Is this the year of the Libertarian Party?

[The Derp]

SO WHAT!?!?

SO IT'S NOT A LOCAL ISSUE. It's been a federal issue since 1936 when the prohibition started.

 

[flacaltenn]

A political party's principles and platforms need to work on BOTH a Federal and State/Local level. California is an example of raw political power being concentrated in a ONE party state. Power that HAS NO bounds on principles or platforms but exists MAINLY to perpetuate that Party's existence.

CA, by the way, has seen among the best economic and job growth since the Democrats took over.

Also, one thing you probably didn't know about CA is that the state's districts are drawn by a non-partisan board. So Democrats control the state not because they drew the borders that way, but because they consistently deliver on their promises to the voters.

That's why Democrats control CA...because Republicans are garbage people with garbage policies most people don't support.

Sure -- bribing folks for support. Good plan.. Fuck the "district" lines. State is NATURALLY divided into free and occupied areas.

You like the "top 2" primary system that officially BARS AND PREVENTS anything but 2 names on General Election ballot?? No ACCESS to the ballot by Indies and 3rd parties? TWO DEMOCRATS only offered for US Senate in 2016?

Thats stuff that would make the Old Soviet Politboro proud man. Good work....

 

[The Derp]

A) People in Michigan wipe their asses.
B) People in Maine wipe their asses.
C) Therefore, the federal government can regulate how you wipe your ass.

So this is exactly the kind of logical fallacy you accuse me of doing! This is precisely a non-sequitur!

You've never capable of arguing within parameters you don't set up for yourself. There haven't been federal laws passed on how you wipe your ass.

You are the person The Road To Serfdom was written about.

You have a very juvenile view of the world.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

18 century thinking like....

...counting slaves as 3/5 a person?

...denying women the right to vote?

...denying equal protection?

Your fetish-ization of the founding fathers sounds particularly MAGA.

so, scrap it all, in favor of your communist totalitarian state?

Fuck you. I am sticking with them.

 

[The Derp]

Local and state authorities didn't bother investigating. A claim not substantiated.

Why do you think the feds investigated and convicted!? Because state laws against corruption are a) non-existent and/or b) not enforced .

And I said "didn't bother OR weren't capable of it."

So you do that sophist thing where you selectively edit and read what someone says and then craft an emotional, hyperbolic, and melodramatic response based on that fog of controversy. It's what Toddster does all the fucking time.

But perhaps federal authorities don't bother investigating federal politicians for corruption.

So again, you'd be wrong because the federal officials convicted on corruption charges since 1975 are widely available. A quick Google search reveals it. You're just being too fucking lazy about it. Another callback to Toddster; laziness.

 

[JoeMoma]

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Thank god for Federal overstep. Otherwise, we would all be little house on the prairie, right Derp? Federal Gov's abuse of its authority saved humanity, right?

 

[The Derp]

Yes, and the legislators in Sacramento know what is better for Californians than DC does.

How's that? We have the internet today, so I can know about CA politics from my computer in Atlanta, GA. I can also travel to CA any time I want to see for myself. "All politics is local" is a misnomer the internet has killed. A politician in Sacramento knows as much of what constituents in San Diego want as I do. I can find out just as easily as they can, just by going on social media and asking a question. In fact, I'll probably know more than that Sacramento politician because I'm not spending all my time around rich people and corporations, soliciting their donations.

Again, we live in the 21st century, not the 18th century. Join us.

DC tries to force a one-size-fits-all glove on every state.

And we're finding now that every issue is looking like it's a national issue;

Climate change - national issue
Health care - national issue
Drugs - national issue
Education - NATIONAL FUCKING ISSUE

Everything appears to be a national issue once you dive into the specifics.

Like drilling in ANWAR, for instance. That's a national issue because it has to do with national energy policy. So it may only physically affect Alaska, but it commercially affects everyone.

 

[The Derp]

You mean FEDERAL laws are discriminatory.
I'm sure that was a deliberate omission on your part.
You just hoisted yourself by your own petard.

Are you kidding? I've said that I want to change federal policy to end the prohibition. That's why I vote for politicians who want to reclassify pot. That's why I support candidates who want to end the prohibition. This country's patchwork of legality doesn't make any fucking sense. Pot is legal, in some form, in 29 states that cover the majority of people in this country. So that says to me that it's not a local issue, but a national one.

 

[The Derp]

Legalizing pot in Michigan does not affect people in every state.

Sure it does. If you travel to Michigan from another state, then it affects you because you can toke legally.

So?

SO IT'S NOT A LOCAL ISSUE.

In fact, pot is legal in some form in 29 states for more than half the population.

So that clearly means it's a national issue.

 

[The Derp]

Well, it's under federal prohibition. So it sure as shit is a federal issue.

and, why does the Fed Gov have authority to prohibit pot?

The same reason why they had the authority to prohibit alcohol for a time; it's within their Constitutional powers to do so.

That's why I think states legalizing pot is fine, but it's not going to fix the underlying problem of federal prohibition dating back to about 1936. All it does is set up a Constitutional showdown no one wants to have. That's why I am advocating we change federal policy.

Also, because of the federal policy, businesses have a hard time setting up the framework because banks operate according to federal laws (because they're national banks), and won't loan to those looking to start pot businesses.

So again, FEDERAL, NATIONAL ISSUE.

 

[The Derp]

But the federal law has not been changed. Law.....not policy, law!

Right, which is why I support politicians who want to change it, and why I vote for them.

 

[The Derp]

You don't know what a fallacy is.

You know nothing, Jon Snow.

 

[DrLove]

Stossel: Is 2018 the Year of the Libertarian Party?

Poor little Fox Johnny - Hasn't been right ever since

 

[The Derp]

Sure -- bribing folks for support.

"Bribing" how? How are they being bribed with non-partisan map drawing?

Good plan.. Fuck the "district" lines. State is NATURALLY divided into free and occupied areas.

The non-partisan board has drawn boundaries free of partisan influence. So CA is among the least gerrymandered states in the country. No red state can claim that mantle. They don't even come close. And Democrats have a near-Super Majority in CA without gerrymandering...just imagine if there was gerrymandering.

You like the "top 2" primary system that officially BARS AND PREVENTS anything but 2 names on General Election ballot?? No ACCESS to the ballot by Indies and 3rd parties? TWO DEMOCRATS only offered for US Senate in 2016?

I think that's perfectly fine and more than fair. Why should losers be bailed out? You don't want the government picking winners and losers, yet here you are arguing for just that.

I actually believe that you should get to vote for every House rep in your state. If your state has 45 reps, then you choose 45 people from the ballot. Then the top 45 vote-getters become the reps. That's more democratic than the current system, which disenfranchises voters.

Thats stuff that would make the Old Soviet Politboro proud man. Good work....

What's ironic about this is that Donald Trump accepted help from the former KGB officer Putin to employ Russian Active Measures during the 2016 campaign.

 

[The Derp]

so, scrap it all, in favor of your communist totalitarian state?

Why do you instantly and compulsively go to that extreme?

Is it because you're not capable of having a reasoned discussion?

Is it because you're afraid that your insecurity in the argument is going to show?

Is it because you can only argue in absolutes because you're an absolute loser?

How come the hyperbolic melodrama? What gives?

So with that said, I don't think we should throw away our current system, but I think we certainly need to modernize it to reflect 21st century realities. Upgrade it just as you'd upgrade your computer.

 

[The Derp]

Thank god for Federal overstep. Otherwise, we would all be little house on the prairie, right Derp? Federal Gov's abuse of its authority saved humanity, right?

Well, it sure did for the millions of slaves who were freed. Abusing that authority sure seemed to work out well for the people who were slaves.

 

[g5000]

According to The Derp, driving a car 100 mph in Kansas somehow affects a driver in Washington, DC.

Well, sure it does. If they travel at a higher rate of speed, then they're more likely to get into an accident. And if they get into an accident, then that's going to cause car insurance premiums to rise. And as you so astutely pointed out before, car insurance is sold nationally. So the actions taken by reckless drivers in Kansas do impact drivers in DC when it comes to car insurance.

Anything else you want to get off your chest?

*sigh*

You poor thing.

You wracked and wracked and wracked your totalitarian brain, and this was the best ignorant fantasy you could summon? Really?

I pity you, because you must not own a car.

You see, one of the first things an auto insurance retailer asks you is where you live. Your insurance premiums are determined by your age, how many miles you drive each year, your accident history, and WHERE YOU LIVE.

It does not matter to a driver in DC how crazy people drive in Kansas.

Nice try.

 

[g5000]

Wrong. You have ZERO logic to explain your non sequitur.

LOL! You just admitted that the same person can smoke pot in one state legally, and not in another. So it's clearly not a local issue.

Wow. That's insane.

"You just admitted that Washington is not California. So clearly they aren't different states."

That is what you sound like.

 

[g5000]

To accuse me of propounding states rights for the purposes of discrimination is a goddam motherfucking syphilitic pissant little worm tactic.

The problem is that you don't even fucking realize you're doing it. It's not that you support discrimination, it's that you passively support it by pretending there are issues that are specific to just the states.

Tell us how legalizing pot in Minnesota would hurt blacks.

We've been waiting all day.