Political Agreement Thread

[uncboy10]

I've had this little experiment in mind for awhile. Maybe its a pointless concept right now, but I think it would be interesting to take all of the debating off the table for a single thread, and see how much there is that we actually agree on. There's plenty to be gained with a good debate, and I personally enjoy them immensely, but its also interesting to see how many people agree on certain issues. So basically there's only one rule, no debating. If you agree with something, you like/quote/+1 it, and we see how popular certain ideas are. If you don't agree, you simply don't respond to the point.

The easiest place to start IMO is the legalization of recreational and medical marijuana.

 

[strummingram]

Legalization and decriminalization immediately.

 

[uncboy10]

Legalization and decriminalization immediately.

 

[prlyles]

Legalization and decriminalization immediately.

Yes

 

[TarHeelMark]

Ok by me.

 

[BillyL]

Colorado is reaping the $ for it's move to legalize weed, others are as well with New York on the verge of joining those. I'm all for it . .

States where weed is legal:

Edited to add this map of legalized medical weed . .

 

[Archer2]

And why it's not legal for medical purposes(currently 30 states plus DC), is beyond me.

 

[uncboy10]

If anybody else has an idea they want to throw out there, feel free to take a break from getting stoned and poast it

 

[BillyL]

If anybody else has an idea they want to throw out there, feel free to take a break from getting stoned and poast it

LOL

 

[TarHeelMark]

If anybody else has an idea they want to throw out there, feel free to take a break from getting stoned and poast it

Haha. I don’t partake but honestly don’t have any major objections with it being legalized.

 

[Archer2]

Can we all agree that there should be equal justice under the law for everyone, regardless of wealth, status, or political affiliation?

I used to believe that this was a no brainer, not that everyone always received equal justice under the law, but that we all believed that everyone should receive it. I'm not so sure we all believe that anymore.

We've all seen instances where money/power/status have allowed people to skate away scot-free when the average citizen would have been severely punished. And now it is becoming more prevalent in our politics, on both sides of the aisle. And partisanship is so strong that we condemn one party for doing something that we excuse in our party.

That is unacceptable and dangerous. Public officials should be held to an even higher higher standard than the average citizen because we have entrusted them with immense power and influence that can be easily abused with frightening consequences.

 

[BillyL]

Can we all agree that there should be equal justice under the law for everyone, regardless of wealth, status, or political affiliation?

I used to believe that this was a no brainer, not that everyone always received equal justice under the law, but that we all believed that everyone should receive it. I'm not so sure we all believe that anymore.

We've all seen instances where money/power/status have allowed people to skate away scot-free when the average citizen would have been severely punished. And now it is becoming more prevalent in our politics, on both sides of the aisle. And partisanship is so strong that we condemn one party for doing something that we excuse in our party.

That is unacceptable and dangerous. Public officials should be held to an even higher higher standard than the average citizen because we have entrusted them with immense power and influence that can be easily abused with frightening consequences.

I'm in complete agreement.

 

[Archer2]

Are we in agreement that the mainstream news media should be free of political bias, that their responsibility should be to follow the truth regardless of where it leads, and to report that truth apolitically? And furthermore, that they should be held accountable for factual inaccuracies, intentional or otherwise?

It is my belief that too much of what is stated as news is prefaced by "Sources close to the situation say...", or "Inside sources stated...", or "A reliable source said...", etc... That allows the media to basically say anything they want with impunity and this is where political agendas get involved(on both sides). IMO, this abuse of the lack of accountability is the main reason that about half the country says they don't trust the media anymore.

Give us the unvarnished truth and let us speculate and draw conclusions on our own.

 

[strummingram]

Haha. I don’t partake but honestly don’t have any major objections with it being legalized.

It makes me horribly paranoid. Someone told me I was "born high already."

 

[BillyL]

Someone told me I was "born high already."

You lucky sumbitch . . . that certainly would have saved me a lot of money.

I'm envious to say the least . . dammitol

 

[prlyles]

Can we all agree that there should be equal justice under the law for everyone, regardless of wealth, status, or political affiliation?

I used to believe that this was a no brainer, not that everyone always received equal justice under the law, but that we all believed that everyone should receive it. I'm not so sure we all believe that anymore.

We've all seen instances where money/power/status have allowed people to skate away scot-free when the average citizen would have been severely punished. And now it is becoming more prevalent in our politics, on both sides of the aisle. And partisanship is so strong that we condemn one party for doing something that we excuse in our party.

That is unacceptable and dangerous. Public officials should be held to an even higher higher standard than the average citizen because we have entrusted them with immense power and influence that can be easily abused with frightening consequences.

I my opinion the problem is a lot of people can't tell the difference between "news" and "opinion". For example, a bill comes up in congress, the fact that a bill was brought up is news. What comes after that where they tell us what the bill will or will not do is not news, it's opinion.

 

[Heelicious]

I'm for MUCH smaller, nearly non-existent federal govt and federal police powers. Less power (aka abuse, waste) at federal govt level, and at state level. More local, individual governance. Regardless of party. Both are power-mad, power-drunk. Both think they can just "do govt better" than the other party.

I'm an ardent supporter of the original Constitution as amended, and the founders' ideals. Both parties - big government and its bureaucracy and its illegitimate govt authority, waste, abuse - would have the founders rolling in their graves.

 

[prlyles]

I'm for MUCH smaller, nearly non-existent federal govt and federal police powers. Less power (aka abuse, waste) at federal govt level, and at state level. More local, individual governance. Regardless of party. Both are power-mad, power-drunk. Both think they can just "do govt better" than the other party.

I'm an ardent supporter of the original Constitution as amended, and the founders' ideals. Both parties - big government and its bureaucracy and its illegitimate govt authority, waste, abuse - would have the founders rolling in their graves.

How would you split up the various functions that the federal gov. now performs?

 

[strummingram]

How would you split up the various functions that the federal gov. now performs?

It's 2018, not 1818.

From what I can tell, we have variables that presently exist that were never remotely in the imagination of the people who wrote the Constitution. I know that "the more things change, the more they stay the same" can hold true, but I've never seen either side of government ever shrink government since it first started. And, after the impact of the Great Depression, and the ripple effect thereafter, I don't think it can ever go backwards.

 

[Heelicious]

It's 2018, not 1818.

From what I can tell, we have variables that presently exist that were never remotely in the imagination of the people who wrote the Constitution. I know that "the more things change, the more they stay the same" can hold true, but I've never seen either side of government ever shrink government since it first started. And, after the impact of the Great Depression, and the ripple effect thereafter, I don't think it can ever go backwards.

I agree - I know any move toward a Constitutional federal government is delusional, wishful thinking on my part. Why would anyone in the government ever want to give up any power, authority, money they currently have - whether it is legitimate or not.

There is the constitutional defined government.... AND there is another entire organism of agencies (mostly in executive branch) that are extra-constitutional - and no citizen votes for or appoints anyone in these agencies. This other government organism is gigantic in numbers of people, rules, and funding. In my perfect world I'd get rid of these agencies at federal level and move the functions, if deemed needed, to the state or local level. Why should someone in DC have to govern decisions on how one lives his/her life in North Carolina or Minnesota.

The founders didn't intend us to have one big entity called America - that's why its the United States of America. Its supposed to be a collection of 50 individual states, with their own laws. If you like the laws better in South Carolina than in North Carolina, then you could move to South Carolina. But what is your recourse if you don't like the oppression or the laws of the US federal government? I'm not ready to move to another country.

Also in this regard..... I'm no fan of Hillary, Trump, or Obama.....

but I don't think it was ever intended - and it is not healthy - for a country to think that who is president OR who gets appointed to the Supreme Court should matter so much to all the US citizens. Like its life or death, invoking so much emotion and energy.

These leaders have no more rights - and no fewer responsibilities to answer to the laws and the people - than any US citizen.

I know the horse is out of the barn on this, like others have said, and it isn't coming back. I sure choose to live my life not spending every or any waking moment dependent or beholden to what some "leader" or bureaucrat in DC (or in the Capitol of Minnesota, for that matter) says or does. Live like they have very little influence over personal daily lives, as it should be.

 

[Heelicious]

Are we in agreement that the mainstream news media should be free of political bias, that their responsibility should be to follow the truth regardless of where it leads, and to report that truth apolitically? And furthermore, that they should be held accountable for factual inaccuracies, intentional or otherwise?

It is my belief that too much of what is stated as news is prefaced by "Sources close to the situation say...", or "Inside sources stated...", or "A reliable source said...", etc... That allows the media to basically say anything they want with impunity and this is where political agendas get involved(on both sides). IMO, this abuse of the lack of accountability is the main reason that about half the country says they don't trust the media anymore.

Give us the unvarnished truth and let us speculate and draw conclusions on our own.

Great post. Except I think its more like 80+% don't trust the media. And these 80+% are right to not trust them, IMO.

 

[strummingram]

I agree - I know any move toward a Constitutional federal government is delusional, wishful thinking on my part. Why would anyone in the government ever want to give up any power, authority, money they currently have - whether it is legitimate or not.

There is the constitutional defined government.... AND there is another entire organism of agencies (mostly in executive branch) that are extra-constitutional - and no citizen votes for or appoints anyone in these agencies. This other government organism is gigantic in numbers of people, rules, and funding. In my perfect world I'd get rid of these agencies at federal level and move the functions, if deemed needed, to the state or local level. Why should someone in DC have to govern decisions on how one lives his/her life in North Carolina or Minnesota.

The founders didn't intend us to have one big entity called America - that's why its the United States of America. Its supposed to be a collection of 50 individual states, with their own laws. If you like the laws better in South Carolina than in North Carolina, then you could move to South Carolina. But what is your recourse if you don't like the oppression or the laws of the US federal government? I'm not ready to move to another country.

Also in this regard..... I'm no fan of Hillary, Trump, or Obama.....

but I don't think it was ever intended - and it is not healthy - for a country to think that who is president OR who gets appointed to the Supreme Court should matter so much to all the US citizens. Like its life or death, invoking so much emotion and energy.

These leaders have no more rights - and no fewer responsibilities to answer to the laws and the people - than any US citizen.

I know the horse is out of the barn on this, like others have said, and it isn't coming back. I sure choose to live my life not spending every or any waking moment dependent or beholden to what some "leader" or bureaucrat in DC (or in the Capitol of Minnesota, for that matter) says or does. Live like they have very little influence over personal daily lives, as it should be.

It's just grown to such an extent that the idea of people cutting-off their own meal ticket is just impossible.

We do have much more impact and influence (and we are affected more) by our local and state governments. That is still the same and you can still make a difference there.

 

[uncboy10]

Here's another proposition

It should be easier to vote, and every citizen should be automatically registered when they turn 18.

 

[uncboy10]

Another one...

Every piece of legislation proposed by Congress must be limited to one single issue, and be written in plain language that can be understood by ordinary citizens.

 

[prlyles]

Another one...

Every piece of legislation proposed by Congress must be limited to one single issue, and be written in plain language that can be understood by ordinary citizens.

Yes!,

 

[Archer2]

Another one...

Every piece of legislation proposed by Congress must be limited to one single issue, and be written in plain language that can be understood by ordinary citizens.

I’m in. I’ll add one thing. Every law passed applies to every single citizen, including Congressmen, Senators, and the POTUS.

For example, any healthcare bill voted into law would apply to our politicians, with no exemptions. We’d have much better healthcare if this were the case.

 

[Archer2]

Another one...term limits for Congressmen and Senators.

I don't like the idea of career politicians in Washington. I tend to believe that the longer they are exposed to the corruption of politics, the less they are able to resist it, much like the effect the salt air has on your car at the beach. As much as they may try to resist being corroded, it is inevitable.

I would propose a max term of 12 years(six 2-year terms in the House and two 6-year terms in the Senate). this would enable enough time for members to gain the requisite experience, yet prevent them from thinking of it as a life long pursuit.

Regardless, they should not receive life long health coverage after they retire, nor college benefits for their children. They should know what it's like to have to pay for them like every other American.

 

[Heelicious]

Here's another proposition

It should be easier to vote, and every citizen should be automatically registered when they turn 18.

I don't want to get too argumentative here - I agree all US citizens (non-felons) should have a right to vote. I'm just looking to understand better....
voting laws are different state by state, but it is pretty easy to vote, at least in Minnesota. No drivers license needed, no ID card of any sort, no proof of citizenship.
In Minnesota you can show up to the polling place ON DAY OF ELECTION and bring a utility bill from that voting area, OR have somebody who is registered in that area "vouch" for you and up to 9 others - saying they know you and that you live in the area - and you can vote. No registration needed.

I don't want to deny any citizen the right to vote. But I also don't think it is too arduous to require the same sort of identification necessary to buy a pack of cigs, a six pack of beer, or to get on a plane, etc.

Without some sort of required identification, it just makes it so easy for voter fraud. And voter fraud doesn't matter in blowout elections, but it has made a difference in many local races, and even in some US Senate races (like Al Franken here in MN).

When polled, 70+% of voters (across the political spectrum) want some sort of voter ID laws to be enacted. The individual voter doesn't want his or her vote cancelled by an illegal vote. Even if a person doesn't have a driver's license, good voter ID laws should have provisions to supply each registered voter with a voter ID card to be delivered to them.

 

[-COUNTRY-CLUB-JOE-]

I couldn't find a "picture" thread...

 

[heelmanwilm]

Wait....wha’d you want again?

 

[tarheel0910]

Wait....wha’d you want again?

Trolls going to troll.

 

[NoleSoup4U]

99.9% of politicians suck big hairy donkey balls.

 

[dadika13]

99.9% of politicians suck big hairy donkey balls.

Stop, you're wrong and that's ridiculous.

It's more like 99.9999999999999999999999% of them.

 

[NoleSoup4U]

Legalization and decriminalization immediately.

Clarification. Do you just mean weed or all drugs. If just weed then I'll take it one step further.

Legalize ALL drugs.

 

[dadika13]

So not to ruin the agreement...but I have serious problems with drugs (even weed) being legal.

Making it easier for our kids to get weed (or any drugs, especially prescription drugs) is a bad idea IMO. I genuinely believe weed is a gateway drug from seeing it from friends/family and it's 100% addictive.

Prescription drugs also need to be turned on their head in terms of regulation and criminalization. They are destroying people.

 

[uncboy10]

So not to ruin the agreement...but I have serious problems with drugs (even weed) being legal.

Making it easier for our kids to get weed (or any drugs, especially prescription drugs) is a bad idea IMO. I genuinely believe weed is a gateway drug from seeing it from friends/family and it's 100% addictive.

Prescription drugs also need to be turned on their head in terms of regulation and criminalization. They are destroying people.

Not ruining anything. This is an old thread anyways...

But...

Legalization makes it harder for kids to get drugs. Drug dealers don’t have to check id’s.

The gateway theory has been rejected pretty strongly. Something like 99% of people who try marijuana never try cocaine or heroin. But keeping it illegal means consumers have to go to the black market, which increases their chances of being exposed to a more dangerous drug.

There is no withdrawal from marijuana. So it’s technically not addictive. You could argue that it’s habituating because it’s pleasurable, but you could say the same thing about sex, cheeseburgers or live music.

 

[ticket2ride04]

So not to ruin the agreement...but I have serious problems with drugs (even weed) being legal.

Making it easier for our kids to get weed (or any drugs, especially prescription drugs) is a bad idea IMO. I genuinely believe weed is a gateway drug from seeing it from friends/family and it's 100% addictive.

Prescription drugs also need to be turned on their head in terms of regulation and criminalization. They are destroying people.

Not ruining anything. This is an old thread anyways...

But...

Legalization makes it harder for kids to get drugs. Drug dealers don’t have to check id’s.

The gateway theory has been rejected pretty strongly. Something like 99% of people who try marijuana never try cocaine or heroin. But keeping it illegal means consumers have to go to the black market, which increases their chances of being exposed to a more dangerous drug.

There is no withdrawal from marijuana. So it’s technically not addictive. You could argue that it’s habituating because it’s pleasurable, but you could say the same thing about sex, cheeseburgers or live music.

I agree with Boy here. Growing up, it was much easier to get a hold of weed than booze. Whenever popular things like drugs, prostitution, booze, etc are outlawed, a much more nefarious black market creeps in.

 

[dadika13]

I agree with Boy here. Growing up, it was much easier to get a hold of weed than booze. Whenever popular things like drugs, prostitution, booze, etc are outlawed, a much more nefarious black market creeps in.

That's just not true in my experience.

I had older siblings, I got beer whenever I wanted by them driving to a liquor store 2 min away. If I wanted weed, trickier situation.

What are the laws for weed in terms of minors? Is it 18 and it's legal? 21? I honestly don't know.

What happens if a 17 year old is caught with weed in a state where it's legal for recreational use?

I 100000% believe that weed is as dangerous and addictive for kids as alcohol and needs to be criminalized as such.

 

[dadika13]

There is no withdrawal from marijuana. So it’s technically not addictive.

Same can be said about gambling...wanna argue that's not addictive?

 

[ticket2ride04]

That's just not true in my experience.

I had older siblings, I got beer whenever I wanted by them driving to a liquor store 2 min away. If I wanted weed, trickier situation.

What are the laws for weed in terms of minors? Is it 18 and it's legal? 21? I honestly don't know.

What happens if a 17 year old is caught with weed in a state where it's legal for recreational use?

I 100000% believe that weed is as dangerous and addictive for kids as alcohol and needs to be criminalized as such.

Well, you are speaking anecdotally. In reality, marijuana (and other drugs) are on the Black Market. So right from the beginning you are already dealing with criminals whose sole enterprise is making money. They will sell to kids and adults alike. Whereas alcohol is legal and regulated. Those who sell it have a lot more to risk selling to minors. Both can be had, but marijuana has always been easier to get for teens. And it is not really close.

Same can be said about gambling...wanna argue that's not addictive?

I think what he meant is it that marijuana is not physically addictive. You can quit cold turkey and not experience withdrawals like other drugs. Anything can be addictive mentally.