Election Night 2012

I'm starting to crash hard. Menage a Trois California Red Wine is pretty good.

WOW, there are some winners on Facebook.

Obama picked up Colorado and Virginia as well.

Maryland and Maine legalized same-sex marriage, Colorado just legalized weed. Wow, this is an interesting night.

I heard Washinton State also legalized weed.

Hahahaha yes

aaaahahahahaha

I'm watching all the crying on Fox News, and it's glorious.

"Waaaa the healthcare bill passed, but a percentage of people similar to the size who supported it didn't agree with it." Yeah, because at least 20% of the country thought it didn't go far enough, not because they didn't want healthcare reform at all.

Dear America,

Thank fuck for that.

Regards,

The World

No surprises here. If you'd all followed 538 from the start you'd have seen this coming.

I actually did follow 538, as well as electoral-vote.com. Obama never trailed the electoral vote, even after the 1st debate debacle, although it got close.

Also, the Princeton Election Consortium...here's what they predicted:



Unless Florida goes to Obama, which is looking like a possibility, this map nailed it.

Also, hooray for Alan Grayson getting elected again.

I couldnt give two shits about their domestic policies. Romney looks to have better economic policies, just, but still. It doesnt affect me in any way if you guys get free healthcare or not.

What the rest of the world took a collective sigh of relief over was Romney's international relations. George Bush started two wars and turned the world agsint you, yet even he managed to maintain good relations with key allies. Romney visited 3 countries on his campaign trail, and pissed off everyone in all 3.

I'd seen a poll about a month ago of citizens of 20 or so nations, asking who they'd rather see become the U.S. President. Almost all of them wanted Obama. The only exception was Pakistan. I'm sure there's a message there.

My dad was elected to the House of Representatives. Awesome.

ryguy79 wrote:My dad was elected to the House of Representatives. Awesome.

Awesome

Wow, Obama won Ohio by about a measly 100,000 votes, or ~ 2% of the overall 5mil votes in Ohio. Damn... close!

JaysonAych wrote:

Obama picked up Colorado and Virginia as well.

Maryland and Maine legalized same-sex marriage, Colorado just legalized weed. Wow, this is an interesting night.

Win, win, and win IMO.

ryguy79 wrote:My dad was elected to the House of Representatives. Awesome.

Holy shit!! Congrats!!!!

Talon wrote:

JaysonAych wrote:

Obama picked up Colorado and Virginia as well.

Maryland and Maine legalized same-sex marriage, Colorado just legalized weed. Wow, this is an interesting night.

Win, win, and win IMO.

Washington State also legalized it. And both of those states didn't just legalize it for medical purposes - but for recreational purposes. Which is really quite crazy. More progressive on that front than Canada even, where it's just decriminalized.

I'm guessing there'll be some court challenges to that, no?

Weed was legalized there? Like for everyone? Holy shit.

How long til that happens here?

Olds wrote:I'm guessing there'll be some court challenges to that, no?

Well they have the constitutional issue - being that Federal Law is paramount to State law and for the Feds weed is still illegal. But, in the previous four years the Obama DOJ didn't seem keen to prosecute in States where it was legal for medicinal purposes, so one would hope that this continues in the recreational states. My guess is that it will. And, gradually it'll be legalized across the country until such time that the Federal Government feels that changing its laws is inevitable.

Plus, these States, if let go on there own, are a good test case for the rest of the country - if Washington and Colorado don't go the way of Reefer Madness, despite legalizing it, I suspect popular opinion will shift in favor nationally.

I don't think Obama is a great president per se. Probably the lesser of two evils, but how will he be remembered years from now? He's not bad, but not the savior of the world either.

Then again I don't get much into politics so who knows. But I did one of those questionnaires for non affiliated voters and my best match was Obama.

clockbreaker wrote:I don't think Obama is a great president per se. Probably the lesser of two evils, but how will he be remembered years from now? He's not bad, but not the savior of the world either.

Then again I don't get much into politics so who knows. But I did one of those questionnaires for non affiliated voters and my best match was Obama.

I hate this 'lesser of two evils' talk. He isn't. Period. And Romney wouldn't have been horrible as President either. Not my guy, I think the US would have been worse off with him in the Oval office, but he also wouldn't have presided over the end of all that is good - like so many self styled progressive / left wingers like to think. Americans, and Canadians - and everyone else who lives in a true democracy - are damn lucky that they're able to vote for their government, and we need to always remember that. Is Obama a great President? A good president? I don't know. That's for history to decide. I do know a few things. 1. He inherited, arguably one of the worst economies in American History, and things are being turned around. 2. He's passed, and presided over more progressive policies both domestically and internationally than have been ever seen before. And 3. He more than deserved a second term.

thewalrus wrote:

Talon wrote:

JaysonAych wrote:

Obama picked up Colorado and Virginia as well.

Maryland and Maine legalized same-sex marriage, Colorado just legalized weed. Wow, this is an interesting night.

Win, win, and win IMO.

Washington State also legalized it. And both of those states didn't just legalize it for medical purposes - but for recreational purposes. Which is really quite crazy. More progressive on that front than Canada even, where it's just decriminalized.

Yea, I know. I see no problem with it. I don't know why such the gap between weed and alcohol. Legalize it, put similar stipulations on it, sell it, and tax it. You know how much time, money, etc are wasted trying to stop illegal drug trafficking (ie from Mexico) that would all but stop if it were just legal here? Not only could the government make billions on the tax revenue (plus taking billions away from drug cartels), but it would also be cleaner and safer than the shit that's on the streets...

I'm no pothead, but if you asked had I done it more than a couple times I'd have to plead the Fifth. This is just a personal belief, but I think a lot of people smoke the maj' simply because it's "risky" to do so... being illegal and all. Like getting beer at 18 was so much cooler, then once turning 21 it's not that big of deal anymore. It's really not that big of deal, but I think a lot of people do it simply because "the man" tells them they can't.

thewalrus wrote:

Olds wrote:I'm guessing there'll be some court challenges to that, no?

Well they have the constitutional issue - being that Federal Law is paramount to State law and for the Feds weed is still illegal.

I am not so sure that it is. You're the lawyer, but back in the day when the legal drinking age was made to be 21 at a federal level, there were still states that had legal drinking age of 18. The feds then blackmailed said states (I am 99% sure Colorado was one of them) threatening to cut funding for roads and the like, so the remaining states eventually folded. That I know is true.

ETA - This is the best I could find on it:

"Prior to 1984, states were allowed to choose their own legal drinking ages, and the drinking age varied from state to state. Shortly after repeal of Prohibition in 1933, most states set their purchase ages at 21 since that was the age of majority at the time, but a few set their limits lower. Most of these limits remained constant until the early 1970s. From 1969 to 1976, 30 states lowered their purchase ages, generally to 18.[citation needed] This was primarily because the voting age was lowered from 21 to 18 with the 26th amendment, and nearly all states lowered their ages of majority as well. In spite of this, twelve states kept their purchase ages at 21 since repeal of Prohibition and have never changed them. From 1976 to 1983, several states voluntarily raised their purchase ages to 19 (or, less commonly, 20 or 21), in part to combat drunk driving fatalities. Most states still kept the age at 18 or 19 well into the 1980s.

In 1982, President Ronald Reagan set up a commission to study the drunk driving problem in the United States, and one of their 39 recommendations was a national, uniform drinking age of 21. This recommendation was influenced by Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD), which had been founded by Candy Lightner in 1980. Senator Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) wrote the National Minimum Drinking Age Act of 1984. By 1988, all 50 states and DC were in compliance, but Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands (and Guam until 2010) remained at 18 despite the loss of highway funding."

Talon wrote:

thewalrus wrote:

Olds wrote:I'm guessing there'll be some court challenges to that, no?

Well they have the constitutional issue - being that Federal Law is paramount to State law and for the Feds weed is still illegal.

I am not so sure that it is. You're the lawyer, but back in the day when the legal drinking age was made to be 21 at a federal level, there were still states that had legal drinking age of 18. The feds then blackmailed said states (I am 99% sure Colorado was one of them) threatening to cut funding for roads and the like, so the remaining states eventually folded. That I know is true.

ETA - This is the best I could find on it:

"Prior to 1984, states were allowed to choose their own legal drinking ages, and the drinking age varied from state to state. Shortly after repeal of Prohibition in 1933, most states set their purchase ages at 21 since that was the age of majority at the time, but a few set their limits lower. Most of these limits remained constant until the early 1970s. From 1969 to 1976, 30 states lowered their purchase ages, generally to 18.[citation needed] This was primarily because the voting age was lowered from 21 to 18 with the 26th amendment, and nearly all states lowered their ages of majority as well. In spite of this, twelve states kept their purchase ages at 21 since repeal of Prohibition and have never changed them. From 1976 to 1983, several states voluntarily raised their purchase ages to 19 (or, less commonly, 20 or 21), in part to combat drunk driving fatalities. Most states still kept the age at 18 or 19 well into the 1980s.

In 1982, President Ronald Reagan set up a commission to study the drunk driving problem in the United States, and one of their 39 recommendations was a national, uniform drinking age of 21. This recommendation was influenced by Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD), which had been founded by Candy Lightner in 1980. Senator Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) wrote the National Minimum Drinking Age Act of 1984. By 1988, all 50 states and DC were in compliance, but Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands (and Guam until 2010) remained at 18 despite the loss of highway funding."

Well I don't know nearly as much about US law, my only thinking would be that the primacy refers to the enforcement of the criminal law, as opposed to changing the laws themselves to reflect policy. Smoking weed is still illegal in Washington and Colorado - it's just illegal because the feds say it is, not because of the state. And the state won't do anything to stop it from happening. That's where the Constitutional issue is - and where people in Washington and Colorado still have to be careful. It isn't a free pass there, by any means - Federal Criminal Law still applies in all states. It seems like Reagan was trying to force policy compliance through a federal action - which is a different thing entirely. The states you mentioned were entitled to keep their drinking laws however they liked - the Government couldn't change them. There was nothing illegal or unconstitutional about keeping the drinking age at 18. But they wanted to force compliance and went about it by cutting funding for roads to get it. Similarly if the Obama Administration wanted to force Washington and Colorado to change their laws and their policy regarding weed, they couldn't do it through strictly legal means (ie going to court to have the laws ruled unconstitutional), they'd have to exert pressure in some other way - reducing funding, etc.

I don't know if that even makes any sense. I'm sure there's way more details - probably around possession of an illegal drug being a federal criminal offence in the first place, while underage drinking isn't.

Fair enough. An excerpt from a Yahoo News article.

"So far, states that have approved medical marijuana have walked a fine line with federal laws that still prohibit the sale of marijuana under any circumstances. The full legalization of marijuana in these two states is expected to increase that tension between local and federal laws."

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/massachusetts-votes-favor-medical-marijuana-bill-041305835--election.html

So, yea, sounds like they can do it within the state without much legal ramification (within the state itself), but that doesn't mean the feds aren't going to push back sooner or later.

Talon wrote:Fair enough. An excerpt from a Yahoo News article.

"So far, states that have approved medical marijuana have walked a fine line with federal laws that still prohibit the sale of marijuana under any circumstances. The full legalization of marijuana in these two states is expected to increase that tension between local and federal laws."

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/massachusetts-votes-favor-medical-marijuana-bill-041305835--election.html

So, yea, sounds like they can do it within the state without much legal ramification (within the state itself), but that doesn't mean the feds aren't going to push back sooner or later.

I'm curious if this will raise or lower the cost of drug prosecutions. I'm tempted to say it'll raise it - at least if the Feds decide they want to aggressively pursue prosecutions in those states. If not, the cost savings might be considerable, and quite useful in justifying further legalization.

I'm curious as to how the Federal Gov't would approach taxes these states might choose to levy. Wouldn't the tax revenue technically be considered proceeds of crime by the federal government??

Fuck I have no idea...

I am proud to live in Colorado right now.

Gives a while new meaning to mile high

Not new....but legal. I know a ton of people that smoke pot regardless of the legality

If only it didn't make you so hungry though...

As soon as govt. (any) made legal the use for personal purposes, tobacco ( the number 1 global killer of users) and alcohol, it lost any moral authority to make any recreational drugs illegal.

To make it a criminal offense to be in possession of any recreational drug is itself immoral. Legalize all of it (the natural (god if you like) based stuff, not the man made chemical poisons portraying themselves as drugs) Regulate the distribution and sale of them all. Tax them and put the monies as such into credible anti-drug messaging and any credible science based rehab for any idiot who gets hooked on many of these drugs to clean up.


And NO just because it's legal does not mean a mass of people will now start using any or all of these drugs. A totally stupid logic to think such would happen. Tobacco is legal yet in Canada alone less than 17% of the population are said to smoke nowadays. I'd suggest the USA would be similar.

Boozers and druggies do it now even if some things may be illegal. Slapping a criminal record on them for simple possession is STUPID! Legalizing all these drugs would really hit the illegal drug trade hard.

VS wrote:I am proud to live in Colorado right now.

I'll drive out there, maybe pick up Blunt, and lets you and us and Ry get together and get fucked up.

It was pretty fun voting for weed even though i don't smoke it.

seriously, though. It's not like its a debilitating drug like meth or heroine or coke that completely ruins lives. and while it's not exactly healthy, it isn't any worse than smoking tobacco or alcohol.
and while alcoholism has been known to destroy more than a few lives and livers, recreational and moderated use of alcohol (and tobacco and weed for that matter) don't completely turn you into a semi-permanent twitchy, shuddering mess almost right away like more illicit drugs usually do. not unless you have a penchant for alcoholism, in which case...yeah, stay away.

in related news, all the conservatives I know are bitching about how dumb the rest of America is and how the "USSA" is going to hell in a handbasket and we're all going to regret it when we're trapped under the watchful gaze of Brother Eye.

And I'm just sitting here masturbating.