|
Tom Perez B/K/M? This poll is closed. |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| B |
|
77 | 25.50% |
| K |
|
160 | 52.98% |
| M |
|
65 | 21.52% |
| Total: | 229 votes | ||
|
NewForumSoftware posted:It would be better than voting for one candidate who was terrible on everything. Which was what we got in 2016. Clinton was terrible on a lot of things, but at least she didn't support private prisons, dismantling the social safety net, or ending the Iran nuclear agreement. You're not being pragmatic; you're being dumb.
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2017 17:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 09:41 |
|
|
Majorian posted:Clinton was terrible on a lot of things, but at least she didn't support private prisons, dismantling the social safety net, or ending the Iran nuclear agreement. lol that you don't think she would be willing to any or all of those things like I get it man, you're reformed, but I'm just telling you, as someone who doesn't get regularly hoodwinked by bad establishment politicians, hillary would have gladly supported private prisons, dismantled the social safety net and ended the iran deal.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2017 17:58
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:That's not a problem with single issue voters, that's a problem with people. It's more of an issue with single issue voters than the population in general. That's why they're single issue voters: because they don't understand why anything other than their pet issue is important. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2017 17:58
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:lol that you don't think she would be willing to any or all of those things I don't care what she'd be "willing" to do; she didn't have any political incentive to do any of these things. What's in a candidate's heart doesn't concern me. What they're likely to do once in power is what's important.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2017 17:59
|
|
|
Majorian posted:It's more of an issue with single issue voters than the population in general. That's why they're single issue voters: because they don't understand why anything other than their pet issue is important. That's the bad dem view of the world. "people just don't know what they want! if only they listened to me!" Good dem: "this person cares passionately about something that is important to me as well, let's build a coalition with them" Majorian posted:I don't care what she'd be "willing" to do; she didn't have any political incentive to do any of these things. What's in a candidate's heart doesn't concern me. What they're likely to do once in power is what's important. lmao that you think there's no incentive to support private prisons post a link to hillary's corporate donations "a democrat would NEVER dismantle the social safety net, there's no incentive!" -a bad dem NewForumSoftware fucked around with this message at 18:01 on Aug 3, 2017 |
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2017 17:59
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:lol that you don't think she would be willing to any or all of those things I can tell you one thing she definitely wouldn't have done, appoint Jeff Sessions to be AG.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2017 18:00
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:I can tell you one thing she definitely wouldn't have done, appoint Jeff Sessions to be AG. Yes, she was better than Trump. Good news, that doesn't win elections when people care about issues more than "are you better than other person Y/N?" Time to appeal to the dreaded carevoters
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2017 18:01
|
|
|
Majorian posted:It's more of an issue with single issue voters than the population in general. That's why they're single issue voters: because they don't understand why anything other than their pet issue is important. That's hilarious. Society has mocked legalization as unimportant or a ludicrous and harmful proposal for decades. So people fight to have it viewed as important, and then you go, "But you are ignoring important issues!" in an effort to get them to stop.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2017 18:01
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:That's the bad dem view of the world. "people just don't know what they want! if only they listened to me!" Nope. You're arguing that it's okay for voters to only care about weed legalization, and literally no other issue. That's insane and you know it. quote:lmao that you think there's no incentive to support private prisons To the degree that Trump has, or that Johnson would have?  But hey, Trump kinda-sorta signaled that he'd legalize weed, and Johnson outright said he did, so it's okay to vote for them.  -a pseudo-leftist
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2017 18:01
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Nope. You're arguing that it's okay for voters to only care about weed legalization, and literally no other issue. That's insane and you know it. That's not what a single issue voter is and if you think that's what it is feel free to also make posts about how mutant tyrannosaurus rexes are also bad for the democratic party honestly im still laughing at "she has no incentive to cut the social safety net" just adorable, real primo stuff
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2017 18:02
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:That's not what a single issue voter is Yes, actually, it is.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2017 18:03
|
|
|
Majorian posted:To the degree that Trump has, or that Johnson would have? The centrist in it's natural habitat, explaining that "well, it would be better than Trump" as a last line of defense for their terrible opinions/candidates
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2017 18:03
|
|
|
Your fundamental misconception is that you think I care that Hillary lost voters to Johnson and Trump because of her bad opinions. On the contrary, it's a good thing. An expensive lesson to learn, but necessary. Better luck next time, try appealing to people instead of shaming them.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2017 18:06
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:honestly im still laughing at "she has no incentive to cut the social safety net" Mmmm yes, voting for someone who outright supports slashing it to an even greater degree, as long as he supports legalization, is clearly the way to go. Just admit that you don't understand what "single issue voter" means. NewForumSoftware posted:The centrist in it's natural habitat, explaining that "well, it would be better than Trump" as a last line of defense for their terrible opinions/candidates that you think I'm a centrist.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2017 18:06
|
|
|
Can you like, point to a single person in the United States of America who has publicly claimed they voted for Gary Johnson solely because of his position on weed?
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2017 18:07
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Mmmm yes, voting for someone who outright supports slashing it to an even greater degree, as long as he supports legalization, is clearly the way to go. Just admit that Hillary has plenty of incentive to cut the social safety net and I'll admit that single issue voters as you imagine them don't exist and thusly are not worth worrying about.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2017 18:07
|
|
|
Inescapable Duck posted:Well here we go, all the black people should just stop smoking weed, pull up their pants and get a haircut. I'm not even talking about minorities. My best friend went to jail for a week for smoking weed in college in a public space on the campus of a christian college in the south. He's white. He also did whippets and totaled his car against a brick wall while high on them. He got released via a drug-court program thankfully, but got caught doing spice while he was living with me - despite it being illegal. Which ended him back in the clink for another months. Kids these day are so into escapeism it's depressing. Do weed, drink alcohol, have wanton sex, cut yourself, seek validation from people online through instagram and snapchat- anything to fill up that empty hole you have because mommy and daddy didn't love you. Minorities - smoke all the weed you want. I don't care. I care about rich trust-fund babies and well off white people smoking it because they have nothing better to do because I am a grumpy old man stuck in a millenials body.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2017 18:07
|
|
|
Majorian posted:
I actually don't, I think you're a reformed centrist who can't help but fall into their old patterns of carrying water for the lesser of two evils, especially if it supports some backwards argument about how people that don't exist gave us Trump. You're like the grandpa that knows he can't use the n word any more but it happens once in a while. I don't blame you, just apologize and move on.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2017 18:08
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:Just repeat whatever you want over and over again and maybe it will become true? Are you suggesting most libertarian voters are motivated by drug decriminalisation and not classical liberal econ policies? That seems like a stretch.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2017 18:08
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:I actually don't, I think you're a reformed centrist who can't help but fall into their old patterns of carrying water for the lesser of two evils, especially if it supports some backwards argument about how people that don't exist gave us Trump. This is the most accurate thing I've read in a while
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2017 18:09
|
|
|
FuriousxGeorge posted:Can you like, point to a single person in the United States of America who has publicly claimed they voted for Gary Johnson solely because of his position on weed? NFS
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2017 18:10
|
|
|
FuriousxGeorge posted:Can you like, point to a single person in the United States of America who has publicly claimed they voted for Gary Johnson solely because of his position on weed? Allow me to introduce you to Jimmy Reefercake...
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2017 18:11
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:I actually don't, I think you're a reformed centrist who can't help but fall into their old patterns of carrying water for the lesser of two evils, especially if it supports some backwards argument about how people that don't exist gave us Trump. Nah, I'm actually a voter who understands that there are other important issues besides weed legalization, i.e.: not a complete loving moron.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2017 18:12
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Nah, I'm actually a voter who understands that there are other important issues besides weed legalization, i.e.: not a complete loving moron. And yet, you can't help but call potential allies "complete loving morons" if they don't hold the same nuanced views you do. The coastal elite can stop being a centrist but they can't stop being coastal elites.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2017 18:13
|
|
|
JailTrump posted:I'm not even talking about minorities. My best friend went to jail for a week for smoking weed in college in a public space on the campus of a christian college in the south. He's white. He also did whippets and totaled his car against a brick wall while high on them. Fados fucked around with this message at 18:16 on Aug 3, 2017 |
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2017 18:13
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:And yet, you can't help but call potential allies "complete loving morons" if they don't hold the same nuanced views you do. Yes, I'm sure that my hurting their fee-fees on an online forum will cause a great many of them to flee into the arms of Trump. My calling them complete loving morons will undoubtedly swing the 2020 election.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2017 18:15
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Again, truancy isn't criminalized here, and neither is being the parent of a chronically truant student. Failure to reasonably supervise and encourage school attendance is criminalized, but only in cases where material harm has been caused to the child, chronic truancy. The state is required to provide training and support to parents who might lack the skills to "reasonably supervise" their child before prosecuting. This law is about giving school districts leverage over parents who choose not to send their kids to school. I specifically mentioned the fact that there's no practical use to punitively targeting behavior that wouldn't otherwise be considered a crime (outside of removing the child from the harmful environment, of course). I imagine child abuse was considered criminal before Harris' change in policy, so the only relevant thing here is whether her specific change is helpful in any way. Also, you didn't address my point about the people potentially subject to this law being heavily disproportionately PoC and low income. If a crime is specifically far more likely to happen if you meet those criteria, it's obvious that more draconian punishment isn't a good solution. As I said before, your argument is - quite literally - identical to that of conservatives who argue in favor of "tough on crime" policy. It consists of just saying "ARE YOU SAYING X ISN'T BAD/A CRIME?!" and ignoring the practical implications of the law.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2017 18:17
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Allow me to introduce you to Jimmy Reefercake... This is actually a good example of a person who could easily be appealed to. quote:About The weed seems to be the least of his problems. Majorian posted:Yes, I'm sure that my hurting their fee-fees on an online forum will cause a great many of them to flee into the arms of Trump. It's less that it will have any real impact and more that it just reveals how you really feel about your countrymen. Hard to take it seriously tbqh, you've still got election 2106 broken brainedness, it's the only way you could unironically post things like "at least Hillary wouldn't have cut the social safety net"
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2017 18:17
|
|
|
Fados posted:I agree with the general tone of your post although I wouldn't use it as an argument against weed legalization, alcohol has a lot of the same problems and it's not like prohibition worked any good. But I think the state shouldn't support drug consuptiom of any kind and that legalization should be supported by funding to addiction support and prevention. Lol yes so all those weed addicts can finally get the treatment they need.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2017 18:17
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Allow me to introduce you to Jimmy Reefercake... lol.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2017 18:18
|
|
|
Jimmy Reefercake actually did vote for Hillary in the end, though.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2017 18:19
|
|
|
If there is a single issue weed voter bloc out there, wouldn't it be a good thing to get their votes? Who cares if they're only single issue, they still get one vote and I thought the point was to win elections. Dismissing them for not giving a poo poo about other issues seems stupidly puritan.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2017 18:19
|
|
|
Jizz Festival posted:Jimmy Reefercake actually did vote for Hillary in the end, though. That's not what he's said. He claimed to have voted for Johnson when he called into Majority Report. Tiberius Christ posted:If there is a single issue weed voter bloc out there, wouldn't it be a good thing to get their votes? Who cares if they're only single issue, they still get one vote and I thought the point was to win elections. Dismissing them for not giving a poo poo about other issues seems stupidly puritan. Literally no one here is saying we shouldn't appeal to them by adopting their issue. (e: whoops, except for Fados. But it's Fados, so ya know)
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2017 18:20
|
|
|
Jizz Festival posted:Lol yes so all those weed addicts can finally get the treatment they need. Weed is a drug and drugs are addictive.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2017 18:22
|
|
|
Tiberius Christ posted:If there is a single issue weed voter bloc out there, wouldn't it be a good thing to get their votes? Who cares if they're only single issue, they still get one vote and I thought the point was to win elections. Dismissing them for not giving a poo poo about other issues seems stupidly puritan. Obviously, but when people say they're pro weed and then vote in a way that gets them AG Jeff Sessions, it's fair to write them off as people who are going to vote against their own interests. Fados posted:Weed is a drug and drugs are addictive. What, are you a DARE officer?
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2017 18:22
|
|
|
Fados posted:Weed is a drug and drugs are addictive. Define drug Good luck, especially if you're starting from "they are addictive"
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2017 18:22
|
|
|
Majorian posted:That's not what he's said. He claimed to have voted for Johnson when he called into Majority Report. Maybe he changed his story recently (I haven't listened in quite a few months) but he said he voted for Hillary on election day pretty sure.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2017 18:23
|
|
|
Fados posted:Weed is a drug and drugs are addictive. I'm addicted to these stool softeners, man. I just can't stop taking them.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2017 18:24
|
|
|
I think the greater issue is that Booker is obviously terrible on other topics besides marijuana, and for that reason, people should be skeptical (just like Gillibrand supporting single payer out of nowhere, or the Zuck going for some type of GMI). it is almost certain that there will be plenty of garbage to go along with that "pet issue" and/or they will ignore to focus on whatever they actually want to do. Anyway, if they actually cared about those things they probably don't need to be president (they can push their pet issue in the senate if they wish), hell Zuck probably has more weight in the political process by virtue of being a laughably rich billionaire.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2017 18:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 09:41 |
|
|
I can already kind of see the Centrist ticket being Kamala Harris/Cory Booker on a platform of TO BE DECIDED/Legalize Weed TO BE DECIDED could be single payer, but lol probably not
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2017 18:25
|
|
