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 July 12 2015 00:06 whatisthisasheep wrote: All Trump has to say if a politician brings up his bankruptcy is "politicians have made the country accumulate 18 dollars trillion in debt. If government was a business it would be out of business."
And if government were a bird it'd technically be a dinosaur? Checkmate, young earthers.
Government borrowing is not the same thing as business borrowing.
Yeah but most people don't know the nuances nor do they care; what everyone *does* recognize is that we're X trillion dollars in debt (regardless of who caused it) and people want a candidate who knows how to make money. Trump knows how to make money. Even if it's two entirely different worlds of business vs. politics, people are going to look at the fact that he's rich and powerful and can run on a pro-business = pro-economy platform and probably get away with the false comparison.
So I think you're right, but I also think you're smarter than the average layman.
That didn't work for Romney in the general at all, though, so I'm not sure if it'll actually work four years later. And I'd trust Romney with my money a hell of a lot more than Trump.
Just the fact that he's polling seriously as a candidate means he's probably accomplished his goals this year though.
On July 12 2015 04:09 GreenHorizons wrote: The point of the bankruptcies are that he managed to bankrupt casinos (that's extremely hard, takes atrocious management and rampant corruption) and he was in a management position for at least 2 of 3 (the third one he claims they were making bad decisions after he left the board).
That said, no one is going to hurt him with it. He seems extremely confident he will get his financials out on time so he can be in the debates.
No one has hurt him with it because many aren't willing to spend money to take down what is still a long-shot campaign. It's the same reason why Obama was spending money attacking Herman Cain, Michelle Bachmann, etc - it's a waste of cash.
Romney was a pretty successful businessman - yet Obama's attacks on his business record with Bain meant that Romney couldn't talk about his private sector executive experience (something that Obama himself had none of). Kerry was a decorated war veteran, yet Bush swift-boated him in 2004.
Politics is a dirty game, and in a Presidential election the most important job on the planet is at stake. There are too many candidates now for the front-runners to effectively attack, but once the field narrows, you will start seeing the power of all those millions that these candidates have raised.
On July 12 2015 04:09 GreenHorizons wrote: The point of the bankruptcies are that he managed to bankrupt casinos (that's extremely hard, takes atrocious management and rampant corruption) and he was in a management position for at least 2 of 3 (the third one he claims they were making bad decisions after he left the board).
That said, no one is going to hurt him with it. He seems extremely confident he will get his financials out on time so he can be in the debates.
No one has hurt him with it because many aren't willing to spend money to take down what is still a long-shot campaign. It's the same reason why Obama was spending money attacking Herman Cain, Michelle Bachmann, etc - it's a waste of cash.
Romney was a pretty successful businessman - yet Obama's attacks on his business record with Bain meant that Romney couldn't talk about his private sector executive experience (something that Obama himself had none of). Kerry was a decorated war veteran, yet Bush swift-boated him in 2004.
Politics is a dirty game, and in a Presidential election the most important job on the planet is at stake. There are too many candidates now for the front-runners to effectively attack, but once the field narrows, you will start seeing the power of all those millions that these candidates have raised.
Other than not being politicians and coming from the private sector there is pretty much nothing in common between Cain and Trump and they reached the top for very different reasons.
That said, Cain's lead lasted a month. When Trump gets on the debate stage and demolishes the rest of the field (he'll get multiple reactions, regardless of whether they tell the crowd not to respond) and his lead increases, it will be even more evident.
I'm sure Trump will say something like "Herman who? Oh the Pizza guy? What is his net worth? Like a few tanks of gas on my 757? That guy knew nothing about business".
EDIT: Same goes for Romney if anyone tries to compare their business experience.
Bottom line is Trump is the most successful person from the private industry to run in recent history and it's going to be hard for republicans to use their superior political knowledge to gain an upper hand. They've spent decades building up the importance of private sector experience, it shits on the whole narrative to then ignore the most qualified (in terms of private sector experience) candidate in their party.
On July 12 2015 00:06 whatisthisasheep wrote: All Trump has to say if a politician brings up his bankruptcy is "politicians have made the country accumulate 18 dollars trillion in debt. If government was a business it would be out of business."
And if government were a bird it'd technically be a dinosaur? Checkmate, young earthers.
Government borrowing is not the same thing as business borrowing.
Yeah but most people don't know the nuances nor do they care; what everyone *does* recognize is that we're X trillion dollars in debt (regardless of who caused it) and people want a candidate who knows how to make money. Trump knows how to make money. Even if it's two entirely different worlds of business vs. politics, people are going to look at the fact that he's rich and powerful and can run on a pro-business = pro-economy platform and probably get away with the false comparison.
So I think you're right, but I also think you're smarter than the average layman.
That didn't work for Romney in the general at all, though, so I'm not sure if it'll actually work four years later. And I'd trust Romney with my money a hell of a lot more than Trump.
Just the fact that he's polling seriously as a candidate means he's probably accomplished his goals this year though.
While Romney was also a successful businessman, he wasn't well know at all before running for president. I don't regularly follow politics, so I had to do research on Romney. Donald Trump, on the other hand, has been a household name for decades, and everyone knows what he's famous for and has seen him on television. He needs no introduction.
State by state, the legal marijuana business is slowly gaining ground. The industry is using both an increasingly favorable public opinion toward marijuana and a newly legal cash flow to try to transform itself into a force in national politics.
Recreational marijuana retailers celebrated their first anniversary of legal operation in Washington state Wednesday, while last week marked 18 months for the recreational cannabis business in Colorado. And Oregon legalized it July 1, though stores there won't open until 2016.
Meanwhile, the presence of medical marijuana continues to expand, with New Hampshire Gov. Maggie Hassan signing a bill adding to the illnesses doctors may prescribe marijuana to treat. New York state will select medical marijuana growers to license later this month.
And all this legalized marijuana means lots of cash. Washington state has reported almost $260 million in total sales, gathering $65 million in taxes. Colorado said legal pot made $700 million in 2014.
As with any business, a rapid influx of money comes with more ability to shape the regulations they face from the nation's capital.
"Any industry that is heavily regulated by the government has to have an active voice," said Taylor West, deputy director of the National Cannabis Industry Association, the only national trade association to represent the legal cannabis industry. That includes the four states where retail sale for recreational marijuana has been approved and the 23 states with medical marijuana laws on the books.
"Cannabis is possibly the most regulated at this point," West said, "so there's always going to be a need for political advocacy on behalf of the industry."
Part of that advocacy starts with the White House. Last week, Sen. Rand Paul became the first presidential candidate from a major party to actively court donors from the budding legal industry.
On July 12 2015 04:09 GreenHorizons wrote: The point of the bankruptcies are that he managed to bankrupt casinos (that's extremely hard, takes atrocious management and rampant corruption) and he was in a management position for at least 2 of 3 (the third one he claims they were making bad decisions after he left the board).
That said, no one is going to hurt him with it. He seems extremely confident he will get his financials out on time so he can be in the debates.
No one has hurt him with it because many aren't willing to spend money to take down what is still a long-shot campaign. It's the same reason why Obama was spending money attacking Herman Cain, Michelle Bachmann, etc - it's a waste of cash.
Romney was a pretty successful businessman - yet Obama's attacks on his business record with Bain meant that Romney couldn't talk about his private sector executive experience (something that Obama himself had none of). Kerry was a decorated war veteran, yet Bush swift-boated him in 2004.
Politics is a dirty game, and in a Presidential election the most important job on the planet is at stake. There are too many candidates now for the front-runners to effectively attack, but once the field narrows, you will start seeing the power of all those millions that these candidates have raised.
Other than not being politicians and coming from the private sector there is pretty much nothing in common between Cain and Trump and they reached the top for very different reasons.
That said, Cain's lead lasted a month. When Trump gets on the debate stage and demolishes the rest of the field (he'll get multiple reactions, regardless of whether they tell the crowd not to respond) and his lead increases, it will be even more evident.
I'm sure Trump will say something like "Herman who? Oh the Pizza guy? What is his net worth? Like a few tanks of gas on my 757? That guy knew nothing about business".
EDIT: Same goes for Romney if anyone tries to compare their business experience.
Bottom line is Trump is the most successful person from the private industry to run in recent history and it's going to be hard for republicans to use their superior political knowledge to gain an upper hand. They've spent decades building up the importance of private sector experience, it shits on the whole narrative to then ignore the most qualified (in terms of private sector experience) candidate in their party.
I'm starting to question whether or not you're just messing around now...
As recreational marijuana becomes more accessible and widespread it's going to become pretty inexpensive in all likelihood, or it should, at least. It's pretty fucking cheap to actually grow the plant itself. Keep in mind that a cigarette costs like $.25 in store, and that's with tax (though I know cigs are expensive as fuck in places like NY). I anticipate that with full federal legalization you could see joints go for like $1-2.
The tax advantages should be a plus to its legalization, not the major selling point.
On July 12 2015 04:09 GreenHorizons wrote: The point of the bankruptcies are that he managed to bankrupt casinos (that's extremely hard, takes atrocious management and rampant corruption) and he was in a management position for at least 2 of 3 (the third one he claims they were making bad decisions after he left the board).
That said, no one is going to hurt him with it. He seems extremely confident he will get his financials out on time so he can be in the debates.
No one has hurt him with it because many aren't willing to spend money to take down what is still a long-shot campaign. It's the same reason why Obama was spending money attacking Herman Cain, Michelle Bachmann, etc - it's a waste of cash.
Romney was a pretty successful businessman - yet Obama's attacks on his business record with Bain meant that Romney couldn't talk about his private sector executive experience (something that Obama himself had none of). Kerry was a decorated war veteran, yet Bush swift-boated him in 2004.
Politics is a dirty game, and in a Presidential election the most important job on the planet is at stake. There are too many candidates now for the front-runners to effectively attack, but once the field narrows, you will start seeing the power of all those millions that these candidates have raised.
Other than not being politicians and coming from the private sector there is pretty much nothing in common between Cain and Trump and they reached the top for very different reasons.
That said, Cain's lead lasted a month. When Trump gets on the debate stage and demolishes the rest of the field (he'll get multiple reactions, regardless of whether they tell the crowd not to respond) and his lead increases, it will be even more evident.
I'm sure Trump will say something like "Herman who? Oh the Pizza guy? What is his net worth? Like a few tanks of gas on my 757? That guy knew nothing about business".
EDIT: Same goes for Romney if anyone tries to compare their business experience.
Bottom line is Trump is the most successful person from the private industry to run in recent history and it's going to be hard for republicans to use their superior political knowledge to gain an upper hand. They've spent decades building up the importance of private sector experience, it shits on the whole narrative to then ignore the most qualified (in terms of private sector experience) candidate in their party.
I'm starting to question whether or not you're just messing around now...
What about that makes you question if I'm serious? No one has even come close to winning an argument with him, even when he logically loses, most of (a republican) room is still on his side.
Who was more successful in the private sector?
actively court donors from the budding legal industry.
I see what they did there haha. Yeah cannabis should of been decriminalized/rescheduled before the war on drugs (before that really) people who disagree are mis/uninformed. I haven't seen 1 rational argument for our current cannabis policies.
As for Trump there's this... allegedly had to turn 4k people away from his speech he's about to give with ~12k watching online. The news outlets will do anything they can to keep his candidacy alive, good luck republicans, he's probably going to be your nominee.
On July 12 2015 08:23 WolfintheSheep wrote: I've seen plenty of rational arguments for anti-cannabis policies. I just haven't seen many realistic ones.
On July 12 2015 08:23 WolfintheSheep wrote: I've seen plenty of rational arguments for anti-cannabis policies. I just haven't seen many realistic ones.
Really? Example?
Well, I don't see any problem with people being anti-drugs or anti-alcohol, or what have you. And despite what people will claim, their use is not just personal, and does have a societal impact.
On July 12 2015 08:23 WolfintheSheep wrote: I've seen plenty of rational arguments for anti-cannabis policies. I just haven't seen many realistic ones.
Really? Example?
Well, I don't see any problem with people being anti-drugs or anti-alcohol, or what have you. And despite what people will claim, their use is not just personal, and does have a societal impact.
That's not an example? What do you even mean "their use is not just personal"?
On July 12 2015 08:23 WolfintheSheep wrote: I've seen plenty of rational arguments for anti-cannabis policies. I just haven't seen many realistic ones.
Really? Example?
Well, I don't see any problem with people being anti-drugs or anti-alcohol, or what have you. And despite what people will claim, their use is not just personal, and does have a societal impact.
That's not an example? What do you even mean "their use is not just personal"?
Well maybe explain what kind of example you're looking for?
There's nothing irrational about wanting drugs banned. There's just no realistic way of making it happen.
On July 12 2015 08:23 WolfintheSheep wrote: I've seen plenty of rational arguments for anti-cannabis policies. I just haven't seen many realistic ones.
Really? Example?
Well, I don't see any problem with people being anti-drugs or anti-alcohol, or what have you. And despite what people will claim, their use is not just personal, and does have a societal impact.
That's not an example? What do you even mean "their use is not just personal"?
Well maybe explain what kind of example you're looking for?
There's nothing irrational about wanting drugs banned. There's just no realistic way of making it happen.
Yeah there is plenty irrational things about banning drugs. I imagine you're only talking about certain drugs though right?
I was looking for a rational explanation for our current drug policies.
On July 12 2015 08:23 WolfintheSheep wrote: I've seen plenty of rational arguments for anti-cannabis policies. I just haven't seen many realistic ones.
Really? Example?
Well, I don't see any problem with people being anti-drugs or anti-alcohol, or what have you. And despite what people will claim, their use is not just personal, and does have a societal impact.
That's not an example? What do you even mean "their use is not just personal"?
Well maybe explain what kind of example you're looking for?
There's nothing irrational about wanting drugs banned. There's just no realistic way of making it happen.
Yeah there is plenty irrational things about banning drugs. I imagine you're only talking about certain drugs though right?
I was looking for a rational explanation for our current drug policies.
Yes, I meant narcotics or drugs being used for recreational purposes. I'd hope that it wouldn't have to be spelled out every time a drug discussion pops up.
And the rational explanation is that your policies are created around the desire to ban specific drugs, and decriminalization or legalization is the exact opposite of that.
On July 12 2015 08:23 WolfintheSheep wrote: I've seen plenty of rational arguments for anti-cannabis policies. I just haven't seen many realistic ones.
Really? Example?
Well, I don't see any problem with people being anti-drugs or anti-alcohol, or what have you. And despite what people will claim, their use is not just personal, and does have a societal impact.
That's not an example? What do you even mean "their use is not just personal"?
Well maybe explain what kind of example you're looking for?
There's nothing irrational about wanting drugs banned. There's just no realistic way of making it happen.
Yeah there is plenty irrational things about banning drugs. I imagine you're only talking about certain drugs though right?
I was looking for a rational explanation for our current drug policies.
Yes, I meant narcotics or drugs being used for recreational purposes. I'd hope that it wouldn't have to be spelled out every time a drug discussion pops up.
And the rational explanation is that your policies are created around the desire to ban specific drugs, and decriminalization or legalization is the exact opposite of that.
Wait are you saying ban the type of use or the substance itself?
On July 12 2015 08:23 WolfintheSheep wrote: I've seen plenty of rational arguments for anti-cannabis policies. I just haven't seen many realistic ones.
Really? Example?
Well, I don't see any problem with people being anti-drugs or anti-alcohol, or what have you. And despite what people will claim, their use is not just personal, and does have a societal impact.
That's not an example? What do you even mean "their use is not just personal"?
Well maybe explain what kind of example you're looking for?
There's nothing irrational about wanting drugs banned. There's just no realistic way of making it happen.
Yeah there is plenty irrational things about banning drugs. I imagine you're only talking about certain drugs though right?
I was looking for a rational explanation for our current drug policies.
Yes, I meant narcotics or drugs being used for recreational purposes. I'd hope that it wouldn't have to be spelled out every time a drug discussion pops up.
And the rational explanation is that your policies are created around the desire to ban specific drugs, and decriminalization or legalization is the exact opposite of that.
Wait are you saying ban the type of use or the substance itself?
Type of use mostly. I guess also technically the point of sale?
On July 12 2015 08:23 WolfintheSheep wrote: I've seen plenty of rational arguments for anti-cannabis policies. I just haven't seen many realistic ones.
Really? Example?
Well, I don't see any problem with people being anti-drugs or anti-alcohol, or what have you. And despite what people will claim, their use is not just personal, and does have a societal impact.
That's not an example? What do you even mean "their use is not just personal"?
Well maybe explain what kind of example you're looking for?
There's nothing irrational about wanting drugs banned. There's just no realistic way of making it happen.
Yeah there is plenty irrational things about banning drugs. I imagine you're only talking about certain drugs though right?
I was looking for a rational explanation for our current drug policies.
Yes, I meant narcotics or drugs being used for recreational purposes. I'd hope that it wouldn't have to be spelled out every time a drug discussion pops up.
And the rational explanation is that your policies are created around the desire to ban specific drugs, and decriminalization or legalization is the exact opposite of that.
Wait are you saying ban the type of use or the substance itself?
Type of use mostly. I guess also technically the point of sale?
Well then you are at least of the opinion that cannabis at the very least should be rescheduled and decriminalized for medical use.
btw this is not a rational explanation of our current policy, but instead possibly a rational alternative that we are discussing at this point. We should agree on that concession before we go on.
On July 12 2015 08:23 WolfintheSheep wrote: I've seen plenty of rational arguments for anti-cannabis policies. I just haven't seen many realistic ones.
Really? Example?
Well, I don't see any problem with people being anti-drugs or anti-alcohol, or what have you. And despite what people will claim, their use is not just personal, and does have a societal impact.
the "societal impact" is that it makes us all chill the fuck out for a change
come to santa cruz california and I will blaze you out gratis anytime. then you'll see
On July 12 2015 08:23 WolfintheSheep wrote: I've seen plenty of rational arguments for anti-cannabis policies. I just haven't seen many realistic ones.
Really? Example?
Well, I don't see any problem with people being anti-drugs or anti-alcohol, or what have you. And despite what people will claim, their use is not just personal, and does have a societal impact.
That's not an example? What do you even mean "their use is not just personal"?
Well maybe explain what kind of example you're looking for?
There's nothing irrational about wanting drugs banned. There's just no realistic way of making it happen.
Yeah there is plenty irrational things about banning drugs. I imagine you're only talking about certain drugs though right?
I was looking for a rational explanation for our current drug policies.
Yes, I meant narcotics or drugs being used for recreational purposes. I'd hope that it wouldn't have to be spelled out every time a drug discussion pops up.
And the rational explanation is that your policies are created around the desire to ban specific drugs, and decriminalization or legalization is the exact opposite of that.
Wait are you saying ban the type of use or the substance itself?
Type of use mostly. I guess also technically the point of sale?
Well then you are at least of the opinion that cannabis at the very least should be rescheduled and decriminalized for medical use.
btw this is not a rational explanation of our current policy, but instead possibly a rational alternative that we are discussing at this point. We should agree on that concession before we go on.
Honestly, this has very little to do with my own personal opinion, and more to do with a blanket statement that people who you disagree with are irrational.
My views on marijuana (and a lot of things, really) tend a lot more towards the utilitarian than anything else.
EPT
