Re: US strike options on TSP

[vinod]

One thing I have noticed over the years is that "Politicians are never as a bad or as good as they were predicted to be, once they are in power."

[RajeshA]

Here is a interview by Hala Gorani of CNN with Sir Socks, former UK Ambassador to USA

The man is terrified of a Trump Presidency!

He says, Trump is going to do an ISIS and blow up the whole "rule-based" world order! If UK establishment is worried, then Trump must be doing something right!

[RajeshA]

Here is some great news for US-India relations

Published on Mar 31, 2016
By Seth Abramson
Hillary Clinton’s Support Among Nonwhite Voters Has Collapsed: Huffington Post

On February 27th, Hillary Clinton led Bernie Sanders among African-American voters by 52 points.

By March 26th, she led Sanders among African-Americans by just nine points.

And today, Public Policy Polling, a widely respected polling organization, released a poll showing that Sanders leads Clinton among African-American voters in Wisconsin by 11 points.

It’s all part of a dramatic national trend that has seen Clinton’s support among nonwhite voters dwindle to well under a third of what it was just a month ago — not nearly enough support to carry her, as it did throughout the Deep South, to future electoral victories in the Midwest and Northeast.

So no, it’s not a coincidence that, in the 18 state primary elections since March 1st, Bernie Sanders has won on Election Day in 12 of them.

(That’s right: Bernie won among live and provisional ballots in Arizona, Illinois, and Missouri.)

Of Clinton’s five post-March 1st Election Day wins, four (Mississippi, Louisiana, Florida, and North Carolina) were in the South, and were made possible by a level of support among nonwhite voters that Clinton no longer enjoys. Indeed, this coalition was already collapsing when Clinton won in Florida and North Carolina on March 15th. At the polls in North Carolina on Election Day, Clinton won just 52 percent to 48 percent, including the tens of thousands of provisional ballots cast (which, still being counted, have gone, as expected, 57 percent for Senator Sanders). In Florida, the 36-point edge Clinton held in the first three weeks of early voting (February 15th to March 7th) dwindled to a 13.4-point edge among those who made their decision regarding who to vote for from March 8th to March 15th.

In short, the Clinton campaign is in the midst of an historic collapse — much of it due to the unraveling of support for Clinton among nonwhite voters — and the national media has yet to take any notice.

Clinton’s 48-point lead in New York less than two weeks ago is now just a 12-point lead, according to the latest Quinnipiac Poll. That poll shows Sanders with approximately 300 percent more support among African-American voters in New York than he had in Mississippi earlier this month.

Meanwhile, in the only poll taken in Indiana, Sanders is said to be beating Clinton handily.

Sanders is leading by 8 points in West Virginia.

And the only polling done so far in Kentucky — among nearly 1,000 students at the University of Kentucky — has Sanders up on Clinton there by more than 70 points.

But what the latest Reuters polling underscores is that even Clinton’s support in the South has collapsed.

Even if she is chosen as Democratic Presidential candidate, she would be on a very weak firmament. In fact, the way it looks, she would hardly make it to the finishing line, i.e. get a majority, but it may be such a slim majority, that Bernie Sanders's supporters would be up in arms too, as it is superdelegates who would in the end pull her across the majority line and not the pledged delegates necessarily.

[Singha]

Takbeer aoa
Takbeer aoa

[Y I Patel]

Here is some great news for US-India relations

Published on Mar 31, 2016
By Seth Abramson
Hillary Clinton’s Support Among Nonwhite Voters Has Collapsed: Huffington Post

On February 27th, Hillary Clinton led Bernie Sanders among African-American voters by 52 points.

By March 26th, she led Sanders among African-Americans by just nine points.

And today, Public Policy Polling, a widely respected polling organization, released a poll showing that Sanders leads Clinton among African-American voters in Wisconsin by 11 points.


Clinton’s 48-point lead in New York less than two weeks ago is now just a 12-point lead, according to the latest Quinnipiac Poll. That poll shows Sanders with approximately 300 percent more support among African-American voters in New York than he had in Mississippi earlier this month.

Looks like Clinton has all but abandoned Wisconsin to focus on New York, which shows the seriousness with which she is now treating Bernie's run. Even if Bernie fails to pull it off in NY (and he is a Brooklyn kid which does count for a lot), the biggest loser would be the conservative Israeli lobby as represented by Netenyahu. Bernie has made it clear that despite being Jewish he has no sympathy for several of Israel's current positions, and if Hilary is forced to hug Obama even more closely now, she will have to toe a softer line on Obama's Iran and now Cuba policies which are highly unpopular with the establishment but enjoy substantial support with the American public in general. By the way, if she does become the Democrat candidate, I would bet good money on this guy being the running mate pick:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_Castro

[Prem]

[habal]

Pastor Lindsey Graham reveals Heidi Cruz' less than savory background. (Wife of Ted Cruz, presidential candidate)

http://www.rense.com/general96/heidi.html

Team Cruz, Capitol Police Emails Pop Up in Ashley Madison Data Dump

- See more at: http://www.rollcall.com/heard-on-the-hi ... gPMas.dpuf

[Prem]

http://linkis.com/www.theatlantic.com/NYfNK
The Real Story of How America Became an Economic Superpower
Adam Tooze's study of the two world wars traces a new history of the 20th century.

The basis of the modern European order was America’s rise to dominance a century ago. That dominance may soon end.. By 1944, foreigners constituted 20 percent of the German workforce and 33 percent of armaments workers (less than 9 percent of the population of today’s liberal and multicultural Germany is foreign-born). On paper, the Nazi empire of 1942 represented a substantial economic bloc. But pillage and slavery are not workable bases for an industrial economy. Under German rule, the output of conquered Europe collapsed. The Hitlerian vision of a united German-led Eurasia equaling the Anglo-American bloc proved a crazed and genocidal fantasy.
with the advent of a new European order—liberal, democratic, and under American protection. Yet nothing lasts forever. The foundation of this order was America’s rise to unique economic predominance a century ago. That predominance is now coming to an end as China does what the Soviet Union and Imperial Germany never could: rise toward economic parity with the United States. That parity has not, in fact, yet arrived, and the most realistic measures suggest that the moment of parity won’t arrive until the later 2020s. Perhaps some unforeseen disruption in the Chinese economy—or some unexpected acceleration of American prosperity—will postpone the moment even further. But it is coming, and when it does, the fundamental basis of world-power politics over the past 100 years will have been removed. .

[RajeshA]

By the way, if she does become the Democrat candidate, I would bet good money on this guy being the running mate pick:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_Castro

Is it even allowed to have somebody on the ticket who has an identical twin brother? Somehow it reminds me of that movie "Dave" with Kevin Kline, where the President has a look-alike and he is used as a replacement!

[ramana]

http://linkis.com/www.theatlantic.com/NYfNK
The Real Story of How America Became an Economic Superpower
Adam Tooze's study of the two world wars traces a new history of the 20th century.

The basis of the modern European order was America’s rise to dominance a century ago. That dominance may soon end.. By 1944, foreigners constituted 20 percent of the German workforce and 33 percent of armaments workers (less than 9 percent of the population of today’s liberal and multicultural Germany is foreign-born). On paper, the Nazi empire of 1942 represented a substantial economic bloc. But pillage and slavery are not workable bases for an industrial economy. Under German rule, the output of conquered Europe collapsed. The Hitlerian vision of a united German-led Eurasia equaling the Anglo-American bloc proved a crazed and genocidal fantasy.
with the advent of a new European order—liberal, democratic, and under American protection. Yet nothing lasts forever. The foundation of this order was America’s rise to unique economic predominance a century ago. That predominance is now coming to an end as China does what the Soviet Union and Imperial Germany never could: rise toward economic parity with the United States. That parity has not, in fact, yet arrived, and the most realistic measures suggest that the moment of parity won’t arrive until the later 2020s. Perhaps some unforeseen disruption in the Chinese economy—or some unexpected acceleration of American prosperity—will postpone the moment even further. But it is coming, and when it does, the fundamental basis of world-power politics over the past 100 years will have been removed. .

When that happens US will collapse the dollar and bring down China.

[Viv S]

http://linkis.com/www.theatlantic.com/NYfNK
The Real Story of How America Became an Economic Superpower
Adam Tooze's study of the two world wars traces a new history of the 20th century.

Great find Jhujar. Looking forward to reading Tooze's book.

[NRao]

How a US president and JP Morgan made Panama: and turned it into a tax haven

Interesting article

[NRao]

America’s 25 Most Awkward Allies

Last December, National Security Adviser Susan Rice offered a remarkably candid insight into Barack Obama’s foreign policy. “Let’s be honest,” she said, “at times … we do business with governments that do not respect the rights we hold most dear.”

American presidents have long wrestled with this dilemma. During the Cold War, whether it was Dwight Eisenhower overthrowing Iran’s duly elected prime minister or Richard Nixon winking at Chile’s Augusto Pinochet, they often made unsavory moral compromises. Even Jimmy Carter, who said America’s “commitment to human rights must be absolute,” cut deals with dictators.

But Obama, an idealist at home, has turned out to be more cold-blooded than most recent presidents about the tough choices to be made in the world, downgrading democracy and human rights accordingly. From Syria to Ukraine, Egypt to Venezuela, this president has shied away from the pay-any-price, bear-any-burden global ambitions of his predecessors, preferring quiet diplomacy to the bully pulpit—when he is engaged at all.

He has his reasons. A decade of occupying Iraq and Afghanistan soured Americans on George W. Bush’s “freedom agenda,” taking invasion off the table as a policy tool. And there are broader global forces at work too: the meteoric rise of China, new tools for repressing dissent, the malign effect of high oil prices. Freedom in the world has declined for eight straight years, according to Freedom House—not just under Obama.

But if the president is troubled by these trends, he shows few signs of it. “We live in a world of imperfect choices,” Obama shrugged last year—and his administration has made many, currying favor with a rogue’s gallery of tyrants and autocrats. Here, Politico Magazine has assembled a list of America’s 25 most awkward friends and allies, from Pakistan to Saudi Arabia, Honduras to Uzbekistan—and put together a damning, revelatory collection of reports on the following pages about the “imperfect choices” the United States has made in each. “I will not pretend that some short-term tradeoffs do not exist,” Rice admitted. Neither will we.

***

1. Pakistan

America’s worst ally—being home to Osama bin Laden will do that to your reputation—Pakistan has gobbled up billions of dollars in U.S. aid and “reimbursements” for services rendered in the war on terror. And while Pakistan’s powerful military and spy services have often collaborated with their American counterparts on drone strikes and militant arrests, they’ve just as often made mischief, hosting the Taliban and other extremist groups, planting false anti-American stories in the press and undermining the civilian government. “The cancer is in Pakistan,” Obama reportedly told his staff in 2009—but he has yet to figure out how to excise it.

Followed by:

2. Saudi Arabia
3. Afghanistan
4. Iraq
5. Egypt

Pattern is clear.

[RajeshA]

After watching this video, Indians would feel far more positive about our politicians. You don't believe me? Then watch!

[RajeshA]

Found on twitter

[RajeshA]

Chinagate: Amreeka-Chini Bhai-Bhai

... and Hillary sabki Maa

[RajeshA]

Published on Aug 07, 2015
By Richard Johnson
Hillary’s Alter Ego Huma Abedin, Who is Now “Omnipresent” and “Indispensable”, Is Expected To Have Her Own Bedroom in the White House: Orb Magazine

“Huma’s influence is so pervasive and Hillary’s dependence on her so total that it is expected she will have her own bedroom upstairs in the White House,” a Clinton associate says. “After 20 years as Hillary’s gatekeeper, no one else could screen the calls and decide who gets access as ably as she does.”

Published Jul 02, 2015
By Annie Karni
Hillary's shadow: Politico.com

In thousands of emails released Tuesday night by the State Department, Abedin’s omnipresent role organizing Clinton’s life was clearly on display: the late diplomat Richard Holbrooke, former Vice President Al Gore, Sen. Chuck Schumer and even former President Bill Clinton all phoned Abedin to reach Clinton. Abedin scheduled Clinton’s hair and medical appointments, knew where Clinton’s physical therapy instructions were to be found, delivered to her the sacred daily briefing book, and enjoyed full access to Clinton, at home or at work.

I was going to post this to the "Positive News" thread, but decided to post here, considering the seriousness of allegations and the wider effects of the attitude



Larry Nichols, an erstwhile confidante of Clintons, says that Hillary had had more women than Bill Clinton!

[ramana]

I was watching a garden show on PBS on Sunday called P. Allen Smith. Usually its about country gardens and lots of organic food etc.

Last show had a segment on Clinton Foundation outreach program in Arkansas. Was shocked that a Muslim lady in a hijab is the resident expert leading high school students on a inter-faith dialog and being friends. All this in countryside Arkansas. They had kids from Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist groups. No Hindus!

So indoctrination is going on fast and furious on future opinion makers.

[Melwyn]

This single article is enough to explain how badly rigged the entire system is in US. This is not a democracy at all, it is just oligarchy.

‘Morning Joe’ wonders why Dems bother voting after Sanders streak fails to dent Clinton lead

Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders captured another win over the weekend in Wyoming, but despite the 12 points, the victory wasn’t exactly that big of a victory. Morning Joe‘s Joe Scarborough took issue with the string of Sanders’ successes saying that a win should be a win.

“He’s won eight out of nine,” Scarborough began. “He wins by 12 points. I tell you, I would not do well as a Democratic politician. He wins by 12 points; he may not pick up a single delegate, it’s seven to six now with a remaining delegate to be decided later? I’m sorry, that’s a crushing victory.”

With a graphic on the screen showing the delegate count where Hillary Clinton received 11 delegates and Sanders got seven, Scarborough proclaimed balderdash. “We’ve been talking about rigged systems,” he began. “Bernie Sanders wins 56 to 44 percent in Wyoming… why does the Democratic Party even have voting booths? This system is so rigged.

[habal]

not much better on GoP side either.


Donald J. Trump Verified account
‏@realDonaldTrump
How is it possible that the people of the great State of Colorado never got to vote in the Republican Primary? Great anger - totally unfair!

FURY AS COLORADO HAS NO PRIMARY OR CAUCUS; CRUZ CELEBRATES VOTERLESS VICTORY

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-el ... on-n553641

GoP establishment fraud repeats itself in virginia. A state that Trump won. But delegates go to a rat-faced cuban.

Cruz-Supporting Delegates Picked in Virginia District Trump Won
by MICHELLE CHO

[Melwyn]

As they say, "Same shit different as*h*le."

[UlanBatori]

St. Donald bin Trump needs to bring in Amit Shah as expert consultan to win against this gang. Hilarybibi already has Abdul Bag-daddy via Mohterma Huma. Cruz can hire Laloo Prasad Yadav.

[Y. Kanan]

Watching the US political establishment overrule the clearly expressed will of their own voters re: Trump has been illuminating.

If you ever wanted solid proof of a nefarious "deep state" that actually runs the US, this election cycle is all the proof you need.

How is the US any more democratic than Russia at this point? Same shenanigans. Same result.

[Viv S]

Watching the US political establishment overrule the clearly expressed will of their own voters re: Trump has been illuminating.

If you ever wanted solid proof of a nefarious "deep state" that actually runs the US, this election cycle is all the proof you need.

How is the US any more democratic than Russia at this point? Same shenanigans. Same result.

You know these are primaries i.e. internal party elections. Has nothing to do with the state. Trump is quite free to run his own independent election campaign ("The Trump Party"), if he fails to get the nomination (which he said he would do before the primaries even began). The actual election, one where everybody votes rather than just registered party members, begins in November.

Either way, the GOP is screwed. Either they nominate a person with a fractured support base... and lose against Hillary (who needs just one-third of the remaining delegates to seal the deal). Or they nominate Trump, who's standing with women (50% of the electorate) and minorities is so miserable that he'll get crushed in any general election.

[devesh]

^^^
except the fact that these "internal" elections inevitably ensure a certain type of candidate is only allowed to rise to the nomination, purposefully ensuring that those who don't have "establishment" support are thrown out.

it's an interesting model, for sure.

[Y. Kanan]

Watching the US political establishment overrule the clearly expressed will of their own voters re: Trump has been illuminating.

If you ever wanted solid proof of a nefarious "deep state" that actually runs the US, this election cycle is all the proof you need.

How is the US any more democratic than Russia at this point? Same shenanigans. Same result.

You know these are primaries i.e. internal party elections. Has nothing to do with the state. Trump is quite free to run his own independent election campaign ("The Trump Party"), if he fails to get the nomination (which he said he would do before the primaries even began). The actual election, one where everybody votes rather than just registered party members, begins in November.

Either way, the GOP is screwed. Either they nominate a person with a fractured support base... and lose against Hillary (who needs just one-third of the remaining delegates to seal the deal). Or they nominate Trump, who's standing with women (50% of the electorate) and minorities is so miserable that he'll get crushed in any general election.

From what I've seen so far, the Republican powers that be are invalidating and throwing out entire states that voted Trump (such as Colorado), instead awarding those votes to Cruz or whichever handpicked weirdo they've settled on. If this sort of thing were done in, say, Russia (and it does), we'd be hearing all about their sham democracy (and we do).

I'm not going to pretend to fully understand US elections but this all seems highly undemocratic.

[Viv S]

^^^
except the fact that these "internal" elections inevitably ensure a certain type of candidate is only allowed to rise to the nomination, purposefully ensuring that those who don't have "establishment" support are thrown out.

it's an interesting model, for sure.

Only denies them the nomination. Doesn't stop the anti-establishment types from running for office.

[Vayutuvan]

Sure, but none other than from one of the two parties - dems and GOP currently - ever got elected to the highest office. Colorado is a sham anyway you cut it.

[Viv S]

Sure, but none other than from one of the two parties - dems and GOP currently - ever got elected to the highest office. Colorado is a sham anyway you cut it.

That it hasn't been done in the recent past, doesn't mean it can't be done. There's nothing in the rules that prevents an independent candidate from running and winning a presidential election.

And for the record, the Democrats and Republicans weren't established right after independence. The US started out with the Federalist Party and the Democratic-Republican Party (which later split into the Whigs & Democrats). Point being, there's nothing stopping a third party alternative to the Democrats & Republicans from emerging, from a split in the GOP if necessary.

[Viv S]

From what I've seen so far, the Republican powers that be are invalidating and throwing out entire states that voted Trump (such as Colorado), instead awarding those votes to Cruz or whichever handpicked weirdo they've settled on. If this sort of thing were done in, say, Russia (and it does), we'd be hearing all about their sham democracy (and we do).

I'm not going to pretend to fully understand US elections but this all seems highly undemocratic.

You're again missing the point. These are party elections, there is no obligation for them to be held any particular manner. A democracy ensures its citizens have the right to vote and contest elections, a right that is not in any way obstructed by internal party elections. The Russian equivalent to that would be elections to United Russia party positions. The Indian equivalent would be party elections within the BJP. How many candidates for the legislature (LS/RS/VS) are selected through election, rather than appointed by an election committee on basis of 'electability'? Does the entire body of registered party members get to vote on the party's candidate for the position of the CM or PM? Does that mean India is not a democracy?


Now gerrymandering on the other hand... that's an actual subversion of democracy -

[Gus]

the primary system while looking great shining democracy from outside, is very messy on the inside..what with the rules that can be changed at will (every convention can make their own rules, overthrowing last years rules), the delegates, super delegates, unpledged delegates, the contested conventions, the second ballot after first ballot where delegates can change their votes etc..

the RNC could be a riot house....

[RajeshA]

Democracy is a system where the people can choose the most worthy from those contesting, who they think can provide the people

- better personal and civilizational security
- enhanced prosperity
- adequate recalibration of power between the elite/establishment and the commoners

through a peaceful means of government change.

Republican and Democratic primaries show that the establishment would not allow for this peaceful recalibration of power. Hence America is not a democracy!

[Viv S]

Democracy is a system where the people can choose the most worthy from those contesting, who they think can provide the people

- better personal and civilizational security
- enhanced prosperity
- adequate recalibration of power between the elite/establishment and the commoners

through a peaceful means of government change.

Republican and Democratic primaries show that the establishment would not allow for this peaceful recalibration of power. Hence America is not a democracy!

The individuals that can provide security, prosperity and redistribution of power are quite free to contest the general election and make their case to the American public (as opposed to a subset of partisan voters) and be sworn into office through an entirely peaceful process.

[RajeshA]

Democracy is a system where the people can choose the most worthy from those contesting, who they think can provide the people

- better personal and civilizational security
- enhanced prosperity
- adequate recalibration of power between the elite/establishment and the commoners

through a peaceful means of government change.

Republican and Democratic primaries show that the establishment would not allow for this peaceful recalibration of power. Hence America is not a democracy!

The individuals that can provide security, prosperity and redistribution of power are quite free to contest the general election and make their case to the American public (as opposed to a subset of partisan voters) and be sworn into office through an entirely peaceful process.

Yes, an entirely peaceful process which is stacked against anyone raising their voice against the establishment! Superdelegates, unpledged delegates, caucases, closed door delegate nominations, are all levers with which the establishment trips up anyone who takes them on. It is a sham process.

Ergo, America is not a democracy!

[Viv S]

Yes, an entirely peaceful process which is stacked against anyone raising their voice against the establishment! Superdelegates, unpledged delegates, caucases, closed door delegate nominations, are all levers with which the establishment trips up anyone who takes them on. It is a sham process.

Ergo, America is not a democracy!

They're quite free to stand for office without going through the 'superdelegates, unpledged delegates, caucuses, closer door delegate nominations etc' rigmarole.

[RajeshA]

They're quite free to stand for office without going through the 'superdelegates, unpledged delegates, caucuses, closer door delegate nominations etc' rigmarole.

What you are saying is that established political parties are "owned" by the establishment, and it is they who decide who passes through it and not the registered party voters, even though they hold a sham every four years to convince the people otherwise.

Standing for election bypassing this rigging tactics means you can do that only as an independent or third party candidate. Fine. But at the same time, it shows that the established parties do not allow democracy.

[Viv S]

What you are saying is that established political parties are "owned" by the establishment, and it is they who decide who passes through it and not the registered party voters, even though they hold a sham every four years to convince the people otherwise.

Standing for election bypassing this rigging tactics means you can do that only as an independent or third party candidate. Fine. But at the same time, it shows that the established parties do not allow democracy.

Runs up against the paradox of an anti-establishment candidate wanting to ride an an establishment vehicle to political office.

And while political parties may not be true democracies, the president is still a democratically elected individual. We don't go through even a facade of primaries in India.. still a perfectly functional democracy.

[Gus]

in any big country, there is no such thing as perfect democracy.

even the electoral college is not an ideal democracy because it awards an entire state to a contestant if he gets just one vote extra than opponent.

BUT, that is a good way to make sure that the eventual winner has a spread of appeal over many states and not concentrated appeal in one region where he can possibly get more votes to compensate for other regions.

from a pure democracy pov it can be wrong that a populous state like NY, CA having same representation in senate as sparsely populated states like WY.

i usually don't go by these things.

the test for democracy is simple - is the will of the people reflected by their elected govt. Take major issues and see how it is reflected. in many issues like foreign policy, gun control, spending allocations etc, it is not.

[RajeshA]

What you are saying is that established political parties are "owned" by the establishment, and it is they who decide who passes through it and not the registered party voters, even though they hold a sham every four years to convince the people otherwise.

Standing for election bypassing this rigging tactics means you can do that only as an independent or third party candidate. Fine. But at the same time, it shows that the established parties do not allow democracy.

And while political parties may not be true democracies, the president is still a democratically elected individual. We don't go through even a facade of primaries in India.. still a perfectly functional democracy.

We do not go through inter-party elections, that is true, but then we don't claim that the man elected as the PM is directly elected by the people. He is elected by the Parliament. In the USA, the claim is that the people through the electoral college elect the President, and the electoral college "reflects" the popular will, and that too directly. The elector does not choose whom to elect of his own free will.

Point is not about how effective the democracy is, but rather whether it lives up to its pretensions and claims.

Runs up against the paradox of an anti-establishment candidate wanting to ride an an establishment vehicle to political office.

Then why call it a democracy at all! Let the Presidency be called an establishment vehicle, and the President is the Prime Chauffeur of Establishment Vehicle.

The point I am trying to make is that the American establishment wants to have their cake and eat it too, have an oligarchy and call it a democracy! Why should the world let the American establishment call themselves a democracy and win all the moral high horse brownie points?

[Viv S]

the test for democracy is simple - is the will of the people reflected by their elected govt. Take major issues and see how it is reflected. in many issues like foreign policy, gun control, spending allocations etc, it is not.

The trouble for them as I see it, is that the popular opinion on most issues divides the country in half. And the fact that the federal govt can impose restrictions on either unwilling half, only hardens their respective positions. Gun control is an apt example, a great deal of fanaticism is a result of the impression that the feds are 'coming for your guns'. Left to themselves, even the most conservative of states would have instituted basic regulations (at least at par with driving licenses). The net result of this and other such issues is a divided country and gridlocked legislature. The only real way out IMO is to devolve as much power as possible to the states (especially on social issues), letting them handle it at their own pace.