|
Tom Perez B/K/M? This poll is closed. |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| B |
|
77 | 25.50% |
| K |
|
160 | 52.98% |
| M |
|
65 | 21.52% |
| Total: | 229 votes | ||
|
shrike82 posted:I can't wait for Chelsea's candidacy So, this guy dug up a 16-year-old article just to poo poo on Chelsea Clinton for being all rah-rah pro-USA two months after 9/11? I mean, christ, if you're so scared of a nonexistent Chelsea Clinton candidacy, at least come up with better attacks.
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2017 06:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 11:31 |
|
|
DaveWoo posted:So, this guy dug up a 16-year-old article just to poo poo on Chelsea Clinton for being all rah-rah pro-USA two months after 9/11? The hard-left eats it up, why fault journalists for shoveling the poo poo they so desperately want to eat?
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2017 06:53
|
|
|
shrike82 posted:I can't wait for Chelsea's candidacy gee I loving wonder 
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2017 07:14
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:Yo if you were backing Sanders and then switched to Johnson you're dumb as poo poo hth. Why is it so difficult for you guys to comprehend that it's not Sanders people switching to not voting or third party? It's people who don't vote and independent people who switched to Sanders. Get this, he's an appealing politician people like! He comes off as competent, honest, and caring. I mean, you will post 50 posts of, "Hurr durr these voters are unreachable retards!" while ignoring that they are super easily reachable but you nominated Hillary Clinton instead because she was gonna win you moderate Republicans in the Philly suburbs. It didn't work! FuriousxGeorge fucked around with this message at 07:39 on Apr 23, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2017 07:37
|
|
|
DaveWoo posted:So, this guy dug up a 16-year-old article just to poo poo on Chelsea Clinton for being all rah-rah pro-USA two months after 9/11? Going out of your way to protest some antiwar dudes is a bit more than generic rah-rah support, but maybe that's just me. Homeless Friend fucked around with this message at 07:51 on Apr 23, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2017 07:38
|
|
|
Homeless Friend posted:Going out of you way to protest some antiwar dudes is a bit more than generic rah-rah support, but maybe that's just me. Pro war protesting is a remarkably lovely thing to do.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2017 07:47
|
|
|
shrike82 posted:Krugman can't help himself It's been a while since I listened to The Big Short, but I'm pretty sure Countrywide Financial was bought by one of the biggest banks in the UK before the "originate and sell" sub-prime mortgage generation model went full retard. HSBC, I think?
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2017 07:49
|
|
|
FuriousxGeorge posted:Legalize drugs and other victimless crimes, protect civil liberties, stop being world police type. Disagree on economics, but I disagreed on economics with everyone on the PA ballot. If your vote was a protest against mass incarceration and private prisons, then Gary Johnson was a remarkably poor choice because his governing record is disgraceful.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2017 08:11
|
|
|
Personally I think private prisons are a major distraction from the actual problems with our criminal justice system. I'd rather a candidate who supports private prisons than one that refuses to say marijuana should be legal. Ideally we could have someone who supported legalization and opposed private prisons. If one can imagine such a person.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2017 08:19
|
|
|
FuriousxGeorge posted:Personally I think private prisons are a major distraction from the actual problems with our criminal justice system. I'd rather a candidate who supports private prisons than one that refuses to say marijuana should be legal. Ideally we could have someone who supported legalization and opposed private prisons. If one can imagine such a person. I mean writing in Bernie or voting for La Riva would have been less of a morally cowardly choice than voting for Koch stuffed suit, but whatever helps you sleep at night, I guess, I mean, you're the one who has to live with the fact that you voted for Gary Johnson, ahahahahahahahah why are you even in this thread you libertarian idiot.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2017 08:30
|
|
|
Accepting campaign contributions from a private prison company and then awarding it a huge state contract? Vetoing prison oversight? Three strikes laws and ending early parole? Defending human rights abuses in private prisons because they "save the government money"? You don't think those are problems?
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2017 08:33
|
|
|
^ I think the entire prison system is a problem from the ground up and that Hillary "America is already Great!" Clinton has no intention of fixing that. Putting less people in prison is the solution. stone cold posted:I mean writing in Bernie or voting for La Riva would have been less of a morally cowardly choice than voting for Koch stuffed suit, but whatever helps you sleep at night, I guess, I mean, you're the one who has to live with the fact that you voted for Gary Johnson, ahahahahahahahah why are you even in this thread you libertarian idiot. Because the Democrats are a waste, my friend. FuriousxGeorge fucked around with this message at 08:38 on Apr 23, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2017 08:34
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Accepting campaign contributions from a private prison company and then awarding it a huge state contract? but legal weed furious george is textbook fairweather ally, and proof that even the blandest most mundane libertarians are the dumbest motherfuckers
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2017 08:39
|
|
|
stone cold posted:but legal weed Yes, I am an ally whose vote you actually have to campaign for. That's a thing that exists in politics, it turns out.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2017 08:40
|
|
|
FuriousxGeorge posted:Yes, I am an ally whose vote you actually have to campaign for. That's a thing that exists in politics, it turns out. or, as ive suggested before, if you crunch the numbers, there's waaaaay more people who didn't vote rather than vote for goldy mckochcrotch so, why should anybody appeal to you, or care, you already showed you don't why attempt to capture the meager portion of third party voters of one party, y'all ain't even get federal funding
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2017 08:43
|
|
|
stone cold posted:or, as ive suggested before, if you crunch the numbers, there's waaaaay more people who didn't vote rather than vote for goldy mckochcrotch If you don't need the vote, then don't campaign for it. Doesn't bother me.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2017 08:43
|
|
|
Honestly, it seems like the issue of Marijuana is slowly taking care of itself state by state, and is a pretty minor issue at this point compared to the bigger economic issues the population is facing. I guess anti-interventionism is useful though.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2017 08:44
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:Honestly, it seems like the issue of Marijuana is slowly taking care of itself state by state, and is a pretty minor issue at this point compared to the bigger economic issues the population is facing. needs to go faster, cause what is allowable under drug laws today is heinous. it's basically legalized robbery by police, predominantly targeting minorities WJ's "we need to dismantle capitalism before the drug war or we'll have a drug epidemic on our hands" is laughable bs. we have a drug epidemic entirely cause of the drug war and its idiotic approach to addiction (quit cold turkey or go to jail). if we had heroin clinics to wind people down after the overpresciption of opioids, the
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2017 09:03
|
|
|
FuriousxGeorge posted:Personally I think private prisons are a major distraction from the actual problems with our criminal justice system. I'd rather a candidate who supports private prisons than one that refuses to say marijuana should be legal. Ideally we could have someone who supported legalization and opposed private prisons. If one can imagine such a person. Waa-ha-ha-ha-ooow dude. VitalSigns posted:Accepting campaign contributions from a private prison company and then awarding it a huge state contract? It's fascinating to see the blindspots people have in this thread. Gary Johnson protected prisons from human rights abuses but hillary took money from banks so it's a wash.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2017 09:10
|
|
|
FuriousxGeorge posted:I'd rather a candidate who supports private prisons than one that refuses to say marijuana should be legal. Lol how obtuse and disgusting. That doesn't even make sense. Let me guess you think traffic lights are the cause of traffic right?
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2017 09:14
|
|
|
Confounding Factor posted:Lol how obtuse and disgusting. That doesn't even make sense. It seems like if your problem with the justice system is who manages the prisons and not that we imprison so many people, you are kind of the one with cause and effect confused.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2017 09:17
|
|
|
FuriousxGeorge posted:Why is it so difficult for you guys to comprehend that it's not Sanders people switching to not voting or third party? It's people who don't vote and independent people who switched to Sanders. Get this, he's an appealing politician people like! He comes off as competent, honest, and caring. I'm not sure how to appeal to such voters considering they switched from one candidate to another candidate with zero intersection on policy. Pretty much whatever you liked about Sanders, by switching to Gary Johnson you were saying "oh okay I don't care so much about those things anymore, and actually never did". And again, yes this is purely on matters of policy, and while I know that isn't everything, it kind of does need to count for something, doesn't it? Isn't it called politics for a reason? You seem to want candidates to try to appeal to voters who are not, even in principle, interested in policy. Sure a lot of voters do not educate themselves on policy that much, will respond to policy proposals very different just by switching around the phrasing a bit, and are otherwise easily manipulable. That doesn't seem to apply here though, where we're talking about people who will switch seamlessly from supporting one set of policy goals, to pretty much the exact opposite, without so much as a moment of introspection or a second thought. Where the question "what will this candidate loving do?" apparently isn't such an important thing to them. I mean yeah, sure, Democrats need to appeal to more people to win elections, but I think there are probably some easier pick-ups than this group. YMMV.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2017 09:21
|
|
|
FuriousxGeorge posted:It seems like if your problem with the justice system is who manages the prisons and not that we imprison so many people, you are kind of the one with cause and effect confused. You said you'd vote for the candidate who would support for-profit prisons over someone who refuses to say where they stand on marijuana legalization. You don't see how that makes no sense?
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2017 09:24
|
|
|
Condiv posted:needs to go faster, cause what is allowable under drug laws today is heinous. it's basically legalized robbery by police, predominantly targeting minorities Granted, I was talking about Marijuana legalization which is a bit different, and it is currently making progress while everything else seems like has completely stalled except for some modest minimum wage increases (when you consider the standard of living). The drug war should be a priority but I don't think I would trying to fix regulation or wages for it (which you would if you supported a Libertarian).
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2017 09:31
|
|
|
SSNeoman posted:But when it comes time to elect people, and this failed system is still in use, not using it correctly is foolish. Not using it correctly while knowing the correct way to use it, is malicious. And again, that's fine. But own it. The elections of 2000 and 2016 show that the correct way of using the system is not "nominate a compromised candidate". The voters are part of the system, and it seems obvious now that if a nominee is widely disliked, there's a very real chance a large number of voters don't show up for that nominee. It has been proven twice in the last 16 years. Keep that in mind next time you vote in a primary.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2017 09:31
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:I'm not sure how to appeal to such voters considering they switched from one candidate to another candidate with zero intersection on policy. There isn't zero intersection on policy, though there isn't a ton either. Sanders and Johnson are both stronger on ending the Drug War. They both supported gay marriage before Clinton. They are both less hawkish. They both represented independent voters who generally feel that the two party system is a major source of our inability to address serious issues. On qualification outside of policy, they both came off as honest and experienced rather than as fringe characters which is a danger for outsider candidates. Sanders with a long career in the Senate and Johnson as a Governor. Ideology isn't all voters look at. Confounding Factor posted:You said you'd vote for the candidate who would support for-profit prisons over someone who refuses to say where they stand on marijuana legalization. You don't see how that makes no sense? Ahh, let me be clear. I mean over a candidate who opposes legalization, like Hillary. Though to be honest, I don't think I would vote for someone too cowardly to take a position on the issue either.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2017 09:34
|
|
|
FuriousxGeorge posted:Personally I think private prisons are a major distraction from the actual problems with our criminal justice system. I'd rather a candidate who supports private prisons than one that refuses to say marijuana should be legal. Ideally we could have someone who supported legalization and opposed private prisons. If one can imagine such a person. Can you name a few things where you think introducing a profit motive is a bad idea? Other than the military (presumably). Try to think about the question both in terms of sub-standard quality of service for a captured market, and the corrupting influence it can have on government (and which will work tirelessly to undermine efforts to address the quality of service issue). I happen to think there are many such areas, however libertarians tend to think there are few or none. I'm curious how you think the problems America faces right now with for-profit prisons can be solved within a libertarian framework, and whether you think it can be done in such a way where the benefits of your approach are manifest just as quickly as with blanket legalization of marijuana (which I agree has almost pure upside).
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2017 09:41
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VW_R98EBO7s
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2017 09:43
|
|
|
FuriousxGeorge posted:It seems like if your problem with the justice system is who manages the prisons and not that we imprison so many people, you are kind of the one with cause and effect confused. A private prison system has a huge economic incentive to make sure the state incarcerates as many people as possible while protecting their human rights as little as possible, by say buying corrupt politicians like Gary Johnson to support longer sentences, mandatory minimums, and block oversight of prison conditions. Which is exactly what happened in New Mexico!
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2017 09:46
|
|
|
^ The entire country had shithole overpopulated prisons before private prisons were a thing. You are focused on a symptom, not the disease.quote:I get where you're coming from on this: you think that private prisons are not inherently bad and that with proper oversight and accountability they can be made to work just as well as government-run prisons, however drug prohibition is in fact inherently wrong and so is something you should just be against right from the start. I think that public prisons in America are torture chamber shitholes that achieve practically no rehabilitation and I'll entertain more of this discussion when they aren't. This isn't like the situation with healthcare where we can point to our beloved already existing government healthcare programs in contrast to the universally acknowledged shittiness of the insurance companies. The public prisons suck. They are already a humanitarian crisis. Solving the private prison problem still leaves us with a humanitarian disaster. It's an issue focused on because saying things like, "We need to tax you more to pay for better prisons," and "We need to put criminals in jail for shorter periods of time and you need to work alongside them once they are out," doesn't win votes but we don't want to feel like we are doing nothing.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2017 09:48
|
|
|
Gary Johnson made the prison system in New Mexico worse. Public prisons are already bad, therefore it doesn't matter if we create even worse prisons? How does that make sense?
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2017 09:53
|
|
|
FuriousxGeorge posted:There isn't zero intersection on policy, though there isn't a ton either. Sanders and Johnson are both stronger on ending the Drug War. They both supported gay marriage before Clinton. They are both less hawkish. They both represented independent voters who generally feel that the two party system is a major source of our inability to address serious issues. On qualification outside of policy, they both came off as honest and experienced rather than as fringe characters which is a danger for outsider candidates. Sanders with a long career in the Senate and Johnson as a Governor. Ideology isn't all voters look at. As for the two-party system, that's not going to be solved by voting for any Presidential candidate, at all. It's just completely the wrong venue for it and people who show up to the polls every four years to vote for a third-party candidate in protest of the two-party system, are idiots. Well meaning idiots, perhaps, and with a legitimate gripe, but they are not doing anything meaningful to bring about the change they want to see. They are not wielding the power of their vote in what could be called an effective manner, at all. And, yeah sure Bernie Sanders and Gary Johnson have some intersection on policy in all the usual areas where you'd expect a libertarian and a leftist to agree. But you admit yourself, it's not a lot, and the stuff they disagree on, I think a lot of it they'd disagree on it by kind of an awful lot, you know? So we're still at my original point where you want to appeal to people who have just weird ideas about policy (at best) or no ideas about policy. It either people who are just single-issue voters wrt full legalization, or gay marriage, or both, and who do not give a gently caress about anything else - like they do not care if you want to strengthen unions or gut them utterly, they do not care if you want to strengthen secondary education and improve access or just privatize the whole loving thing, whether you want stricter environmental standards and research or you're a climate change denier. And so on. I'm not sure how to appeal to people who have no strong opinions on this stuff, and what's more I'm not sure I'd like it if the Democratic party started to move in the direction it'd have to move to pick up these voters. De-emphasize climate change in favor of legal weed? No, thanks. Finally I'll point out that, while far from perfect, the Democratic platform is better for libertarians on the issues where leftists and libertarians agree, so even if you are a single-issue voter on one of those things, it still seems like the Dems are the better choice 
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2017 09:58
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Gary Johnson made the prison system in New Mexico worse. Again, my solution is to stop putting people in any prison. Home is better than prison, imo. That's why making less things illegal is better than Lesser Evil Penitentiary.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2017 10:02
|
|
|
FuriousxGeorge posted:Again, my solution is to stop putting people in any prison. Home is better than prison, imo. That's why making less things illegal is better than Lesser Evil Penitentiary. If you remove one path to more prisoners Johnson will just create another.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2017 10:06
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Yeah, once again, if anyone needs a reminder of why Jamelle Bouie and other liberal columnists are absolutely part of the problem... lmao. Bouie wrote, on the 16th of November, "Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren misread the election".
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2017 10:48
|
|
|
DaveWoo posted:So, this guy dug up a 16-year-old article just to poo poo on Chelsea Clinton for being all rah-rah pro-USA two months after 9/11? No one is scared of a Chelsea Clinton candidacy because they know she'd lose worse than Jeb.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2017 10:55
|
|
|
FuriousxGeorge posted:Again, my solution is to stop putting people in any prison. Home is better than prison, imo. That's why making less things illegal is better than Lesser Evil Penitentiary. Well you're right about that, no question. It's one of the few things I agree with libertarians about. But that's the problem with Gary Johnson: he supported policies that put more people in jail and kept them there longer. Conservatives in the NM legislature kept him from legalizing marijuana, and what power his office did give him to keep nonviolent drug offenders out of jail (clemency, pardons) he didn't use. So it's questionable how committed he is to his principles and whether he'd fight for legalization as President because he sure didn't as governor. Which is the problem with electing a Libertarian executive and a Republican congress. You get all the horrible regressive Republican bullshit that Libertarians agree with, but none of the good Libertarian stuff because Republicans don't like it. There's also the practical problem that you didn't even get President Johnson. You gave up Obama's halfway states' rights nonenforcement and instead you get Jeffie Sessions ramping up a new War on Drugs. Literally the opposite of what you wanted 
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2017 11:56
|
|
|
i woulda voted for daffy duck before i voted for gary johnson
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2017 13:40
|
|
|
Calibanibal posted:i woulda voted for daffy duck before i voted for gary johnson Hell, I voted for Hillary Clinton over Gary Johnson
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2017 13:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 11:31 |
|
|
stone cold posted:or, as ive suggested before, if you crunch the numbers, there's waaaaay more people who didn't vote rather than vote for goldy mckochcrotch "why should we bother campaigning for votes that we don't already have" is a great way to ensure that your party never wins a contested election ever again
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2017 14:57
|
|
