Author Topic: 2016 Presidential Race  (Read 159921 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Prog Snob

  • Posts: 16681
  • Gender: Male
  • In the end we're left infinitely and utterly alone
Re: 2016 Presidential Race
« Reply #105 on: April 09, 2015, 07:47:40 AM »
Didn't Obama and Romney both receive over a billion dollars in funding for the 2012 election? No way Ron Paul came anywhere near that.

You're right.  Maybe it was 2008 I was thinking of.  I'm trying to find the infographic where I saw Ron Paul was on top. 

Offline hefdaddy42

  • Back for the Attack
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 40894
  • Gender: Male
  • Postwhore Emeritus
Re: 2016 Presidential Race
« Reply #106 on: April 09, 2015, 07:54:42 AM »
I don't ever remember a campaign where Ron Paul was the top money-drawer.
Hef is right on all things. Except for when I disagree with him. In which case he's probably still right.

Calvin6s

  • Guest
Re: 2016 Presidential Race
« Reply #107 on: April 09, 2015, 01:17:52 PM »
Ron Paul = The Money Bomb

Offline kirksnosehair

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 6679
  • Gender: Male
  • I'M CAPTAIN KIRK!!!!!!!!!!!
    • The ANABASIS
Re: 2016 Presidential Race
« Reply #108 on: April 12, 2015, 05:18:19 AM »
There was no "but they did it" in that post. It was a statement about how dysfunctional politics are in this country.

And I think we have a difference of opinion about where the dysfunction begins.  You say Congress (but not the D side).  I say it begins in the White House.  Obama has had every configuration with which to work with Congress and he has butted heads with every one.  Including the D supermajority.


No offence but this is as untrue as saying water isn't wet.  There are precisely no facts that support this claim.  None.  Except maybe over at Faux News

Offline kingshmegland

  • defender of the brew!
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 42645
  • Gender: Male
  • Take that Beethoven, you deaf bastard!!
Re: 2016 Presidential Race
« Reply #109 on: April 12, 2015, 08:01:42 AM »
I's say it's more both Democrats and Republicans were butting heads and could not get anything done.  Bipartisanship seems to be a thing of the past.
I don't like country music, but I don't mean to denigrate those who do. And for the people who like country music, denigrate means 'put down'. - Bob Newhart

So wait, we're spelling it wrong and king is spelling it right? What is going on here? :lol -- BlobVanDam

Offline Prog Snob

  • Posts: 16681
  • Gender: Male
  • In the end we're left infinitely and utterly alone
Re: 2016 Presidential Race
« Reply #110 on: April 12, 2015, 08:21:38 AM »
There was no "but they did it" in that post. It was a statement about how dysfunctional politics are in this country.

And I think we have a difference of opinion about where the dysfunction begins.  You say Congress (but not the D side).  I say it begins in the White House.  Obama has had every configuration with which to work with Congress and he has butted heads with every one.  Including the D supermajority.

I don't think he cares and that's the problem.  It's been especially obvious lately where he just does what he wants, regardless of what his fellow politicians say.  if people can't see that, then it's just blatantly obvious he does no wrong in some people's eyes. 

Calvin6s

  • Guest
Re: 2016 Presidential Race
« Reply #111 on: April 12, 2015, 04:19:42 PM »
There was no "but they did it" in that post. It was a statement about how dysfunctional politics are in this country.

And I think we have a difference of opinion about where the dysfunction begins.  You say Congress (but not the D side).  I say it begins in the White House.  Obama has had every configuration with which to work with Congress and he has butted heads with every one.  Including the D supermajority.


No offence but this is as untrue as saying water isn't wet.  There are precisely no facts that support this claim.  None.  Except maybe over at Faux News

As opposed to your fact driven statement?  Most of this stuff is common knowledge, but for those still in the cult.

Obama to GOP: 'I won'
Stated 1/23/2009

BTW, Politico is more akin to MSNBC than Fox News.


Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 16487
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: 2016 Presidential Race
« Reply #112 on: April 13, 2015, 10:04:23 AM »
There was no "but they did it" in that post. It was a statement about how dysfunctional politics are in this country.

And I think we have a difference of opinion about where the dysfunction begins.  You say Congress (but not the D side).  I say it begins in the White House.  Obama has had every configuration with which to work with Congress and he has butted heads with every one.  Including the D supermajority.


No offence but this is as untrue as saying water isn't wet.  There are precisely no facts that support this claim.  None.  Except maybe over at Faux News

I don't know what "Faux News" is, and don't watch Fox News either, but I do know that many Democrats, including even Harry Reid, have gone on record as saying that Obama isn't really interested in working with Congress, regardless of the makeup:

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/kevinglass/2014/08/19/democratic-lawmakers-decry-obamas-lack-of-interest-in-working-with-congress-n1880410

And if that isn't enough, there is this circumstantial evidence:
The most Executive Orders (i.e. which often - but not always - translate into the President working independently and not using Congress to pass an appropriate law) that Obama passed in any one year is 39, and he did that twice (2009, and 2012).   Presumably, with a Democrat Congress (and a supermajority for, depending on how you look at it, 60 or 134 days, in which time the ACA was passed) there would be less need for Executive Orders, but apparently not.

So, Kirk, you may ultimately be right, but as I have noted before, your hyperbole "no facts.... None," is once again under-informed. 

Offline El Barto

  • Rascal Atheistic Pig
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 22074
  • Bad Craziness
Re: 2016 Presidential Race
« Reply #113 on: April 13, 2015, 10:39:25 AM »
Obama's use of the executive order is quite low. He's continuing a downward trend that's been going on since the Truman administration.
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 16487
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: 2016 Presidential Race
« Reply #114 on: April 13, 2015, 11:04:10 AM »
Obama's use of the executive order is quite low. He's continuing a downward trend that's been going on since the Truman administration.

I'm not suggesting it is or it isn't (frankly, I have little issue with the "Executive Order" thing).   My point was only that presumably it would be "less necessary" in an environment where the President has or is cultivating a strong relationship with Congress.  Kirk said there were "NO" facts - zero, none, nada, nyet - and there are clearly SOME. 

Offline hefdaddy42

  • Back for the Attack
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 40894
  • Gender: Male
  • Postwhore Emeritus
Re: 2016 Presidential Race
« Reply #115 on: April 13, 2015, 11:07:59 AM »
Actually, the use of an EO (by Obama or anyone else) is not necessarily a sign of not wanting to work with Congress.  Many times, it is a way to get something done NOW, instead of waiting possibly years for something to get through the process in Congress, as long as it is something within the purview of the Executive Branch.

So, he really may not like working with Congress, but this isn't evidence toward that end.
Hef is right on all things. Except for when I disagree with him. In which case he's probably still right.

Offline El Barto

  • Rascal Atheistic Pig
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 22074
  • Bad Craziness
Re: 2016 Presidential Race
« Reply #116 on: April 13, 2015, 11:15:06 AM »
Obama's use of the executive order is quite low. He's continuing a downward trend that's been going on since the Truman administration.

I'm not suggesting it is or it isn't (frankly, I have little issue with the "Executive Order" thing).   My point was only that presumably it would be "less necessary" in an environment where the President has or is cultivating a strong relationship with Congress.  Kirk said there were "NO" facts - zero, none, nada, nyet - and there are clearly SOME.
Oh, I don't disagree with the consensus that Obama has no interest in working with Congress; who would? I'm just saying that the fact the use of EOs is in steady decline actually suggest the opposite.
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Calvin6s

  • Guest
Re: 2016 Presidential Race
« Reply #117 on: April 13, 2015, 12:54:14 PM »
Executive Orders (and the many names given to them to lower stats) are not meant to, as Obama put it, make an end run around Congress.  They are meant to address executive details where a law has provided that executive managing.  It was never meant to, as Obama put it, create a new law.

So this is the 2016 thread, and I assume that would mean most people are looking for a candidate that actually did what Obama lied to us about.  Accountability, equal branches, etc., etc.

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 16487
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: 2016 Presidential Race
« Reply #118 on: April 13, 2015, 02:06:28 PM »
Actually, the use of an EO (by Obama or anyone else) is not necessarily a sign of not wanting to work with Congress.  Many times, it is a way to get something done NOW, instead of waiting possibly years for something to get through the process in Congress, as long as it is something within the purview of the Executive Branch.

So, he really may not like working with Congress, but this isn't evidence toward that end.

I understand all that, I agree, and I fully admit that I am talking about circumstantial evidence, but the premise was that one wouldn't expect the HIGHEST number of EOs during a period of optimal cooperation, unless there was in fact less than optimal cooperation.

Just something to discuss.  It's not all that important in the grand scheme of things.

Offline hefdaddy42

  • Back for the Attack
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 40894
  • Gender: Male
  • Postwhore Emeritus
Re: 2016 Presidential Race
« Reply #119 on: April 13, 2015, 02:53:43 PM »
Actually, the use of an EO (by Obama or anyone else) is not necessarily a sign of not wanting to work with Congress.  Many times, it is a way to get something done NOW, instead of waiting possibly years for something to get through the process in Congress, as long as it is something within the purview of the Executive Branch.

So, he really may not like working with Congress, but this isn't evidence toward that end.

I understand all that, I agree, and I fully admit that I am talking about circumstantial evidence, but the premise was that one wouldn't expect the HIGHEST number of EOs during a period of optimal cooperation, unless there was in fact less than optimal cooperation.

Just something to discuss.  It's not all that important in the grand scheme of things.
Of course.  :tup
Hef is right on all things. Except for when I disagree with him. In which case he's probably still right.

Offline cramx3

  • Chillest of the chill
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 21480
  • Gender: Male
    • The Home of cramx3
Re: 2016 Presidential Race
« Reply #120 on: April 15, 2015, 06:23:16 AM »
Well if Chris Christie is to decide to run for president, I think he just buried himself by saying he would enforce federal marijuana laws

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/04/14/chris-christie-marijuana_n_7066636.html?ncid=txtlnkusaolp00000592

Offline Prog Snob

  • Posts: 16681
  • Gender: Male
  • In the end we're left infinitely and utterly alone
Re: 2016 Presidential Race
« Reply #121 on: April 15, 2015, 07:24:20 AM »
Well if Chris Christie is to decide to run for president, I think he just buried himself by saying he would enforce federal marijuana laws

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/04/14/chris-christie-marijuana_n_7066636.html?ncid=txtlnkusaolp00000592

I never liked him anyway. 

Online Chino

  • Be excellent to each other.
  • DT.net Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 21170
  • Gender: Male
Re: 2016 Presidential Race
« Reply #122 on: April 15, 2015, 07:44:10 AM »
Well if Chris Christie is to decide to run for president, I think he just buried himself by saying he would enforce federal marijuana laws

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/04/14/chris-christie-marijuana_n_7066636.html?ncid=txtlnkusaolp00000592

Well.... I guess that's one way to lose the election before you officially announce you're running. What a douche.

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 16487
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: 2016 Presidential Race
« Reply #123 on: April 15, 2015, 07:58:24 AM »
Well if Chris Christie is to decide to run for president, I think he just buried himself by saying he would enforce federal marijuana laws

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/04/14/chris-christie-marijuana_n_7066636.html?ncid=txtlnkusaolp00000592

Well.... I guess that's one way to lose the election before you officially announce you're running. What a douche.

Not sure "douche" is necessary (after all, it's only that he disagrees with you) but it will be interesting if he declares, because regardless of where you stand on the issue, it will be a fascinating discussion come debate season, and will be fodder for the smarter of the other candidates. 

Forget about "marijuana" for a moment, but this is a classic case of the conflict between Federal regulation and state regulation (and no, not just the dichotomy of the law, but the very concept).  "Classic" conservatism would say that it isn't a question for the Federal government, but rather SHOULD be determined by the states, regardless of where they fall specifically on any one issue.  (There is a meaningful subset of Republicans who nominally appear to be "against" gay marriage because of lack of support on a Federal basis but are really not, they just want this determined, as it perhaps should be, on a state-by-state basis.  I'm in this group.).

I think Christie is wrong, but for the right reasons, if that makes sense.  The real question (and what I would ask Christie if I had the chance), is "What is your position if the Federal ban is rescinded?"   I think it would really be a test of what Christie really believes and how he would handle a concept that perhaps is against his personal beliefs but is in keeping with the process and the way the American system is designed to work.

I'm not a huge Christie fan, generally, but I always applaud his willingness to take a stand and weather the resulting storm.   

Offline cramx3

  • Chillest of the chill
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 21480
  • Gender: Male
    • The Home of cramx3
Re: 2016 Presidential Race
« Reply #124 on: April 15, 2015, 08:13:30 AM »
Well if Chris Christie is to decide to run for president, I think he just buried himself by saying he would enforce federal marijuana laws

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/04/14/chris-christie-marijuana_n_7066636.html?ncid=txtlnkusaolp00000592

Well.... I guess that's one way to lose the election before you officially announce you're running. What a douche.

Not sure "douche" is necessary (after all, it's only that he disagrees with you) but it will be interesting if he declares, because regardless of where you stand on the issue, it will be a fascinating discussion come debate season, and will be fodder for the smarter of the other candidates. 

Forget about "marijuana" for a moment, but this is a classic case of the conflict between Federal regulation and state regulation (and no, not just the dichotomy of the law, but the very concept).  "Classic" conservatism would say that it isn't a question for the Federal government, but rather SHOULD be determined by the states, regardless of where they fall specifically on any one issue.  (There is a meaningful subset of Republicans who nominally appear to be "against" gay marriage because of lack of support on a Federal basis but are really not, they just want this determined, as it perhaps should be, on a state-by-state basis.  I'm in this group.).

I think Christie is wrong, but for the right reasons, if that makes sense.  The real question (and what I would ask Christie if I had the chance), is "What is your position if the Federal ban is rescinded?"   I think it would really be a test of what Christie really believes and how he would handle a concept that perhaps is against his personal beliefs but is in keeping with the process and the way the American system is designed to work.

I'm not a huge Christie fan, generally, but I always applaud his willingness to take a stand and weather the resulting storm.   

Agreed on the bold.  The discrepancy between federal and state laws on this issue is a big problem.  However, I believe he is anti-marijuana for other reasons, not because of the discrepancy and he would use the federal law to push his agenda.

Online Chino

  • Be excellent to each other.
  • DT.net Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 21170
  • Gender: Male
Re: 2016 Presidential Race
« Reply #125 on: April 15, 2015, 08:14:05 AM »
Well if Chris Christie is to decide to run for president, I think he just buried himself by saying he would enforce federal marijuana laws

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/04/14/chris-christie-marijuana_n_7066636.html?ncid=txtlnkusaolp00000592

Well.... I guess that's one way to lose the election before you officially announce you're running. What a douche.

Not sure "douche" is necessary (after all, it's only that he disagrees with you) but it will be interesting if he declares, because regardless of where you stand on the issue, it will be a fascinating discussion come debate season, and will be fodder for the smarter of the other candidates. 
   

I think the douche label is appropriate here.

Christie says "Absolutely. "I will crack down and not permit it.". That right there is laughable. All this says to me is that he's hell bent on sticking to current law despite the fact that the war on drugs has been a monumental failure. Our prison system is laughable when compared to those of other developed countries. The tax payers have losts hundreds of billions of dollars trying to kep marijuana off the streets.

More than 50% of registered voters are in favor of full legalization on a federal level. 68% (give or take) of people between 20 and 35 support full legalization on the federal level. A non-douchy response would have been something along the lines of...

 "My staff and I will acknowledge the requests of the public pertaining to the legalization of marijuana. While I may personally be opposed to marijuana legalization, I am a servant to the citizens of this great nation. Legalization on the federal level is not feasible at this time as more studies and data are needed. Addiction in this country is a great concern of mine and I'd prefer to get an in depth look at the opinions of doctors from around the country. I will however leave this up to states' rights and will greatly value their input as we take a closer look at this transition. As for the states that do legalize it, I will work with legislators and find ways to make banking with these establishments not punishable by law".

Offline El Barto

  • Rascal Atheistic Pig
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 22074
  • Bad Craziness
Re: 2016 Presidential Race
« Reply #126 on: April 15, 2015, 08:18:41 AM »

Forget about "marijuana" for a moment, but this is a classic case of the conflict between Federal regulation and state regulation (and no, not just the dichotomy of the law, but the very concept).  "Classic" conservatism would say that it isn't a question for the Federal government, but rather SHOULD be determined by the states, regardless of where they fall specifically on any one issue.  (There is a meaningful subset of Republicans who nominally appear to be "against" gay marriage because of lack of support on a Federal basis but are really not, they just want this determined, as it perhaps should be, on a state-by-state basis.  I'm in this group.).
Yeah, I get this and don't disagree (as I find the interstate commerce aspect to be bullshit*). When Scheavo and I butted heads about this it usually focused on the POTUS's requirement to enforce those laws, and from my standpoint he has a good deal of discretion in how he wants DOJ resources allocated. I always maintained that he and Bush were both assholes about devoting so much energy to trivial matters, and Christie would be no different. While he'll catch the most flack for just being anti-stoner, there is some validity to the point that it's just a crappy job of allocation. How many different frequently occurring violations of criminal law can you think of that you'd like to see, let's say, 500 federales assigned to deter?


*I suppose it might be time to reconsider the interstate commerce argument in light of Colorado. Could be valid now, but it's still a reach and antithetical to the conservative role of the federal government, methinks.
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline Prog Snob

  • Posts: 16681
  • Gender: Male
  • In the end we're left infinitely and utterly alone
Re: 2016 Presidential Race
« Reply #127 on: April 15, 2015, 08:22:48 AM »
Well if Chris Christie is to decide to run for president, I think he just buried himself by saying he would enforce federal marijuana laws

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/04/14/chris-christie-marijuana_n_7066636.html?ncid=txtlnkusaolp00000592

Well.... I guess that's one way to lose the election before you officially announce you're running. What a douche.

 :lol

I concur.  I might be a conservative in some aspects, but things like this bring out my strong Libertarian side.  Stop banning shit.  Imagine we took all of the money we wasted on the war on drugs and put it into education and getting the homeless permanently off the street.

Calvin6s

  • Guest
Re: 2016 Presidential Race
« Reply #128 on: April 15, 2015, 03:18:23 PM »
Strange.  I'd like to hear the whole interview with all the questions asked and compare that to the way other candidates are asked the question.

Unforunately, I think he gave the right answer.  I don't want a President that just decides which laws he will and will not follow.  So in that aspect, it was the right answer.

However, I'd like to know if they even bothered to ask the question under the terms:
- what if DEA was legislated out of it or declared unconstitutional, returning the rights completely to the states
- would you make an effort to make the above happen.

But the idea that some polls say ... well, we aren't a mob.

But I already wrote off Chris Christie with the bridge scandal.  I don't care if he didn't know about it.  He's still responsible for something of that magnitude.  It would be nice if we held all our current politicians to the same standard instead of using the "well, you know all the politicians are doing shady stuff behind the scenes.  It's a rough and tumble game."  That's not the government we set up and we should demand that this can't be the norm.

Offline El Barto

  • Rascal Atheistic Pig
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 22074
  • Bad Craziness
Re: 2016 Presidential Race
« Reply #129 on: April 15, 2015, 03:36:11 PM »
But I already wrote off Chris Christie with the bridge scandal.  I don't care if he didn't know about it.  He's still responsible for something of that magnitude.  It would be nice if we held all our current politicians to the same standard instead of using the "well, you know all the politicians are doing shady stuff behind the scenes.  It's a rough and tumble game."  That's not the government we set up and we should demand that this can't be the norm.
Hear, hear. I'm certainly one that considers all of our politicians to be festering bags of chum, but that's mostly because I no longer feel the system can prevent it. I certainly do miss the notion of the buck stops here, though. We haven't had that in a long while. Part of the reason I support a parliamentary system.
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline KevShmev

  • EZBoard Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 30022
  • Gender: Male
Re: 2016 Presidential Race
« Reply #130 on: April 15, 2015, 04:55:13 PM »
I disagree with Christie's stance here, but calling him a douche because of it seems a bit, er, extreme.

The GOP needs to stop with making pot and gay marriage hot button issues.  Sure, it appeals to their hardcore base, but it makes way too many independents annoyed.  It's like, have they still not figured out that it is the independents they need to win over to win back the White House?

Offline kingshmegland

  • defender of the brew!
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 42645
  • Gender: Male
  • Take that Beethoven, you deaf bastard!!
Re: 2016 Presidential Race
« Reply #131 on: April 15, 2015, 04:58:19 PM »
And the Republicans need the independent vote.
I don't like country music, but I don't mean to denigrate those who do. And for the people who like country music, denigrate means 'put down'. - Bob Newhart

So wait, we're spelling it wrong and king is spelling it right? What is going on here? :lol -- BlobVanDam

Calvin6s

  • Guest
Re: 2016 Presidential Race
« Reply #132 on: April 15, 2015, 05:14:01 PM »
I just wish we could have an honest discussion on drug enforcement (federal / state).  Stadler already talked about it in some detail.  I our government was set up with the idea that if it isn't in the constitution (to include the Bill of Rights), then that power is vested in State authority unless an actual constitutional amendment is produced.

It went off the rails around 1906 with the Pure Food and Drug Act (Teddy Roosevelt - original Progressive)
We had the infamous alcohol prohibition (which was actually done legally by constitutional amendment)
It went further off the rails in 1930 under FDR (Progressive Dem) with the Food and Drug Administration creation
And then we had the Controlled Substance Act under Nixon (Republican)

The only truly legal act was "the biggest failure" - alcohol prohibition.  But keep in mind the amendment didn't make alcohol legal, but illegal.  Meaning it took a constitutional amendment to make it illegal, therefore it was, by default, legal.

You could argue there is some grey area because most wouldn't say the FDA is evil.  Poorly run, but most don't have a problem with some type of oversight (government or otherwise) of consumables.  Putting stuff into your body is a pretty big deal.

Clearly there have been rulings that have allowed federal enforcement.  And it reminds me of the recent Holder overriding AZ on illegal immigration enforcement (that one was a split in the end).

As far as using polls for majority views, I guess we should make Christianity the official religion.  That is good to take a temperature, but it doesn't write law, nor should it.

The only person that seems to truly be pro-pot (or really anti-pot laws) is a Repulican.  Rand Paul.  I believe he'd follow through with his promises, and in a constitutional manner.  The Dems are, at best, playing lip service.  Part of the problem with government based off voters that vote by sound bite.

Offline El Barto

  • Rascal Atheistic Pig
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 22074
  • Bad Craziness
Re: 2016 Presidential Race
« Reply #133 on: April 15, 2015, 06:18:43 PM »
The only person that seems to truly be pro-pot (or really anti-pot laws) is a Repulican.  Rand Paul.  I believe he'd follow through with his promises, and in a constitutional manner.  The Dems are, at best, playing lip service.  Part of the problem with government based off voters that vote by sound bite.
I think it's a little more spread out than that. There are people on both sides that actually appreciate the medicinal aspect of it. It's just difficult to tell because there are so many, again on both sides, paying lip service for the party line. Paul simply stands out because he's less concerned about the party than almost all of his colleagues. It's easier to take him at his word. As for the rest you just never know if they're sincere in their support or opposition to it.
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline Prog Snob

  • Posts: 16681
  • Gender: Male
  • In the end we're left infinitely and utterly alone
Re: 2016 Presidential Race
« Reply #134 on: April 15, 2015, 06:54:36 PM »
The only person that seems to truly be pro-pot (or really anti-pot laws) is a Repulican.  Rand Paul.  I believe he'd follow through with his promises, and in a constitutional manner.  The Dems are, at best, playing lip service.  Part of the problem with government based off voters that vote by sound bite.
I think it's a little more spread out than that. There are people on both sides that actually appreciate the medicinal aspect of it. It's just difficult to tell because there are so many, again on both sides, paying lip service for the party line. Paul simply stands out because he's less concerned about the party than almost all of his colleagues. It's easier to take him at his word. As for the rest you just never know if they're sincere in their support or opposition to it.

Unfortunately his anti-pot law stance is what will cost him a lot of votes from Republicans.  Sad really. 

Offline El Barto

  • Rascal Atheistic Pig
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 22074
  • Bad Craziness
Re: 2016 Presidential Race
« Reply #135 on: April 15, 2015, 07:01:04 PM »
The only person that seems to truly be pro-pot (or really anti-pot laws) is a Repulican.  Rand Paul.  I believe he'd follow through with his promises, and in a constitutional manner.  The Dems are, at best, playing lip service.  Part of the problem with government based off voters that vote by sound bite.
I think it's a little more spread out than that. There are people on both sides that actually appreciate the medicinal aspect of it. It's just difficult to tell because there are so many, again on both sides, paying lip service for the party line. Paul simply stands out because he's less concerned about the party than almost all of his colleagues. It's easier to take him at his word. As for the rest you just never know if they're sincere in their support or opposition to it.

Unfortunately his anti-pot law stance is what will cost him a lot of votes from Republicans.  Sad really.
I shouldn't think so. Nobody's going to vote on that as an issue, really. If it comes down to a coin-toss between him and some other non-lunatic fringe GOP candidate then it might become important, but I doubt that'll happen. If he gets out of the primaries then it won't hurt him at all. He'll still get the GOP vote since he's not a democrat, and some of the undecideds might view that a more moderate stance on his part.
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Calvin6s

  • Guest
Re: 2016 Presidential Race
« Reply #136 on: April 15, 2015, 07:09:59 PM »
He'll still get the GOP vote since he's not a democrat, and some of the undecideds might view that a more moderate stance on his part.
But 100% of the 30% GOP turnout or 100% of the 20% GOP turnout?

And the other part of Rand Paul is the Constitution is what determines how he leads.  And that is determined by the Supreme Court.  Will he just say the Supreme Court is wrong, which is not a constitutional move?  So him running on a constitutional platform in which he wins votes by going against the constitution seems anything but moderate.

Offline Prog Snob

  • Posts: 16681
  • Gender: Male
  • In the end we're left infinitely and utterly alone
Re: 2016 Presidential Race
« Reply #137 on: April 15, 2015, 07:39:40 PM »
The only person that seems to truly be pro-pot (or really anti-pot laws) is a Repulican.  Rand Paul.  I believe he'd follow through with his promises, and in a constitutional manner.  The Dems are, at best, playing lip service.  Part of the problem with government based off voters that vote by sound bite.
I think it's a little more spread out than that. There are people on both sides that actually appreciate the medicinal aspect of it. It's just difficult to tell because there are so many, again on both sides, paying lip service for the party line. Paul simply stands out because he's less concerned about the party than almost all of his colleagues. It's easier to take him at his word. As for the rest you just never know if they're sincere in their support or opposition to it.

Unfortunately his anti-pot law stance is what will cost him a lot of votes from Republicans.  Sad really.
I shouldn't think so. Nobody's going to vote on that as an issue, really. If it comes down to a coin-toss between him and some other non-lunatic fringe GOP candidate then it might become important, but I doubt that'll happen. If he gets out of the primaries then it won't hurt him at all. He'll still get the GOP vote since he's not a democrat, and some of the undecideds might view that a more moderate stance on his part.

I understand where you are coming from but I don't fully agree.  Just like some Republicans will look at religion, others look at things such as drug stance and whatnot.  So maybe it won't have such a drastic effect, but I'm willing to bet there are a good handful out there who would give their primary vote to someone else for that reason.  These are establishment Republicans we're talking about, probably some of the more ignorant voters out there.

Offline El Barto

  • Rascal Atheistic Pig
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 22074
  • Bad Craziness
Re: 2016 Presidential Race
« Reply #138 on: April 15, 2015, 08:38:04 PM »
To be honest, a huge chunk of the voters on either side are just trying to keep the other lizard out. Does voter turnout really decrease because one party's candidate blows? I really haven't seen it.

And I concede that the pot thing might hurt him in the primaries, but it tends to be the more rational candidates that prevail in those things, despite everybody trying to be the most fringed. It'll help some and it'll hurt some. No telling if it'll be enough to matter.

And PS, what are you referring to when you say establishment republicans? Traditionally they've been the moderate republicans, and I don't see many considering them the most ignorant bloc. They're the ones I usually call old-school republicans, referring to the party before the religious right corrupted it, Rockefeller republicans, and what the tea-baggers now call RINOs.
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline Prog Snob

  • Posts: 16681
  • Gender: Male
  • In the end we're left infinitely and utterly alone
Re: 2016 Presidential Race
« Reply #139 on: April 15, 2015, 10:38:29 PM »
To be honest, a huge chunk of the voters on either side are just trying to keep the other lizard out. Does voter turnout really decrease because one party's candidate blows? I really haven't seen it.

And I concede that the pot thing might hurt him in the primaries, but it tends to be the more rational candidates that prevail in those things, despite everybody trying to be the most fringed. It'll help some and it'll hurt some. No telling if it'll be enough to matter.

And PS, what are you referring to when you say establishment republicans? Traditionally they've been the moderate republicans, and I don't see many considering them the most ignorant bloc. They're the ones I usually call old-school republicans, referring to the party before the religious right corrupted it, Rockefeller republicans, and what the tea-baggers now call RINOs.

When I stay establishment I'm referring to the staunch Republicans, the kind that hates gay marriage and anything that doesn't come from the Bible.  Maybe establishment was the wrong term to use. I was in a rush and trying to get out the door for work so I put down the first word that came to mind.  I guess the extreme right wingers is a better term to use?