Politics Vote for a president of USA - 2016 election

[bicicleur 2]

What president and party was good for business? Perhaps numbers can speak louder than words:
https://www.fool.com/premium/stock-...-for-the-economy.aspx?source=ipeemleml0000004

President	Years	Average Annual Real Corporate Profit Growth
Barack Obama	2009-	35.6%
Warren Harding	1921-1923	17.7%
Bill Clinton	1993-2001	9.2%
Calvin Coolidge	1923-1929	8.8%
John F. Kennedy	1961-1963	7.3%
Harry Truman	1945-1953	6.6%
Lyndon Johnson	1963-1969	4.4%
Franklin Roosevelt	1933-1945	4.2%
Ronald Reagan	1981-1989	2.3%
Dwight Eisenhower	1953-1961	2.1%
Richard Nixon	1969-1974	1.9%
Theodore Roosevelt	1901-1909	1.1%
William Howard Taft	1909-1913	0.1%
Jimmy Carter	1977-1981	0.0%
Gerald Ford	1974-1977	-2.3%
Woodrow Wilson	1913-1921	-7.6%
George W. Bush	2001-2009	-9.5%
George H.W. Bush	1989-1993	-17.4%
Herbert Hoover	1929-1933	-21.3%

GDP growth:

President	Years	Average Annual Real GDP Growth Per Capita
Franklin Roosevelt	1933-1945	8.0%
Warren Harding	1921-1923	6.3%
Lyndon Johnson	1963-1969	4.3%
Gerald Ford	1974-1977	2.8%
Ronald Reagan	1981-1989	2.6%
Bill Clinton	1993-2001	2.5%
John F. Kennedy	1961-1963	2.5%
Calvin Coolidge	1923-1929	2.0%
Jimmy Carter	1977-1981	1.6%
Richard Nixon	1969-1974	1.5%
William Howard Taft	1909-1913	1.4%
Barack Obama	2009-	1.2%
Dwight Eisenhower	1953-1961	0.9%
George H.W. Bush	1989-1993	0.7%
George W. Bush	2001-2009	0.5%
Harry Truman	1945-1953	0.3%
Woodrow Wilson	1913-1921	0.0%
Theodore Roosevelt	1901-1909	-0.4%
Herbert Hoover	1929-1933	-8.2%

Your analogy is total crap.

 

[sparkey]

Well, have it your way. If Trump wins in your county by one vote, it will give you something to think about, new moral dilemma and perhaps end of US as we know it.
Let's put it this way. No voting for Hillary is helping to elect Trump.

There is no statistical possibility that New York could flip the election, much less a possibility that one voter in New York could flip the state. I'd argue that voting 3rd party, or even not voting, in such a state would send a louder message than voting for the lesser evil, because it would help deny a mandate to the winner.

I'm voting 3rd party for President and not voting for the California senate race this year, much for those reasons. California has zero statistical chance of flipping the election, and I very much dislike both major Presidential candidates, so I'm going to vote for a candidate I like (Johnson). Even if Johnson drops out or does something terrible in the few days left, I would still vote third party, maybe write-in McMullin or De La Fuente. Anything but help give a mandate to Clinton or Trump. And for Senate, California has this terrible jungle primary system that has forced us to pick between two bad Democratic candidates without any other options. I don't care which one wins, so it would be more effective of me to send a message that the jungle primary system is broken by not voting and driving down the participation rate.

 

[Angela]

And how is 70 year old war on drugs going Angela? Feeling optimistic? We have more addicts than ever and drugs so cheap that even kids can buy them for pocket money in every school. Drug lords are billionaires. Thousands killed in turf wars between gangs. Corrupt officials and police officers getting their cut of action. Millions prosecuted and in prisons for just a possession of illegal drugs. With technological progress everybody can buy lab equipment and can produce variety of drugs.
Don't tell me you don't want to try a new approach.

What drug war? School programs like "Say no to drugs"? The muddying of the waters as to the differences between something like weed versus heroin/crack-cocaine/meth?

I've spent a good chunk of my life involved in these issues, and there's been no real war on drugs.

The Chinese entered the twentieth century with a good portion of their population addicted to opium. The leaders of the new China thought it was part of the reason they weren't progressing as they should, why so many Chinese youth were wasting their days away in "opium dens" instead of contributing to society. A couple of decades later and they had no more opium problem. Why?

Well, for one thing, they attacked the suppliers, who were mostly western European nations, which involved not only the burning of stockpiles, and the ships carrying it, but armed aggression against the countries who were supplying and selling the drugs. (The British, in particular, had a sweet set up: they grew the opium in one colony, India, and then sold it in China through their cantonments, which they had forced from the weak Chinese Empire, and where only British law applied.) The Chinese also executed anyone selling or buying opium, or later sent them to work and re-education camps. The problem was over, just like that. The Chinese may have lost the first two opium wars, but they won the last one.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opium_Wars

Now, am I advocating that? No, I'm not. I believe in due process and less draconian measures.

However, it seems to me that attacking the source is a good place to start, and you can't do that if you have a virtually open border with Mexico. There is no way you can have a "drug war" if that border isn't secured. I don't think people are sufficiently aware of the magnitude in terms of tonnage of the heroin and cocaine that cross that border. If you don't close the spigot there is no "war on drugs". It's time for Mexico to stop trying to fix its financial problems by subsisting on payments sent back to Mexico from illegal immigrants, and it's also time for them to stop letting the drug lords who own virtually every public figure in Mexico spread their filth and their violence into America by freely crossing that border back and forth. We have enough of our own already.

The other is strict legal consequences, not for the consumers, but for the sellers. Is there a punishment too strong for some low life who is selling heroin on the playground to sixth graders? That includes draconian punishments, if need be, for the border agents and guards who take bribes for letting it in or at least looking the other way.

Before you bring in the "well, they should be in drug counseling and drug treatment centers" argument, let me tell you that in my experience they don't work. Period. You can mandate drug treatment for 30 people (which I'm not saying is a bad idea, btw, because everyone deserves a shot), and I mean at a legitimate, serious center, not some spa for celebrities, and six months after they get out 27 or more will either be dead or in jail for drug related charges. The only people who see some success are people who go to long term centers (and I mean like two years) and even then they need to have the support of a loving, intact, functioning network of family and friends, and some job skills. Whether people like it or not, most of the long term facilities that work are either "God centered" or substitute some group specific ethos. They need something stronger than their addiction, and almost nothing is stronger than an addiction to heroin. It makes people animals and slaves, and they'd be the first to tell you that. This is only now starting to come home to white America because now it's not only Hispanics and blacks on those mortuary slabs; it's the white kid down the block.

The only way to overcome addictions like this is not to get addicted in the first place. That's the real end goal.

Does much of this apply to alcohol as well? Yes, it does, but we've been using alcohol for 20,000 years. It's too late to try to get rid of it. Plus, most people, and particularly people of certain ancestries, can handle it, have adapted to it. Nobody is adapted to the use of heroin or meth. I've had numerous addicts and counselors both tell me that if someone takes heroin every day for even a week they're in serious trouble. I also fail to see why, if we already have one drug which people can easily abuse, we have to add others.

I suppose that bottom line I think I know too much about drug addiction and what it has done to Americans and American society to be a libertarian on this particular issue.

 

[Angela]

LeBrok, do you really think the average voting American gives a darn whether global corporations, often hiding assets abroad, and whose profits go to their shareholders, did well or badly? Or whether the stock market has gone up, when most of them have little or no investments on Wall Street?

They care about how much money they take home, its purchasing power, how long their wages have stayed stagnant, how well they're doing economically compared to their parents, how long they stayed out of work if they lost a job, what kind of job their kids get when they come out of college, whether they or their friends and relatives have to work 2 and 3 low paying service jobs to substitute for their once high paying industrial jobs. They want to know how secure that job is if they happen to have a decent one, or if they'll lose it to someone from Mexico who will take less pay, or they'll lose it to automation in the next couple of years. Even trucking, one of the few high paying blue collar jobs remaining, may become obsolete.

Are they supposed to happily contemplate they and their children living the next twenty to fifty years on welfare benefits until some Utopian transformation of society suddenly manifests itself where money will grow on trees and everyone will suddenly and magically get enough to live a prosperous, work free life?

Or, let's take health care. I happen to believe that a single payer system is probably the best option, although it's certainly not perfect, as can be seen from the fact that there is still a "paying" system for the rich. One of my specialists in the city stopped taking insurance of any kind five years ago: $250.00 just to get in his door, and then it goes up every half hour or so. He's doing very well regardless, thank-you. I used to tell him he should be taking me along on all his trips to Italy. Even with the discount he gave me, and the respect I had for his knowledge, I could no longer afford him, but then I don't really need his level of expertise any longer. What about the people who do, however?

When Obamacare was proposed, Republicans screamed and ranted and raved that it was a fraud, could never work as set up, and on and on. Confirmation bias? Typical partisan analysis? I closely read the bill, and looked at the numbers. and said I thought they were onto something. After it was passed, the creator of it was filmed saying it could never work as sold, that they had to lie to get it passed, and that only the "stupidity of the American people" allowed them to get it through.

See:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Adrdmmh7bMo


Now the insurers are pulling out because, indeed, it doesn't work. Younger people, who were supposed to be paying for the health care of the sick and elderly, are choosing to pay the $700 fine for not enrolling rather than paying $250 a month for "coverage", a coverage which doesn't kick in until they've paid thousands out of pocket. All of this was perfectly predictable by anyone with a modicum of common sense, a small amount of knowledge of economics and human behavior, and even just a small degree of honesty and objectivity. It was , in fact, predicted. The solution proposed now? Let's try to use tax money to give breaks to the people who are suddenly going to pay this extra money. That isn't going to work either.

@Sparkey,
Exactly. I vote out of duty, and for the down ballot seats; my vote has never counted in terms of national politics. For that I'd have to permanently move to Florida.

It's hard for people to grasp the repercussions of the electoral college system given the regional differences in voting patterns.

I've been thinking about McMullin too, but haven't checked whether he's even on the ballot or available as a write in if he's not.

Ed. Whoa Nellie! Is the bombshell about to drop? The FBI director has sent a statement to Congress saying he's re-opening the investigation into Secretary Clinton's handling of classified e-mails.

In investigating Anthony Wiener for possible criminal charges with regards to his "sexting", the FBI may have found e-mails from or to Uma Abadin, top aide to Clinton, which have something to do with classified material.

Who knows whether it really will say anything about Hillary Clinton's use of classified information? Also, people don't seem to realize that if it's part of a criminal prosecution of someone else, the FBI can't reveal much about it.

 

[Maleth]

FBI reopens e-mail investigation.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/10/28/fbi-reopens-investigation-into-clinton-email-use.html

While all this seems going to hurt Hillary Clinton, I truly believe the reverse might happen. Lots of questions. Why 11 days before the election? Why did FBI notice these e-mails now, when they had a year long investigation? Seems like nobody is going to know what the e-mails are about and there are indications that they are not even sent by her, so nothing is going to be revealed much up till election day (!). My feeling is she might just garnish some sympathy of how this has been handled and how this whole issue has been over dosed into an e-mail fatigue mode. Time will tell.

 

[Wanderlust]

One of the hatchet jobs done on Trump is this often repeated claim that he's a racist. He's many objectionable things, and I would never vote for him, but he's not a racist. He's been a known quantity in my city for 40-50 years, and as is clear he says what's on his mind with no filter, and it's just not true.

Yes, he says the racist things on his mind with no filter. It's amazing how I know tons of people with "no filter" that "pull no punches" and yet they manage to not say/do blatantly racist things. Possessing "no filter"≠ racist, or at least it shouldn't. When Trump said that the former Miss Universe Alicia Mercado had gained too much weight and that she violated certain expectations that go along with beauty contests, that was him being blunt and calling it how he saw it. But when he referred to her as "Miss Housekeeping," that was him taking a racist dig at her ethnicity, implying that she, as a latina, was "the help," a lesser, an inferior.

If one were to play the semantics game and opt for a word like bigot over racist to describe Trump, fine, but racist still fits like a glove seeing as how he has voiced opinions and done things (recently and over the past few decades) that suggest he sees certain racial/ethnic groups as inferior. For example:

1.) It was racist when he/his father refused to rent to black people and systematically discriminated against them--The Department of Justice (under a Republican President) agreed. A corroborating story just broke the other day where a former Trump rental agent said that Fred Trump, with a young Donald by his side, unequivocally told him "I don't sell to n*ggers." And according to the agent, Donald just quietly nodded in agreement. With a father like that as a role model....

2.) It was racist when he said this about a black accountant: "Black guys counting my money! I hate it. The only kind of people I want counting my money are short guys that wear yarmulkes every day. … I think that the guy is lazy. And it’s probably not his fault, because laziness is a trait in blacks. It really is, I believe that. It’s not anything they can control."

3.) It was racist when he transferred black and women dealers off tables at his casinos to accommodate a big-time gambler’s prejudices--The Trump Plaza Hotel and Casino had to pay a $200,000 fine because it.

Notice a trend?

Even if we don't categorize his calling many Mexican immigrants rapists and criminals or his advocating for a Muslim Ban as racist per se, those comments were certainly racially insensitive/charged. But conservatives would argue this as a much needed lack of "political correctness," so let's ignore this for the sake of the argument.

But what about Trump saying that the judge who was overseeing the Trump University lawsuit should recuse himself because he was a "Mexican (when in fact, he was an American of Mexican heritage, born in Indiana)?" What about him constantly retweeting white supremacists and being slow to disavow them? What about him insisting for years that President Obama wasn't born in the US? What about him retweeting false and debunked "statistics" about black people disproportionately murdering white people? What about consistently referring to Senator Elizabeth Warren as "Pocahontas?" What about his insistence that the exonerated Central Park 5 (by way of DNA evidence, after being wrongfully imprisoned for 13 years) are still guilty? At the very least, he is an insensitive bigot and at worse, a rabid, fear mongering racist--neither are pretty and no one seeking the Oval office should ever be categorized as such.

And I'm sure that there are some Muslims, Mexicans, blacks, etc... that he likes, but that doesn't absolve him of still holding a racist belief system and ideology. I'd wager that he largely sees them as exceptions to the rule and not the (inferior) standard.

He identifies with, and speaks for, working class Americans, the Americans with whom he works every day.

He has the cultural sensibilities of a working class American, but that doesn't mean for one second that he actually cares about working class Americans or even truly identifies with them--let's not forget that Trump was born with a silver spoon in his mouth and his father's wealth sustained many a failed venture of his. The extent to which he's ever had to actually work hard for something is debatable. And over the past three decades, he's been involved in 3,500 lawsuits, many of which involve working class Americans who allege he never paid them for their work. Trump’s companies have also been cited for 24 violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act since 2005 for failing to pay overtime or minimum wage, according to U.S. Department of Labor data. That includes 21 citations against the defunct Trump Plaza in Atlantic City and three against the also out-of-business Trump Mortgage LLC in New York. Both cases were resolved by the companies agreeing to pay back wages. Trump doesn't give a damn about working class Americans. He cares about stoking their "fears" in order to put him in office so that he can better his own interests.

 

[Sile]

USA need a new system , the current one is corrupt , ............it is basically become an oligarchy republic

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oligarchy

 

[sparkey]

I've been thinking about McMullin too, but haven't checked whether he's even on the ballot or available as a write in if he's not.

McMullin is not on the New York ballot, but a write-in vote for him would count: https://www.elections.ny.gov/NYSBOE/download/law/OfficialPresidentialWrite-Ins2016.pdf

If you write in somebody not on that list, your vote will count only as "scattering".

 

[DuPidh]

USA need a new system , the current one is corrupt , ............it is basically become an oligarchy republic

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oligarchy

Even its not perfect electoral system for America it has worked well so far! The government system here is very stable, and that is important for a country multi ethnic and multi racial like USA. Frequent government changes like Italy is unproductive and encourages corruption, and economic instability, lack of foreign investment. As for oligarchy you are mentioning it is true what you are saying, but again it is not that bad. The legislative of US is full of millionaires both houses, upper house and lower one. But that has also worked well since the rich of the congress are not corrupted since they don't need it. The fight in Congress is mostly ideological. Few not rich people that have made it to government have attempted corruption. There was a Serbian origin governor of Illinois by the name Blagoje went to jail since was trying to sell a senate seat.Had he been oligarch he would not attempt to do it since the need for money was not pressing. The political stability that America enjoys is a factor in the economic success of USA

 

[Angela]

FBI reopens e-mail investigation.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/10/28/fbi-reopens-investigation-into-clinton-email-use.html

While all this seems going to hurt Hillary Clinton, I truly believe the reverse might happen. Lots of questions. Why 11 days before the election? Why did FBI notice these e-mails now, when they had a year long investigation? Seems like nobody is going to know what the e-mails are about and there are indications that they are not even sent by her, so nothing is going to be revealed much up till election day (!). My feeling is she might just garnish some sympathy of how this has been handled and how this whole issue has been over dosed into an e-mail fatigue mode. Time will tell.

Now James Comey is a stooge for Trump and the Republicans? Twenty-four hours ago Hillary supporters were touting his professionalism and objectivity and lauding him for his public service. How things change...

Why now? Because it was only recently discovered that Anthony Wiener sent some of his "sexting" messages to an underage girl, so what was before questionable moral conduct suddenly became a crime. When men engage in sexual activity with minors through the media you get an FBI investigation, and they can get a search warrant for all of the man's computers, servers, phones, etc. If Huma Abadin, his wife, sent or received e-mails from Hillary Clinton on her husband's devices which contained classified information and/or showed disregard for laws regarding the handling of classified information, and/or showed that false testimony was given to the FBI, and/or there was an intent to circumvent the laws regarding the handling of sensitive information, he had no choice but to re-open the investigation. Had he done anything differently he could be subject to prosecution himself. Plus, as I said, he's been facing a virtual rebellion within the FBI.

Anything relating to Anthony Wiener's criminal investigation cannot be released as a matter of law. Both the Republicans and Democrats are asking for more information, but even if it relates to possible criminal activity by Clinton and Agadin, there's a limit to what he can say.

Given the new world we inhabit, I think it's possible someone could hack the system to get it.

To be clear, this doesn't mean that it's a done deal that there was classified information on his devices, or classified information was handled inappropriately. That remains to be seen. What I think has happened is that the information was provided to Comey by a group of agents, and given how many of the career attorneys felt he mishandled the investigation initially, he did this by the book this time, even if it was personally embarrassing and informed the appropriate Congressional authorities than indeed the investigation wasn't over. He's not personally tied to Clinton, and he has his reputation and career to consider.

I think you misread Hillary Clinton's personality and how she is perceived by the American public, even Democrats. Maybe you have to have lived with her day in and day out for 30 years. I know a lot of people who are going to vote for her, even card-carrying Republicans. I don't know anyone who really likes her, or trusts her. She's a singularly unsympathetic and unattractive character. Well, there's always people like Wanderlust, who would probably excuse anything a Democrat did.

@Wanderlust,

It's been my experience that it's unproductive to debate someone who is rabidly partisan and looks at every single issue and candidate through that prism.

I also find it interesting that far left people just drip compassion for disadvantaged blacks and other minorities, but don't have much to spare for poor and working class whites. My compassion is more even handed.

I would also just suggest to you that the way you define "racism" cheapens what it actually is and the evil and suffering it has caused.


Now I hear that one of the devices belonged to Huma Abadin! WHAT???!!! I just assumed all of her devices had already been seized and examined. Has the FBI over the last eight years under Obama turned into the Keystone cops? No wonder Comey has had a mutiny on his hands.

Well, we'll see if this is a tempest in a teapot or not...

If the real "October surprise" is still to come I think everyone's going to have a crise de nerfs!

 

[LeBrok]

Yes, he says the racist things on his mind with no filter. It's amazing how I know tons of people with "no filter" that "pull no punches" and yet they manage to not say/do blatantly racist things. Possessing "no filter"≠ racist, or at least it shouldn't. When Trump said that the former Miss Universe Alicia Mercado had gained too much weight and that she violated certain expectations that go .....

Well said indeed. The quintessence of Trump. 5 star post.

 

[LeBrok]

There is no statistical possibility that New York could flip the election, much less a possibility that one voter in New York could flip the state. I'd argue that voting 3rd party, or even not voting, in such a state would send a louder message than voting for the lesser evil, because it would help deny a mandate to the winner.

I'm voting 3rd party for President and not voting for the California senate race this year, much for those reasons. California has zero statistical chance of flipping the election, and I very much dislike both major Presidential candidates, so I'm going to vote for a candidate I like (Johnson). Even if Johnson drops out or does something terrible in the few days left, I would still vote third party, maybe write-in McMullin or De La Fuente. Anything but help give a mandate to Clinton or Trump. And for Senate, California has this terrible jungle primary system that has forced us to pick between two bad Democratic candidates without any other options. I don't care which one wins, so it would be more effective of me to send a message that the jungle primary system is broken by not voting and driving down the participation rate.

It makes sense, I agree. I hope you are right. On other hand nothing is written in stone yet, and I would hate seeing another Brexit.

 

[LeBrok]

FBI reopens e-mail investigation.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/10/28/fbi-reopens-investigation-into-clinton-email-use.html

While all this seems going to hurt Hillary Clinton, I truly believe the reverse might happen. Lots of questions. Why 11 days before the election? Why did FBI notice these e-mails now, when they had a year long investigation? Seems like nobody is going to know what the e-mails are about and there are indications that they are not even sent by her, so nothing is going to be revealed much up till election day (!). My feeling is she might just garnish some sympathy of how this has been handled and how this whole issue has been over dosed into an e-mail fatigue mode. Time will tell.

Good point. Why did it come out few days before election if results of this investigation won't be known till after, and have no bearing on excluding Hillary from election. I guess, someone in FBI doesn't like her alot.

 

[Angela]

Yes indeed, a sitting FBI director should sit on such information, given to him yesterday, and after answering questions a week or so ago as to whether other information sent to him on the matter was sufficient to reopen the case (and answering in the negative), because he wants to protect the lead of the Democratic candidate. Talk about "banana republics".

Or do we have some converts to the "conspiracy theory" way of looking at the universe when things don't go their way? Honestly, there's no more self awareness in politics. Six hours ago the left loved Comey, now they hate him.

Let me tell you, whenever I start to waiver and think I maybe should consider voting for Hillary Clinton, comments like those and the partisan rantings of far left people convince me I have to be true to my convictions.

Maybe nothing else happens or comes out before the election and so she's elected. Then she could be prosecuted and we could have the Vice President, Tim Kaine, take over. I could live with him as President.

 

[LeBrok]

Yes indeed, a sitting FBI director should sit on such information, given to him yesterday, and after answering questions a week or so ago as to whether other information sent to him on the matter was sufficient to reopen the case (and answering in the negative), because he wants to protect the lead of the Democratic candidate. Talk about "banana republics".

What is couple of weeks or couple of months for bureaucracy. Simply meaningless. It is not a murder case to open it right away.

I maybe should consider voting for Hillary Clinton

!!! You are so secretive that you tricked us.

 

[LeBrok]

What drug war? School programs like "Say no to drugs"? The muddying of the waters as to the differences between something like weed versus heroin/crack-cocaine/meth?

I've spent a good chunk of my life involved in these issues, and there's been no real war on drugs.

Let's not argue about semantics of War on Drugs. Simple act of making substance illegal not only for manufacturing and selling but also for possessing is proclamation of war against it. Not mentioning few presidents loudly voicing War on Drugs for decades in US and probably every country on Earth. Let's stick to official policies on it and not to your own definition.

Now, am I advocating that? No, I'm not. I believe in due process and less draconian measures.

For a moment I thought you are a fun of Rodrigo Duterte and his war on drugs in Philippines?

However, it seems to me that attacking the source is a good place to start, and you can't do that if you have a virtually open border with Mexico. There is no way you can have a "drug war" if that border isn't secured. I don't think people are sufficiently aware of the magnitude in terms of tonnage of the heroin and cocaine that cross that border. If you don't close the spigot there is no "war on drugs". It's time for Mexico to stop trying to fix its financial problems by subsisting on payments sent back to Mexico from illegal immigrants, and it's also time for them to stop letting the drug lords who own virtually every public figure in Mexico spread their filth and their violence into America by freely crossing that border back and forth. We have enough of our own already.

How long customs would take if we have to open every suitcase, hidden car compartment or every commercial package on semi coming from Mexico, regardless if it Mexican or US citizen? Besides there are more and more party drugs manufactured locally.

The other is strict legal consequences, not for the consumers, but for the sellers. Is there a punishment too strong for some low life who is selling heroin on the playground to sixth graders? That includes draconian punishments, if need be, for the border agents and guards who take bribes for letting it in or at least looking the other way.

Well, it's been tried with death penalty included in many counties. Drug trade is still alive and kicking stronger every year.

Before you bring in the "well, they should be in drug counseling and drug treatment centers" argument, let me tell you that in my experience they don't work. Period. You can mandate drug treatment for 30 people (which I'm not saying is a bad idea, btw, because everyone deserves a shot), and I mean at a legitimate, serious center, not some spa for celebrities, and six months after they get out 27 or more will either be dead or in jail for drug related charges. The only people who see some success are people who go to long term centers (and I mean like two years) and even then they need to have the support of a loving, intact, functioning network of family and friends, and some job skills. Whether people like it or not, most of the long term facilities that work are either "God centered" or substitute some group specific ethos. They need something stronger than their addiction, and almost nothing is stronger than an addiction to heroin. It makes people animals and slaves, and they'd be the first to tell you that. This is only now starting to come home to white America because now it's not only Hispanics and blacks on those mortuary slabs; it's the white kid down the block.

Even if Drug Treatment Centers and other help for addicts can save one in 10 people. That's, I'm guessing, one million lives in America alone. Isn't it worth the effort?

The only way to overcome addictions like this is not to get addicted in the first place. That's the real end goal.

That's my philosophy too.

Does much of this apply to alcohol as well? Yes, it does, but we've been using alcohol for 20,000 years. It's too late to try to get rid of it. Plus, most people, and particularly people of certain ancestries, can handle it, have adapted to it. Nobody is adapted to the use of heroin or meth. I've had numerous addicts and counselors both tell me that if someone takes heroin every day for even a week they're in serious trouble. I also fail to see why, if we already have one drug which people can easily abuse, we have to add others.

Blame human creativity and entrepreneurial spirit. As you mention with alcohol case. Human "hunger" for drugs to feel better or excited is very ancient. Cannabis in Yamnaya and American Natives. Use of drugs is common in Amazon tribes today (even the insulated from civilization). They all do couple of substances, found in their local pharmacy - the jungle, every single day, and I'm guessing for thousands of years.

I suppose that bottom line I think I know too much about drug addiction and what it has done to Americans and American society to be a libertarian on this particular issue.

Hey, isn't it political conservative stance to get government off people's lives, and let adults decide what is good for them? I can understand natural conservative who will always stick to status quo, and is very hesitant to try new policies, which in this case means keeping the ban on drugs.

I'm looking at this mess. I know it is not working, therefore I'm willing to try other approaches.
We had alcohol prohibition, how we don't. Isn't so much worse now in this regard?

 

[Angela]

!!! You are so secretive that you tricked us.

You already know that about me. I don't reveal much if I can help it.

You guys know more about my voting dilemma and voting history than anyone in my actual life except my immediate family and closest friends. There are some benefits to the anonymity of the internet.

As to Comey's decision, if in the process of investigating Wiener his agents found a device and a server belonging to Abadin and/or her husband with thousands of e-mails which are pertinent to the investigation, he was under a statutory obligation to inform the chairmen of the appropriate committees, and the ranking minority leaders. That's part of our process: congressional oversight. (He did not, as Clinton said, inform only Republicans.) He was in a no win situation: damned if he did and damned if he didn't. So far as I can see all the opinions about Comey's decisions are hypocritical. If his actions benefit someone's candidate they love him, if it doesn't, not. I find that very heartbreaking, to tell you the truth. What is happening to America?

I can tell you that at the very least if Huma Abadin did not turn over devices and servers which contained pertinent information after she'd been directed to do so by the FBI she's in a whole world of trouble. That's called obstruction of justice and it's what brought down all of Nixon's people. If those e-mails are some of the ones that were deleted from Clinton's server it's a tsunami.

I also just heard that the rumors are swirling that both the Clinton and Trump campaigns are telling their people that their own "October surprises" are still to be released. How unutterably depressing.

One of my other rules that I've broken here on this thread is to discuss politics with friends when we don't agree in every particular. As I do consider some of you, present company included, my friends, I'm going to stop commenting on the election for a good while. I think it will be better for my mental health and mood too.

 

[Sile]

Even its not perfect electoral system for America it has worked well so far! The government system here is very stable, and that is important for a country multi ethnic and multi racial like USA. Frequent government changes like Italy is unproductive and encourages corruption, and economic instability, lack of foreign investment. As for oligarchy you are mentioning it is true what you are saying, but again it is not that bad. The legislative of US is full of millionaires both houses, upper house and lower one. But that has also worked well since the rich of the congress are not corrupted since they don't need it. The fight in Congress is mostly ideological. Few not rich people that have made it to government have attempted corruption. There was a Serbian origin governor of Illinois by the name Blagoje went to jail since was trying to sell a senate seat.Had he been oligarch he would not attempt to do it since the need for money was not pressing. The political stability that America enjoys is a factor in the economic success of USA

you cannot compare USA to Italy for Governments.............Italy is one of the worst in the western world and that is due mainly too its centralised from of government

 

[LABERIA]

Italy has always been among the most powerful countries in the world. The specific of Italy is that the continued political destability never influenced the economic stability of the country. This is an fact.

 

[Pax Augusta]

you cannot compare USA to Italy for Governments.............Italy is one of the worst in the western world and that is due mainly too its centralised from of government

I'm afraid that your bias on Italy is based on Liga Veneta/Venetian nationalism ideas of more than 20 years ago. Being that you don't live in Italy, and probably you never do, you continue to believe that these ideas are still relevant. Liga Veneta along with its companion of Lega Nord has ruled many times over the last twenty years and has had a leading role in bringing Italy to the current crisis. Italy would probably have been born as a federal country, I am convinced too, but all forms of peripheral power in Italy contributed to raise public spending. Besides ungovernability, the national debt is another major problem of Italy.

The instability of Italian governments is not related to its centralism but more related to the fact that the Italian voting system gives a lot of power to small parties and this leads to conflicting majorities in the two houses of Italian Parliament, Camera and Senato, which have equal power.

The problem comes from far, Italy has had for twenty years Fascism, and who created the Constitution, after the end of WW2, tried to prevent that this repeats again. This led to the birth of a system based on a perfect proportional representation, minimally modified in the 90s and more recently in the direction of a mild bipolarity.

Italy is again at a crossroads. Choose more governability and stability and reduce many of the democratic Constitutional tools, always with the specter that a strong bipolar system can lead to the return of unwanted forms of leaderism (recent governmental experiences of Berlusconi ally with the Northern League/Liga Veneta does not help). Or stay just as we are.

Certainly neither of these options can guarantee to improve the quality of Italian government, politics Lawmaking, and lead the country out of the crisis. Also because the instability of Italian governments always reflected the fragmentation of Italian society.

Just the fact that someone like Trump is running for the presidential elections of the USA redeems the murky figure of Berlusconi (which I never liked and never supported) and of all politicians like him in the rest of the world, that the American press has rightly criticized in all these years. Perhaps once again Italy was simply ahead of its time.

The specific of Italy is that the continued political destability never influenced the economic stability of the country. This is an fact.

This is true. The problem is that in recent years a political system increasingly pervasive in all areas of Italian society, in an increasingly global system, has really started to brake on growth of the country.