Attempting to have a slightly open mind even though his lack of response on WW2 the other day was extremely disturbing,I have come to the conclusion that out of the 3 people on the general election ballot, he would be the worst choice. I hope you people actually listen to him before voting for him simply out of a dislike of the other two. Have a reason, any reason, to vote for someone rather than simply wasting that valuable right in order to protest against someone else. This country was built to greatness from positive perspective. Be part of the solution rather than assisting this country downward with nothing but bitching. I'm off my soapbox.
Watched Gary Johnson on CNN this morning
- Thread starter WVUBRU
- Start date
That's your opinion based on your own preferences. I disagree, and I've heard multiple interviews with him. At the very least, he deserves to be part of the discussion.
Yes, it is my opinion. You don't find a potential world leader saying "I don't know" when asked if the US was right to enter WW2? You want a president that is unsure that it is right to have controlled substances in our society? Those are two extreme thoughts. We need a society that has morals and values and we have laws in order to make sure they are met. When our country is attacked like it was on Dec 7, 1941, yes we have to fight back and enter a war. When we have great individuals such as Prince die from Opiod abuse and it is becoming very widespread with our kids, yes we need to fight abuse and work on reducing the influx of the drug getting into society, not to get rid of laws that will decriminalize the use. You decriminalize the use, scum will use that opening to make money off of the innocence by increase selling and worse yet, sell fakes that will kill our kids even faster.
It never ceases to amaze me how my generation has been the cause of this great country to go south just because of ignorance and their ability to be led down dangerous positions and then all they do is ***** about why the country has turned to the worse. And then they blame others instead of looking into a mirror and seeing the real problem.
I would prefer someone who thinks about things rather than having a stock answer, or someone who just rambles without thinking at all. I may not like all of his positions, but at least I can feel like he is giving honest, thoughtful responses to questions.
I don't know that I care how someone feels about the decision to go to war before he was born. I don't know doesn't imply that he thinks it was wrong. It means he's not sure if he would have done the same thing - whether that's because he wonders what info would have been available or how he feels the situation would have been different with a libertarian president.
With respect to the controlled substances, how well has controlling them stopped abuse? How much better is the quality of a street drug than that of a prescription or over-the-counter drug? How full have we made our prisons with people who use drugs, sell drugs, or try to control the market for drugs? How similar is that situation to the days when we tried to control alcohol?
You don't care that a presidential candidate doesn't know US history well enough to know an answer as basic as WW2 ? Wow. Let's just say our opinion differs and it is one where I believe it is an instance where there is truly a right opinion. But thanks for an honest discussion.
For a moment I thought typed this![cheers] A lot of problems in this country and I'm not sure that they are fixable as long as so many people want o feel good about everything . A lot of tough choices are coming up. I'm not sure that there are people in charge who are capable of making them.
I agree with this sentiment. Both sides need to compromise parts of their ideology. But that has been the case going back to around 2004. I don't see it happening and I hate it more than who actually wins the election.
Yes, the government definitely needs to enter in and slow this economy down. People are spending too much money and inflation is a problem. Probably need to *** with depreciation while they are applying the brakes. Capital spending is getting too big and may want to increase the cost of money. Just a few things to slow the GDP growth for a couple years.
I suppose if the question was related to the events of 12/7/41, then the answer is quite obviously yes. However, anyone who has even a modicum of understanding of WWII knows there are very many things done in the decade prior which led to our inevitable involvement. Given a change in leadership, we may very well have been able to avoid that one and the ensuing 50 years of Cold War, nuclear buildup, and 2 more wars which followed. So I guess the answer is really dependent on perspective and understanding. Saying I don't know, on such a basic question without some frame of reference is really better to me anyway than just saying yes. It was akin to asking how a watch works when it's better right now to just concentrate on the time.
As to the drugs. I'm for decriminalizing non-violent drug related offenses as well as legalizing recreational use of marijuana. If you want to discuss this we can. I don't believe we'll ever agree, I respect your opinion, Airport's as well, I just disagree. Living in the city, there is no winning this fight, might as well try a different approach.
I don't necessarily want to discuss as I have too many times and I understand the opposite viewpoint. I just can't wrap my head around the logic of having a free drug use society.
I'm sure it's semantics, but decriminalizing for non-violent offenders is different than a free drug use society.
I don't see how. If there is no legal consequence for using an illegal substance, than that society is free to use drugs. What am I missing with your use of the language?
I think he means it's still illegal but offenders are not sent to jail but instead some other type of 'punishment' - home confinement, fines, etc.
Yes. And again, I'm only talking non-violent offenses as well. Your basic corner boys just playing in the game. Trafficking over X amount is still on the table. But, getting pulled over and having an oz. on you for personal use is a basic ticket and its confiscated. At least until pot is legalized for recreational use. Any other drugs should not be "legalized" just regulated in the ticket/fine variety.
There is zero use in trying to win this war. Greater than 20% of the population uses some drug. It's exactly like prohibition was. Exact same consequences.
The ban on pot is such a double standard when you look at the effects of alcohol and nicotine. However it's been ingrained into our minds that it's some evil vice that will destroy civilization.
I think it would be easy to draw the line at drugs that have strong physical addiction properties, but that then could encompass alcohol as well.
The pot thing is probably the most ridiculous set of laws on the books. Damn near every professional I know without a security clearance does it recreationally (couple times a month, maybe once a week). It has become a replacement for martini's and wine after a long and stressful week. This concept of it being a gateway drug is about the most disingenuous stance I've seen. Alcohol and ciggies are tried long before pot by a wide margin. Anyone who doesn't understand that is in complete denial.
Watched a program on TV regarding drug use. They showed young men who sat around in a vegetative state - sad. I could not recall if they were illustrating Sweden or Switzerland. So, I looked at both and they do offer a contrast in their drug problems. Sweden has "abstinence policy" while Swiss uses a "controlled policy". Needless to say, the viewed TV show was of Swiss who control by issuing free needles and methadone.
Swiss did report a reduction of HIV deaths as a result of the needle exchange program which is good, but it did little if any good with controlling drug use. You can look and evaluate the progress of the two programs, but in my estimation, the Swiss traded one bad outcome for another. My recommendation is to leave drug laws in US as they now exist. The change I would suggest is to change the attitude in the incarceration phase. Drug use time should be served separated from the general prison population. Put the non violent into a fenced enclosure and serve time under stars in a "tent city".
In your mind, what is the purpose of incarcerating someone? To rehabilitate or to punish?
A bit of both. Punishment via removing them from freedom. Rehab with educational programs plus remove the access to drug source.
If you follow up with a question of my wisdom on the drug scene - never been there is answer. I assume those Swiss vegetables were sure they could control it at one time. Also understand some people get hooked on booze. The government still has a problem there. First attempt was not successful.
I respect the opinions shared but disagree in terms I would prefer an American society that has consequences for drug use in which it is plain and simple to understand right and wrong behavior (as my opinion on what is right and wrong) that is teachable to to each generation. But as I have said, this topic has been beaten to death on here and personally I am good to agree to disagree unless there is something new on the topic.
Pretty sure what you are stating with the vegetative state is related to heroin and not pot. Assumption is because you were discussing methodone as a treatment which is used to counteract opiates.
I've been saying almost this exact thing for awhile now.
To DD's point, at some point we have to recognize that what we are doing isn't working. Yet we seem to keep wanting to do more of a failed plan. Part of the issue, frankly, is capitalism run amock. When there are private prisons driven by profits they are going to be motivated for pushing for laws or tougher punishments to keep their prisons full. This doesn't seem to me to be an area that should be driven by profits.
Has anybody seen a study that shows what the criminalization of marijuana actually costs us in tax money every year? I would bet that it's a lot. What would the CBA on that look like?
Take a look at heroin and meth and drugs like that. Would it cost more or less to enter these people into rehab vs. jail? We all want to pay less taxes, right? Now, I can see the criminalization of making meth and selling heroin to juveniles and things like that still remaining criminal offenses.
But then you also really have to do an RCA and find out why we have such an epidemic. As I've said many times about gun violence, the solution probably has nothing at all to do with guns. In the same vein I think that at the root of it all the solution to the drug problem isn't going to be the drugs, but why people are using them to begin with.
[roll] not exactly the kind of response I was looking for, but well done nonetheless. [cheers]