5 ms·

I will never, ever vote for anyone who supported the drug war. Yes, that includes you, Hillary.

duaneb 10y ago
This kind of thinking helps nothing. If you are outraged, push to change it. If you seriously think the best way to do that is to not vote for Hillary, I'd love to hear your reasoning.
- wvrvwwwe 10y ago
  You can not vote for Clinton and push to change drug laws, they're not mutually exclusive.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- iconjack 10y ago
  I am outraged by the drug war, therefore I will not vote for a drug warrior. Not sure what else to say.
  - LyndsySimon 10y ago
    I wouldn't worry about it much - there are a lot of us out there who aren't exactly "single-issue voters", but for whom a single issue can make a candidate completely unpalatable. For me, that's guns. For you, that's drugs. For many others, it's abortion.
    - hutzlibu 10y ago
      Just curious, pro or against guns? I suppose against, meaning you want a candidat who wants tight regulation?
      - LyndsySimon 10y ago
        I was purposefully vague :) I'm very, very pro-gun.
- hobs 10y ago
  Last time I checked Clinton promised to move marijuana to schedule II, not do anything like pledge to end the completely pointless war on drugs. Do you have millions in donations to a campaign or millions of followers to vote for your cause? Then I wouldn't hold your breath "pushing for change" within a campaign on either side of the aisle because your opinion simply doesn't matter to them.
  - rweir 10y ago
    well then lobby to get your electoral system fixed instead of copping out. not voting for Hillary Clinton increases the chances of Trump winning, and who even knows what his actual policy on drugs are?
    - hobs 10y ago
      To be clear I was not a Bernie supporter either(since you mention lobbying the electoral system), I just used the MJ example because it was easy and at hand. I do not support Trump either. By voting for someone I support, I am not voting anyone else into office, that is up to their supporters.
      - deleted 10y ago
        [deleted]
      - SapphireSun 10y ago
        That makes sense emotionally, but in reality in FPTP you just enabled the even worse other party. If you want your voice fairly represented, you'll need other voting mechanisms and non-partisan districting mechanisms. Your wish is legitimate, but unfortunately the current system limits your useful actions.
        nitrogen 10y ago
        There's no mathematical reason why the two winning parties in FPTP have to be the same two parties forever. It is the media coverage that makes it so, and concerted voting for a single third party could make that party part of a new duopoly.
pcurve 10y ago
People's view evolve. It wasn't that long when vast majority of Americans were against gay marriage.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- hyperliner 10y ago
  They evolve when it becomes politically convenient.
  - wastedhours 10y ago
    Overly cynical viewpoint - I know my own views on a whole host of things have changed over the last decade. If we were all held to account for things we believed at other times in our lives/careers we'd never progress as individuals.
  - dannypgh 10y ago
    Lots of things can be seen as politically convenient, e.g. drumming up fear of Islam and Mexicans. I'd rather a politician that was advocating for a politically convenient positive change than a politically convenient negative one. Sure, one that consistently advocated for positive change would be best. But have you seen polls about the number of people who believe in witchcraft or support Trump? In the US, we arrive at bad choices because around half of the country believes and supports bad things. We'll have to fix that before we can expect more from democratically elected politicians.
  - jaynos 10y ago
    Still better than not evolving.
api 10y ago
... and Trump, and any major party candidate for the past 75 years. The unfortunate truth is that it's a democracy and the majority of the voting public still supports the drug war. That support in softening, but very slowly.
- logfromblammo 10y ago
  No.... it's a constitutionally limited democratic republic. That's supposed to prevent "the majority of the voting public" from mandating stupid laws and forcing the minority to live under them. As such, place the blame where it belongs: the majority of Democratic and Republican party politicians, who have employed the drug war as a means to preserve or increase their political power, and to distract and propagandize the aforementioned voting public away from any issues of real importance that cannot be solved effectively without doing something unpopular among certain blocs of the electorate.
  - dragonwriter 10y ago
    > No.... it's a constitutionally limited democratic republic. That's supposed to prevent "the majority of the voting public" from mandating stupid laws and forcing the minority to live under them. No, its supposed to stop the majority of the voting public from mandating laws that violate essential liberty and forcing the minority to live under them. Its not supposed to stop the majority of the voting public from mandating stupid laws, though of course one hopes that stupid laws would, if they fail to be recognized as such before passage, be corrected in short order most of the time. Though experience would, perhaps, show that to be overly optimistic.
    - logfromblammo 10y ago
      It would seem that the issue in dispute is whether a law can be stupid without also violating essential liberty in some way. I think we can agree that all laws that violate essential liberty are intrinsically stupid. Let's not examine it too closely, though, lest we uncover that republics may, in fact, be designed to protect the privileges of the land-owning elites from the sheer numbers of the unwashed rabble, and the defense of their essential liberties may only be a beneficial side effect.
Hondor 10y ago
Sounds like a good idea. If politicians were held accountable for their actions for their whole career, they might actively look for the long term better policies instead of blindly mirroring whatever nutty ideas their current round of voters want.
ascorbic 10y ago
So that one issue wipes out all others? Do you really have no preference as to whether Trump or Hillary wins?
- Nursie 10y ago
  Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos
- cmdrfred 10y ago
  My issue is I simply want someone reasonably honest as President. I have no preference as neither candidate exhibits that behavior.
ghshephard 10y ago
People's positions evolve, particularly as better information is available and we become more knowledgable on a subject.

This kind of thinking helps nothing. If you are outraged, push to change it. If you seriously think the best way to do that is to not vote for Hillary, I'd love to hear your reasoning.

wvrvwwwe 10y ago
You can not vote for Clinton and push to change drug laws, they're not mutually exclusive.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
iconjack 10y ago
I am outraged by the drug war, therefore I will not vote for a drug warrior. Not sure what else to say.
- LyndsySimon 10y ago
  I wouldn't worry about it much - there are a lot of us out there who aren't exactly "single-issue voters", but for whom a single issue can make a candidate completely unpalatable. For me, that's guns. For you, that's drugs. For many others, it's abortion.
  - hutzlibu 10y ago
    Just curious, pro or against guns? I suppose against, meaning you want a candidat who wants tight regulation?
    - LyndsySimon 10y ago
      I was purposefully vague :) I'm very, very pro-gun.
hobs 10y ago
Last time I checked Clinton promised to move marijuana to schedule II, not do anything like pledge to end the completely pointless war on drugs. Do you have millions in donations to a campaign or millions of followers to vote for your cause? Then I wouldn't hold your breath "pushing for change" within a campaign on either side of the aisle because your opinion simply doesn't matter to them.
- rweir 10y ago
  well then lobby to get your electoral system fixed instead of copping out. not voting for Hillary Clinton increases the chances of Trump winning, and who even knows what his actual policy on drugs are?
  - hobs 10y ago
    To be clear I was not a Bernie supporter either(since you mention lobbying the electoral system), I just used the MJ example because it was easy and at hand. I do not support Trump either. By voting for someone I support, I am not voting anyone else into office, that is up to their supporters.
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
    - SapphireSun 10y ago
      That makes sense emotionally, but in reality in FPTP you just enabled the even worse other party. If you want your voice fairly represented, you'll need other voting mechanisms and non-partisan districting mechanisms. Your wish is legitimate, but unfortunately the current system limits your useful actions.
      - nitrogen 10y ago
        There's no mathematical reason why the two winning parties in FPTP have to be the same two parties forever. It is the media coverage that makes it so, and concerted voting for a single third party could make that party part of a new duopoly.

pcurve 10y ago

People's view evolve. It wasn't that long when vast majority of Americans were against gay marriage.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
hyperliner 10y ago
They evolve when it becomes politically convenient.
- wastedhours 10y ago
  Overly cynical viewpoint - I know my own views on a whole host of things have changed over the last decade. If we were all held to account for things we believed at other times in our lives/careers we'd never progress as individuals.
- dannypgh 10y ago
  Lots of things can be seen as politically convenient, e.g. drumming up fear of Islam and Mexicans. I'd rather a politician that was advocating for a politically convenient positive change than a politically convenient negative one. Sure, one that consistently advocated for positive change would be best. But have you seen polls about the number of people who believe in witchcraft or support Trump? In the US, we arrive at bad choices because around half of the country believes and supports bad things. We'll have to fix that before we can expect more from democratically elected politicians.
- jaynos 10y ago
  Still better than not evolving.

api 10y ago

... and Trump, and any major party candidate for the past 75 years. The unfortunate truth is that it's a democracy and the majority of the voting public still supports the drug war. That support in softening, but very slowly.

logfromblammo 10y ago
No.... it's a constitutionally limited democratic republic. That's supposed to prevent "the majority of the voting public" from mandating stupid laws and forcing the minority to live under them. As such, place the blame where it belongs: the majority of Democratic and Republican party politicians, who have employed the drug war as a means to preserve or increase their political power, and to distract and propagandize the aforementioned voting public away from any issues of real importance that cannot be solved effectively without doing something unpopular among certain blocs of the electorate.
- dragonwriter 10y ago
  > No.... it's a constitutionally limited democratic republic. That's supposed to prevent "the majority of the voting public" from mandating stupid laws and forcing the minority to live under them. No, its supposed to stop the majority of the voting public from mandating laws that violate essential liberty and forcing the minority to live under them. Its not supposed to stop the majority of the voting public from mandating stupid laws, though of course one hopes that stupid laws would, if they fail to be recognized as such before passage, be corrected in short order most of the time. Though experience would, perhaps, show that to be overly optimistic.
  - logfromblammo 10y ago
    It would seem that the issue in dispute is whether a law can be stupid without also violating essential liberty in some way. I think we can agree that all laws that violate essential liberty are intrinsically stupid. Let's not examine it too closely, though, lest we uncover that republics may, in fact, be designed to protect the privileges of the land-owning elites from the sheer numbers of the unwashed rabble, and the defense of their essential liberties may only be a beneficial side effect.

Hondor 10y ago

Sounds like a good idea. If politicians were held accountable for their actions for their whole career, they might actively look for the long term better policies instead of blindly mirroring whatever nutty ideas their current round of voters want.

ascorbic 10y ago

So that one issue wipes out all others? Do you really have no preference as to whether Trump or Hillary wins?

Nursie 10y ago
Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos
cmdrfred 10y ago
My issue is I simply want someone reasonably honest as President. I have no preference as neither candidate exhibits that behavior.

ghshephard 10y ago

People's positions evolve, particularly as better information is available and we become more knowledgable on a subject.