Opinions - 2008 USA election..who should drug users support?

[Shiacmkmleer]

I look at this thread, and I am saddened. I see two senior members of this forum, two members who everyone respects, who lack hope. First off I'm going to discredit myself. I am young. But the second thing I am going to do is explain how we take back this nation. This nation is at a turning point. We are at the end of an era where big media and big money rules. True 10 years ago you couldn't change anything without money. Pinkavvy you were born in that era so I can see why you don't believe we can change things. But how do you think the religious right took over the Republican party? It was with a grass roots campaign. While there was big money involved the tactics they employed didn't need dollars behind them. We too can return a party (my party but perhaps not yours) to its small government roots. We need to start doing and less talking about why it wont work. Support Ron Paul! He is a better man, a man of more integrity than to simply vote along party lines. Hillary won't save us and neither will Obama they care only getting about elected, and a harsh stance on drug users is a good way to appeal to many voters, stick with the democrats and you'll get burned.
But how do we bring about change? Easy. Talk to everybody you know. It's that simple! You have logic behind you debate everyone! It is not hard to get someone to be pro-legalization in fifteen minutes or less. In turn they'll slowly convince other people... if everyone just convinces one person to do this... well you can see where this would go. Hell use every outlet that is open to you. These forums are one! Youtube is another. Any forum you post on bring this up! Take back American Freedom!




And pinkavvy I'd love to hear your logic on why the electoral college compromises democracy. In my opinion it lets the people of those state which are contested present their views and their views differ from each other otherwise it would not be contested

Reputation Comments on this post:

honest, encouraging and bold

[DrMuffy]

See this is what politics do to people (Look at the last page or two for example). No good has come out of this argument (as you can see). SWIdr may be passive in the first place by nature, but why argue over something that (apparently) won't change the other person's point of view. As some have said before, "Arguing on the internet is like running in the special olympics. Even if you win, you are still retarded."

[Nacumen]

Originally Posted by DrMuffy

See this is what politics do to people (Look at the last page or two for example). No good has come out of this argument (as you can see). SWIdr may be passive in the first place by nature, but why argue over something that (apparently) won't change the other person's point of view. As some have said before, "Arguing on the internet is like running in the special olympics. Even if you win, you are still retarded."

I disagree. Much has come out of this thread already. Maybe not for you, but I'm willing to bet at least for a multitude of others, including myself. This thread was the most worthwhile piece of information I've read all day, and considering I've sat on my ass reading this or that for the majority of my waking hours today, that is saying something.

[lulz]

Ron Paul's voting record speaks for itself:

http://www.ontheissues.org/TX/Ron_Paul_Drugs.htm

[Tokyo-expat]

Originally Posted by Pinkavvy

So maybe this thread should be split into two differant threads? One for people who actually understand how the electoral college works and wants to discuss which candidates that have a shot should be supported and then another thread for people who don't understand how it works, don't care, are just idealistic in easy-to-swollow rhetoric and more importantly probably won't vote anyway.

You know Pink.. I was gonna stay out of this one, too much going on. But just this statement is really elitist. I understand (as a political science buff who donates TONS of his limited time helping a certain influential site run by someone named Markos) how you feel sometimes, but every HERE in our community should have a voice (even if its an ignorant one) and we shouldnt start separating these voices out.
So even though I agree with our position 100% regarding supporting Democratic candidates, and not wasting my vote on idealists that have 0% chance of winning and 90% chance of spoiling (just like Perot did for Clinton) I just can support this statement.

Im just sayin...

Reputation Comments on this post:

good looking out

[Nagognog2]

I have no doubt on his voting record. But the voting record you should be looking at is the Republican candidate's. Because a vote for Ron Paul is a vote for the Republican in effect. But you don't want to accept that.

Kids! Geesh! LOL...

[Shiacmkmleer]

Originally Posted by Nagognog2

I have no doubt on his voting record. But the voting record you should be looking at is the Republican candidate's. Because a vote for Ron Paul is a vote for the Republican in effect. But you don't want to accept that.

I dont know about everyone else but I'm talking about voting for him in the primary.

[lulz]

Originally Posted by Nagognog2

I have no doubt on his voting record. But the voting record you should be looking at is the Republican candidate's. Because a vote for Ron Paul is a vote for the Republican in effect. But you don't want to accept that.

Kids! Geesh! LOL...

Hmm you're fuckin with me right? I'm so confused I don't know how to respond to that.

Reputation Comments on this post:

you should read an entire thread before contrinbuting then

[fnord]

Originally Posted by lulz

Hmm you're fuckin with me right? I'm so confused I don't know how to respond to that.

nagognog does that to people i dont think he can help it.


on another note im with pinkavvy gras roots action is the best way to make social change,swims state host several pro-pot gathering a year where 1000's come to smoke openly,trip hang, out party all while raising awarness for pot,theres several anarcist/primitivist/social change gatherings every year, mainebows(maine rainbow gatheriungs)tons of orgs working against social/economical injustice,earth/animal liberationists.this is the way to make change IMHO not thru voteing

[allyourbase]

corperations are soulless entities whose only obligation is to themselves. your arguement is a nonstarter, look at whats been done to american production over the years. cheaper and cheaper materials, outsourcing of labor, the continual crushing of legally organized unions, supression of the minimum wage, the increased tax lean against we the people while at the same time cutting corperate taxes more and more. next theyll be arguing for privatizing our police force, that corperation will then be sold to a foreign interest, and ding dong, officer haji at the door. just recently they were trying to outsource screening of our ports to the arabs. privatization has NEVER EVER helped anything. look at walther reed, not only are we paying more since privatization the quality and quantity of the care and services we are paying for is less and less, because the CORPERATION running it doesnt want to have to spend more on labor and material to fix anything.

[Nagognog2]

Corporations are not bound by the Constitution and subsequent laws. When the corporate entities gain control of the government - this becomes the textbook definition of Fascism. Most people don't realize this and view Fascism as some sort of palpable entity with horns and a tail. Nope - Fascism is the government being run by the corporate interests. Sound a little familiar to anyone? Hmm?

[Pinkavvy]

Do you understand what a political spoiler is? Do you understand WHY the republicans donate to mr. pauls campaign every fucking election? If you don't know the answers the those questions, how do you justify putting your uneducated opinion here?

[Shiacmkmleer]

Originally Posted by Pinkavvy

Do you understand what a political spoiler is? Do you understand WHY the republicans donate to mr. pauls campaign every fucking election? If you don't know the answers the those questions, how do you justify putting your uneducated opinion here?

Because he hasnt run for president since 1988? And the office he runs for he runs for as a Republican?

btw definition of Fascism "a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism." -Random House Dictionary

[lulz]

Originally Posted by Pinkavvy

Do you understand what a political spoiler is? Do you understand WHY the republicans donate to mr. pauls campaign every fucking election? If you don't know the answers the those questions, how do you justify putting your uneducated opinion here?

What does that have to do with the merit of Ron Paul's policies?

Bush/Cheney supporters bent over backwards to help out Ralph Nader during the 2004 election. It's an intelligent tactic, but what relevence does it have in the larger debate?

[Pinkavvy]

Because just like paul, nader is nothing more then a POLITICAL SPOILER. The more spoilers they can fund to split the democrat vote, the better off for them.

[lulz]

Originally Posted by Pinkavvy

Because just like paul, nader is nothing more then a POLITICAL SPOILER. The more spoilers they can fund to split the democrat vote, the better off for them.

That's a reflection of the ludicrous two party system, it's not a valid dismissal of the values and policies either one of them has presented.

Cynicism and apathy are the tyrant's best friend.

[fnord]

nothing like politics to bring everyone closer...swim dosent vote,too much crap to follow and it sems uterly pointless,he registered as a republican once as a joke becuase some hippie kept bugging him every day when he walked by the hippies table to register to vote.but anyways,theres a libertarian that always trys to run for govanor in maine,"philip morris napier the peoples hero"thats his fulll name he had it changed so that the ballots would say "the peoples hero"lol but hten realized that last name is first on the ballots!but anyways he funded his campaing with money he got after sueing the maine state police for shooting him unjustly,he dirves around town screaming in a red white and blue truck witha GIANT bullhorn,he wants to fire all the judges and replace them with poorly trained citizens build strips of casinos all over maine and he has a campaing going to try and get tons of felons to move to maine/help him win the election then hes going to pardon them all.swim thinks these are pretty silly ideas but if he did vote it would be for this guy,swim dosent know why but theres just something he likes about a guy that goes to politcal debates with 6 shooters on his hips...and yes he is nammed after the ciggerette..

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Thu People's Hero-Phillip Morris NaPier is an independent politician and candidate in the 2006 race for governor in the state of Maine. He has been the subject of controversy regarding his desire to have the ballot forms reflect what he holds to be his rightful legal name: "Thu People's Hero-Phillip Morris NaPier," which NaPier recently changed his name to.

Napier is convicted felon and has worked to fight for the right of his fellow fellons.

http://www.hamdendailynews.com/newshorts.html <----theres a pic of him there,isnt this what youd ant your Governor to look like?.

[Nagognog2]

"fascism - A system of government that exercises a dictatorship of the extreme right, typically through the merging of state and business leadership, together with belligerent nationalism."
American Heritage Dictionary, 1983

Want to learn more?

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Fascism/Fascism.html

[emineo]

Electoral College essentially creates a two party system.

This thread: Who Should Drug Users Support In 2008?

A candidate from one of those two parties.

Simple as that.

[Shiacmkmleer]

Originally Posted by Nagognog2

"fascism - A system of government that exercises a dictatorship of the extreme right, typically through the merging of state and business leadership, together with belligerent nationalism."
American Heritage Dictionary, 1983

that is so weird... cause i looked it up in my modern AHD and "A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism".
Perhaps it is a conspircacy because America's government is influenced by corperations?

Emineo your dogmatic views are disturbing to say the least... "just vote democrat"

And as for George Bush taking office because of the voting system we have you simply are wrong. He took power in a coup. I wish I had understood the implications of what happand when that took place. Sadly I did not. It is not the system that is flawed it is the citizenry. Do you think that the Citizens who allowed a coup would vote for intelligant canidates with logical arguments but without big names and media coverage?

Reputation Comments on this post:

ignorant statement. stating fiction as fact, when fact has been backed up with proof. the flaw in electoral college is w...

[emineo]

Originally Posted by Shiacmkmleer

Emineo your dogmatic views are disturbing to say the least... "just vote democrat"

And as for George Bush taking office because of the voting system we have you simply are wrong. He took power in a coup. I wish I had understood the implications of what happand when that took place. Sadly I did not.

If you can manage to amend the US Constitution and/or 49 other State Constitutions before the next election then I may retract my disturbing dogmatic statements.

Until then vote Democrat, while you better understand the implications of this topic too.

[baudmax]

Originally Posted by Shiacmkmleer

that is so weird... cause i looked it up in my modern AHD and "A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism".
Perhaps it is a conspircacy because America's government is influenced by corperations?

Emineo your dogmatic views are disturbing to say the least... "just vote democrat"

And as for George Bush taking office because of the voting system we have you simply are wrong. He took power in a coup. I wish I had understood the implications of what happand when that took place. Sadly I did not. It is not the system that is flawed it is the citizenry. Do you think that the Citizens who allowed a coup would vote for intelligant canidates with logical arguments but without big names and media coverage?

Well, the key corporate component was there definitely with the Nazis... big names like Krupps as far as a german corps, among others. In the US, you had Harriman Brown Brothers.. with Prescott Bush serving as a frontman to negotiate raw materials for the german war effort and rearmament. In fact, Harriman Brothers and Bush had assets seized under the trading with the enemy act.

Definitely Shiacmkmleer, a Coup, times two, not once but twice. And Another poster brought up the min number of states for a candidate to win.. which you will notice included Florida and Ohio, both implicated in widespread election fraud and voter intimidation efforts, which help to give King Georgy his media-proclaimed "mandate" for total psychopathy in his 2nd term. With the very integrity of the eelctoral system itself called into question, one must wonder if they've already crossed the politcal Rubicon, tho the consequence of armed revolt is so severe as to require we at least give every civil attempt a chance before such resort.

Voting Democrat will not save you anymore, that's what I don't understand in this thread. Right now, the powers that be are about as exposed as they are going to ever get, across the board. Both the president and congress are at historically low popularity and confidence levels, and that goes for very low regard for both parties, as well. If you want to change the system, you must apply pressure at the opportune time, because yes, the cards are stacked against us. My fear is this is as opportune a time as we are likely to ever get, before the house of cards come down and they have a pretext to exclude debate through any civil process. By this I mean, the collapse of the over-leveraged pyramid scheme of the international economic system. This will effect everyone, everywhere, one way or another, but if you have been following the trends and paying attention to the little bits of truth, you see how precarious the situation has become. The massive redistribution (looting) of the last 10 years, both by speculative bubbles, massive corporate fraud (Worldcom, Enron, et al), and by the rapacious thieving of BushCo to enrich their rich thieving pals, is creating an ever wider chasm between a small number of haves, to the detriment of an vastly increasing group of have nots. And once the have-nots reach a critical mass, then those who have stolen must kick in the dramatic, decisive plans, to protect the hoards they've stolen. There are likely to be a very lot of hungry angry people, and I mean soon, as in within 5 years. If the democrats get in after BushCo, that will release some of the social pressure to reform the blatant corruption and inequity of the existing status quo system, and it will allow the republicans time to recoup and regroup. Because if the democrats get in, they will be holding the hot potato when the consequences come due, as inevitably, eventually they must, and you know who the myopic masses will blame... and even with at least some minor justification. Russia and China are once again rising, and modernizing their militaries, laughing while the US grows weaker mired in corporate wars.

So your votes are counterproductive no matter who you vote for. Republicans.. well it will just come on faster, but then again this may be an advantage, as they are not overly popular, so maintaining the necessary manpower to suppress the populace would be hard to muster and maintain, and the system truly is not quite ready to protect itself against a broad popular revolt. The internet is still free at this time.. although the telcos are trying to nickle and dime the network infrastructure backbones, which means surchage all internet activity, and thereby privatize and further restrict the free exchange of ideas. As I pointed out, the dems will concede just enough (but nothing significant or substantial -- and besides, we are essentially bankrupt, so there is no money to even maintain the social programs many have already become dependent upon, much less dream up new ones), and deflate the impetus for true, systemic change. At least if one votes thier conscience, for who they feel is best qualified, with the highest integrity (I will leave that choice to the reader, or perhaps the reader will vote to increase instability, or to maintain the status quo... free will reigns), well then there are no regrets with the outcome. Especially knowing if you think it through what the real range of outcomes possible is at this time and place in history, given the built in limitations imposed by the system.

But I truly think the system is close to it's weakest point right now, and in the immediate future. If we fail to take advantage of this weakness, and forcefully rally public opinion while it can matter, then we may get no other chances, before economic implosion and economic class friction (possibly even unanticipated geoplitical maneuvering by other powers such as Russia and China) triggers widespread social upheaval which will be used as justification for overt militarist repression. In the meantime, the longer these apes run loose in our government, the better the systems of control and repression they will consolidate into their hands for when the people will inevitably be forced to rise up, even if out of hungry desperation. They are right now, as they've been for more than a year, building concentration camps within the US for dissidents and other undesireables. Do you doubt this is the case? I can dig up the URL for the government contracts if anybody so likes let me know. The federal level of government in the US is beyond repair, irredeemable.. that much many of you seem to both at least imply and understand. But a darkhorse spoiler candidate is our only lottery ticket to get us out of the mess at a higher level... and when that fails as well, as the odds of probability would predict (tho not absolutely IMpossible, very likely improbable) then there is secession and state sovereignty. But don't think you can avoid the coming storm by voting democrat.

Flame me all you want, really. As the saying goes (and meaning no disrepsect to anyone), I call a spade a spade, and whether anyone votes one or the other they are voting for the corporate party. The only difference is the republicans are such brash foolhardy nuts they've gotten too far ahead of the corporate plan and placed the whole scheme in jeopardy. The dems will slow down the revolt, but also inevitably fail to prevent reality from expressing itself. There's just no stopping that many hungry angry people.. and that is what it is coming to. Can anyone truly deny these trends? Can anyone argue, no matter how deplorable the republicans, that continuing to play this game will result in any other outcome than the election of so-called "representatives", who can be just about guaranteed to represent first and foremost their own interests, and those of their corporate sponsors? The only rational way forward is to undermine confidence in the system itself. And right now, the system players have already done a pretty good job of that, if we can only provide clarity and passion in good enough measure to motivate broader demands for change, and I'm not just talking drug policy reform, either. As most of you know, drugs for all intents and purposes, are practically speaking, already as good as legal if you've got decent communication skills and half a brain. Have we the spine to demand that we will no longer be made to live in fear, on so many levels?

Peace and Divinity
Love is the Law

Baudeaux Machs

[The Doors]

I find American politics much more entertaining then Canadian politics but I am not as well informed on the subject as most of you are seeing as you live there.

Anyways, this might be a simple question but I don't understand the concept of determining the winning political party by the number of states that elect each party. To me, it would seem as though counting every vote for what it is should determine the overall outcome. States like California, Texas, New York all have between 15-30million people, and some of these States are really Democrate.

[Each Hit]

Originally Posted by The Doors

I find American politics much more entertaining then Canadian politics but I am not as well informed on the subject as most of you are seeing as you live there.

Anyways, this might be a simple question but I don't understand the concept of determining the winning political party by the number of states that elect each party. To me, it would seem as though counting every vote for what it is should determine the overall outcome. States like California, Texas, New York all have between 15-30million people, and some of these States are really Democrate.

well, it's a weird system. each state (as well as the district of columbia) is allocated a number of electors, one for each senator and representative. since the number of representatives is based on population, the electoral count for each state is influenced by population (no state has less than 3; california has the most, with 55; there are 538 total). when a citizen of a state votes for a presidential candidate, he is actually voting for an elector rather than the actual candidate. the winning elector then casts the "official" vote. electors are chosen by the state political parties and cannot hold any federal office. electors can, and have, cast their vote for someone other than the candidate they pledged to elect. this is punishable by state law (not federal law), but the vote cannot be changed.

as for why this is used as opposed to a straight popular vote, it is supposedly meant to dilute the votes of highly populated areas. unfortunately, most states use a winner-take-all system, where the candidate with the most popular votes in a state receives all of that states electoral votes. this means that, in theory, a candidate could have a landslide victory in the popular vote but lose key electoral votes by a slim margin. it also means that 3rd parties are distinctly disadvantaged. a candidate must win a plurality of a states' votes to get any electoral votes. this means a 3rd party candidate could have 0 electoral votes but millions of supporting popular votes (i believe they have been referred to as wasted votes for spoiler candidates ).

it's really a very complicated system. maybe it had it's uses in the old days, but i don't like it. without the electoral college, junior bush would never have been in office to begin with...

[emineo]

A candidate could win carrying only 12 states (270 electors):

California, New York, Texas, Florida, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Ohio, Michigan, New Jersey, North Carolina, Georgia, and Virginia

Doesn't matter how the other 38 states voted or what the popular vote was.

So just vote Democrat and the sun will rise tomorrow, otherwise it might not.