What's new
US Message Board 🦅 Political Discussion Forum

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Issues on which I disagree with the right

Rigby5

Gold Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2017
Messages
18,906
Reaction score
5,985
Points
265
Location
New Mexico
while i agree i want the gov to butt-out of these things, it's odd to me you only mention butting out of conservatives practices. don't get me wrong, i agree with several of your stances.

im against abortion for example. not my role to tell you how to live, however.

no idea what the hell a perceived gender is. you're male or female (99.999% of the time) and anything else is mental, not physical. you can dress how you want, take whatever drug therapy you wish and have a wonderful day. but you can't expect everyone to go along with it.

the war on drugs should focus on the ones that are an actual issue like opium. outside that who gives a damn what people smoke or do in private. again, not saying im for or against drugs but again, not my place to tell people how to live.

wars - can't live with them, can't live without them. you pick your allies and you work with them. period.

Government needs to butt-out except when there is extortion like from a monopoly, and clearly big Pharma, insurance companies, and health care multi nationals are guilty of unfair monopoly tactics.

The War on Drugs should totally end.
It is inherently illegal, harmful, and totally corrupt.
I would never recommend drugs, but making anything illegal that harms no one else, causes problems to greatly amplify.

Yes we CAN live without wars.
The only war the US was ever unavoidable was the War of 1812.
The rest were all immoral, illegal, and deliberately cause by the US to some degree.
 

jc456

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 18, 2013
Messages
106,085
Reaction score
15,681
Points
2,180
It's ridiculous to think you can get most people to think like you. If that were possible, our crime problems would be solved, our drug problems would be solved, our border problems would be solved and so forth.

Part of being a free country is thinking the way you wish, and you're simply not going to get everybody to think like you, especially when it comes to third party candidates. People either vote to keep their party in power or to make sure the opposing party doesn't get power. So nobody is going to vote third party even if their views are more in line with yours than either party because the stand zero chance at winning.
well that's what Blue said needed to happen to get his vote!! hilarious how out of touch with america he is.
 

jc456

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 18, 2013
Messages
106,085
Reaction score
15,681
Points
2,180

jc456

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 18, 2013
Messages
106,085
Reaction score
15,681
Points
2,180
I disagree.
I think if people were allowed to vote based on the actual issues, we could get much better representation.
But the 2 party strangle hold prevents that.
For example, I think there are some excellent candidates from both extremes that would appeal to the whole population enough to get elected, who are screened and prevented by the party they are forced to try to go through.
Bernie Sanders, Tulsi Gabbard, Rand Paul, etc. are some who come to mind, that I would like to vote for, have strong bipartisan support, but am prevented by the 2 party system.
The 2 party system is wrong, evil, not supported by any legal principle, and prevents actual issues from being debated honestly.
you have no idea where the money comes from from back door deals. impossible for you to know what any candidates position is because they are not loyal to that position. You can't be that naive?
 

ClaireH

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 1, 2020
Messages
3,382
Reaction score
4,018
Points
1,938
Location
Midwest US
With respect to a spinoff topic that’s been discussed during the thread about LO2E, a voter’s vote weighs in more heavily (one could say has more importance) in mid-sized states having 7 or more electoral votes. My own state is one such state, but has not been considered a swing state. The weight of one’s vote is not just determined by a state’s size or its population density, it is also determined whether your district had a high or low voter turnout.

“The way the Electoral College rewires American presidential elections in comparison to a simple popular vote is clearly complex. The Electoral College does add extra weight to votes cast in the least populated states. But the way this system treats voters in the remaining states is not well-understood. In states with seven or more electoral votes, it tends to weigh votes based on that state’s voter turnout, rather than its number of electoral votes.”


Alas, the founding fathers had honorable intentions in creating the EC. They believed (at least more than half of the signers) that without adding this mechanism that balanced the votes among states, popular vote along would be controlled by the richest farmers’ sons.

“Whatever one’s political affiliation, it is hard to be enthusiastic about a system that penalizes voters in high-turnout states.”

 

Ray From Cleveland

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2015
Messages
79,573
Reaction score
24,412
Points
2,290
With respect to a spinoff topic that’s been discussed during the thread about LO2E, a voter’s vote weighs in more heavily (one could say has more importance) in mid-sized states having 7 or more electoral votes. My own state is one such state, but has not been considered a swing state. The weight of one’s vote is not just determined by a state’s size or its population density, it is also determined whether your district had a high or low voter turnout.

“The way the Electoral College rewires American presidential elections in comparison to a simple popular vote is clearly complex. The Electoral College does add extra weight to votes cast in the least populated states. But the way this system treats voters in the remaining states is not well-understood. In states with seven or more electoral votes, it tends to weigh votes based on that state’s voter turnout, rather than its number of electoral votes.”


Alas, the founding fathers had honorable intentions in creating the EC. They believed (at least more than half of the signers) that without adding this mechanism that balanced the votes among states, popular vote along would be controlled by the richest farmers’ sons.

“Whatever one’s political affiliation, it is hard to be enthusiastic about a system that penalizes voters in high-turnout states.”


The founders were brilliant. Today NYC has more people than the total of our ten lowest populated states. That's only one city.
 

Ray From Cleveland

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2015
Messages
79,573
Reaction score
24,412
Points
2,290
Wrong.

First of all, what is legal is not for lawyers to decide.
The basic principle of a real democratic republic is that defense of individual rights is the ONLY source of legal authority.
When legislators pass a law that is not based on that, it is obviously inherently illegal.
All lawyers instead are taught essentially that might makes right, and ignore real law.
Lawyers are instead taught to defer to statues and how to win arguments, both of which are contrary to the principles of a democratic republic.

Sure drugs are bad and I would not recommend them, but making them illegal only makes it worse, and there is no basis for such laws in a democratic republic. Essentially, they are saying you are too stupid so we will dictate. Once you allow that, the democratic republic is totally gone.
The drug deaths are NOT due to drugs but the laws criminalizing drugs that prevent users from knowing dose or ingredients.
The robberies over drugs are NOT due to drugs, but the high costs and the lack of medical access, caused from drug criminalization.
Drug gang murders are NOT due to drugs, but the laws criminalizing drugs that entice people with high profits, but make them accumulate large cash sums that can't use the protection of banks, police, credit cards, etc.
Drugs were always historically legal, and just like with Prohibition, the big problems did not happen until they were criminalized.
If you think criminalization of drugs has had any positive or useful aspect, you are totally wrong.
It just set the stage for the future rebellion where the poor people finally topple the corrupt and evil government of the wealthy.
Obesity kills 300,000 each year in the US, while drugs are claimed to be responsible for only about 70,000 deaths a year in the US.
But obesity is legal because it is the wealthy.
The poor can't afford obesity.

So in other words you have no idea what illegal actually means. Look it up sometime. When we elect representatives and they make something illegal, that's it, it's illegal. When you break the law, you pay the penalty.

And don't tell me that making dope legal will solve the problem. That's like saying throwing a gallon of gasoline on a fire will make it go out. There will always be illegal drug trade. Just look up articles on states with legal pot. The illegal pot is out there more than ever. They are in competition with state prices and still have plenty of customers. People are still getting busted for selling pot. The only difference between pot and opioids is that pot isn't worth killing for in most cases.

People strung out on dope still need to purchase it. That means the house robberies, car jackings, and armed robberies won't stop. If anything it would get worse since if you make something legal that was once illegal, you will more than double the size of users.
 

Rigby5

Gold Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2017
Messages
18,906
Reaction score
5,985
Points
265
Location
New Mexico
With respect to a spinoff topic that’s been discussed during the thread about LO2E, a voter’s vote weighs in more heavily (one could say has more importance) in mid-sized states having 7 or more electoral votes. My own state is one such state, but has not been considered a swing state. The weight of one’s vote is not just determined by a state’s size or its population density, it is also determined whether your district had a high or low voter turnout.

“The way the Electoral College rewires American presidential elections in comparison to a simple popular vote is clearly complex. The Electoral College does add extra weight to votes cast in the least populated states. But the way this system treats voters in the remaining states is not well-understood. In states with seven or more electoral votes, it tends to weigh votes based on that state’s voter turnout, rather than its number of electoral votes.”


Alas, the founding fathers had honorable intentions in creating the EC. They believed (at least more than half of the signers) that without adding this mechanism that balanced the votes among states, popular vote along would be controlled by the richest farmers’ sons.

“Whatever one’s political affiliation, it is hard to be enthusiastic about a system that penalizes voters in high-turnout states.”


States get the same electoral votes for high or low voter turn out, so it is not really penalizing high voter turn out, just not rewarding high voter turn out.
And that is ok. Low turn out likely means little interest, so then is better to have low impact.

But obviously in dense urban areas, you are going to get more of a political machine that can manipulate high vote counts, but is not really democratic.
That is even worse.
Rural voters seem to be more independent thinkers and not as easily manipulated.
 

Rigby5

Gold Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2017
Messages
18,906
Reaction score
5,985
Points
265
Location
New Mexico
you have no idea where the money comes from from back door deals. impossible for you to know what any candidates position is because they are not loyal to that position. You can't be that naive?

Why should I care why a particular candidate supports a particular position?
The point is if they support something like antiwar and fiscal conservatism like Bernie Sanders does, then it is not likely he is going to turn around and get us into a war or $37 trillion in debt like both the democrats and republicans have.
The facts we have to face is both parties have been awful.
Both have supported ridiculous wars and borrowing.
Both of which are immoral and unsustainable.

So we need something else.
We need to figure out how to stop the 2 parties from monopolizing the elections and preventing any real choice.
The current insanity can not be allowed to continue.
This is not going to be survivable much longer.
We are going to have to just start all over from scratch is something is not changed soon.
 

ClaireH

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 1, 2020
Messages
3,382
Reaction score
4,018
Points
1,938
Location
Midwest US
States get the same electoral votes for high or low voter turn out, so it is not really penalizing high voter turn out, just not rewarding high voter turn out.
And that is ok. Low turn out likely means little interest, so then is better to have low impact.

But obviously in dense urban areas, you are going to get more of a political machine that can manipulate high vote counts, but is not really democratic.
That is even worse.
Rural voters seem to be more independent thinkers and not as easily manipulated.
What I found interesting about that author’s interpretation is that a mid-sized state with low voter turn out makes a vote “count more” than had high turn out been the case. I’ve never really given it much thought how that works until reading this article.

My point is that for voters who are allergic to voting for either of the 2 current parties and vote for a third-party candidate who they know is going to lose, they might want to rethink that position if they live in such a district.
 

iceberg

Diamond Member
Joined
May 15, 2017
Messages
32,471
Reaction score
11,069
Points
1,410
Government needs to butt-out except when there is extortion like from a monopoly, and clearly big Pharma, insurance companies, and health care multi nationals are guilty of unfair monopoly tactics.

The War on Drugs should totally end.
It is inherently illegal, harmful, and totally corrupt.
I would never recommend drugs, but making anything illegal that harms no one else, causes problems to greatly amplify.

Yes we CAN live without wars.
The only war the US was ever unavoidable was the War of 1812.
The rest were all immoral, illegal, and deliberately cause by the US to some degree.
wars are a consequence of human nature. you're not going to get rid of them. may as well say we're going to stop fighting with each other in here.

same results.
 

Rigby5

Gold Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2017
Messages
18,906
Reaction score
5,985
Points
265
Location
New Mexico
So in other words you have no idea what illegal actually means. Look it up sometime. When we elect representatives and they make something illegal, that's it, it's illegal. When you break the law, you pay the penalty.

And don't tell me that making dope legal will solve the problem. That's like saying throwing a gallon of gasoline on a fire will make it go out. There will always be illegal drug trade. Just look up articles on states with legal pot. The illegal pot is out there more than ever. They are in competition with state prices and still have plenty of customers. People are still getting busted for selling pot. The only difference between pot and opioids is that pot isn't worth killing for in most cases.

People strung out on dope still need to purchase it. That means the house robberies, car jackings, and armed robberies won't stop. If anything it would get worse since if you make something legal that was once illegal, you will more than double the size of users.

Wrong.
Clearly it is YOU who do not understand law, what is legal or illegal.
Law is NOT at all based on what legislators claim.
That is self authorizing, autocratic, dictatorship.
That goes back to "might makes right" or the monarchies.

It should be obvious there has to be a higher standard for law than what legislator dictate, not only because this is supposed to be a democratic republic, but because the SCOTUS has to have some higher standard by which they can use to determine if and when legislation has to be struck down.
And it should be obvious we all know that.
For example, we all know that even the SCOTUS can and has been wrong, like the Dredd Scott Decision.

And you are totally wrong about drugs.
Sure the problem would not totally go away if legalized, but would shrink by over 75%.
The high cost, high profits, and all the violence comes from it being illegal.
If drugs were not illegal, then it would just be health issue, and people who run into problems with drugs could then easily get medical help if they wanted it.
Historically we KNOW drug use declines when legal, because then there is no one pushing drugs, government credibility is no longer suspect, and people can more easily get medical help to get off drugs.
Again this is not guessing games.
For example, heroin was not illegal in the US until 1924, and it was not until then that drugs became such a terrible problem.
The problems with alcohol are similar, in that alcohol did not have nearly as many problems until made illegal in 1920.

It surprises me when someone who talks about restricting government abuses, then falls for the most obvious and foolish government abuse of all.
 

Rigby5

Gold Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2017
Messages
18,906
Reaction score
5,985
Points
265
Location
New Mexico
What I found interesting about that author’s interpretation is that a mid-sized state with low voter turn out makes a vote “count more” than had high turn out been the case. I’ve never really given it much thought how that works until reading this article.

My point is that for voters who are allergic to voting for either of the 2 current parties and vote for a third-party candidate who they know is going to lose, they might want to rethink that position if they live in such a district.

No, if both candidates are bad, it is better to vote 3rd party and have your dissatisfaction recorded.
In fact, if both candidates are terrible, I would almost wish the worst would win, just to teach people a lesson.
 

Rigby5

Gold Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2017
Messages
18,906
Reaction score
5,985
Points
265
Location
New Mexico
wars are a consequence of human nature. you're not going to get rid of them. may as well say we're going to stop fighting with each other in here.

same results.

I disagree.
Wars are always completely pointless because they cost and destroy much more than the original cause could have been.
I believe all wars come from war profiteers causing them deliberately.
And human nature is inherently cooperative, not violent.

The fighting here costs nothing, and even I have learned a few things from the discussions.
 

Ray From Cleveland

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2015
Messages
79,573
Reaction score
24,412
Points
2,290
Wrong.
Clearly it is YOU who do not understand law, what is legal or illegal.
Law is NOT at all based on what legislators claim.
That is self authorizing, autocratic, dictatorship.

No, it's representative Republic which this country was founded on.

It should be obvious there has to be a higher standard for law than what legislator dictate, not only because this is supposed to be a democratic republic, but because the SCOTUS has to have some higher standard by which they can use to determine if and when legislation has to be struck down.
And it should be obvious we all know that.
For example, we all know that even the SCOTUS can and has been wrong, like the Dredd Scott Decision.

The SC only has one standard, and that is the constitutionally of laws. That's all they rule on.

And you are totally wrong about drugs.
Sure the problem would not totally go away if legalized, but would shrink by over 75%.
The high cost, high profits, and all the violence comes from it being illegal.
If drugs were not illegal, then it would just be health issue, and people who run into problems with drugs could then easily get medical help if they wanted it.
Historically we KNOW drug use declines when legal, because then there is no one pushing drugs, government credibility is no longer suspect, and people can more easily get medical help to get off drugs.
Again this is not guessing games.
For example, heroin was not illegal in the US until 1924, and it was not until then that drugs became such a terrible problem.
The problems with alcohol are similar, in that alcohol did not have nearly as many problems until made illegal in 1920.

It surprises me when someone who talks about restricting government abuses, then falls for the most obvious and foolish government abuse of all.

You don't even realize you made my point. First you say that making dope legal will solve 75% of the problems, and later say how much more problems we have with alcohol after it was made legal again. No difference really. We do have a lot more problems with alcohol when it became legal because more people started drinking and abusing alcohol which would likely not have happened if it remained illegal.

Again, if the state made all dope legal, the underground would simply sell theirs cheaper and maybe more powerful. Your claim reminds me of years ago when they were pushing to have the lottery in my state. Their claim was that it would put an end to mob control over gambling. They passed the lottery, and the mob began to use the states numbers for their games. Their payout for a 3 digit straight was $200.00 more than the state paid.
 

Ray From Cleveland

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2015
Messages
79,573
Reaction score
24,412
Points
2,290
wars are a consequence of human nature. you're not going to get rid of them. may as well say we're going to stop fighting with each other in here.

same results.

Years ago the threat was communism. If we sat back (and sometimes we did) not getting involved in any other wars, communists would have taken over one country at a time. After a while, the communist countries would overpower the US since there would be so many people under communism. So we had to fight wars to stop the spread of communism and thus the spread of threat against our country.
 

Rigby5

Gold Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2017
Messages
18,906
Reaction score
5,985
Points
265
Location
New Mexico
No, it's representative Republic which this country was founded on.



The SC only has one standard, and that is the constitutionally of laws. That's all they rule on.



You don't even realize you made my point. First you say that making dope legal will solve 75% of the problems, and later say how much more problems we have with alcohol after it was made legal again. No difference really. We do have a lot more problems with alcohol when it became legal because more people started drinking and abusing alcohol which would likely not have happened if it remained illegal.

Again, if the state made all dope legal, the underground would simply sell theirs cheaper and maybe more powerful. Your claim reminds me of years ago when they were pushing to have the lottery in my state. Their claim was that it would put an end to mob control over gambling. They passed the lottery, and the mob began to use the states numbers for their games. Their payout for a 3 digit straight was $200.00 more than the state paid.

Democratic is more important than representative. If it was representative of only the wealthy elite, it would be evil.

And NO, the SCOTUS does not at all just rule based on constitutionality.
Constitutionality only is useful for dividing jurisdiction between federal and all else.
When it comes to thing like inherent individual rights, they deliberately were not attempted to be listed in the constitution because they are infinite.
The SCOTUS then falls back to historical precedent, like British Common Law when necessary.
For example, the obvious right of privacy comes entirely from British Common Law, and is not mentioned in the Constitution at all.

And no, I did not make your point, because it was making alcohol illegal that cause almost ALL the problems.
Prohibition increased the murder rate by over a factor of 10, and is what made the first federal gun control law necessary. The 1934 federal firearms act was entirely due to bootleggers buying mail order Thompson machineguns.
Now that alcohol is legal again, almost all the problems from Prohibition and alcohol went away.
Same would be true with drugs.
There were almost no problems with drugs before they were made illegal in 1924, and there would be almost no problem with drugs again if they were legalized.

You can NEVER allow government to dictate individual behavior in a democratic, representative, republic.
You are the one who is supposed to want to limit government because it is so inherently corrupt.
 

Rigby5

Gold Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2017
Messages
18,906
Reaction score
5,985
Points
265
Location
New Mexico
Years ago the threat was communism. If we sat back (and sometimes we did) not getting involved in any other wars, communists would have taken over one country at a time. After a while, the communist countries would overpower the US since there would be so many people under communism. So we had to fight wars to stop the spread of communism and thus the spread of threat against our country.

Oh come on. That is the ancient and totally discredited Domino Theory.
First of all, there are no countries that are even remotely communist and there never were unless you go back to primitive hunter/gatherers.
Second is that countries claiming to be communist, like the USSR and China, were never significant allies, and instead fought each other more than they fought us.

We never had to fight any wars, and instead what we did was to massacre and support puppet dictators.
For example, we installed Syngman Rhee in South Korea, even though he had fled Korea originally after massive felonies, and he then proceeded to massacre tens of thousands of innocent villages after we forced Korea to take him back.
In Vietnam the list of evil US backed dictators is very long and obvious.
So obvious that even Buddhists who should be anti-communists, were setting themselves on fire in protest of them.

The facts are we gained wealth by stealing it from all over the world, and that is why we were constantly sending in troops to suppress local rebellions against our repressive puppets. The School of the Americas at Ft. Bennings GA, and all the South American dictatorships we support, is proof of that. Valid governments to not need to be taught how to conduct torture.
 

iceberg

Diamond Member
Joined
May 15, 2017
Messages
32,471
Reaction score
11,069
Points
1,410
I disagree.
Wars are always completely pointless because they cost and destroy much more than the original cause could have been.
I believe all wars come from war profiteers causing them deliberately.
And human nature is inherently cooperative, not violent.

The fighting here costs nothing, and even I have learned a few things from the discussions.
i didn't say they weren't pointless.
i didn't say they don't do more damage than good
i didn't say it wasn't the profiteers in action

i said human nature is to argue and fight.
 

Rigby5

Gold Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2017
Messages
18,906
Reaction score
5,985
Points
265
Location
New Mexico
i didn't say they weren't pointless.
i didn't say they don't do more damage than good
i didn't say it wasn't the profiteers in action

i said human nature is to argue and fight.

But I still do not think war would still happen unless there were evil people lying about something in order to get the war started.
For example, the US was drawn into WWI by false propaganda, like that German soldiers were barbecuing and eating Belgian infants.

 

USMB Server Goals

Total amount
$120.00
Goal
$350.00

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top