They turn their back on young people

[palladin9479]

Considering I'm young (29 in international age) reasonably well informed and in the rat race, I feel I'm the demographic being discussed.

We're Repulsed by the current republican party, yes that's with a capital R. We are not stupid, we can easily find out all the information we want from the the various sources across the internet, we don't rely on official sanctioned news for our intel. It's ok to be friends with homosexuals, their not these devil worshiping, youth corrupting, creatures the right makes them out to be. We think racist people are idiots, making racist comments is about the most "uncool" thing you can do, especially when the people involved happen to have friends who are of various origins.

Not saying the left is all roses, their some shady people, but their also not some evil out-to-destroy-the-world organization with Cobra commander as their leader. We have friends who are liberals, usually from school or just social groups. So tell us our friends are evil soul sucking bastards isn't a good way to attract followers. And the ultimate insult is to assume we're stupid enough to actually believe the BS coming out of the sanctioned media outlets.

The left has it's own issues, but we're talking about the republican party here. Just know that the left isn't a single party bent on world destruction, treating them as such is a bad idea. The best way I can think to separate the two is that you have Obama Dems, young liberal and anti-establishment, and then you have Hillary Dems, the older more established socialist party. That second group is slowly losing traction to the first.

Myself, I started Republican when I was 18, my family is very conservative. As I spent time in the Military and started actually paying attention to national politics I got to see the utter BS both sides demonstrated. I voted for Bush, both times, but it was during the 2nd term that I got a hard look at things some of the ideas inside that party. That is one helluva controlling authoritarian group of people. I have since switched to libertarian, I'm financially conservative but socially liberal, I want the US Government to have absolutely zero input into how I live my social life.

In this regard MSimmon is correct, the right has completely lost touch with the younger generation. The only reason they even gained seats is that the younger crowd is too busy working and living life to bother voting in the most important elections (local / state governments). With social media becoming what it is now, that is no longer something the right can rely on.

[Diogenes]

Establishment Republicans are a breed unto themselves. If you go to their long-term planning meetings, if you listen to them talk about their Party’s future, it’s like listening to well-known lyrics of familiar tunes. It’s all about broadening the base, getting more young people involved, becoming relevant, how to capture enthusiasm, more young people, using the internet, reaching out to young people, figuring out how to fundraise in the digital age, getting more young people.

Now, along comes Ron Paul, who offers them exactly what they want: young people, enthusiasm, an unbeatable social media campaign, devoted volunteers, better demographics, new fundraising success, a campaign worthy of the digital age, relevance, money, excitement, and (did I mention?) young people.

It’s exactly what they have wished for. Exactly what they need. And they turn their back on it.

http://lewrockwell.com/goyette/goyette26.1.html

The young are going libertarian. And the GOP hates that. See Santorum, Rick. .

Simon, you are nuts. The people at the top of the GOP hate the Social Conservatives. They are fine with Libertarians. (Except for the part where they are fiscally conservative. They don't much like that part.)

I hope to be around to see what politics looks like in 2024. It should be very amusing.

BTW I did my part - 4 kids - libertarian or libertarian leaning. Heh.

Not so amusing as you might think. Again, you overlook the fiscal consequences of Liberal Social policy. There simply will not be enough money around to pay for all the idiocy we've coddled all these years.

[Diogenes]

Considering I'm young (29 in international age) reasonably well informed and in the rat race, I feel I'm the demographic being discussed.

We're Repulsed by the current republican party, yes that's with a capital R. We are not stupid, we can easily find out all the information we want from the the various sources across the internet, we don't rely on official sanctioned news for our intel. It's ok to be friends with homosexuals, their not these devil worshiping, youth corrupting, creatures the right makes them out to be. We think racist people are idiots, making racist comments is about the most "uncool" thing you can do, especially when the people involved happen to have friends who are of various origins.

Not saying the left is all roses, their some shady people, but their also not some evil out-to-destroy-the-world organization with Cobra commander as their leader. We have friends who are liberals, usually from school or just social groups. So tell us our friends are evil soul sucking bastards isn't a good way to attract followers. And the ultimate insult is to assume we're stupid enough to actually believe the BS coming out of the sanctioned media outlets.

The left has it's own issues, but we're talking about the republican party here. Just know that the left isn't a single party bent on world destruction, treating them as such is a bad idea. The best way I can think to separate the two is that you have Obama Dems, young liberal and anti-establishment, and then you have Hillary Dems, the older more established socialist party. That second group is slowly losing traction to the first.

Myself, I started Republican when I was 18, my family is very conservative. As I spent time in the Military and started actually paying attention to national politics I got to see the utter BS both sides demonstrated. I voted for Bush, both times, but it was during the 2nd term that I got a hard look at things some of the ideas inside that party. That is one helluva controlling authoritarian group of people. I have since switched to libertarian, I'm financially conservative but socially liberal, I want the US Government to have absolutely zero input into how I live my social life.

In this regard MSimmon is correct, the right has completely lost touch with the younger generation. The only reason they even gained seats is that the younger crowd is too busy working and living life to bother voting in the most important elections (local / state governments). With social media becoming what it is now, that is no longer something the right can rely on.

Little children never like it when adults chastise their foolish behavior. You will get to see first hand the results of liberal social policy.

[Diogenes]

If you look at history prohibitions typically last about 50 years. Alcohol prohibition at 13 years was an aberration.

If we start with Nixon in 1970 and add 50 years that gets us to 2020. Since people are living longer it may take 5 more years than that. The trends though are obvious.

And I have a large group (80+% say prohibition is not working) to recruit from. I'd say that nationwide the numbers against prohibition are in the 45% range. All I need to do is pick up about 1/4 of the remaining 40% and the war is over. Or just wait a decade for more OFs to die off.

Time is on my side.

1914 Simon.

[Diogenes]

Let me suggest that both the "future is libertarian" and the "future is Victorianism" are both wrong. Msimon is right that Santorum types cannot put the genies of the Revolution back in the bottle. But he is wrong thatif the result went the other direction this would be anything but a temporary victory for libertarian sexual ethos, followed by burkhas and paying the jizya.

Welcome to post-revolution Egypt, 2012. Coming soon to Eurabia, then Flintistan Michigan.

Then Chicago, msimon

The Genie puts itself back in the bottle. Behavior which causes a population decline (or creates an ineffective population successor) is self limiting.

Evolution always wins in the end.

[djolds1]

Let me suggest that both the "future is libertarian" and the "future is Victorianism" are both wrong. Msimon is right that Santorum types cannot put the genies of the Revolution back in the bottle. But he is wrong thatif the result went the other direction this would be anything but a temporary victory for libertarian sexual ethos,

Oh, women's rights and the defeat of racism aren't going anywhere. Those reforms are fully successful and anchored. Toleration for the harridan-screaming activists who have characterized the "leaderships" of those reforms for a half-century however? THAT I do not see lasting much longer.

Note carefully my formulation upthread - social conservatism sufficient to satisfy Hispanics, but not the Christian Coalition. Populism. "Main Street" economics. This is not the Early-Middle-Aged Boomer "Yuppie" policy prescription that formed the Reagan Coalition. For one, Gen Y women of course want the opportunity to pursue any career they please - but I get the distinct impression that the screeds by their Boomer Grandmothers bore them - screeds about how career is the only thing in life that matters. Grandmammy lived that ideal, and produced GenX - a generation of abandoned nihilist loners. I don't see Grandchile wanting to make the same mistakes Grandmammy did.

followed by burkhas and paying the jizya.

Welcome to post-revolution Egypt, 2012. Coming soon to Eurabia, then Flintistan Michigan.

Then Chicago, msimon

Possible, but doubtful.

Considering I'm young (29 in international age) reasonably well informed and in the rat race, I feel I'm the demographic being discussed.

We're Repulsed by the current republican party, yes that's with a capital R. We are not stupid, we can easily find out all the information we want from the the various sources across the internet, we don't rely on official sanctioned news for our intel. It's ok to be friends with homosexuals, their not these devil worshiping, youth corrupting, creatures the right makes them out to be. We think racist people are idiots, making racist comments is about the most "uncool" thing you can do, especially when the people involved happen to have friends who are of various origins.

What defines the "Current Republican Party" for you - Corporate Executives being allowed to crash the global economy and get away with that metaphorical murder, or Sarah Palin (one of the more successful and accomplished female pols in the US of the last decade)?

Edit: Let me put it this way. In the fundamentals, you're not wrong about the institutional party in question (the Republican Party). Were you to have said the same about the American Whig Party 160 years ago, you'd have been equally correct. Yet which... perspective... was energized for its times, and which not? Which rallied and rebuilt quickly in the 1856-'60 window, won the Crisis and aftermath of 1860, and yet was exhausted by 1929? And which... perspective... was energized for and won the last Crisis (1929-'45), yet is exhausted today?

Simon, you are nuts. The people at the top of the GOP hate the Social Conservatives. They are fine with Libertarians. (Except for the part where they are fiscally conservative. They don't much like that part.)

Exactamundo. Libertarians are to the GOP what the white collar unionized professionals are to the Dems - the wannabes educated just enough to think they are "fellow cognitive elites," or at least think they have a shot at being elites, but actually don't. Reliable ideological voters however, useful for shoring up support for Washington Consensus policies 1980-2010.

I hope to be around to see what politics looks like in 2024. It should be very amusing.

BTW I did my part - 4 kids - libertarian or libertarian leaning. Heh.

Not so amusing as you might think. Again, you overlook the fiscal consequences of Liberal Social policy. There simply will not be enough money around to pay for all the idiocy we've coddled all these years.

Countdown on the current crisis started 2008. Going by precedent, it will last ~20 years. Check back 2025-2030 for the end point. The next generation of youth-ideologues should be hitting maturity 2050 earliest - precisely one human lifetime (80 years) after the last one hit maturity c. 1970.

1914 Simon.

1914 doesn't quite fit for the American experience. Europeans seem to have an affection for two generation suicide pacts, Americans not.

1793-1815.
1914-1945.

Compare 1929-1945.

Compare also 1815-1848 and 1945-1968. End of Crisis until the coddled generation of the Crisis aftermath reaches maturity.

[djolds1]

Let me suggest that both the "future is libertarian" and the "future is Victorianism" are both wrong. Msimon is right that Santorum types cannot put the genies of the Revolution back in the bottle. But he is wrong thatif the result went the other direction this would be anything but a temporary victory for libertarian sexual ethos, followed by burkhas and paying the jizya.

Welcome to post-revolution Egypt, 2012. Coming soon to Eurabia, then Flintistan Michigan.

Then Chicago, msimon

The Genie puts itself back in the bottle. Behavior which causes a population decline (or creates an ineffective population successor) is self limiting.

Evolution always wins in the end.

Perhaps. The Germanic Volkswanderungs of the Late Roman Empire were not repealed. OTOH, the West is FAR from being that enervated. On the Gripping Hand however, the countercurrents in Europe have been discredited and actively suppressed for three generations - reaction there stands decent odds of being far nastier than its cousin in NorAm.

On the Fourth Hand, if the US ends up the last redoubt of Atlantic liberalism 20 years hence, I will be laughing myself silly.

[Diogenes]

Let me suggest that both the "future is libertarian" and the "future is Victorianism" are both wrong. Msimon is right that Santorum types cannot put the genies of the Revolution back in the bottle. But he is wrong thatif the result went the other direction this would be anything but a temporary victory for libertarian sexual ethos,

Oh, women's rights and the defeat of racism aren't going anywhere. Those reforms are fully successful and anchored. Toleration for the harridan-screaming activists who have characterized the "leaderships" of those reforms for a half-century however? THAT I do not see lasting much longer.

They are anchored until an economic crises of sufficient magnitude. When the Long Knives come out, the first victims are the weak.

Note carefully my formulation upthread - social conservatism sufficient to satisfy Hispanics, but not the Christian Coalition. Populism. "Main Street" economics. This is not the Early-Middle-Aged Boomer "Yuppie" policy prescription that formed the Reagan Coalition. For one, Gen Y women of course want the opportunity to pursue any career they please - but I get the distinct impression that the screeds by their Boomer Grandmothers bore them - screeds about how career is the only thing in life that matters. Grandmammy lived that ideal, and produced GenX - a generation of abandoned nihilist loners. I don't see Grandchile wanting to make the same mistakes Grandmammy did.

Evolution in action again. Some of the women you mentioned produced no offspring.

Simon, you are nuts. The people at the top of the GOP hate the Social Conservatives. They are fine with Libertarians. (Except for the part where they are fiscally conservative. They don't much like that part.)

Exactamundo. Libertarians are to the GOP what the white collar unionized professionals are to the Dems - the wannabes educated just enough to think they are "fellow cognitive elites," or at least think they have a shot at being elites, but actually don't. Reliable ideological voters however, useful for shoring up support for Washington Consensus policies 1980-2010..

I think a good term is "Useful Idiots."

I hope to be around to see what politics looks like in 2024. It should be very amusing.

BTW I did my part - 4 kids - libertarian or libertarian leaning. Heh.

Not so amusing as you might think. Again, you overlook the fiscal consequences of Liberal Social policy. There simply will not be enough money around to pay for all the idiocy we've coddled all these years.

Countdown on the current crisis started 2008. Going by precedent, it will last ~20 years. Check back 2025-2030 for the end point. The next generation of youth-ideologues should be hitting maturity 2050 earliest - precisely one human lifetime (80 years) after the last one hit maturity c. 1970.

I see evidence that things won't last that long. I think linear projections work if society remains stagnant, but with what we are looking at, I would bet there is an exponential at work. If Europe or China collapses economically, the reverberations may very well crash our own Fiscal house of cards.

1914 Simon.

1914 doesn't quite fit for the American experience. Europeans seem to have an affection for two generation suicide pacts, Americans not.

1793-1815.
1914-1945.

Compare 1929-1945.

Compare also 1815-1848 and 1945-1968. End of Crisis until the coddled generation of the Crisis aftermath reaches maturity.

You are postulating a different dynamic at work. You may have a point.


Anyways, on a separate but related issue, I have recently been thinking that the Sexual Revolution (which has caused so many societal problems afterward) was unavoidable.

I have read many accounts of how the birth control pill deserves a large amount of responsibility for launching it, but a lot of other people disregard it's effect as significant. A few weeks ago I stumbled onto some articles regarding sexual promiscuity during World War II, and it discussed how many troops were incapacitated by sexual diseases during that time. It was apparently a SEVERE problem.

It occurred to me that it was not only pregnancy of which people were afraid, but of the possibility of contracting what were then FATAL sexual diseases. The advent of Penicillin, and later Sulfa drugs and subsequent antibiotics made it possible to cure diseases that were previously deadly and horrible.

So what were the effects of removing two different brake systems from the natural instinct of sexual intercourse? An explosion of what was previously very risky and dangerous behavior.

Societal norms, and traditional rules or morality are no match for natural instinct unencumbered by fear. Prior to removing the danger of irresponsible sex, the "SAFE" way to have sex was with a consistent partner who was known to be free of disease. I.E Marriage. Make it unnecessary and you end up with an explosion of fatherless bastards.


I have more to add, but your perspective on what I've already mentioned would be interesting.

[djolds1]

Oh, women's rights and the defeat of racism aren't going anywhere. Those reforms are fully successful and anchored. Toleration for the harridan-screaming activists who have characterized the "leaderships" of those reforms for a half-century however? THAT I do not see lasting much longer.

They are anchored until an economic crises of sufficient magnitude. When the Long Knives come out, the first victims are the weak.

2008 was that crisis. Everything since has been band aids, neosporin, and desperate prayers. Maybe they can paper over the bad kaka another 1-3 years.

Evolution in action again. Some of the women you mentioned produced no offspring.

Individuals? Of course. I do think my characterization of the generation will hold up, however.

Exactamundo. Libertarians are to the GOP what the white collar unionized professionals are to the Dems - the wannabes educated just enough to think they are "fellow cognitive elites," or at least think they have a shot at being elites, but actually don't. Reliable ideological voters however, useful for shoring up support for Washington Consensus policies 1980-2010..

I think a good term is "Useful Idiots."

I typed the same phrase, attributed it to Lenin, and then deleted it for civility's sake.

Countdown on the current crisis started 2008. Going by precedent, it will last ~20 years. Check back 2025-2030 for the end point. The next generation of youth-ideologues should be hitting maturity 2050 earliest - precisely one human lifetime (80 years) after the last one hit maturity c. 1970.

I see evidence that things won't last that long. I think linear projections work if society remains stagnant, but with what we are looking at, I would bet there is an exponential at work. If Europe or China collapses economically, the reverberations may very well crash our own Fiscal house of cards.

I expect the reverberations will crash the plaster-of-Paris repaired remnants of our fiscal house. The question is when.

1914 doesn't quite fit for the American experience. Europeans seem to have an affection for two generation suicide pacts, Americans not.

1793-1815.
1914-1945.

Compare 1929-1945.

Compare also 1815-1848 and 1945-1968. End of Crisis until the coddled generation of the Crisis aftermath reaches maturity.

You are postulating a different dynamic at work. You may have a point.

There are a number of related metahistorical models. The four-generation version is the Strauss & Howe model.

Anyways, on a separate but related issue, I have recently been thinking that the Sexual Revolution (which has caused so many societal problems afterward) was unavoidable.

The Consciousness Revolution is a close analogue to the Great Awakening of the 1730s, the Transcendental Awakening of the 1810s, and the Missionary Enthusiasm of c. 1890.

It occurred to me that it was not only pregnancy of which people were afraid, but of the possibility of contracting what were then FATAL sexual diseases. The advent of Penicillin, and later Sulfa drugs and subsequent antibiotics made it possible to cure diseases that were previously deadly and horrible.

So what were the effects of removing two different brake systems from the natural instinct of sexual intercourse? An explosion of what was previously very risky and dangerous behavior.

The biotech revolution isn't over. Not nearly. IMO it is only beginning its exponential growth phase on its logistic curve of development. I give it another 50 or 60 years before biotech plateus out like aerospace did in the '60s. Look for many more such disruptions. For instance, bills are already moving in the legislatures of two states (New Jersey and Kansas) to make genetic testing & paternity-assurance mandatory upon the birth of the child. Perfectly in line with the implications of current technology, as well as the complaints of men who found out they were cuckolded 15 years after the fact. It does however blow 10,000 years of legal assumptions out of the water - where motherhood has been unquestionable, but paternity a matter of opinion, and cheated-on hubbies have had the option to claim the "bastard" as their own for all of recorded history; either because they desperately want to be fathers, or because they are content to hide the shame of their cheating wives. Within the next two decades, not so much.

Societal norms, and traditional rules or morality are no match for natural instinct unencumbered by fear. Prior to removing the danger of irresponsible sex, the "SAFE" way to have sex was with a consistent partner who was known to be free of disease. I.E Marriage. Make it unnecessary and you end up with an explosion of fatherless bastards.

The Roman norms on marriage were far closer to "recognized cohabitation" than the religiously and legally sacralized form of marriage we still champion today. IOW - many settlements are functional, but any that utterly separate the father from authority and responsibility are not.

[MSimon]

Not so amusing as you might think. Again, you overlook the fiscal consequences of Liberal Social policy.

Uh. About $70 bn a year spent on a drug war that makes it easier for kids to get illegal drugs than beer? You mean those fiscal consequences of nanyism? Sounds like a $70 bn a year waste. Especially compared to Portugal.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/20 ... -portugal/

Or were you thinking of how drug money helped collapse the housing market?

Which always made me wonder exactly whose bank accounts ended up with the $4 billion emptied out of the FHA mutual funds at HUD as a result of coinsurance, not to mention the billions more lost in the single family FHA programs. Over $2 billion was lost by FHA/HUD in the Texas region in fiscal 1989 alone. The Texas region had included Arkansas, where the state agency, ADFA was so bad they had been disqualified at one point according to the HUD Fort Worth regional leadership. It was this state agency which was alleged to have laundered the local profit share of the arms and drug trafficking channeled through Mena, Arkansas.

http://dunwalke.com/7_HUD_is_a_Sewer.htm

Or were you thinking of the corruption of corporations due to the attractiveness of money laundering?

http://dunwalke.com/3_RJR_Nabisco.htm

Or Wall Street courting FARC ( a nominally communist organization) Drug Money?

http://dunwalke.com/16_Financial_Coup_d-Etat.htm

Were you thinking of those fiscal consequences? Probably not.

============================

All the consequences of liberal social policy are the result of government handouts. The libertarians want to end them all.

Then Darwin can properly sort out whose ideas are best.

========

I'm still looking for the Drug Prohibition Amendment.

========

Ever consider that a lot of Obama's "small" donations came from the Drug Cartels? After all they have a large interest in influencing US government policy.

"The Latin American drug cartels have stretched their tentacles much deeper into our lives than most people believe. It's possible they are calling the shots at all levels of government." - William Colby, former CIA Director, 1995

=====

Estimates run from $500 bn to $1 trillion in drug money sloshing around the world economy. Every year. Is this a good idea?

[MSimon]

Useful idiots? OK. But if you follow Ron Paul's numbers they represent 10% to 20% of the base. A few years back Time Magazine said they were about 14% of the electorate.

Nice to know they aren't necessary for execution of your plan.

========

We have one Party Rule. The Statist Party. Which is why the work of the "other" party never gets repealed.

Watch. The Rs will run on repealing Obamacare and some how they will manage to fail. With majorities in both Houses and the Presidency (if they can get it without the idiot vote).

[MSimon]

And have either of you gentlemen noticed the rise of libertarian sentiment in the US? About 50% now favor pot legalization according to Rassmussen. It rises about a percent or two every year.

It is no longer a fringe opinion. It is THE mainstream.

=======

Your real beef is with welfare. I say we cut off price supports for the criminal cartels. One of the biggest welfare scams going. According to Social Conservative Pat Robertson that support is ruining the country.

=======

My kids support smaller government. And that is a problem? It is worse than I thought.

=======

To police crime a citizen complaint is all that is required - I was robbed, thieves broke in, I was assaulted, etc.

To police vice you need secret police. And confidential informants. Was that the kind of country you had in mind? Did I mention that the Vice-Squad is almost always corrupt? Why? Well for one they HAVE to operate in secret and they do deals with "criminals". To "gather evidence". And they can't always be "wired".

[palladin9479]

Corporate Executives being allowed to crash the global economy and get away with that metaphorical murder, or Sarah Palin (one of the more successful and accomplished female pols in the US of the last decade)?

Sarah Palin went nuclear on public TV, I watched it with my own eyes. Anyone who's mind is that fragile shouldn't be in public office period.

I dislike the core Republican ideals of their one religion in the USA, their religion, a form of Christianity based around adherence to the GoP party itself. I also dislike their lies and authoritarian tone, they want to rule the personal lives of all the citizens but not the corporations. I dislike being told what my values and morals should be by men who after telling me this, will go screw hookers and little boys. I don't like people trying to legislate morals and force their beliefs onto me.

The left has their own issues, their mostly a bunch of idiot activists who want to do "something" about "something" and the consequences be damned. Their always on some crusade or another, and trying to spend everyone elses money to support their foolish crusades. Crap like AGW / Whales / Anti-Nuke / Greeny BS.

I don't know if I've mentioned it before but I grew up in the northern parts of Maine. I'm an environmental conservationist, I want my children to experience the things I did or at least have the option for doing so. That being said, Humans > Animals, always. Nature takes care of itself, it doesn't need us to protect it. If we screw it up badly enough we'll die off and in another 10,000 years it'll be back the way it was. This is the line of reasoning I have when it comes to environmental issues, conserve and recycle but to the advantage of Humans not animals. For the same reason I'm for nuclear energy over Coal and Gas, it cleans up our environmental footprint but also enhances our living standard. "Renewable" require that we lower our living standard and "go without", basically turn back the clock on human development.

If you want to know the Republican I identify the most with then look at Olympia Snowe.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olympia_Snowe
http://snowe.senate.gov/public/

I don't agree with all her stances but she's always been fair and balanced. One of the few Republicans I'd actually vote for nowadays.

And yes I know she's retiring, which is what makes me kinda sad. One less sane voice in the mad house.

[palladin9479]

And have either of you gentlemen noticed the rise of libertarian sentiment in the US? About 50% now favor pot legalization according to Rassmussen. It rises about a percent or two every year.

It is no longer a fringe opinion. It is THE mainstream.

=======

Your real beef is with welfare. I say we cut off price supports for the criminal cartels. One of the biggest welfare scams going. According to Social Conservative Pat Robertson that support is ruining the country.

=======

My kids support smaller government. And that is a problem? It is worse than I thought.

=======

To police crime a citizen complaint is all that is required - I was robbed, thieves broke in, I was assaulted, etc.

To police vice you need secret police. And confidential informants. Was that the kind of country you had in mind? Did I mention that the Vice-Squad is almost always corrupt? Why? Well for one they HAVE to operate in secret and they do deals with "criminals". To "gather evidence". And they can't always be "wired".

Every peer I know of, myself included is for the legalization and regulation of pot. From the method it's grown to how it's cut, mixed and made into smokable form. Standardize it all with safety regulations for content quality and tax it the same way you do cigarettes.

It's available right now, and no amount of money nor laws will stop it nor even slow it down. The best way to protect the citizen is to ensure the quality and safety of the product being sold. Right now the market is underground, not regulated and not safe. You run the risk of being associated with very bad people, this risk isn't enough to deter consumers from seeking a the supply, but it does factor into the overall cost of the product. Once you regulate it then you have a standard and safe way to purchase it, it becomes countable. Illegal black market pot won't be able to compete with legal regulated pot which directly effects the cash supply of not only domestic criminals but also the foreign cartels that supply them.

Honestly it's just cheaper to regulate and standardize then it is to try to deter and hunt down the boogeymen.

[Diogenes]

Useful idiots? OK. But if you follow Ron Paul's numbers they represent 10% to 20% of the base. A few years back Time Magazine said they were about 14% of the electorate.

Nice to know they aren't necessary for execution of your plan.

========

We have one Party Rule. The Statist Party. Which is why the work of the "other" party never gets repealed.

Watch. The Rs will run on repealing Obamacare and some how they will manage to fail. With majorities in both Houses and the Presidency (if they can get it without the idiot vote).

On this we are pretty much in agreement. I and others have long suspected that the Ruling class cares only that they rule, and have no fidelity to any ideological persuasion other than that they should rule the rest of us.

The feel they are entitled to take the fruits of our labors and distribute it amongst their friends, and likewise their friends and allies should be able to tell us when we may stand up or sit down. It is MOSTLY the Democrats, but it is far too many Republicans as well.

You are right. A lot of Republicans (in power) are perfectly content with Obamacare.