Britain votes to exit EU

[peplaw06]

Certain ones like meth and heroin, are extremely potent and kill people who are the victims of the makers and the dealers. Although I'm with you and I do believe everything should be legal and let Darwin take its course, I am sure you really don't believe meth making and selling is victimless.

The manufacturing of a drug is a different crime than the possession of it. And Johnson's not advocating for legalization of anything but marijuana. Though I do think he's interested in reforming the drug laws to take away or reduce mandatory minimums for all drug offenses. He's been floating the figures that 50% of our funds spent on law enforcement are used for fighting the war on drugs which has been an abject failure. The Federal Bureau of Prisons says that 46% of federal inmates are as a result of a conviction of a drug offense. The next most prevalent crime for incarceration is possession of weapons, explosives, or arson, and that's about 17% of those incarcerated. That's not counting state prisons.

 

[Doomsday]

The manufacturing of a drug is a different crime than the possession of it.

Gotta have a manufacturer and a pusher in order to have posession. But yeah I see your distinction.

And Johnson's not advocating for legalization of anything but marijuana. Though I do think he's interested in reforming the drug laws to take away or reduce mandatory minimums for all drug offenses. He's been floating the figures that 50% of our funds spent on law enforcement are used for fighting the war on drugs which has been an abject failure. The Federal Bureau of Prisons says that 46% of federal inmates are as a result of a conviction of a drug offense. The next most prevalent crime for incarceration is possession of weapons, explosives, or arson, and that's about 17% of those incarcerated. That's not counting state prisons.

Next to zero of that is for simple drug posession. Nobody's in prison for getting caught with a little bit of weed. But I hear ya.

We either have the right to put whatever we want in our body, or not. When we start parsing that then we still have a "war on drugs."

 

[dbair1967]

Totally disagree.

I'm not surprised Mr closet liberal. Why not explain to me then how unlimited immigration (ie, open borders), letting 1000's of undocumented Muslims who we have no background info on and having lousy foreign trade deals helps our country.

Bring in less revenue and spend more. Sounds like that will work.

Companies hire more people. People make money and pay taxes, far less people on government assistance. I know its a concept that's hard for you to grasp.

I don't know how you can be certain of what he wants to do with health care. He's also advocated for the government providing health care to everyone, and "the government will pay for it."

Just going by what he has said and what he has outlined on his website. Maybe you should read up on it.

 

[NoMoRedJ]

I love the "we dont know what Trump really stands for or will actually do" line. As if Hillary is someone we can count on doing what she says.

 

[onlyonenow]

I love the "we dont know what Trump really stands for or will actually do" line. As if Hillary is someone we can count on doing what she says.

I keep asking the dump trump bunch why they want Hillary appointing Supreme court justices. They do not want to answer.

 

[jnday]

I think Trump's an anomaly too. But the establishment republicans are just as ideological as the establishment democrats are. One good thing about Trump's candidacy IMO is that he's not part of the establishment. But that doesn't mean his ideas are any better than those of the establishment. Actually, he doesn't seem to have really well developed ideas other than build a wall, round up 11 million illegal immigrants, shut off Muslim immigrants, and seeking heavy-handed trade deals.

If Trump follows through with at least two of those ideals, he will be the best president since Regan. Those are big issues and they will have a huge impact on this country. There is no need for him to have an agenda that is so large that it is unrealistic. Keep it simple.

 

[peplaw06]

I'm not surprised Mr closet liberal. Why not explain to me then how unlimited immigration (ie, open borders), letting 1000's of undocumented Muslims who we have no background info on and having lousy foreign trade deals helps our country.

I've already explained it to you a zillion times, but you don't listen.

And a literal wall is next to impossible to do. He's snowed over half his base with a promise that he has no intention of following through on.

Companies hire more people. People make money and pay taxes, far less people on government assistance. I know its a concept that's hard for you to grasp.

Yes, I'm sure the companies will see a cut in their tax rate, and just hire everyone who's on government assistance the next day. Homer.

Just going by what he has said and what he has outlined on his website. Maybe you should read up on it.

But he has also said he wants universal health care. So you just go by what you want to hear and read, I guess?

 

[peplaw06]

If Trump follows through with at least two of those ideals, he will be the best president since Regan. Those are big issues and they will have a huge impact on this country. There is no need for him to have an agenda that is so large that it is unrealistic. Keep it simple.

I don't think it's even possible for him to do any of it. But his supporters sure seem to think so. And if he imposes a 35% tariff like he wants, you're going to be screaming about why you have to pay $2000 for your iPhone.

 

[peplaw06]

I love the "we dont know what Trump really stands for or will actually do" line. As if Hillary is someone we can count on doing what she says.

I think it's well established what Hillary will do. She will raise taxes and spend more, grow the government, appoint progressive judges, etc. Just like Obama has done. Which is why I won't vote for her either.

 

[peplaw06]

Next to zero of that is for simple drug posession. Nobody's in prison for getting caught with a little bit of weed. But I hear ya.

We either have the right to put whatever we want in our body, or not. When we start parsing that then we still have a "war on drugs."

The question is whether you should be doing some mandatory minimum in the pen for possession of harder drugs or larger amounts of drugs.

I don't think the war on drugs is going away overnight... it just has to start somewhere.

 

[Doomsday]

The question is whether you should be doing some mandatory minimum in the pen for possession of harder drugs or larger amounts of drugs.

Personally I think the mandatory minimums should be reserved for the manufacturers, distributors, and sellers. Not just for possession. In other words, i think they should have to prove distribution and/or sales to get the higher beef, not just saying "nobody has this much quantity for personal use" like it is now.

 

[dbair1967]

I've already explained it to you a zillion times, but you don't listen.

Because not once have you said anything that makes sense about this. How is importing millions of people here and then having American citizens throw gazillions of tax dollars into it for their housing, medical, food, schooling etc etc GOOD for the people here today? The answer is, it isn't. Its too fucking expensive counselor. That's not even taking into the crime factor.

And a literal wall is next to impossible to do. He's snowed over half his base with a promise that he has no intention of following through on.

There are countries around the world which have erected walls, it can be done and should be done here. Should have been done a long time ago. he also isn't the only person who has promoted or spoken about the need to build a wall on the southern border.

Yes, I'm sure the companies will see a cut in their tax rate, and just hire everyone who's on government assistance the next day. Homer.

Yes, spoken like a true person that's never run anything or worked for corporate America. Will they (companies) spend every penny on it? No, but will they invest more in their work force, equipment, buildings etc etc. Yes, absolutely they will.

But he has also said he wants universal health care. So you just go by what you want to hear and read, I guess?

Yes, he said that what, ten years ago? Has he said anything about installing a universal healthcare system since he decided to run for office? No, he hasn't. Why? Because he listened to people advising him on why the free market offered better solutions. He has spoken extensively on what he'd like to see in place now, and the details are also up on his website.

 

[dbair1967]

I don't think it's even possible for him to do any of it. But his supporters sure seem to think so. And if he imposes a 35% tariff like he wants, you're going to be screaming about why you have to pay $2000 for your iPhone.

Some of the policies Trump is promoting might encourage a company like Apple to actually manufacture their junk here.

 

[jnday]

I don't think it's even possible for him to do any of it. But his supporters sure seem to think so. And if he imposes a 35% tariff like he wants, you're going to be screaming about why you have to pay $2000 for your iPhone.

If he can't do it, it will be because the establishment politicians won't go along with it. No candidate can do everything they want to do, but I like the things that Trump is focused on much more than any other candidate in a long time. The man has spent his life getting things done which is just the opposite of the lives that politicians has led. Trump actually addresses the issues that people care about. On a personal level, he is not the brash, loudmouth that he comes across as. He won't be in the position that he is if that was the case. Heaven forbid that we elect a businessman instead of a lawyer/politician to the office. I have said for years that the government should be run as a business with accountability. That would stop much of the corruption that is hindering our government today. Trump is an easy target because many people don't like his personality, but his success in life should be the measuring stick to judge him. I like your favorite candidate, but he is not electable and I am not wasting my vote and allow another Clinton in office. I would rather see Bill Ckinton back in office sny day than his bitch wife who has failed at everything she has done.

 

[jnday]

Because not once have you said anything that makes sense about this. How is importing millions of people here and then having American citizens throw gazillions of tax dollars into it for their housing, medical, food, schooling etc etc GOOD for the people here today? The answer is, it isn't. Its too fucking expensive counselor. That's not even taking into the crime factor.



There are countries around the world which have erected walls, it can be done and should be done here. Should have been done a long time ago. he also isn't the only person who has promoted or spoken about the need to build a wall on the southern border.



Yes, spoken like a true person that's never run anything or worked for corporate America. Will they (companies) spend every penny on it? No, but will they invest more in their work force, equipment, buildings etc etc. Yes, absolutely they will.



Yes, he said that what, ten years ago? Has he said anything about installing a universal healthcare system since he decided to run for office? No, he hasn't. Why? Because he listened to people advising him on why the free market offered better solutions. He has spoken extensively on what he'd like to see in place now, and the details are also up on his website.

Damn, you are impressive.

 

[Dodger12]

Personally I think the mandatory minimums should be reserved for the manufacturers, distributors, and sellers. Not just for possession. In other words, i think they should have to prove distribution and/or sales to get the higher beef, not just saying "nobody has this much quantity for personal use" like it is now.

So if you have 100 kilograms of cocaine, meth or heroin in your home or your possession, you don't think that warrants a stiffer sentence (ie: minimum mandatory)?

 

[Dodger12]

The question is whether you should be doing some mandatory minimum in the pen for possession of harder drugs or larger amounts of drugs.

Why not? The more drugs you're in possession of the more serious the offense.

 

[peplaw06]

Why not? The more drugs you're in possession of the more serious the offense.

Mandatory minimums and the federal sentencing guidelines greatly diminish the ability of prosecutors and judges to take into account the circumstances of each particular case. They're not able to make the punishment fit the crime, because the legislature has taken that out of their hands... the legislature that has no idea what the particulars are from case to case.

 

[Dodger12]

Mandatory minimums and the federal sentencing guidelines greatly diminish the ability of prosecutors and judges to take into account the circumstances of each particular case. They're not able to make the punishment fit the crime, because the legislature has taken that out of their hands... the legislature that has no idea what the particulars are from case to case.

The laws were made to protect the citizens from liberal judges and to ensure that the serious offenders get the most serious sentences, especially if the defendant has multiple prior felony convictions. But in any event, the minimum mandatory guidelines do not hinder the prosecutors in the least. The system is built in with safety valves that allow the judges to downward depart. In many cases, all it takes is a proffer and if the defendant played a minor role, that also is taken into account. Once the defendant gets a 5k or safety valve, the judge has the ability to downward depart below the minimum mandatory.

Federal prosecutors have a more difficult time now because they won't prosecute many cases in liberal courts. This has the exact opposite effect where violators do not get prosecuted for some very serious offenses.

 

[peplaw06]

Because not once have you said anything that makes sense about this. How is importing millions of people here and then having American citizens throw gazillions of tax dollars into it for their housing, medical, food, schooling etc etc GOOD for the people here today? The answer is, it isn't. Its too fucking expensive counselor. That's not even taking into the crime factor.

Those millions of people are already here... and they're doing jobs that help our economy, paying taxes, and buying shit. It's just not true that American citizens alone bear the costs of illegal immigrants. According to the CBO, government benefits paid for illegal immigrants is roughly 5-10% of the total spending for those benefits.

What's the crime factor? I've looked over some sources, and there doesn't appear to be any consensus on the illegal alien crime rate. I see that they are roughly 6% of the Texas population and 7% of the total homicide convictions. I've seen something from the census bureau that states that 1.6% of foreign-born males are in prison versus 3.3% of native born males. That doesn't seem like there's an inordinate crime factor at play. I'd be interested to see if you have other numbers.

There are countries around the world which have erected walls, it can be done and should be done here. Should have been done a long time ago. he also isn't the only person who has promoted or spoken about the need to build a wall on the southern border.

Yes, let's just build a new Berlin Wall. It's just crazy talk. It can't be done, the border is 2000 miles long. They've put up verious types of fencing along about a third of the border now, and the cost for that was $2.5 billion. The cost for a wall could be 10 times that, and that's not even counting upkeep. And there's no telling if it would even work. There are other ways to enter into the country than just walking across the border.

Yes, spoken like a true person that's never run anything or worked for corporate America. Will they (companies) spend every penny on it? No, but will they invest more in their work force, equipment, buildings etc etc. Yes, absolutely they will.

I know it hurts you to accept that Trump is a big spender, but the sooner you do, the easier it will be. I bet you'll continue to bleat the party line though like the good little sheep you are.

Yes, he said that what, ten years ago? Has he said anything about installing a universal healthcare system since he decided to run for office? No, he hasn't. Why? Because he listened to people advising him on why the free market offered better solutions. He has spoken extensively on what he'd like to see in place now, and the details are also up on his website.

How many times does someone have to do a 180 on these basic issues before you think maybe they just aren't being honest? Health care, abortion, in 2004 he said he identified as Democrat, he's sung the praises of Hillary, he's considering nominating a registered democrat for VP... like how much do you have to hear from him to think maybe he's not trustworthy?