Sell me on your candidate.
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 12:28:18 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Election Archive
  Election Archive
  2012 Elections
  Sell me on your candidate.
« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4
Author Topic: Sell me on your candidate.  (Read 7215 times)
Wisconsin+17
Ben Kenobi
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,127
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #50 on: April 10, 2012, 09:28:40 PM »

That won't actually end the war on drugs, it will simply shift to attacking unlicensed sellers and distributors.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

What empirical evidence to support your position have you provided?
Logged
America First
Rookie
**
Posts: 86
United States


Political Matrix
E: 3.29, S: -6.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #51 on: April 10, 2012, 09:42:07 PM »

What empirical evidence to support your position have you provided?
Those 2 countries over there in yonder Europe
Logged
America First
Rookie
**
Posts: 86
United States


Political Matrix
E: 3.29, S: -6.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #52 on: April 10, 2012, 09:45:01 PM »

That won't actually end the war on drugs, it will simply shift to attacking unlicensed sellers and distributors.
The government has more important things to be doing than attacking drug salesman.  It's funny how "conservatives" get all offended of the government trying to make healthcare affordable, but then you want the government telling you what you can and can't buy for recreational use.
Logged
True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 42,157
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #53 on: April 10, 2012, 10:19:32 PM »

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

This is actually unconstitutional due to the 14th amendment privileges and immunities clause, which reserves this to the federal government.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Completely false. It's an objective decision, and also one which can only be done on the federal level. Again, refer to the 14th Amendment as to why, when they struck down Dred Scott.

No, its subjective.  Neither the pro-life or pro-choice advocates are in favor of aborting a human life, but those who are pro-choice don't define human life as beginning at conception.  There is no objective standard for whether life begins at conception, quickening, viability, or birth that can be drawn from natural law, just subjective preferences for one of those four most popular dividing lines.  Nor is there a subjective standard that is in the Constitution for the Supreme Court to rule on.  Possibly one could argue that it is a Federal question that the Congress could set a standard for if it chose, but that still would leave it as something to decided by a legislature, not a court.

You seem to be advocating overturning Roe with a constitutional amendment, but there is zero chance of one passing anytime soon, or of a Federal definition of marriage being placed into the Constitution to name another hot button social issue.  Even in the unlikely event it got pass Congress, it would never get the necessary 38 states.
Logged
TJ in Oregon
TJ in Cleve
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,952
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.13, S: 6.96

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #54 on: April 10, 2012, 10:22:22 PM »

Absolutely. Mitt has a 6:1 odds of nominating a liberal over a conservative. Given the average number of supreme court selections in a term, that gives him net odds of exactly zero over Obama.

If we assume President Romney will appoint two justices (with the 6:1 odds you gave) then he has a 1/7 chance of appointing a pro-life judge on each nomination and 6/7 chance of nominating a pro-abortion judge. So, he has a 36/49 chance of nominating two pro-abortion judges. That means there is still ~27% chance he nominates at least one pro-life justice. ~27% is a whole lot better than zero.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Rick Santorum is no longer running for president. There are two remaining options for President of the United States with a non-negligible chance of being elected: Mitt Romney and Barack Obama.
Logged
Wisconsin+17
Ben Kenobi
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,127
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #55 on: April 11, 2012, 09:08:17 AM »

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Saying "Things are good in Netherlands" isn't empirical evidence.
Logged
Wisconsin+17
Ben Kenobi
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,127
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #56 on: April 11, 2012, 09:11:40 AM »

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

One, no, they don't. Prosecution of independent sellers is a significant revenue stream, and given the constraints on goverment, all revenue is a big deal.

Two, regulation of the distribution of controlled substances is a constitutional power of the federal government. It's that pesky constitution again.
Logged
America First
Rookie
**
Posts: 86
United States


Political Matrix
E: 3.29, S: -6.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #57 on: April 11, 2012, 09:35:56 AM »

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Saying "Things are good in Netherlands" isn't empirical evidence.
Actually, it's exactly empirical evidence.

Empirical evidence - the record of one's direct observations or experiences
Logged
America First
Rookie
**
Posts: 86
United States


Political Matrix
E: 3.29, S: -6.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #58 on: April 11, 2012, 09:38:21 AM »

Two, regulation of the distribution of controlled substances is a constitutional power of the federal government. It's that pesky constitution again.
I hope you realize that there was no such thing as "controlled substances" when the constitution was written.  There was no drug war until the 1900s.

It's fine if you want to waste more government resources on a complete and absolute failure that doesn't even accomplish its mission, but don't try to make the argument that the Constitution encourages it.
Logged
America First
Rookie
**
Posts: 86
United States


Political Matrix
E: 3.29, S: -6.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #59 on: April 11, 2012, 09:40:24 AM »

One, no, they don't. Prosecution of independent sellers is a significant revenue stream, and given the constraints on goverment, all revenue is a big deal.
Once again, moonshine example.  How many resources does the government devote towards cracking down on independent moonshine sellers?  How about black market tobacco salesman?
Logged
Pingvin
Pingvin99
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,761
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #60 on: April 11, 2012, 09:42:27 AM »

Vote Paul so you can later say: "Don't blame, I voted for sanest man in the field!"
Logged
Wisconsin+17
Ben Kenobi
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,127
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #61 on: April 11, 2012, 01:01:04 PM »

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

No it's not. Legally the standard at present is set at birth, and yes, it's in the 14th amendment, and yes, it's a power of the federal government, via the privilieges and immunities. I suggest you take the time to look up the clause before arguing that it's subjective. No, it's a very clear and objective standard.

The argument is over which objective standard should be used, conception or birth. Prolifers argue for conception, pro abortion people argue for birth. 

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Roe is terrible law. There is no consitutional basis for a trimester framework to personhood.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Actually, if Roe could establish abortion, then the removal of Roe would not entail a constitutional amendment. I am in favor of establishing a constitutional basis for personhood of the unborn, but removing Roe would be the first step towards this.
 
Logged
Wisconsin+17
Ben Kenobi
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,127
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #62 on: April 11, 2012, 01:04:00 PM »

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

What's the odds of Santorum winning in 2016 and appointing prolife judges. Keeping the field clear is more beneficial than 8 years of Romney, because Romney's record is so poor. Thus, any option to Romney other than Obama is a superior option.
Logged
TJ in Oregon
TJ in Cleve
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,952
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.13, S: 6.96

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #63 on: April 11, 2012, 01:11:29 PM »

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

What's the odds of Santorum winning in 2016 and appointing prolife judges. Keeping the field clear is more beneficial than 8 years of Romney, because Romney's record is so poor. Thus, any option to Romney other than Obama is a superior option.

By 2017 he won't be replacing Ginsburg and Kennedy, he'll be replacing Scalia and Thomas so it will be a break-even proposition.
Logged
Wisconsin+17
Ben Kenobi
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,127
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #64 on: April 11, 2012, 01:14:32 PM »

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

The ability to lay tariffs permits the federal government to regulate the importation of many goods, among which include drugs and alcohol. There is no right to unregulated distribution.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

The constitution does not encourage anything. It simply permits the federal government to regulate. The government is acting within it's constitutional limits in regulating the distribution of drugs. There are many unconstitutional agencies, (education, natch), that should be abolished.
Logged
angus
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,423
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #65 on: April 11, 2012, 01:51:35 PM »


Here come old flattop he come grooving up slowly
He got joo-joo eyeball he one holy roller
He got hair down to his knee
Got to be a joker he just do what he please

He wear no shoeshine he got toe-jam football
He got monkey finger he shoot coca-cola
He say "I know you, you know me"
One thing I can tell you is you got to be free
Come together right now over me

He bag production he got walrus gumboot
He got Ono sideboard he one spinal cracker
He got feet down below his knee
Hold you in his armchair you can feel his disease
Come together right now over me

He roller-coaster he got early warning
He got muddy water he one mojo filter
He say "One and one and one is three"
Got to be good-looking 'cause he's so hard to see
Come together right now over me

Logged
America First
Rookie
**
Posts: 86
United States


Political Matrix
E: 3.29, S: -6.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #66 on: April 11, 2012, 04:33:36 PM »
« Edited: April 11, 2012, 04:35:14 PM by America First »

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
When did I ever say there was a right to unregulated distribution?  All I said is that if drugs were legal, not many people would willfully break the law for it to make a difference, hence why there's no huge moonshine or tobacco crackdowns.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
You implied that the Constitution favors the War on Drugs, and I just told you that it doesn't.  It's not like I was making a constitutional argument in favor of abolishing the War on Drugs myself, so this whole argument and discussion is moot and simply a sidetrack.  I'm not sure where in the Constitution you're referring to, but it doesn't even pertain to this discussion so I don't care.

I'm not trying to make a legal/constitutional, or even philosophical argument.  I'm keeping things purely pragmatic.
Logged
argentarius
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 843
Ireland, Republic of


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #67 on: April 11, 2012, 05:12:53 PM »

Your pissed off with the establishment right? You want to give them the middle finger, don't you? Vote for Ron Paul. BTW, if you don't mind me asking, which part of Texas do you live in?
Logged
Frozen Sky Ever Why
ShadowOfTheWave
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,610
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #68 on: April 11, 2012, 05:44:57 PM »
« Edited: April 11, 2012, 05:55:43 PM by ShadowOfTheWave »

How can anyone vote for Ron Paul with the way he has defamed the Federal Reserve? He and Alex Jones should be sued.
Logged
Bacon King
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,822
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.63, S: -9.49

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #69 on: April 12, 2012, 02:24:03 AM »

One, no, they don't. Prosecution of independent sellers is a significant revenue stream, and given the constraints on goverment, all revenue is a big deal.

That's demonstrably false. The pittance in fines and confiscated cash that come from drug arrests is nothing compared to the huge cost of imprisoning millions of people on drug charges, as well as the cost of enforcement itself (and the opportunity cost to police forces, too- they presumably have many better things to do with their resources besides arresting drug dealers). In this paper published by the CATO Institute, Harvard economist Jeffrey Miron estimates that ending the War on Drugs will net $41.3 billion per year from savings alone, and that the taxation of narcotics at a comparable rate to alcohol or tobacco will provide another $46.7 billion. That's $88 billion in total that drug legalization would bring to government. Regardless of your opinion on drug legalization, an argument that current policies save money doesn't really hold up at all.
Logged
○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└
jfern
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 53,611


Political Matrix
E: -7.38, S: -8.36

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #70 on: April 12, 2012, 02:51:35 AM »

It's pretty obvious that the feds spending resources to bust marijuana collectives that places like Oakland are taxing is a net loss to the governments.
Logged
America First
Rookie
**
Posts: 86
United States


Political Matrix
E: 3.29, S: -6.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #71 on: April 12, 2012, 02:59:15 AM »

It's pretty obvious that the feds spending resources to bust marijuana collectives that places like Oakland are taxing is a net loss to the governments.
Not to all people
Logged
Wisconsin+17
Ben Kenobi
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,127
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #72 on: April 12, 2012, 12:00:21 PM »

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

That's the consequence to nominating Romney.
Logged
Wisconsin+17
Ben Kenobi
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,127
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #73 on: April 12, 2012, 12:05:25 PM »

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Then you concede an important point that the government has a constitutional ability to regulate the distribution.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

But they are not legal and the government has the constitutional ability to regulate drugs in this manner.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

And you're entirely incorrect. You've already stated that the government does have the power to regulate distribution, ergo, they also have the ability to ban it outright if they choose to do so.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

And I lift up my hands and say, ayiyo, I'm Galileo. Handwaving doesn't reinforce your position.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Then you'd best look up the reference I already cited.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

And guess what, I'm making a legal/constitutional argument. If you choose to concede the point, then we can move on.
Logged
Wisconsin+17
Ben Kenobi
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,127
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #74 on: April 12, 2012, 12:09:25 PM »

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Austin at present. That may change in the near future. I prefer San Antonio to Austin.

I like Ron Paul, but saying that gay marriage should be left up to the individual states is an appealing, but wrong position. The 10th only regulates powers not delegated, and naturalization is a power reserved to the feds.
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.044 seconds with 10 queries.