Floors And Ceilings ……. A Political Post

image

Well, I wanted to spend more time on this post, because, it’s about concepts more than personalities.  I hope people will read this with that in mind.

One of the things which drive me absolutely batty is acts of stupidity.  I use it as a guide to help chose the people to support, or rather, not support. 

Now, I’ve made it clear as to who I support in the Repub race, and who I do not support.  But, that’s not what this post is about.  It’s about floors and ceilings. 

“Floors and ceilings” may be a term people who play fantasy football would be familiar with.  For instance, a running back, who is impressive but, shares time in the backfield with another running back has a lower ceiling than a similar running back who does not share time with another running back.  That is to say, the running back who does not share time has more potential to make more yards and score more points than the other.  The running back who shares time has a limited amount of times he can touch the ball, thus, limits his potential.  Alternately, some teams tend to go away from the run and pass a lot.  Or, visa/versa.  If there’s a running back who is used as a receiver, but, not much to actually run the ball, well, he has a low floor, meaning he may do well, or, he may simply not do anything at all. 

The concept is similar to best case/worst case scenario —— floors and ceilings.  This was one of my early criticisms of Trump.  It seems like every day he finds a new way to lower his ceiling.  I simply don’t understand how someone believes it’s a good strategy to ostracize everyone around you. 

One can go to Realclearpolitics and look at the polls.  Trump, nationally has hit his ceiling.  It was ~40% of the Republicans polls.  In a field as large as the Republican field is, that’s not bad!  That’s very good!  If the field stays as large as it is, he’ll win!  Of course, though, it won’t stay that large.

Now, in the world of averages, one would expect as the candidates drop out, the supporters of the failed candidates would move to the more viable candidates.  But, everyone, anyone already knew it wasn’t going to be like that for Trump.  He’s an “anti-establishment” candidate.  Yes, he’s soaked up a lot of the Carson supporters.  Carson is/was an “anti-establishment” candidate.  But, how many Kasich supporters are going to move to Trump?  Close to zero. 

There are some Republicans who simply support Republicans.  I think they are a shallow lot, but, they support Republicans past and present.  Trump lost a significant number of those people simply by attacking W, as a proxy for attacking Jeb.  It was, in my estimation, an unforced error.  I don’t believe there’s a person in the US who wants to rehash the Iraq/WMD discussion, certainly no straightline party member.  How significant is it?  In a microcosm, not very.  But, it did certainly lower his ceiling.  For me, I thought he tried to make himself look better by attacking someone’s brother, in a effort to gain the votes of the people who voted for the brother!  But, then, the Bush family is establishment Repub.  So, the damage isn’t that much.  Did it help?  Did it sway someone to vote for him?  Well, there probably were a few thousand Bernie Sanders supporters who said “Yeh!!!!!”.  But, they’re not going to vote for Trump, anyway.  …… Maybe, if Hillary gets it, some might in the general, but, not many. 

And, then, there’s the Cruz battle. 

I think at one time, many of the Cruz supporters had Trump as their second pick.  Well, most did.  After this week, I dare say that most will not.  Not because of the ads Cruz was running, but, because of the insane responses.  He lowered his ceiling, again. 

Now, these have been my thoughts — about ceilings and floors for some time.  As I recall I wrote another prior post about them before — for some time.  Today, we have proof that what I’m laying down is correct

(2) In the GOP primary, Donald Trump leads the pack with 35 percent support, followed by Cruz (20 percent) and Rubio (17 percent).  No other candidate breaks into double-digits, with a frustrated-sounding Jeb Bush sitting below six percent support.  Asked about second-place preferences, Rubio is tops at 23 percent, followed by Cruz at 19 percent.  Trump comes in last on this measure, in single-digits.

He’s the last place second choice!  More …..

Guy Benson

@guypbenson

USA Today poll:
54% of voters say they’d be “scared” or “dissatisfied” if Hillary is her party’s nominee.
56% say the same of Trump.

3:21 PM – 17 Feb 2016

He’s not popular, even in the party he’s running in.  More ……

Noah Rothman @NoahCRothman

NBC /WSJ 2/14-16
Head-to-heads
Cruz 56 Trump 40
Rubio 57 Trump 41
Trump 54 Bush 43
Trump 52 Kasich 44

http://mic.com/articles/135538/cruz-takes-the-lead-over-trump-in-first-national-poll-since-south-carolina-debate?utm_source=pmTWTR&utm_medium=policy&utm_campaign=social#.cnpbNMp1G …

4:01 PM – 17 Feb 2016

Now, think on this for a second.  Think on how this applies to a national election. 

I’m not saying I don’t think Trump will win the Repub nomination.  I think there’s a very good chance that he does.  It’s entirely dependent upon how many stay in the race and for how long.  If Bush and Kasich are still in it come April, Trump will probably win.  If it’s a two man race in April, Trump will probably lose.  I’ve no prognostication at this point because I can’t measure the hubris and egos of the candidates. 

But,  from this data, and considering Trumps ceiling, the amount of the GOP who will simply stay home if he’s nominated, it seems to me that he’s uniquely the only GOP candidate who could possibly lose to both Sanders and Clinton.  Why? Because while his floor is higher than most any recent US presidential candidate, his ceiling is lower than most any recent US presidential candidate ……. much of it entirely unnecessary and stupid. 

This entry was posted in News and politics. Bookmark the permalink.

155 Responses to Floors And Ceilings ……. A Political Post

  1. kim2ooo says:

    Bush will stay till Florida

    Kasich till Ohio

  2. Latitude says:

    I remember when Bill Clinton (watermelon jokes), Hillary Clinton (just being herself), Biden (well at least he’s clean) were attacking Obama…..while Obama was trashing everyone, saying totally opposite things in front of different groups.. and clinging to guns and religion….and Obama hit his ceiling….

    You would have thought they would kill each other….and their poll numbers were about the same

    Obama won…went on to make Biden his VP…and Hillary sec.

    When it gets down to Trump attacking Hillary…just the two of them..every single person will forget all of this…..Teflon Trump’s going to win hands down.

    • DirkH says:

      Salon panics: Even their superstar Colbert can’t produce effective anti Trump agitprop.
      http://www.breitbart.com/big-hollywood/2016/02/17/salon-why-trumps-phone-call-to-colbert-should-scare-the-left/

      Coulter says
      “Trump is the first presidential candidate in 50 years who might conceivably: (1) deport illegal aliens, (2) build a wall, (3) block Muslim immigration, (4) flout political correctness, (5) bring manufacturing home, and (6) end the GOP’s neurotic compulsion to start wars in some godforsaken part of the world.

      That’s all that matters! Are you listening yet, RNC?”
      http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/02/17/ann-coulter-gop-baffled-as-voters-rally-to-popular-candidate/

      And that super expensive secretly developed Johnny Depp Trump parody video? Has anyone even cared? The Left knows they’re preaching to the choir. When an agitprop attempt fails to reach the non-Leftists it is worthless.

      • suyts says:

        Coulter, for some insane reason, is ignoring Cruz, who is essentially running on the same issues. The difference between Cruz and Trump, aside from the mentioned issues, is that Cruz also wants to reduce the power of the federal government. He also reads the US Constitution literally— that is, as it was written, rather than some inane interpretation. I’m not sure Trump can distinguish the difference between the US Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. Cruz has actually walked the walk, after talking the talk. The people of Texas sent Cruz to confront the establishment Repubs and the leftards of Congress. He’s done nothing but that since he was sworn in. All the while, Trump tries to explain to us that Planned Parenthood does a lot of good for women’s health, and demonstrates that he doesn’t understand that money is fungible. ….. or, rather, preys upon the ignorance of the American people in that regard.

        • cdquarles says:

          Coulter has, it seems to me over the last few years, developed a thing for Northeastern R types. I remember her championing Christie. I might be wrong, though.

    • suyts says:

      Lat, I don’t see it. They’re not going to “forget” it. Half of the Republican party despises Trump (the establishment), he’s alienated the other half. If he wins the Repub nomination, he’s going to go into the general election with the support of less than half of the party he’s running on. Repubs are not like Dims. Dims are the ones who lend their blind support. Repubs stay home, instead. …….. McCain, Romney ….. Trump. I’m certainly not going to vote for him. I held my nose for 25+ years. I’m not doing it anymore. More than 1/3 of the Repub party are conservatives. They’re not going to pull the lever for Trump. About 1/3 of the Repub party are establishment Repubs. They’re not going to pull the lever for Trump …. well about 1/2 of them will. They’ll just stay home.

      The Dims, OTOH, will turn out, as you noted that they did, regardless of the ugliness of their nomination process. But, they’re Dims. That’s the way they roll.

      Consider this ….. if during the Repub process Trump is trying to explain the “good” PP does for women, what’s he going to say during the general election? No right-to-lifer is going to vote for him. It’s just not going to happen. If he’s telling freedom loving property owners today that eminent domain is okay, what’s he going to advocate in the general election? They’re not going to vote for him. Those crazy bastards who believe our foreign policy is important, …….what has he stated which would convince them to pull the trigger for him? That he’s not Hillary? They’re not going to take the time to pull that lever. Limited government? Same.

      It’s just not going to happen. His ceiling is too low.

      • leftinflagstaff says:

        As long as the Repubs who stay home ‘own’ where Hillary or Sanders take PP, eminent domain, foreign policy, and limited government.

      • Latitude says:

        Here we go again……it’s what I’ve said all along
        There’s never going to be a perfect republican candidate…..because republicans are all over the place
        You can say the same things about Cruz and Rubio…..half the republicans can’t stand them

        So stay home…and guarantee a democrat will win.

        • gator69 says:

          Exactly. We can thank our fair weather conservatives and libertarians for 8 years of Obama. What next?

        • leftinflagstaff says:

          A home intruder at 3am, attacks your famlly and property. You’d of course like to get to you gun, but are unable. All you see is a small, dull kitchen knife. So you choose not resist at all.

        • leftinflagstaff says:

          No, you use the knife. And worry later if it cuts you in the process.

        • suyts says:

          The problem is, I’m not in the least convinced that Trump would be even slightly better than Hillary or Sanders. I’m not asking for perfect, I’m asking for an elected leader who would work towards the best interests of the US. I don’t believe Trump will. I don’t believe Trump has a clue as to what the interests of the US are. I don’t think he cares to know.

          Bring jobs back to the US?? His apparel line is made in Mexico!!!!! He advocated single payer (socialized) healthcare! He believes PP does “good” for women! He defends our taxpayer support of PP. He’s every bit a socialist as Sanders! He’s the ultimate beltway insider! Hillary and him are cut from the same cloth.

        • leftinflagstaff says:

          The Dems know what the best interests of the US are, and despise them.

          Sometimes all you can do is try to stop the bleeding, and pray for the best.

      • kim2ooo says:

        My problem with Mr. Trump…………consistency.

        There isn’t a person here that can defend his consistency record.

        Yes, he is a tornado but tornadoes skirt and twist …seeking the least resistance.

        AND that is what makes tornadoes – so dangerous.

        A consistent enemy, is better than a skatter-gunning friend.

        I don’t need a perfect candidate… I need a consistent candidate.

        PS we will not stay home.

      • Latitude says:

        and then there’s this….if Rubio gets it all of Miami will stay home

        You’re not seeing that Cruz is polling in the ~20%….does that mean 80% will stay home?
        …Rubio the same…..

        I know you don’t like Trump…..but he is polling the highest

        What I find amazing…we have two Cubans running for president…and no one…not one single person….is making a big deal out of it, and they should!

        • suyts says:

          No, 80% won’t stay home if Cruz gets it because he’s #2 as a second preference, behind Rubio. Trump is last in that regard. ……. That’s the point of the post. Both Rubio’s and Cruz’ potential (ceiling) is higher than Trumps, especially in the General election. (Which is when I believe they’ll make a big deal about a Cuban running.)

        • Latitude says:

          It was the repubicans that stayed home that lost the election for McCain and Romney too.

        • suyts says:

          Lat, have you seen McCain, lately? Romney? Neither one of those give two shits about the people of the US. Is it possible to be in honest opposition of the ruling party without a potential for personal gain? Where is McCain and Romney? What are their positions? Oh, yeh, it only counts when they can win the presidency! They can both screw themselves and I’m glad I’ll never again entertain thoughts of voting for either. …… McCain, I already knew he was a screwball, but, Romney, well, he was going to be a leader ….. all the way up until a couple of million votes made him decide he was no longer going to fight or lead. I’m sick of vaginitis. Trump is no different. He will be no different. There is no cause or belief they fight for. They fight for themselves.

          My thing is, it’s not about a lesser of two evils, it’s about demanding good …. what’s best for the American people. Anything less, well, I’ll advocate against.

        • Me says:

          James, the lesser of two evils is what you will get. What lat is saying is what you already know. What you wanted everyone here to go for. And now you don’t! Trump is the only one that will take it to the media and leave with them hurting not them hurting him. You understand this, or you wanted us to understand this. What do you think the media will do to anyone else that wins with reguard to their they don’t care if it is Berny or Hillary becaues it is just the party and not the country they want. They did again and again and again and then it doesn’t matter they think they can just say whatever because they were successful before and it worked. All the repubs are doing now is gold for them the minute a repub is the nominee then he is worse than dirt and the dim are the golden flute that fats strawberries and rainbows and rains money on everyone with lots of freebees. It’s the same tune over. We here got Trudeau, I just fucking knew it was going to happen, we are screwed now and all is needed is for a Berny or Hillary down ther and it’s finished, it is done. If you think it’s bad now it will be going downhill from there. Some will like it because all government jobs, till there is no money anymore. Guess who is going to be the biggest whinners then. I seen what is going on in Alberta, these people just don’t care. They will destroy everything because they believe!

        • Me says:

          You want to call them liberals, progressives, socialist or what ever they are destroyers, and once they destroy an industry that is already running and paying devidens well to rebuild that will be gone, no one would ever want to go near that ever again and it snowballs down from there. People are going to learn a hard lesson, just hope some other country takes atvantage of it and make it worse. Ya know with their reliable energy to impose their will.

        • Me says:

          What I mean is …..just hope some other country DOESN”T take atvantage of it and make it worse…..

        • Me says:

          And if it comes down to the government is the only one with the reliable energy for national security reasons, then at that point it really doesn’t matter anymore anyway.

        • Me says:

          Then the fantasy thing with floors and celings will be no different than them out doing cosplay with steam punk and DC and Marvel costumes or furries or muppets or whatever they spent their money on. It all will be the same.

        • Latitude says:

          nope…I haven’t seen McCain or Romney lately…
          …but I see Obama, Hillary, Reid, Pelosi, Schumer, Biden too much

          Why do I see them?……because people stayed home

          Using this standard….no one would have elected Reagan either…..Reagan was a democrat and a movie star…..

        • suyts says:

          Reagan was also a very effective governor in California, with a proven record of believable advocacy. He lost his first race for the presidential nomination but, stayed engaged, led, and won it the next time.

  3. leftinflagstaff says:

    All of it a possibility. And possibly over-thinking all of it.

    As Lat & Dirk commented, no one will remember or care about the campaign spats: Attacking Jeb thru W….911/Iraq, etc. Attacking Cruz…candidates have mud-slinged since there’s been candidates, even childishly. All in the past, or will be.

    Dirk’s Coulter quote is what will be heard and retained. What’s to come (possibly). Not the past. Can or will he do it, no way to know. But, other Repubs rejecting him because of campaign attacks, deserve to continue to bear the negative effects of those things not being done.

    Cruz says much of the same, yes. Trump is saying it with mostly his own money. I haven’t received one email request from Trump. Almost non-stop from the others.
    Cruz knows the Constitution better, yes. Trump knows about bringing in the right people who know what he does not.
    I like a lot of Cruz’s values. But, we’ve never needed a business man more.

    It will still boil down to those two for me. All else is a loss.

    • Latitude says:

      the far right republicans might be getting their wish….
      …looks like the Pope is running

      • leftinflagstaff says:

        Heheh….

        But the Pope’s only chance is to flip-flop and embrace a border wall. Like ‘Act of Love’ Jeb finally did. Maybe he’s using that to try to catch Cruz. Next he’ll blame his Bro for 9-11, to try to catch Trump.

        • Latitude says:

          bur the Pope doesn’t need to flip-flop….

          The vadican walls were built over 1000 years ago…by Pope Leo…to protect the vadican from

          ARE YOU READY?

          …………muslims

      • leftinflagstaff says:

        Did the Pope demand that I be a factor in Mexican elections?

      • kim2ooo says:

        IMHO The Pope needs to apologize to Mr. Trump.

        • leftinflagstaff says:

          To all of us.

        • kim2ooo says:

          You might be surprised at WHY I think the Pope needs to apologize.

          Granted he was bone weary………. BUT he [ The Pope ] Allowed a Mainstream Media Correspondent to “GOTCHA QUE” Him.

          Immigration/ refugees / etc are a “SOCIAL JUSTICE… Moral issue…. TRUE! And thge Christian Community needs it discussed by it’s leaders…. THAT IS WHY THEY ARE OUR Religious Leaders………… BUT as soon as the reporter “LOADED” the question by inserting a name [ ANYONE;S NAME ]… the Pope should have realized and responded – to a “GOTCHA QUE”..

        • kim2ooo says:

          PS: This was a “HIT JOB” by this reporter [ I’d really like to know who was the reporter ]…AND I think Mr. Trump might be somewhat correct – I would NOT put it past the Mexican Government to “charge” this question. The do not like Mr. Trump and quite frankly…the Mexican Government doesn’t much like the Catholic Church.

        • Latitude says:

          You have no idea how upset the Cubans are with this Pope right now…
          He hugs and fawns all over Casto….does his “tear down this wall” speech….and then tells us how to vote
          Never in my life have I seen people cussing and spitting when talking about the Pope.

        • leftinflagstaff says:

          I just hope it’s more than Cuban-Americans who are sick of Presidents and Popes telling them out to live.

        • leftinflagstaff says:

          *how to live.

    • suyts says:

      Yes, it does, but, those pension funds, like the Central States Pension Fund was BS to begin with. Somehow you only pay in X, and you get X*Y*Z back. Most of them are huge pyramid schemes where they are entirely dependent upon continuous future enrollment growth …… which is insane for union workers in the central states.

      • DirkH says:

        “Somehow you only pay in X, and you get X*Y*Z back. ”

        Well if a money stock earns compounding interest through dividends or treasury yields – in a system where there *ARE* such dividends and yields – it is not automatically a Ponzi scheme.

        ZIRP zeros out the bond yields; and it keeps Zombie corporations alife, preventing the market from a Schumpeterian “creative destruction” and subsequent re-growth of new, more profitable companies.

        (And worst of all: A central bank that DICTATES and enforces the interest rates willy-nilly cannot even *FIND* the *RIGHT* interest rate . What we would need is, let a central bank play by the exact same rules as every other corporation.)

  4. Lars P. says:

    There is an interesting post at WUWT about Antarctica historical ice shelf collapse:
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/02/19/colossal-antarctic-ice-shelf-collapse-followed-last-ice-age/

  5. DirkH says:

    At certainly significant cost, desperate Turkish Airlines payed DC to advertise with their Batman vs Superman film
    https://www.google.de/search?safe=off&site=&source=hp&q=%23flytogotham+turkish+airlines&oq=%23flytogotham+turkish+airlines

    German tourism to Turkey is all but in the tank after 11 Germans or so got blown to bits in Istanbul (and subsequent, maybe a little Erdogan-sponsored) bombings happened to give Erdogan his pretense for invading Syria.
    After the Eurocrats wrecked Greece first by making it too expensive, then by dismantling it, Germans switched to Turkey for vacations. This has now gone into sharp reverse. Even worse, trade between Russia and Turkey is frozen cold and Russian tourists are not even allowed to vacay in Turkey anymore AFAIK. All round funtimes in Turkey.

  6. DirkH says:

    UK strategy against ISIS: Kill or injure approximately one per week. Otherwise, all that fun fighter jet flying would be over already I guess.
    http://www.breitbart.com/london/2016/02/19/uk-air-strikes-in-syria-have-killed-or-injured-just-7-jihadis/

  7. Latitude says:

    In case there’s any doubt in anyone’s mind…
    ..this is the Marco Rubio I’ve known for over 40 years
    He’s slime

    http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/02/19/eve-south-carolina-vote-nations-ice-officers-detail-marco-rubio-betrayed/

    • kim2ooo says:

      “this is the Marco Rubio I’ve known for over 40 years
      He’s slime”

      Hmmmm he’s 44 years old????

    • DirkH says:

      Interesting.
      “BNN: In your letter, you specifically protested that the bill would legalize gang members. As an ICE officer, how do you feel that this provision was left in the bill?”
      “CRANE: It disgusts me. Violent street gangs were literally able to lobby Sen. Rubio and the Gang of Eight more effectively than law enforcement, they had more influence on the bill than we did. Gangs were able to get provisions in the law to protect themselves. It’s absolutely insane. What on earth are our lawmakers thinking?”

      So the bill is about ensuring the uninterrupted flow of drugs via the South border as well, and the maintenance of the distribution network. The big banks need the drug money. Won’t suffice this time to keep them alive, though.

      • gator69 says:

        The big banks need the drug money.

        As someone who has worked for two different banks, I have no idea what you are talking about. The anti-money laundering efforts dictated by regulators has pretty well shut banks out of any drug profits. My bank’s customers are put through unreasonable screenings that focus on any suspicious transactions, no matter how small, and all large transactions. The systems used are so secretive, that if I were to even begin to describe them, I could face charges.

        The myths people believe about banks are just as unbelievable as the myths people believe about CO2.

        • DirkH says:

          gator69 says:
          February 20, 2016 at 11:53 am
          “As someone who has worked for two different banks, I have no idea what you are talking about. The anti-money laundering efforts dictated by regulators has pretty well shut banks out of any drug profits. ”

          And that’s exactly why they’re dying.

        • gator69 says:

          Yes, overregulation is killing banks, just as Trump said in a recent interview.

        • DirkH says:

          Well in this case the anti money laundering regulations remove an important source of capital from the big banks in London and New York.

        • gator69 says:

          And once again, if recreational drugs were treated like their cousin alcohol, you would not need anti-money laundering to keep these illicit funds out of banks.

          Why is it so difficult for people to understand a simple concept? Emotional much?

      • Latitude says:

        I don’t think most people realize the quantity of drugs…or the amount of money involved.
        Of course our open borders are all about drugs.

        Stop and think for one second the amount of drugs consumed in this country at just one time. From Selma, Alabama, to Chicago, to Hot Springs, Ar…..to New York and South Beach. Add up every little town, every city….stand back and look at it
        It’s not coming into this country taped to some abuela’s thigh….
        …it’s coming in cargo tankers, semi loads….running up and down I-10 by the truck loads.

        The amount of money is staggering.
        …and it’s all about politics

        • gator69 says:

          Prohibition does not work, it only creates more problems. Kids can obtain drugs easier than they can get alcohol.

          Outlawing the drug trade makes sure that only criminals profit off the industry, just as outlawing guns would ensure that only criminals have guns. Want to slow illegal border crossings and defund violent gangs? Legalize drugs. Alcohol kills more people each year than all illegal drugs combined. When we stiop listening to propagandists, and research facts for ourselves, we will finally start to fix problems instead of exacerbating them.

        • Latitude says:

          gat, I hear what you’re saying….and kinda agree
          But it puts us on a very slippery slope when we start legalizing something….because we can’t enforce it.

          What’s next?…child brides for muslims?….pedophilia?…..traffic tickets because too many people are running red lights?

          …where do you draw the line when you set a precedent for giving up

        • gator69 says:

          You have been brainwashed. We legalized alcohol and it is strictly regulated, and in my mind, too strictly regulated.

        • gator69 says:

          What’s next?…child brides for muslims?….pedophilia?…..traffic tickets because too many people are running red lights?

          Strawman argument. Drug abuse, like alcohol abuse, is basically a victimless crime. The same laws that apply to alcohol could be applied to illegal drugs. If we can have alcohol, we can have legalized drugs. Having one and not the other is hypocritical and ignorant.

        • Latitude says:

          brainwashed and strawman…..
          Sorry, I don’t see either as victimless crimes..legal or not

        • gator69 says:

          You cannot see that alcohol is a dangerous drug, just like those that are now illegal? You don’t know the difference between victimless crimes and pedophilia? You are brainwashed.

        • DirkH says:

          gator. The British destroyed Chinese society by forcing them to become addicts. You would be killed if you were not an addict. That business was taken over after WW 1 by the US whose Flying Tigers flew the Opium into China and got shot down by the Japanese which started WW 2 in the 1930ies in the East before it started in poland in the West.

          It’s proven that Opium addiction destroys societies. Try that with beer. The entire German empire in the High Medievals was FUELED by beer.

          There’s a difference in the onset of addiction and the, let’s say, productivity-destroying effects of a drug.

        • gator69 says:

          Statistics show that countries that decriminalize drugs have lower addiction rates, lower use of hard drugs, and lower crime after legalization. One historic example does not counter modern observations.

          I used to be vehemently against legalization until I did my own research, and used my brain.

        • >>
          Drug abuse, like alcohol abuse, is basically a victimless crime.
          <<

          It’s victimless until a drunk driver runs into an innocent driver/pedestrian and kills someone. Then it’s murder with intent (in my opinion). It’s victimless until the abuser destroys his life and those around him. Here in the People’s Republic of Washington State, they let drunk drivers repeat their offense until they do kill someone. Now that marijuana is legal here, I expect the number loopy drivers on the road to increase. Alcohol is a depressant; marijuana is not. Not all drugs act the same and create the same exact risk to its user or victim. Therefore, the laws should reflect this difference.

          Jim

        • gator69 says:

          Are you suggesting we bring back prohibition? And if not, why not.

          We are discussing useage, and not illeagl acts like driving drunk, which is not a victimless crime. Strawman alert!

        • Latitude says:

          gator69 says:
          February 20, 2016 at 2:31 pm
          You cannot see that alcohol is a dangerous drug
          ====
          I course I see that….that’s what I said….I don’t see alcohol or drugs as victimless crimes.

        • gator69 says:

          If you consider mugging yourself a crime that has a victim, then OK it is not a victimless crime.

        • leftinflagstaff says:

          Yes. Must always separate use from misuse, resulting in harm to others. Gun grabbers try to remove that separation in their agenda, however false that happens to be.

        • gator69 says:

          Yes. Must always separate use from misuse, resulting in harm to others. Gun grabbers try to remove that separation in their agenda, however false that happens to be.

          AND WE HAVE A WINNER!!!!!

        • Latitude says:

          the first thing I said…..I kinda agree

        • cdquarles says:

          I have to agree with Gator. The problem with ‘drugs’ isn’t drugs. The problem is, to the extent that there is a problem, intoxication. I believe that Abraham Lincoln had something wise to say about criminalizing vices. Also, addiction didn’t mean what people think it means today. In my mind, the slippery slope here is misusing words to enslave people. The anti-drug laws, in the US, were made to control ‘undesirables’ that were ‘undesirable’ only in the minds and tastes of ruling elites.

        • cdquarles says:

          I’ll put it this way. If you’ve ever seen someone delirious from water intoxication or salt poisoning, without knowing why but only knew what you observed, you’d never be able to tell it from any other cause of delirium.

        • Latitude says:

          gator69 says:
          February 20, 2016 at 3:15 pm
          If you consider mugging yourself a crime that has a victim, then OK it is not a victimless crime.
          ===
          My thinking is colored by something that happened….

          A friend in high school went to Daytona with a bunch of guys for spring break.
          First time he had ever gotten high…on pot.
          Guess he got too high or did too much not knowing any better.
          Jumped off a second floor balcony, trying to hit the pool….missed, and landed on the patio.
          Was pronounced dead the next day.

          Something else that colors it all……..suicide is sorta against the law too….and using this logic….that’s a victimless crime..but then, of course, you couldn’t be prosecuted for it unless you’re not good at it

          Dunno….I still see it as a slippery slope
          Just like “reach across the aisle” and “compromise” have slowly eroded away a lot of other things. One chip at a time.

        • gator69 says:

          A friend in high school went to Daytona with a bunch of guys for spring break.
          First time he had ever gotten high…on pot.
          Guess he got too high or did too much not knowing any better.
          Jumped off a second floor balcony, trying to hit the pool….missed, and landed on the patio.
          Was pronounced dead the next day.

          Sorry to hear about your friend. But I would assume there was also alcohol at that same party, and I have lost friends to alcohol. Why can you not see that alcohol is no different than most recreational drugs, and is actually more dangerous than pot? Every argument made against recreational drugs can be made against alcohol. So are you saying we should bring back prohibition?

        • Latitude says:

          nope, no alcohol involved…they were the cool kids…and alcohol was not cool

          Exactly, so let’s add another one to the mix…why not, right?
          …I just don’t see the point….but then I’m not the type that needs any of those things

        • gator69 says:

          I never said there was alcohol involved in your friend’s demise. What I keep pointing out is that alcohol is a dangwerous drug, and actually more dangerous than pot. Do you want to bring back prohibition? Or do you just have an inexplicable phobia of other drugs? Please explain.

        • Latitude says:

          I never said there was alcohol involved……….But I would assume there was also alcohol
          ====
          I must have miss-read…….

          No one is accusing you, no need to get defensive. I just clarified that there was no alcohol involved because you said you assumed there was.

          And no, I’m not going to answer your stupid silly question about prohibition or phobias.

          When you get stuck on a point, you act like some whacked out liberal media.

        • gator69 says:

          And by not answering questions, you act like a Clinton.😉

          So asking hard questions is what whacked out liberals do? Who knew?

        • Latitude says:

          good grief…you even try to spin it the way they do!

        • gator69 says:

          What spin, Charlie Brown?

        • Latitude says:

          gat, this will be the last conversation I try to have with you.
          You can’t do it without name calling and accusations.
          ..and you resort to that every time I’ve tried

          …I don’t have the energy for that

        • gator69 says:

          gat, this will be the last conversation I try to have with you.
          You can’t do it without name calling and accusations.
          ..and you resort to that every time I’ve tried

          …I don’t have the energy for that

          Then why this?

          When you get stuck on a point, you act like some whacked out liberal media.

          WTF? Is someone else using your keyboard while you are not looking?

          Why can’t you answer the question?

        • DirkH says:

          gator69 says:
          February 20, 2016 at 2:48 pm
          “Statistics show that countries that decriminalize drugs have lower addiction rates, lower use of hard drugs, and lower crime after legalization. One historic example does not counter modern observations.”

          Good. So let’s add more examples.
          Afghan heroin production went up 20fold under US occupation – Iran is *flooded* with cheap Heroin. Koinkidink? I don’t think so.

          Afghan share of US street heroin was 7% before US occ., rose to 70% since Afgh is a US opium plantation. Coincidence? I don’t think so.

          Wait, I hear you say, are you suggesting the US controlled Heroin business is being used to wipe out *AMERICANS*?

          yes, that’s EXACTLY what I’m suggesting. A simple way of funneling tax Dollars spent on the upkeep of the undesirables back into the coffers of the controllers. Simple as long as you control potentially annoying elements such as the ICE.

          Power attracts criminals, and Berlin, Brussels and DC are today overrun with them.

        • gator69 says:

          If you don’t like Afghani heroin, don’t buy any.

          If heroin were legalized, we could control it. But since all heroin is illegal, only criminals traffic it. Want to strangle the Afghani heroin? We can. We just have to get over irrational phobias.

        • >>
          Strawman alert!
          <<

          I agree with Lat. I’m done with Gator too. I don’t have the energy either.

          Jim

        • gator69 says:

          Yep, it’s really tough to answer simple questions. I’d give up and go home too.

        • >>
          . . . tough to answer simple questions.
          <<

          Simple questions are easy. Obnoxious questions–not so much. Declaring a strawman for an obvious disproof of your thesis is obnoxious. An alcoholic is not victimless, and you know it. It also covers your usage requirement as that is all an alcoholic does–use. However, an alcoholic is an extreme case where the common dunk isn’t. Dunks are users and victims too. The fact that they sometimes find themselves behind a wheel is all part of usage.

          Then there are more serious drugs, like opium, heroin. cocaine, and crack. You can legalize those drugs and watch a lot of people ruin their lives. Just how much does society owe to these poor souls?

          Do I want to see prohibition again? Not really. However, alcohol causes a lot of damage to lives. So far, I’ve been able to control my use. The ones who can’t are costing all of us money. I’m willing to pay for that cost as it’s affordable at the moment. Adding marijuana, crack, and cocaine to the legal mix may make it completely unaffordable.

          The libertarian view that all drugs should be legal ignores the obvious consequences. You’ll get more drug users, more ruined lives, and more individuals who can’t support their habit without turning to crime. Which is cheaper in the long run?

          Does that answer your simple, obnoxious questions?

          Jim

        • gator69 says:

          Your rant is not the answer. The fact is that countries that legalize or decriminalize drugs see lower addiction rates, lower hard drug useage and lower crime rates. Facts Jim, not rants. Your “solution” is making things worse.

          Jim, I used to believe the same false truths that you do, then I did my own research and corrected my viewpoint. If we want to make thing better, we must challenge our beliefs, even beliefs to which we are very emotionbally attached.

        • dunk or drunk–it’s late.

          Jim

        • DirkH says:

          gator69 says:
          February 20, 2016 at 6:17 pm
          “If you don’t like Afghani heroin, don’t buy any. ”

          Sometime in the 1980ies the remaining punk rockers of my hometown all ended up hooked on Heroin; a step up from beer and huffing glue. Turns out a friendly street medic offered them free trial product.

          Try that with alcohol. Addictive potential plus a good basis of self-destructive behaviour and there you go. After you’re addicted, your “free will” decision to buy more of that product is slightly influenced by simple physical withdrawal symptoms.

          “Libertarianism” requires libre i.e. FREE will. Would you call a junkie a free-willed person? They’re SLAVES to their addiction. LIBERATING them again means putting them on cold turkey which my sister in law did for a living for a number of years. Her occupation BTW did nothing to influence my opinion about Heroin or Opium, I had this opinion before.

          Yes, alcohol can do the same, but there are millions of people who drink only occasionally. I am one. Are there also millions of people who shoot Heroin only on every other weekend? I’ve *NEVER* heard of that. And I do get around.

        • gator69 says:

          I am no fan of heroin, but I am a fan of liberty. If you are stupid enough to try heroin, you deserve what you get, and you will help to clean up the gene pool. The fact remains that alcohol ruins more lives by far than all illegal drugs combined, if you want to take a stand for sobriety, you must start with alcohol, otherwise you are using the logic of the Black lives Matter brigade.

        • DirkH says:

          “The fact remains that alcohol ruins more lives by far than all illegal drugs combined”

          That is a useless metric. What is the RATIO of total people who TRY substance X versus the ones who try it and go into demise. This metric would remove the effects of varying availability.

        • gator69 says:

          It is a useful metric and example of hypocrisy. If prohibitionists were really concerned about addiction and death, they would demand that alcohol be added to the list. But obviously, as my example illustrates, it is not about stopping addiction and death.

          Over 100,000 people have died in the war on drugs in Mexico alone as of 2013. The War on Drugs is a victimful crime of epic proportions, and some people just don’t get it.

        • Lars P. says:

          Well frankly speaking “the war” against drugs is such a dramatic failure. All that it succeeded is to reduce liberties and increase the control over each and every activity.
          I guess liberalization of drugs and increased education, would be more efficient and better in the long run – at least the results from the countries which did such seem to better work.
          Plus liberalization would help better control it and the respective founds

          DirkH says:
          February 21, 2016 at 9:51 am
          “What is the RATIO of total people who TRY substance X versus the ones who try it and go into demise. This metric would remove the effects of varying availability.”
          Totally agree and I think making such metric available would help making more people understand what not to use…

          just my 2 cents

        • gator69 says:

          I guess liberalization of drugs and increased education, would be more efficient and better in the long run – at least the results from the countries which did such seem to better work.
          Plus liberalization would help better control it and the respective founds

          Exactly…

          “Compared to the European Union and the U.S., Portugal’s drug use numbers are impressive. Following decriminalization, Portugal had the lowest rate of lifetime marijuana use in people over 15 in the E.U.: 10%. The most comparable figure in America is in people over 12: 39.8%.

          Proportionally, more Americans have used cocaine than Portuguese have used marijuana.

          The Cato paper reports that between 2001 and 2006 in Portugal, rates of lifetime use of any illegal drug among seventh through ninth graders fell from 14.1% to 10.6%; drug use in older teens also declined. Lifetime heroin use among 16-to-18-year-olds fell from 2.5% to 1.8% (although there was a slight increase in marijuana use in that age group). New HIV infections in drug users fell by 17% between 1999 and 2003, and deaths related to heroin and similar drugs were cut by more than half. In addition, the number of people on methadone and buprenorphine treatment for drug addiction rose to 14,877 from 6,040, after decriminalization, and money saved on enforcement allowed for increased funding of drug-free treatment as well.

          http://content.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1893946,00.html

          This is one of the examples that changed my thinking on the War on Drugs, and there are many more like it.

          Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
          -Albert Einstein

        • >>
          The fact remains that alcohol ruins more lives by far than all illegal drugs combined . . . .
          <<

          There’s a simple reason for that–alcohol is legal and those other drugs aren’t.

          >>
          Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
          <<

          You’re really doing backwards thinking here, Gator. We’ve legalized alcohol and look at the human misery and failure it causes. So now you want to legalize drugs that are more dangerous, more mind altering, and more addicting than alcohol, but expect the results to be different? Better? Sorry, but that’s the pure definition of insanity. There’s a reason why laws against public drunkenness didn’t appear until after distilled spirits became readily available. There’s also a reason why there are laws against using dangerous drugs.

          >>
          I am no fan of heroin, but I am a fan of liberty. If you are stupid enough to try heroin, you deserve what you get, and you will help to clean up the gene pool.
          <<

          I’m sorry you are so callus. But what if that Darwin Award went to your neighbor or a family member? You can leave these people to die in the streets, but apparently Trump and the rest of us will have to clean up the messes they leave behind.

          You may reduce organized crime and the drug cartels by legalizing drugs, but you haven’t factored in the total cost such an act would cause. I give you alcohol as exhibit one.

          Jim

        • gator69 says:

          Ending Prohibition saved lives. Do you really think that you couldn’;t get alcohol during Prohibition? Hiow naive are you? I am not the party that has it backwards, maybe you missed this…

          Compared to the European Union and the U.S., Portugal’s drug use numbers are impressive. Following decriminalization, Portugal had the lowest rate of lifetime marijuana use in people over 15 in the E.U.: 10%. The most comparable figure in America is in people over 12: 39.8%. Proportionally, more Americans have used cocaine than Portuguese have used marijuana.

          The Cato paper reports that between 2001 and 2006 in Portugal, rates of lifetime use of any illegal drug among seventh through ninth graders fell from 14.1% to 10.6%; drug use in older teens also declined. Lifetime heroin use among 16-to-18-year-olds fell from 2.5% to 1.8% (although there was a slight increase in marijuana use in that age group). New HIV infections in drug users fell by 17% between 1999 and 2003, and deaths related to heroin and similar drugs were cut by more than half. In addition, the number of people on methadone and buprenorphine treatment for drug addiction rose to 14,877 from 6,040, after decriminalization, and money saved on enforcement allowed for increased funding of drug-free treatment as well.

          http://content.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1893946,00.html

          Prohibition only makes matters worse. It fuels organized crime and gang violence, as well as forcing addicts underground where they receive no help.

          You can parrot beliefs all day long Jim, but facts are not on your side. We tried Prohibition and it was a massive failure, just like the current War on Drugs. Time for a reasoned approach that preserves lives as well as liberties.

        • >>
          Ending Prohibition saved lives. Do you really think that you couldn’;t get alcohol during Prohibition? Hiow naive are you?
          <<
          and
          >>
          The fact remains that alcohol ruins more lives by far than all illegal drugs combined . . . .
          <<

          I guess I’m having trouble following your logic. And I thought this was a discussion about getting criminals out of our drug use. Organized crime made boatloads of money during prohibition, so somebody was buying their booze. And somebody is buying the illegal drugs now. I don’t remember saying no one had access to alcohol during prohibition.

          Jim

        • gator69 says:

          No offense Jim, but I cannot figure out what you are saying.

          What I am saying is that we should stop this war we are losing. If we look aroiund the globe we find success stories with legalization and decriminalization. That is something we found out here as well, when we ended Prohibition. Legalized booze hurt the criminals and not he innocent. You should really do some research on the Prohibition years, and why we stopped them.

          I don’t want to live in a world where only Victory Gin is served, and I am tired of seeing images of headless torsos.

          By the end of 2013, the estimated number of killed in the Mexican drug warfare was topping 111,000 people.

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexican_Drug_War

          There is a better way, and you refuse to even consider it. How is that compassionate? How is that anything but wrong?

        • DirkH says:

          Gator. Using those dead as an argument for legalization of hard drugs ? Really? So, if I want something illegal to be legalized all I have to do is go on a killing spree?

          Ask yourself, was the “War On Drugs” ever meant to succeed?

          I totally agree you shouldn’t give a teenager 7 years jail for catching him with a joint. But there’s a difference between full legalization and some SANE sentencing.

        • gator69 says:

          Those terroristic killings are a direct result of our War on Drugs, so yes, I use them. Just as I use our over-crowed prison system and the countless innocent victims of this wrongheaded war.

          There is a better way.

        • DirkH says:

          What I meant to say is, a ruthless mafia that kills entire villages willy-nilly will not become law abiding citizens just because you take away their current income stream. They will rather fight furiously for new income streams. For instance – way more abductions than they’re already doing in Mexico. Way more protection money rackets.

        • gator69 says:

          So taking a portion of a bank’s income will kill it, but gutting the funding of gangs will have no effect?

          And again, just look around the globe, in civilized countries where legalization and decriminalization is tried it improves the overall conditions.

          This is not hard to figure out, unless you want it to be.

        • Me says:

          I’m kinda with Gator here, if you want liberty and freedom then by all means, and if people want to go junkhead and do themselves in with hard drugs then it is their right, plus it thins the herd. I think most don’t want this because they want some moral ground to stand on and by that, they don’t want the skellitons in their closed to come out. Cause they can’t handle one of their own doing something they were against! I wonder how many of them religious types keep this crap hidden, like everything they are against, that is the opposite of freedon and liberty, because of morals and reasons!

        • >>
          Me says:
          February 21, 2016 at 11:10 pm

          I’m kinda with Gator here . . . .
          <<

          I’m not the least bit surprised.

          Jim

        • >>
          gator69 says:
          February 21, 2016 at 5:26 pm

          No offense Jim, but I cannot figure out what you are saying.
          <<

          Everything we’re discussing is hypothetical, so it really doesn’t matter in the end. What I would like is the best solution for the most people (not just the majority or a plurality), that truly costs the least (all the cost including lives ruined, lost wages, etc.), and results in the least government intrusion. I don’t think blanket legalization is the answer, but I agree that the current war on drugs doesn’t seem to get us there either. Somewhere in the middle might work, but I’m not going to bet on where that middle point is (assuming one exists).

          Some of these drugs were legal before they were illegal, and there are valid reasons for making them illegal.

          I would like to see how legalizing marijuana will affect Washington state. I doubt that we’ll get the real statistics for a long time, because legalization was politically motivated. The liberals aren’t going to let bad data destroy their new marijuana empire.

          Jim

        • gator69 says:

          No, everything we are discussing here is not hypothetical, some of it is a matter of historical fact and some is statistically significant. Prohibition caused the Mafia to blossom, and modern prohibition is fueling gang warfare and funding organized crime.

          As I have twice pointed out, Portugal has seen undisputable positive effects from legalization. Ever been to Amsterdam? I have, and it is a very clean and safe city.

          We have wasted too many lives and too much treasure trying to stamp out a fire that will never die. We learned this lesson once, and somehow forgot what we learned. Time to stop emoting and time start thinking. Just as the gun grabbers cannot fathom that more guns equals less crime, many people cannot wrap their heads around the fact that ending prohibition will reduce crime, hard drug useage, and addiction.

        • >>
          Ever been to Amsterdam? I have, and it is a very clean and safe city.
          <<

          We went on a Viking river cruise from Budapest to Nuremberg. We entered and left Europe through Amsterdam. I do not remember seeing a thriving drug business going on at the airport–of course I wasn’t looking for one. However, what about this from an Amsterdam site?

          >>
          Don’t Think Drugs are Legal Here

          A little clarification is in order in regards to Amsterdam’s approach to drugs. Contrary to popular belief, recreational drugs are technically illegal here, pot included. The twist is that the Netherlands decriminalized possession of under 5 grams of cannabis back in 1976. This has led to a generally accepted tolerance on over 18s purchasing small quantities of the substance for personal use in coffee shops and herbal “smart shops”. Don’t think you can just light a spliff and get stoned on the streets here. Note, also, that growing, processing and trading drugs is a criminal offense in the Netherlands. Furthermore, hard drugs like cocaine, LSD and heroin are also forbidden, and as of 2008, even magic mushrooms are banned. It’s interesting to note that most of the cannabis consumption here is by foreign tourists. The local youth, who don’t see it as forbidden fruit, generally don’t find it all that appealing.
          <<

          Jim

        • gator69 says:

          Yep, making pot available to the masses in Amsterdam has not lead to increased useage or addiction. Thanks for pointing that out. Prostitution is also legal in the Netherlands, and niether is turning Amsterdam into Detroit.

        • Lars P. says:

          gator69 says:
          February 22, 2016 at 7:00 am
          “Prostitution is also legal in the Netherlands, and niether is turning Amsterdam into Detroit.
          Correct, prostitution is legal in most of Europe, take Austria or Swiss as example. I think it makes much more sense.
          Gator your argument with the huge number of prison population is also a very good one.

          Jim Masterson says:
          February 22, 2016 at 2:17 am
          Everything we’re discussing is hypothetical, so it really doesn’t matter in the end. What I would like is the best solution for the most people (not just the majority or a plurality), that truly costs the least (all the cost including lives ruined, lost wages, etc.), and results in the least government intrusion.

          Well I think Gator’s arguments were not hypothetical, but rather examples of various countries. I have not seen any answer to those arguments.
          I think everybody here is in agreement with your second sentence.

        • >>
          Yep, making pot available to the masses in Amsterdam has not lead to increased useage or addiction.
          <<

          Big deal. If all you wanted was to legalize pot, we have that here in Washington state. In fact, our pot laws are more liberal (of course) than the Netherland’s (28 grams vs. 5 grams) plus we have concealed carry, so we should be the cleanest and safest region in the world.

          >>
          Thanks for pointing that out.
          <<

          Are you reading something between the lines, because I didn’t point out any such thing. I’m also not getting a great deal of legalization of all drugs either–just pot. That’s a long way from your original point.

          Jim

        • gator69 says:

          Why so emotional Jim? What part of lower addiction rates, lower hard drug useage, and lower crime rates gets your dander up?

          This isn’t a pissing contest,we are discussing how we can fix a problem.

        • gator69 says:

          And again Jim, I held the same view that you do until I did my own research, and discovered that the government propaganda on drug legalization is mainly false. You seem to be unwilling to change your mind when new facts are presented. This is not healthy for you, or society.

          I was willing to admit I was wrong, did so, and now the facts are on my side.

        • DirkH says:

          gator69 says:
          February 22, 2016 at 3:34 am
          “As I have twice pointed out, Portugal has seen undisputable positive effects from legalization. Ever been to Amsterdam? I have, and it is a very clean and safe city. ”

          Amsterdam has a light and a seedy side. Literally two halfs of the city centre.

          A decade or two back the Dutch cracked down on all the open drug scene. Their lenient attitude made them the go to spot for Europe’s junkie scene – after that scene got driven out of Zurich, where it had its center while the Zurich government allowed it, on the Platzspitz at the river. A friend walked me through it while it was still looking like a constant zombie invasion.
          https://www.google.com/search?site=&tbm=isch&source=hp&biw=1372&bih=682&q=platzspitz

          It is called Platzspitz because it is a little triangular park (platz = place, spitz = sharp corner)

        • DirkH says:

          What really helped against the junkie problem was a combination of zero tolerance policing together with offers of Methadon or cold turkey therapy – or, if that offer is rejected, jail.

          So, carrot and stick. This was used in Switzerland, Netherlands and Germany at least.

          I was wading through hundreds of junkies panhandling on the Reeperbahn in Hamburg in 2003 or so. A year after that the normally hard left Hamburgers voted a law&order guy called Schill into office who cleaned the city up.

          Currently, Berlin and Hamburg are rapidly losing control of everything and are re-acquiring their junkie heaven status.

          You know what I like? Living in a zero tolerance city, and having a Heroin world capital at least a hundred miles away. So all the junkies will vanish to that spot.

          For some strange reason, every major European capital – Berlin, Brussels, Paris – turns into a shithole. Must be the presence of the Total State. Or the demand by the politicians for everything that crime syndicates have to offer.

        • DirkH says:

          Basically, the Zurich government in the Platzspitz years was running gators’ policies. They were leftists AFAIK, but had the laissez faire attitude regarding drugs.

        • gator69 says:

          Basically, the Zurich government in the Platzspitz years was running gators’ policies.

          Absolutely not. I would never be so stupid as to designate a singular small space for legal consumption, that would be insanity. But apparently the deep thinkers here have not figured that out.

          Every argument against illegal drugs can be made against alcohol, except for the prohibition created crimes.

          Hypocrites.

        • DirkH says:

          …so my proposal would be; forget blue-eyed libertarianism with regards to highly addictive substances. Offer therapy instead of harsh prison sentences to the victims of these addictions, that of course includes alcoholics.
          Drive the open drug scene out of town to reduce the probability of kids getting hooked by “the first one is free” type offers.
          Consider the fight against the drug trade a part of the states’ legitimate mission: Uphold the rule of law.

          Now considering how to EFFECTIVELY destroy the drug cartels. Use sting operations and infiltrate them to the point where they don’t know friend from enemy. Encourage turf wars so they off each other. Sell them spiked weapons. Hook them on their own product. Exterminate them.

          And, take a little bit of care that they don’t BECOME the state, like , for instance, the Zetas became in their home province, which turned out not so nice for the people there.

          The major problem of the War On Drugs in the USA is the ridiculously long prison terms for kids who made a mistake and are VICTIMS of drugs, not perpetrators. These ridiculous sentences drove one ex colleague of mine, born in Indiana, to repudiate his US citizenship and become a German citizen – his ancestors were partially German.
          The purpose of these sentences is likely to exploit young people as cheap labor in the prison-industrial complex of the USA. A despicable tactic. War On Drugs has become an industry and has no interest in stopping the drug trade as this would make all these business lines unprofitable.

          It’s so amoral and bizarre it’s fascinating. And that’s why it’s failing, because it’s designed to fail. Just get a grip and kick out the entrenched cronies of this ridiculous monster.

        • DirkH says:

          gator69 says:
          February 22, 2016 at 5:56 pm
          “Absolutely not. I would never be so stupid as to designate a singular small space for legal consumption, that would be insanity. But apparently the deep thinkers here have not figured that out.”

          Gator. They never designated the Platzspitz for anything. They wouldn’t interfere with the drug scene ANYWHERE in Zurich. The Junkies just like the Platzspitz the best.

        • gator69 says:

          So by allowing junkies to do their thing in Zurich, all junkies came hither. Get it yet?

        • Lars P. says:

          DirkH says:
          February 22, 2016 at 4:59 pm
          For a little fun, here the problems of legal prostitution in Austria:
          http://www.city4u.at/Registrierkassapflicht_gilt_auch_fuer_Prostituierte-Kein_Scherz!-Story-492358

        • DirkH says:

          gator69 says:
          February 22, 2016 at 6:01 pm
          “So by allowing junkies to do their thing in Zurich, all junkies came hither. Get it yet?”

          I said quite a while ago
          “You know what I like? Living in a zero tolerance city, and having a Heroin world capital at least a hundred miles away. So all the junkies will vanish to that spot.”

          The continental shifts of the junkie population have been normal in Europe for decades as lenient leftist administrations come and go.

          See. If you allow it everywhere it will not help the junkies one wit. They’re junkies. They spend all their money on junk and nothing on food. In the end they will always congegrate on some place, where the dealers are. In the end they will always LIVE on that place. Even when it is tolerated everywhere they will still form concentrations because a larger market leads to better prices and better supply.

        • gator69 says:

          Uh no. In today’s global market place, legalization would do away with “dealers”, just the repeal of Prohobition pretty much wiped out moonshiners a and bootleggers.

          Once again, what we are discussing is another drug like alcohol.

  8. Latitude says:

    all of the wrong people are telling me not to vote for Trump
    You can’t tell me the AP only interviewed 5 people…..they picked these to print out of a stack
    …now watch Trump win it

    http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_2016_ELECTION_VOTER_VOICES?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2016-02-20-14-07-43

    • suyts says:

      LOL @ AP!!!!! The desperation is palpable.

      • Latitude says:

        I don’t get it….at all!
        Rubio, Clinton, Bush…..and Kasich gets an honorary mention
        Trump, only to say they can’t vote for him.
        …and Cruz!….only that he can’t be trusted

        Obviously the AP no longer cares if they look like idiots!

        • DirkH says:

          *Anyone* who even considers Hillary fit for *any* office looks like an idiot. I mean, the dims are so desperate they run over to a full blown socialist. Even most of them would prefer somebody sane, but Sanders is all they got.

        • Latitude says:

          From your lips to God’s ear….
          …no wait
          If that has to go through the Pope first all bets are off

        • Lars P. says:

          I read somewhere: “Trump and the seven dwarfs” . I think it is a very apt description…

  9. Latitude says:

    Well….I never would have bet or guessed on this
    Trump even ran the house on evangelicals…..

    http://www.cnn.com/election/primaries/polls/sc/Rep

  10. DirkH says:

    Big news: the BIG rats are now jumping the EU ship. The London Boys (i.e. the City Of London) want out! Otherwise why would Boris do this.
    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-02-21/uks-european-future-jeopardy-london-mayor-boris-johnson-will-campaign-brexit

  11. Latitude says:

    How can you tell when you’ve lost…
    …when you start campaigning as “not Trump”

    • Me says:

      Wait till Trump has it, then see what’ll happen with all the other MSM lapdogs! They are already saying is is like opposite of everything they put out! Yeah and they have themselves to blame because no one trust anything they say anymore, even if they were to suddenly promote Trump, people would see through it and know that they want to sabotage him by promoting him. They did it to themselves.

  12. gator69 says:

    So my proposal would be; forget wide-eyed fanaticism, and recognize there are no perfect solutions, but that there are better solutions. And all this time I thought that hose who believed they could perfect humanity through legislation were leftists. How ’bout that.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s