Jump to content

Political Discussion Thread (With Rules)


Simon

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, Pattern Ghost said:

 

Watch the two 60 minutes interviews I linked up thread, and tell us which candidate you think is more coherent.

 

Generally, neither.

2 hours ago, archer said:

Oregon could become 1st US state to decriminalize hard drugs through this November's ballot initiative.

 

Possession of small amounts of heroin, cocaine, LSD and other hard drugs would result in a $100 fine or the person could opt to go into new, free addiction recovery centers which are to be paid for by taxes on marijuana sales.

 

https://apnews.com/article/election-2020-portugal-arrests-elections-oregon-4feaaeb5e60f3a853810ae1853fb22ea

 

I'm excited to see this since it's a variation on the approach I've advocated for years. Portugal, the Netherlands and Switzerland have each decriminalize hard drugs with no uptick in overall hard drug usage in their populations (Portugal with no uptick according to the article, the Netherlands and Switzerland according to my ever-failing memory).

 

When you consider how much the US spends on law enforcement, prosecution, and prisons over drug possession offenses, we could probably instead pay for rehab plus a new house for each drug offender and still come out cheaper and have less of a drug problem. :) 

 

Don't forget that is also where a lot of money for the police departments come from, legally or otherwise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Starlord said:

 

I can't lay my hands on it right away, but I read an article earlier in the week about a gun store owner in central Texas, Austin I believe, who was doing a booming business in gun safety classes for liberals.

 

(Surprisingly, there's more to it than "don't point this particular end at your own face".)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Starlord said:

 

I worked for Browning when Bill Clinton was elected President. We had a banner year in terms of sales.

 

This kind of thing happens every time a Democrat wins the Presidency (or looks like they might), because people are afraid the new regime will make it harder to buy guns once they take office.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Greywind said:

And what ripples would Biden create with his apparent inability to make a complete, coherent statement?

 

Have you been listening to Trump try to make a speech? The man can't spell(covfefe),  he can't pronounce Puerto Rico and he just rambles on and on. 

 

Vote for Trump if you truly believe he's the better choice, but stop with the comparisons. Your candidate can't win any that are conducted by an open mind.

Edited by Grailknight
thank you BoloOfEarth
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Greywind said:

And what ripples would Biden create with his apparent inability to make a complete, coherent statement?

 

10 hours ago, archer said:

Trump's latest addition to his rally speeches is to tell people to not pay attention to the reported number of COVID deaths because doctors are getting paid $2000 every time they count a death as being from COVID.

 

I would really love to be a reporter allowed to question him about that.

 

 

Biden probably wouldn't tell people not to trust doctors during a pandemic, that all the numbers are lies, that wearing a mask is cowardly, and that doctors and nurses stole PPE during the New York collapse.

 

Once again, I have to link something I've literally just already covered.  Here, Greywind:

 

https://www.google.com/search?q=trump+ppe+doctors+stealing

 

You might dislike Biden, but Trump literally actively sabotages our attempts to recover from coronavirus.  Imagine a President helping an enemy army invade, literally, actively doing so.  Please, imagine that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Grailknight said:

 

Have you been listening to Trump try to make a speech? The man can't spell(covfefe),  he can't pronounce Puerto Rico and he just rambles on and on. 

 

Vote for Trump if you truly believe he's the better choice, but stop with the comparisons. Your candidate can win any that are conducted by an open mind.

 

Please, yes, tell me which candidate is "mine"...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Greywind said:

Please, yes, tell me which candidate is "mine"...

 

Sure? 😛;)

 

---

 

Dia Die Los Muertos is now Remembrance Day for Americans of our 'Angel Families' killed by illegal aliens

 

https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/proclamation-national-day-remembrance-americans-killed-illegal-aliens-2020/

 

-- 

 

In other things:

 

https://www.transparencyusa.org/az/pac/chispa-az-pac-201800470-pac

 

Something possibly useful.

 

For me, I got a site like this too:

 

https://www.azcourts.gov/jpr/Judicial-Performance-Reports/Judicial-Report/regionid/3

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Grailknight said:

 

Have you been listening to Trump try to make a speech? The man can't spell(covfefe),  he can't pronounce Puerto Rico and he just rambles on and on. 

 

Vote for Trump if you truly believe he's the better choice, but stop with the comparisons. Your candidate can win any that are conducted by an open mind.

 

It is possible to be critical of an individual without supporting their opposition. You can get into the minutiae of what is valid criticism, but that is a separate issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's something for our resident progressives who may feel discouraged that centrist Biden won the nomination instead of one of their heroes such as Sanders or Warren. It's a bit of American political history from The Universal Standard Encyclopedia, 1955 edition (an abridgement of the Funk & Wagnalls Encyclopedia) which, though out of date, is my first reference source 'cause I inherited it from my father and so it's right at hand. I have made only two changes to the text: I broke a long paragraph into three to make it easier to read, and bolded a phrase that is reminiscent of current objections to progressive policy proposals.

-------------------

POPULISM, in United States history, an agrarian and labor movement of the 19th century, developed chiefly among Middle Western farmers and workers. The growth of populism began during the economic depression of the 1870's, which resulted in a sharp decline in the income of farmers at a time when their living and operating costs were rising. The farmers began to organize early in the 1870's, and during the ensuing two decades flocked in ever-increasing numbers into such bodies as the National Grange and the Farmers' Alliances (qq.v.; see also GRANGER MOVEMENT). Entering the political arena, they also formed the Greenback Party (q.v.) and, when the need for an alliance with the growing class of workingmen became apparent, the Greenback-Labor Party (q.v.). American workers, faced with low incomes and high living costs, had begun to form trade unions (q.v.) as the instruments for the advancement of their interests; chief among these unions were the Knights of Labor and the American Federation of Labor (qq.v.). By 1891 the expanding farmer-labor movement had attained sufficient proportions to warrant the proclamation of a national political program; the launching of this program was signalized by the formation of the People's Party (q.v.), whose members were known as populists (Lat. populus, "people").

 

The principal objectives to which the populists addressed themselves were the free coinage of silver and the issuance of large amounts of paper currency; such inflationary measures tended to raise farm prices and enable the farmers to pay off their debts, most of which had been contracted during the period of inflation following the Civil War. They also sought to lower their transportation costs by effecting the nationalization of the railroads; to achieve a more equitable distribution of the costs of government through the establishment of a graduated income tax; to broaden the electoral system by instituting direct popular elections of U.S. Senators; and to improve the status of labor through the inauguration of the eight-hour workday.

 

The results of the first election in which the populists took part, that of 1892, were promising; the populist Presidential candidate, James Baird Weaver, received approximately 1,000,000 votes. The peak of populist influence was attained in the campaign of 1896, when they were responsible for the nomination of a populist candidate, William Jennings Bryan, by the Democratic Party, and lost the election to the Republicans by a narrow margin. Thereafter the populist movement declined steadily, until it disappeared about 1908.

 

Despite the brevity of its existence, however, the populist movement exercised a profound influence on subsequent American political life; almost all of the original populist demands, which at one time were widely viewed as revolutionary, destructive of free enterprise and American democracy, and impossible of practical fulfillment, have long since been enacted into law.

-----------------

The article on the Progressive Party also has a laundry list of policy proposals that became law even through the Progressives didn't win any major elections.

 

Dean Shomshak

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, TrickstaPriest said:

and that doctors and nurses stole PPE during the New York collapse.

 

Now, I know that Trump said PPE was "going out the back door." How this got twisted into him blaming doctors and nurses, I don't know. Is there a direct quote? And in this case, he was right, there were theft rings stealing PPE.

 

Here's an article dated from the time period, March: https://www.newsweek.com/trump-cuomo-masks-hospital-doctors-stealing-new-york-1494949

Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, Greywind said:

 

Please, yes, tell me which candidate is "mine"...

 

I apologize if it seemed I was attacking you rather than your seemingly expressed opinion. It's a fine line and I hope I didn't cross it.

 

If you consistently denigrate one candidate, even if you are silent on the other, then you have a favorite. If you don't vote for Biden you are passively aiding Trump. You may hate both, but one has been a disaster and the other is unproven.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Greywind said:

Unproven? This is what? Biden's third presidential campaign? Fourth?

 

Tell me, how did those previous runs work out.

 

So losing an election makes one a worse potential POTUS? 

 

For the record, Biden's run twice before, this is his third try. This also Trumps third Presidential Election unless you are choosing to ignore that time he lost as a Reform Party candidate.

 

Biden is unproven in the office, true. I think Trump has proved what he is. So if you don't want four more years of Trump then your choice is clear, it may be distasteful, but it is clear.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, TrickstaPriest said:

Oh hey we've entered the active insurgency stage of the election:

 

https://www.thedailybeast.com/biden-camp-cancels-austin-texas-event-after-pro-trump-ambush-on-campaign-bus

 

I love having politicians/roaming-gunmen deciding who I can and can't vote for

 

That link and video of the incident might be behind a paywall for some people.

 

This one shows video from a couple of different angles including a pro-Trump truck sideswiping one of the Biden staff cars.

 

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100214401099

trump2020.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Starlord said:

 

Yeah, there are a LOT of people who thought they'd never own a gun or were even in favor of banning all guns who are now owners.

 

When things start to get scary, suddenly the right to defend yourself effectively makes a LOT of sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"A few men own capital, and that few avoid labor themselves, and with their capital hire or buy another few to labor for them."

 

"Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, ScottishFox said:

When things start to get scary, suddenly the right to defend yourself effectively makes a LOT of sense.

 

But it's been "the right to defend yourself against the government", which is suggested to be the army.  But in reality it's the police.  Which guns won't help you survive, just die a bit faster.

 

This is right to defend against your own neighbours, whom many are allowing the direct leadership whip into a violent insurgency.  Which only makes much sense if they intend to seize control of the country.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, ScottishFox said:

 

Yeah, there are a LOT of people who thought they'd never own a gun or were even in favor of banning all guns who are now owners.

 

When things start to get scary, suddenly the right to defend yourself effectively makes a LOT of sense.

 

Effectively against who? In the short-term and on a small scale, maybe. Maybe. Against the might of the United States military? A laughable fantasy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...