The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent
vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums
here.
We now return to our regularly scheduled PA Forums. Please let me (Hahnsoo1) know if something isn't working. The Holiday Forum will remain up until January 10, 2025.
[Election 2016] Dickweasels on parade [READ OP FIRST 5/11/15]
Posts
True, but isn't Strikland basically an institution in Ohio?
I can see the GOP seizing on this in desperation, though. Maybe, if a candidate is libertarian enough, and then it's going to be a case of too many other awful positions getting in the way.
I don't think this is true. Rand Paul is already for a large number of reforms, including federal decriminalization. It's just that he's also batshit crazy on just about everything else.
Now, whether he can take the nomination or not is debatable, but there are already politicians on both ends of the spectrum that are against schedule I marijuana.
How many times has Rand actually pushed it for a vote?
History shows that when Rand Paul becomes a presidential candidate he REVERSES his supposed positions back towards the Party line.
So yeah, probably not happening.
I dislike the guy as much as the next progressive but he supports marijuana law reforms.
Ron Paul introduced alot of bullshit too. It's how they run their grift.
The truth is, he doesn't support shit. He's a die hard conservative:
Don't get scammed. They don't actually support the things they claim to. That's just brand positioning.
OK? That graph has nothing to do at all with his actual viewpoints on marijuana. It says he's super conservative, and he is, but all I could find on his actual public record for the issue is:
1) Introducing a bill to the Senate which would effectively end the Federal war on marijuana
2) Opposing federal funding for state and local marijuana law enforcement
3) Finally, a journalist who made the claim that Paul is opposed to medical marijuana, but later had to correct this claim as "Paul sees it more as a states' rights issue".
Frankly, I'm more than a little upset that I have to actually defend a Paul on something. Maybe it's a grift, in which case, okay, but his actual record seems to indicate that he's for allowing states to decide whether marijuana should be legal or not.
And I'm not sure what you mean by "don't get scammed". I'm not voting for the guy. Never in a million years.
Do not engage the Watermelons.
No, that one of the R candidates will use it to differentiate themselves from the rest of the R field.
It's frankly not enough to win over much of the progressive vote, and I don't think Paul can get through the primary.
But the discussion started with somebody making the claim that no Republicans will be pro-pot:
And it's not true.
You are getting scammed. You are taking his position at face value. That's the whole point here.
The point of the graph is that his public statements and his actual positions as shown by his voting record don't just not match, but are comically mismatched. Like his grifter father before him, he talks big but doesn't ever follow through.
Rand Paul blabs about pro-pot positions because that's the biggest issue for the "libertarian" vote he courts. But when it comes down to actual action, he's just a standard very-conservative republican. You can see this right now just reading through this thread as there's already been examples of him walking his previous statements back in order to secure the nomination.
You should be upset that you are defending Rand Paul's stance on pot. It means you are getting grifted.
Sort of. Democrats definitely hold him in high regard and he connects very well to the rural southeast Ohio. But he's weaker in the urban areas and they're going to hammer him on the recession. Portman already has a web site up about all the jobs lost and is also running web ads stating the same. But if the voters don't make that connection (which they shouldn't) then there's no way Portman can win.
There was also a strong association between Southern Evangelical Christianity and the proto-Tea Party efforts in the late 19th and 20th centuries to declare America a Christian nation. The major legacy from that period were Prohibition, stopping mail on Sundays and a bunch of state/local censorships laws.
One thing that should be pointed out about the free-love hippies is that they were largely the children of Christian parents. That movement wasn't a case of outsiders imposing hatred on Christianity. It was a rebellion of largely Christian children who looked at the way their parents lived and said, "Fuck that shit."
Too bad they reverted back to form as a generation once the war ended. Luckily, their kids and grandkids took their lessons to heart and aren't as willing to become Organization Man once they hit 25.
I don't see it personally. The libertarian fringe are in favor of a position like that. But they are a small faction of the larger Republican Party. One that, for the most part, views pot as something that shouldn't be legal at all.
Paul may take a pro pot stance, but I can't see it beig anything other than a lukewarm stance of letting states decide for themselves. Otherwise he risks losing support of the rest of the party. He has the libertarian vote, he needs to court the rest of the party if he wan to win
It's really easy to claim "states rights" and just wash your hands of it. It's also a total cop-out. I get the sense Rand thinks it shouldn't be illegal like the rest of us, but if he's pressed on the states rights solution, he'll inevitably have to back out of it, because god knows some of the states with strong private prison lobbies aren't going to change a thing. Which is inevitably going to become a race problem, as if it wasn't enough of one already.
When pushed, he'll fold like a cheap suit.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
Yeah, he's not betting his campaign on weed.
Wouldn't surprise me at all.
Steam | XBL
It's right beside the part where Jesus talks about how white he is.
Yes I believe that's [Chad 3:23]
Is that before or after he talks about how much he hates the poors?
I think it was something like: "Verily, hated shall be the poor because they are an offense to the lord and are totes like cockroaches yo."
No, it's basically an extension of the comments about alcohol which amounts to "Drunks are sorta jerks, huh?" and I only remember that from Psalms. Nothing on the level of the dietary restrictions against pork or in any of the serious books of laws.
Jesus never says a single word about homosexuality either, but that doesn't stop them from obsessing over it.
I wouldn't put it past the early Christians to lump it in with general disdain for pagan practices and stuff like alcohol, but I don't think it was ever a focus back then for them. The hate on for marijuana came much later for different reasons.
I'm pretty sure this is verbatim from the Sermon on the Mount.
and then completely reverse course once she gets into office and crack down on it as hard as she can because she's a fucking chicken hawk and they're all terrified of being perceived as soft on crime
I'd be ... uh ... surprised if that second paragraph happens.
I do enjoy reading how utterly bonkers, devious, and evil everyone thinks Hillary is though!
At worst, she'll give an amnesty and a deadline.