Some good Gary Johnson sign time. Haha

Pretty good debate. I think Johnson easily one. King pretty on point with the moderating but it was refreshing to see people just tell their views instead of spending time arguing with someone else.

WebFire;1303130 wrote:But it has to start with voting NOW. And too many don't understand that.

I'm voting Romney and writing in Ron Paul or Gary Johnson in for every other office on the ballot. Romney is my last hope since I think he's the most qualified "conventional" Presidential candidate since WW2.

If he fails, it's Libertarianism forever.

mucalum49;1303141 wrote:Governor Johnson killing it with 30 year old foreign policy knowledge of how we funded OBL in the 80's to fight the USSR. Pretty impressive, never heard that discussed publicly before.

You never heard Ron Paul talk about it? You should have been watching during the Republican primaries.

sjmvsfscs08;1303221 wrote:I'm voting Romney and writing in Ron Paul or Gary Johnson in for every other office on the ballot. Romney is my last hope since I think he's the most qualified "conventional" Presidential candidate since WW2.

If he fails, it's Libertarianism forever.

I have no idea what you think makes him qualified, but whatever floats your boat. His stimulus plans will fail and his wars will bankrupt us, just like all of his predecessors. Welcome to libertarianism.

Cleveland Buck;1303636 wrote:You never heard Ron Paul talk about it? You should have been watching during the Republican primaries.

Yeah, I couldn't remember that part. I honestly didn't watch as intently during primaries, mostly had it on in the background while doing other stuff. Probably reading the OC ha..

Voting was opened up to declare winners of this debate. Of course Gary Johnson was the overwhelming winner. And somehow Jill Stein finished 2nd. Those 2 will have another debate. In which Johnson will make her look foolish.

Jill Stein came in 2nd because the Green party is a much more publicized party than the Justice Party or the Constitution party.

I would've ranked them:

Johnson
Goode
Anderson
Stein

justincredible;1304585 wrote:I would've ranked them:

Johnson
Goode
Anderson
Stein

Same here.

If it weren't for Anderson's views on college education he would've probably been second (from what I saw, missed the last few questions). I didn't like Goode's stance on the drug war but he at least wanted to spend less money on it. I guess that's something.

justincredible;1304589 wrote:If it weren't for Anderson's views on college education he would've probably been second (from what I saw, missed the last few questions). I didn't like Goode's stance on the drug war but he at least wanted to spend less money on it. I guess that's something.

Yeah I can't get past the free college. It doesn't make sense on many levels. The thing I did like about Virgil was that he says what he thinks, even if he knows it might not be the popular opinion. Just like the drug topic, he started off with "people in this audience may not like it, but...". We need more of that in politics. Stand up for what you believe in, even if it's not popular.

WebFire;1304686 wrote:Yeah I can't get past the free college. It doesn't make sense on many levels. The thing I did like about Virgil was that he says what he thinks, even if he knows it might not be the popular opinion. Just like the drug topic, he started off with "people in this audience may not like it, but...". We need more of that in politics. Stand up for what you believe in, even if it's not popular.

Yep. I absolutely hate pandering and he just doesn't do it. At all. I respect the hell out of that.

pmoney25;1303128 wrote:The Drug war is not only about the money spent but the fact that once you get busted and get put in jail for marijuana, you now have a record. It becomes difficult to get a job, therefore you get stuck on welfare.

It's about handing out punishment for breaking the law.

Con_Alma;1304807 wrote:It's about handing out punishment for breaking a stupid, pointless law.

More accurate, now.

That's subjective.

Although the cultural tide is shifting towards legalization or at least decriminalization, until then government law enforcement has an obligation to not only enforce but penalize those who break it.

Con_Alma;1304812 wrote:That's subjective.

Although the cultural tide is shifting towards legalization or at least decriminalization, until then government law enforcement has an obligation to not only enforce but penalize those who break it.

Clearly they don't because Denver has had legalized marijuana yet the federal government does nothing about it.

sleeper;1304814 wrote:Clearly they don't because Denver has had legalized marijuana yet the federal government does nothing about it.

I disagree. They do continue to have the obligation of enforcing and penalizing. Denver's activity or lack thereof doesn't change the obligation.

WebFire;1304686 wrote:Yeah I can't get past the free college. It doesn't make sense on many levels.

Actually there may be a case for a broad sharing of the cost of acquiring human capital. As with physical capital...converting income into human capital broadly across the economy increases the aggregate wealth to society. However, unlike physical capital, people who acquire human capital cannot divest it when it works out poorly and this operates like a tax on the acquisition of human capital.

This is borne out in the real world in countries like the nordic countries where the cost of college is broadly shared and upward mobility is much higher than in the United States or in the post-war United States wherein G.I.'s acquired human capital via the G.I. Bill.

FWIW people used to say that universal public secondary education didn't make sense either...

I'd like to see the stats on first time offenders serving solely for marijuana possession. Fair point about having a record, but I'm not sure it's any more damaging than a DUI (to be fair it probably should not be equivalent).

My guess is people actually locked up (more than just overnight or awaiting arraignment) are actually getting popped for parole violations. That still doesn't make it right, but it does change the context a fair amount.

Con_Alma;1304807 wrote:It's about handing out punishment for breaking the law.

malum prohibitum

Con_Alma;1304816 wrote:I disagree. They do continue to have the obligation of enforcing and penalizing. Denver's activity or lack thereof doesn't change the obligation.

The federal government hasn't arrested anyone in Denver since the law was passed. The law is being selectively enforced.

BoatShoes;1304819 wrote:malum prohibitum

Yep. Laws are made by the people through representation.

sleeper;1304822 wrote:The federal government hasn't arrested anyone in Denver since the law was passed. The law is being selectively enforced.

That doesn't negate the obligation nor responsibility of the agencies.

Con_Alma;1304826 wrote:That doesn't negate the obligation nor responsibility of the agencies.

So you are okay with the federal government enforcing it everywhere else but Denver, CO. Gotcha.