In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up!
NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action.
On April 12 2015 00:15 Acrofales wrote: If all of Rand Paul's positions made as much sense as that one, I think he would be a no-brainer for the candidacy.
I think its hilarious that Paul, the obvious Republican candidate, is in favor of legalization while Clinton is against it.
It's so funny to me that the front-runners for each party oppose each other and their own parties.
Why? Paul has no shot as presidential nominee, he can say whatever he wants. Remember how Gingrich promised a moon colony?
On April 12 2015 00:15 Acrofales wrote: If all of Rand Paul's positions made as much sense as that one, I think he would be a no-brainer for the candidacy.
I think its hilarious that Paul, the obvious Republican candidate, is in favor of legalization while Clinton is against it.
It's so funny to me that the front-runners for each party oppose each other and their own parties.
Why? Paul has no shot as presidential nominee, he can say whatever he wants. Remember how Gingrich promised a moon colony?
It's funny to me that both are against their parties. They're both the obvious candidates, and are both against their party on a pretty major issue. It'd be like the leading candidate in the USSR being pro-capitalism.
On April 12 2015 00:15 Acrofales wrote: If all of Rand Paul's positions made as much sense as that one, I think he would be a no-brainer for the candidacy.
I think its hilarious that Paul, the obvious Republican candidate, is in favor of legalization while Clinton is against it.
It's so funny to me that the front-runners for each party oppose each other and their own parties.
How recent is Clinton's anti-legalization stance? I don't think there's a chance she'll run in defense of the drug war.
I don't recall the democrat stance being pro-legalization; more that some democrats are, and many are for reducing the penalties or decriminalizing, and making medicinal uses available.
REASON - Apart from underscoring the ways in which police tactics and criminal justice policies disproportionately hurt black and poor communities, he [Paul] is alone among presidential contenders in highlighting the role of the drug war in turning the United States into something approaching an open-air prison. Taking to the pages of Time again last fall, Paul wrote, “I will continue to fight to end the racial disparities in drug sentencing. I will continue to fight lengthy, mandatory sentences that prevent judges from using discretion. I will continue to fight to restore voting rights for non-violent felons who’ve served their sentences.” Appearing on Bill Maher’s HBO show, he proclaimed: “The war on drugs has become the most racially disparate outcome that you have in the entire country. Our prisons are full of black and brown kids. Three-fourths of the people in prison are black or brown, and white kids are using drugs, Bill, as you know...at the same rate as these other kids.”
These are positions that resonate with Americans, though not with most politicians of either party. Indeed, Hillary Clinton, reportedly ready to launch her presidential nomination campaign this weekend, is trapped in a prohibitionist mind-set that underwrites the evisceration of the Constitution and leads to all sorts of outcomes that have horrible, disparate impacts on the poor and minorities. Do liberals really think somebody who says we can't legalize drug trafficking because "there is just too much money in it" has even a basic grasp of economics and reality when it comes to prohibition?
But when it comes to government policies that screw over blacks, Latinos, and the poor in today's America, getting service at a McDonald's or the equivalent of a Woolworth's luncheonette simply isn't a pressing concern. It's getting shot or killed by cops and, far more commonly, being subjected to an entire system of oppression that predictably funnels black-market drugs into poor minority communities and then punishes them through criminal justice policies that break up families and visits violence upon the guilty and the innocent alike.
Key thing here is that he said those things in November. He's not going to breathe a word of them for a long time except in a much-diminished tone when confronted directly.
On April 12 2015 00:15 Acrofales wrote: If all of Rand Paul's positions made as much sense as that one, I think he would be a no-brainer for the candidacy.
I think its hilarious that Paul, the obvious Republican candidate, is in favor of legalization while Clinton is against it.
It's so funny to me that the front-runners for each party oppose each other and their own parties.
How the fuck is Paul the obvious candidate for the Republicans? He's third after Bush and Walker in polls, and probably after Rubio and even fucking Cruz in likelihood of taking the nomination.
Also, the Democratic position is not pro-legalization. Many liberals favor legalization, but most liberal politicians do not.
On April 12 2015 05:26 Gorsameth wrote: Not to mention any position a Republican candidate holds means very little at this point. The Primaries will pull them further to the right anyway
WASHINGTON -- U.S. President Barack Obama sat down with Cuban President Raul Castro on Saturday, the first substantial meeting between the countries' leaders in more than 50 years.
According to a White House pool report from the Summit of the Americas in Panama City, Obama and Castro, the brother of former Cuban President Fidel Castro, met in a small room in the convention center, and were seated next to each other in "the same set up as when world leaders are hosted in the Oval Office."
"This is obviously an historic meeting," Obama said. After 50 years of U.S. embargo toward Cuba, "it was time for us to try something new, that it was important for us to engage more directly with the Cuban government and the Cuban people. And as a consequence, I think we are now in a position to move on a path towards the future, and leave behind some of the circumstances of the past that have made it so difficult, I think, for our countries to communicate."
Following Obama's remarks, Raul Castro said the two nations could have differences "with respect of the ideas of the others."
"We could be persuaded of some things; of others, we might not be persuaded," Castro said. "But when I say that I agree with everything that the president has just said, I include that we have agreed to disagree. No one should entertain illusions. It is true that we have many differences. Our countries have a long and complicated history, but we are willing to make progress in the way the president has described."
In an indicator of the newfound warmth between the two countries, he said, "We shall open our embassies. We shall visit each other, having exchanges, people to people."
He also said that "everything can be on the table," even discussions of human rights and freedom of the press, the AP reported.
On April 12 2015 05:26 Gorsameth wrote: Not to mention any position a Republican candidate holds means very little at this point. The Primaries will pull them further to the right anyway
Honestly I cant criticize how McCain ran his campaign at all (other then the antics at the end basically being the foundation for the tea party dysfunction that plagues Washington at the moment but that is not entirely his fault) because if Sarah Palin had shown to have any ability to learn or even give a basic interview John McCain would have been president and a Republican winning the presidency after the disaster of Bush was unthinkable only 6-7 months out from the election.
Can anybody tell me why candidates announce that they're going to announce that they're running for president?
Like, the story trending on Facebook was that Hillary was going to announce her campaign. Doesn't announcing your upcoming announcement kinda take the wind out of your sails?
On April 13 2015 05:07 Millitron wrote: Can anybody tell me why candidates announce that they're going to announce that they're running for president?
Like, the story trending on Facebook was that Hillary was going to announce her campaign. Doesn't announcing your upcoming announcement kinda take the wind out of your sails?
I would assume it is because they want supporters & press to gather for the announcement
On April 13 2015 05:07 Millitron wrote: Can anybody tell me why candidates announce that they're going to announce that they're running for president?
Like, the story trending on Facebook was that Hillary was going to announce her campaign. Doesn't announcing your upcoming announcement kinda take the wind out of your sails?
I would assume it is because they want supporters & press to gather for the announcement
You see my point though right? The first announcement ends up being your real announcement, and the press conference one ends up just being a circlejerk.
I don't think Hillary is the best politician, but Republicans are going to have a hard time fighting Hillary if they are going to keep talking about Iran, ISIS, anti-gay legislation, and old Clinton drama, while Hillary is talking about every day Americans every day lives.
On April 13 2015 05:21 Millitron wrote: I hope they point out that she is now as old as McCain was when she claimed he was too old to be president.
Who is they?
One or more republican candidates.
I don't think it will score as many points as you imagine. All she is going to do is throw Reagan back at them. Do you have the quote your talking about, I don't remember it specifically?
EPT
