?) it ought to have over the people.

Who really wants a government that is really but a clumsy leviathan at the national level?

 kveldulf wrote:
Who really wants a government that is really but a clumsy leviathan at the national level?

Indeed. I'd prefer the smooth expertise that comes at the level of the state government, such as you'd see at the DMV.

 Ouze wrote:

 kveldulf wrote:
Who really wants a government that is really but a clumsy leviathan at the national level?

Indeed. I'd prefer the smooth expertise that comes at the level of the state government, such as you'd see at the DMV.

lol.

Actually my state DMV isn't so bad anymore - when it comes to tag renewal. If you have to go in, it seems pretty fast and easy.

 Ouze wrote:

 kveldulf wrote:
Who really wants a government that is really but a clumsy leviathan at the national level?

Indeed. I'd prefer the smooth expertise that comes at the level of the state government, such as you'd see at the DMV.

Gonna kinda mirror the above poster. DMV here in Tennessee is the smoothest I've ever seen.

Is your Tennessee licence also valid in Hawaii and Massachusetts, to pick a couple of random states?

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Is your Tennessee licence also valid in Hawaii and Massachusetts, to pick a couple of random states?

Depends. I can drive in any state with it. I can't speak for other states though, but for here in TN, if I reside here for more then a year, I'm required to switch the registration to TN. Certain "classes" get exemptions, such as military. I only switched from Michigan to TN, because the registration here was half the price it is in MI.

Edit: And now I see you were asking about drivers license, and I was rambling about vehicle registration. Yes, a drivers license is reciprocated in every state.

How is that achieved, by treaties between all the states perhaps, or some national level agreement?

 kveldulf wrote:

Oh please don't throw some polarizing scorn/trap at me. Surely you can see the logic? If people = inherently bad / imperfect, then splitting power = good; It limits corruption. Yes there's the chance that states screw average Joe, but then again, there's at least the chance for people to leave those environments vs complete uniformity with no escape from national draconian laws (other than attempting to move out of the country).

Are you a Sovereign Citizen?