70% of conservatives would join a Tump-led third party.

[kaz]

Note the price is higher for our war on drugs than the benefit. You know Janice Joplin did not binge when she died, she took the same amount of drugs she normally did. But he had gotten a high potency batch and it killed her. That still happens today. We fund organized crime. Drugs cause our inner cities to be shooting galleries. Now China is behind fentanyl as you must have heard. And for what benefit do we do that? None. No one lets government decide what we put in our own bodies. Which is yet another downside, teaching people our laws have no moral backing.

Libertarians have that right.

As for defense, it's true that Libertarians would pull back from foreign wars in foreign countries, but other than the anarchists we would in my view be stronger than Republicans about those to attack us. We'd be all for killing people who are trying to kill us

The problem is in some cases, if you don't get them before they get you, you will end up losing. 911 is a perfect example of that. We pretty much ignored them even after their first attempt to take down the WTC. Look at what Iran is up to. Countries get nukes as a threat to any other country who might want to use nukes to attack them. Iran wants to get nukes to be the attacker. They anxiously await for the end of the world so that the seventh Imam will rise. Wars for oil? Sure they were, but we depend on energy to sustain our economy and way of life.

Yes, drugs are what causes gang violence in Democrat run cities, but if it were made legal, do you think that would actually stop? Do you think illegal pot sales stopped in states that have legal marijuana? Many years ago when we were debating about having a state lottery, they promoted that it would end mafia gambling. They passed the lottery, and the mob used the state picked numbers for their games, and paid out a higher amount than the state for winning. All these years later, they are still doing the same.

You will never stop drug usage, but you can slow it down by keeping it illegal.

I always find it odd with drugs how you accurately through subject after subject realize how incompetent government is to make our choices for us, then with drugs you suddenly think they can somehow make our choices for us effectively.

But to answer your question, no, I don't think anyone doesn't take drugs because government tells them not to. The data in countries like the Netherlands where drugs are legal supports that.

Fair enough on 9/11, but I would point out that in this case we were in their country which has no good guys and were staying there. I'd offer the choice leave us alone and we leave you alone. Attack us and we'll kill you. There is no perfect answer

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I always find it odd with drugs how you accurately through subject after subject realize how incompetent government is to make our choices for us, then with drugs you suddenly think they can somehow make our choices for us effectively.

But to answer your question, no, I don't think anyone doesn't take drugs because government tells them not to. The data in countries like the Netherlands where drugs are legal supports that.

I guess when you've know enough people that die from dope, you come to the realization we can't just do nothing. I've seen people lose their livelihoods because of dope, their business, their families, and making the hard stuff legal will only increase those cases. Take my cousin for instance. Her kid got hooked at a young age because of the availability. She couldn't take him anymore so he went to live with his grandmother. She found him face down on the front lawn and they buried him two days later at the age of 27. I seen her and her husband a couple of months after the funeral. Both looked like they haven't slept in days. I don't think they'll ever be right again.

Like any good parents would, they sent him to rehab on several occasions, tried kicking him out of the house, nothing worked. That's the case with most addicts. Once you're addicted, you can't stop even if somebody offered you a million dollars.

 

[noonereal]

70% of conservatives would join a Tump-led third party.

Real conservatives do not support the animal know as Trump. Neither do real Republicans.

 

[noonereal]

I guess when you've know enough people that die from dope, you come to the realization we can't just do nothing.

Like what?

Like any good parents would, they sent him to rehab on several occasions, tried kicking him out of the house, nothing worked. That's the case with most addicts. Once you're addicted, you can't stop even if somebody offered you a million dollars.

I am confused, doing something, as you suggest, did nothing.

?????????

 

[Dana7360]

It would be a wonderful thing to see an uprising third party in the United States with Donald Trump or whoever.

I think that is a very good idea.

That will ensure that the conservative economic and social policy will die and hopefully never return to America.

 

[kaz]

I guess when you've know enough people that die from dope, you come to the realization we can't just do nothing ...

I understand how you feel, but it's that where leftists fail?

I guess when you've know enough people that die from guns, you come to the realization we can't just do nothing. So we need to make them illegal

I guess when you've know enough people that die from police shootings, you come to the realization we can't just do nothing. So we need to defund the police

And so forth.

Note I didn't disagree with you on drugs. I don't do them. I also don't murder people with my guns or support cops who do. It's the effectiveness of the solution I challenge. The effectiveness and with drugs the price of making them illegal by funding organized crime.

Speaking of which, I didn't address your point on that something else will fund organized crime. That's why we need to legalize all choices with our own bodies. You never get agreement on turning people in for harming themselves. If organized crime goes to crimes with actual victims, yes, people will turn them in, it won't be the same

 

[Dana7360]

Any "conservative" who would follow Trump is not a conservative. They are simply retarded.

Trump is about as conservative as the tassels on a stripper's tits.

Then perhaps you can tell us what President led more conservatively than President Trump. Just because one doesn't claim conservatism doesn't mean they are not.

Any "conservative" who would follow Trump is not a conservative. They are simply retarded.

Trump is about as conservative as the tassels on a stripper's tits.

f

Then perhaps you can tell us what President led more conservatively than President Trump. Just because one doesn't claim conservatism doesn't mean they are not.

HW was the last to address deficits, but I'd concede that the gop senate's move for a supply side tax cut was to create growth, but it failed to create enough to evens set off for reduced revenue.

Trump just spends without any reference to debt. He calls himself the "king of debt." He wanted to fucking buy Greenland

The first bush didn't address the deficit beyond further exploding it, after Reagan exploded it.

The following is the federal deficit by year.

The first column is the year. The Second is Deficit in Billions. The third is Debt increase. The fourth is the deficit/gdp.

As you can see it was Clinton who addressed the deficit.

U.S. Budget Deficit by Year Compared to GDP and Debt

The federal budget deficit rises when government spending is high, such as during wars or recessions. Budget deficits cause the national debt to grow.

www.thebalance.com

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

As you can see it was Clinton who addressed the deficit.

Hmmm. And all this time I thought it was Congress.

 

[Likkmee]

Looks like Billy G. was brought in as a czar

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I understand how you feel, but it's that where leftists fail?

I guess when you've know enough people that die from guns, you come to the realization we can't just do nothing. So we need to make them illegal

I guess when you've know enough people that die from police shootings, you come to the realization we can't just do nothing. So we need to defund the police

And so forth.

Note I didn't disagree with you on drugs. I don't do them. I also don't murder people with my guns or support cops who do. It's the effectiveness of the solution I challenge. The effectiveness and with drugs the price of making them illegal by funding organized crime.

Speaking of which, I didn't address your point on that something else will fund organized crime. That's why we need to legalize all choices with our own bodies. You never get agreement on turning people in for harming themselves. If organized crime goes to crimes with actual victims, yes, people will turn them in, it won't be the same

The problem with that is there will always be organized crime in drugs even if every drug were made legal tomorrow.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I am confused, doing something, as you suggest, did nothing.

?????????

It doesn't with most people.

 

[kaz]

I understand how you feel, but it's that where leftists fail?

I guess when you've know enough people that die from guns, you come to the realization we can't just do nothing. So we need to make them illegal

I guess when you've know enough people that die from police shootings, you come to the realization we can't just do nothing. So we need to defund the police

And so forth.

Note I didn't disagree with you on drugs. I don't do them. I also don't murder people with my guns or support cops who do. It's the effectiveness of the solution I challenge. The effectiveness and with drugs the price of making them illegal by funding organized crime.

Speaking of which, I didn't address your point on that something else will fund organized crime. That's why we need to legalize all choices with our own bodies. You never get agreement on turning people in for harming themselves. If organized crime goes to crimes with actual victims, yes, people will turn them in, it won't be the same

The problem with that is there will always be organized crime in drugs even if every drug were made legal tomorrow.

Well, there are still illegal cigarette sales because of government rules and over taxation. But we shouldn't end the monopoly of drugs funding crime? Do you really believe that illegal cigarette sales aren't way, way lower than they would be if cigarettes were illegal?

 

[noonereal]

I am confused, doing something, as you suggest, did nothing.

?????????

It doesn't with most people.

are you claiming that interventions and tough love as you describe work?

I have never seen it work. A better idea in my opinion is to legalize it so we can make the behavior safer.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

are you claiming that interventions and tough love as you describe work?

I have never seen it work. A better idea in my opinion is to legalize it so we can make the behavior safer.

How would it make it safer?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Well, there are still illegal cigarette sales because of government rules and over taxation. But we shouldn't end the monopoly of drugs funding crime? Do you really believe that illegal cigarette sales aren't way, way lower than they would be if cigarettes were illegal?

To be honest I haven't heard about illegal cigarettes since the 70's when some states increased their tobacco taxes much higher. I don't see that happening around here.

 

[Batcat]

Well a Trump-led third party would be a major improvement over the wimpy, wimpy, wimpy establishment Republican Party who loves winning second place so it can sit back and bitch and complain and do nothing.

At least it would be a party that would fight for all Americans rather than Wall Street, the pharmaceutical industry, the military industrial complex and the BIG Money donors. It would likely have a lot of new people which means it would be far less corrupt than either the Democratic or Republican Party that we are stuck with today.

It would be great to have such a party that would put American and American citizens first for a change. Fuck the globalists who want to see the demise of our great nation.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Well a Trump-led third party would be a major improvement over the wimpy, wimpy, wimpy establishment Republican Party who loves winning second place so it can sit back and bitch and complain and do nothing.

At least it would be a party that would fight for all Americans rather than Wall Street, the pharmaceutical industry, the military industrial complex and the BIG Money donors. It would likely have a lot of new people which means it would be far less corrupt than either the Democratic or Republican Party that we are stuck with today.

It would be great to have such a party that would put American and American citizens first for a change. Fuck the globalists who want to see the demise of our great nation.

A new Republican party won't replace the old one. They would always still be there. it would be a third party instead. That means it would guarantee Democrat wins every election afterwards. How did Bill Clinton win his first election? That's right, Ross Perot.

 

[JoeB131]

Nobody would be able to make it to 270, so it would be a winner take all like it is now. The party with the most EV wins the election. What may happen is something like the non-socialist Democrats leaving to join the RINO party. Look at how favorably the Democrats were talking about Kasich when he ran for the Republican nomination. They still like him today. People may leave the RINO party for the less radical Democrat party. We just don't know.

But that's not what happens when no one makes it to 270. I explained what DOES happen... and why it's a bad idea.

Yes, if you want insights into someone, ask someone who truly hates them. Give me some examples of people who hate your guts and what you have learned from them about who you truly are before you waste your time telling me who Republicans really are, fascist

Actually, I don't believe anyone hates my guts outside of the snowflakes on USMB, and they don't really know me.

But frankly, over my close to 60 years on this planet, I've taken a lot of criticism to heart and tried to better myself....

 

[JoeB131]

Being involved with their kids lives is not the same as being a full-time parent in the household. In most cases, the court allows the father to have custody on weekends, and the mother gets them for the week. This is because usually, the father does not live in the same school district or city as the mother.

Sounds like you are describing divorced white people, not black families that live together without marriage.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Sounds like you are describing divorced white people, not black families that live together without marriage.

It effects both races of people but twice as much with blacks.