PDA

View Full Version : Should we have an open debate on drugs in this campaign....




BamaFanNKy
06-22-2010, 12:47 PM
I think this is an issue that may be a third rail BUT, sometime soon Kentuckians will need to discuss this:
YouTube - Our America - Drugs (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fsowQ0hE9gA&feature=related)

TheDriver
06-22-2010, 01:10 PM
It's not an issue on the mind of most GOPers or establishment dems.

It doesn't seem like something important to Rand Paul because he doesn't talk about it.

So, you have to have a candidate and a movement that cares about it.... and I don't see it in Kentucky.

AuH2O
06-22-2010, 01:11 PM
I'll refer you to a thread I started on this very issue: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=248991

BamaFanNKy
06-22-2010, 01:14 PM
It's not an issue on the mind of most GOPers or establishment dems.

It doesn't seem like something important to Rand Paul because he doesn't talk about it.

So, you have to have a candidate and a movement that cares about it.... and I don't see it in Kentucky.

Yes we do have one:
http://www.gatewood.com/site/images/dea%20and%20joebandgg.JPG

www.gatewood.com

TheDriver
06-22-2010, 01:17 PM
Yes we do have one:
http://www.gatewood.com/site/images/dea%20and%20joebandgg.JPG

www.gatewood.com

I don't think he has what it takes to win an election..... I like him, not on economics, but in general.

I'd probably vote for him. :o

BamaFanNKy
06-22-2010, 01:19 PM
I don't think he has what it takes to win an election..... I like him, not on economics, but in general.

I'd probably vote for him. :o

Most people say that. It's all about perception of electability.

Listen to his interview in a minute. www.wlap.com

TonySutton
06-22-2010, 01:22 PM
I think industrial hemp would be a good topic.

BamaFanNKy
06-22-2010, 01:33 PM
Gatewood brought that up at tea party event. David Adams introduced him:
Gatewood Galbraith - March 21, 2009 (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6041255695092022075#)

BenIsForRon
06-22-2010, 01:33 PM
Talking about this issue would only lose Rand votes. Keep in mind that the only reason California is seriously considering repealing prohibition is because of the potential sin-tax revenue.

BamaFanNKy
06-22-2010, 01:34 PM
Talking about this issue would only lose Rand votes. Keep in mind that the only reason California is seriously considering repealing prohibition is because of the potential sin-tax revenue.

Kentuckians (old ones) talk about industrial hemp all the time. It was grown here not too long ago.

TheDriver
06-22-2010, 01:35 PM
Most people say that. It's all about perception of electability.

Listen to his interview in a minute. www.wlap.com

I've heard Gatewood speak several times, I have his book. I just don't think he is right economics... of course, I don't agree with Beshear either....

The media tries to paint Rand Paul as this unorthodox, quirky candidate... well Gatewood is that guy. :D

I guess we will see how he does, I hope well but I'm not sure he can build the coalition needed to win.

I remember him saying this one time:

"I got high on pot everyday last year and still made $175,000 dollars at my job... how'd you do?"

Or something like that....

BamaFanNKy
06-22-2010, 01:37 PM
I've heard Gatewood speak several times, I have his book. I just don't think he is right economics... of course, I don't agree with Beshear either....

The media tries to paint Rand Paul as this unorthodox, quirky candidate... well Gatewood is that guy. :D

I guess we will see how he does, I hope well but I'm not sure he can build the coalition needed to win.

I remember him saying this one time:

"I got high on pot everyday last year and still made $175,000 dollars at my job... how'd you do?"

Or something like that....

That's a great line.

AJ Antimony
06-22-2010, 02:03 PM
Yeah sure, if you really want Rand to lose.

If your goal is see Rand win, then why the hell do you think it's at all a good idea to make the election about drugs?

Rand doesn't have it any easier:
1. He's the Republican NOMINEE
2. 60% of his state does NOT like Obama and the healthcare bill

End of story. If he wants to win, then he just has to show he is the candidate who will fight Obama and work to repeal the healthcare bill. In other words, all he has to say until November is "I am the Tea Party Republican candidate who will fight against Obama and his healthcare bill. Jack Conway is the Democrat who will work with Obama and who supports the healthcare bill."

Saying ANYTHING else is a losing strategy (remember the Civil Rights Act?)

AuH2O
06-22-2010, 02:20 PM
AJ said basically what I did in the thread I linked.

Can we save the educational campaigns for candidates who can't win, please?

BamaFanNKy
06-22-2010, 02:22 PM
Yeah sure, if you really want Rand to lose.

If your goal is see Rand win, then why the hell do you think it's at all a good idea to make the election about drugs?

Rand doesn't have it any easier:
1. He's the Republican NOMINEE
2. 60% of his state does NOT like Obama and the healthcare bill

End of story. If he wants to win, then he just has to show he is the candidate who will fight Obama and work to repeal the healthcare bill. In other words, all he has to say until November is "I am the Tea Party Republican candidate who will fight against Obama and his healthcare bill. Jack Conway is the Democrat who will work with Obama and who supports the healthcare bill."

Saying ANYTHING else is a losing strategy (remember the Civil Rights Act?)

Why don't you reread my OP. I said it was a third rail.

BUT, Rand isn't dodging controversial issues so far. At least discuss the issues that Democrats will flock to. Maybe not drugs but, anti-war.

MelissaWV
06-22-2010, 02:24 PM
An open debate on drugs in Rand's campaign?

In my opinion, no. There are lots of fish to fry, but this isn't the biggest. He can work on nudging the system towards being way more tolerant of those convicted of non-violent drug "offenses" once he's in office, and still not lose too much support. There are very, very few people sitting out there right now with what's going on in the world going "gee, if only a candidate would talk primarily about drugs."

The debate points in the elections this year are fairly obvious, unless a new disaster pops up: foreign policy, environment, and economy. Someone might throw in an oldie like "gay rights" or abortion just for giggles.

angelatc
06-22-2010, 02:44 PM
Kentuckians (old ones) talk about industrial hemp all the time. It was grown here not too long ago.

I'd like to see a governor run on a promise of challenging the Federal government's right to ban hemp.

John Taylor
06-22-2010, 03:07 PM
I think this is an issue that may be a third rail BUT, sometime soon Kentuckians will need to discuss this:


Not in this election.

Matt Collins
06-22-2010, 03:12 PM
Elections should only have 1 goal: to win!

However elections can also have other motives:
- to cause their opponents to react and shift their positions
- to raise name awareness of the candidate
- to do a "dry run" for a future more serious campaign
- to educate the people on or call attention to the issues
- to take votes from one opponent thus causing them to lose


Unfortunately "winning" and the other goals above I believe to be incompatible.

rich34
06-22-2010, 03:57 PM
There's no need to bring this up unless it gets brought. I don't think Rand is going to get any liberal votes by saying he's for medical marijuana, but it could cause him to lose some votes among conservatives. OP, you should know this. No need to push this at all!

sailingaway
06-22-2010, 03:59 PM
During the election? No.

Industrial hemp, sure. That restriction is simply looney.

sailingaway
06-22-2010, 04:02 PM
Talking about this issue would only lose Rand votes. Keep in mind that the only reason California is seriously considering repealing prohibition is because of the potential sin-tax revenue.

That simply isn't true. It is the excuse, but it was voter driven. Most people think marijuana should be legal. (That does not mean they favor legalization of all drugs.) I have a problem with the tax, but I am telling myself if I vote against it, people would count that vote as against legalization. I'm fine with legalization of marijuana. I'm not fine with the tax.

AJ Antimony
06-23-2010, 02:50 AM
Why don't you reread my OP. I said it was a third rail.

BUT, Rand isn't dodging controversial issues so far. At least discuss the issues that Democrats will flock to. Maybe not drugs but, anti-war.

Your complete ignorance of how winning works is just astounding to me.

You admit drugs is a third rail issue, yet you suggest to touch it? Are you out of your mind?

And please, for the sake of understanding how winning works, please re-read my comments.

He doesn't need to attract Democrats voters with the war/drug issues. HE DOESN'T HAVE TO TOUCH THEM AT ALL. Again, when something like 60% OF ALL THE VOTERS in Kentucky dislike Obama and his healthcare bill, your job couldn't be any more easier or mainstream.

THERE IS NO NEED WHATSOEVER TO TOUCH THIRD RAILS. Rand has it won by campaigning against Obama and the healthcare bill. That's all. What is so hard about that concept? You must REALLY want Rand to lose the election...

Thargok
06-23-2010, 02:59 AM
Your complete ignorance of how winning works is just astounding to me.

You admit drugs is a third rail issue, yet you suggest to touch it? Are you out of your mind?

And please, for the sake of understanding how winning works, please re-read my comments.

He doesn't need to attract Democrats voters with the war/drug issues. HE DOESN'T HAVE TO TOUCH THEM AT ALL. Again, when something like 60% OF ALL THE VOTERS in Kentucky dislike Obama and his healthcare bill, your job couldn't be any more easier or mainstream.

THERE IS NO NEED WHATSOEVER TO TOUCH THIRD RAILS. Rand has it won by campaigning against Obama and the healthcare bill. That's all. What is so hard about that concept? You must REALLY want Rand to lose the election...

Economy
Economy
Economy
Economy

E
C
O
N
O
M
Y

Then Healthcare, but everything else is 100%

BamaFanNKy
06-23-2010, 06:03 AM
Ahhhh. Glad I proved my point.

The last day proved a HUGE point. You guys are not focused on helping Rand win. You'd rather debate campaign strategy than take down the opponent.

I post something about Rand and giving advice you guys run with it, and think I'm serious. When I've said in the past this was a bad idea. If I post something about Jack Conway...... nothing. No one even comments.

It's shocking that the people on here want to discuss Rand's views more than Jack's. Funny thing is, you google Jack Conway and an issue one of my threads are usually the top part.

Bottom line: You want to benefit the campaign. Stop talking about what the campaign is doing and dig and find out information about Jack Conway. If some of you are near Frankfort, try to Jack on camera. Do research on his people doing donations. Write blogs about Jack. Stop with the constant analysis of Rand or posting of his stories that are negative.

sailingaway
06-23-2010, 07:34 AM
Ahhhh. Glad I proved my point.

The last day proved a HUGE point. You guys are not focused on helping Rand win. You'd rather debate campaign strategy than take down the opponent.

I post something about Rand and giving advice you guys run with it, and think I'm serious. When I've said in the past this was a bad idea. If I post something about Jack Conway...... nothing. No one even comments.

It's shocking that the people on here want to discuss Rand's views more than Jack's. Funny thing is, you google Jack Conway and an issue one of my threads are usually the top part.

Bottom line: You want to benefit the campaign. Stop talking about what the campaign is doing and dig and find out information about Jack Conway. If some of you are near Frankfort, try to Jack on camera. Do research on his people doing donations. Write blogs about Jack. Stop with the constant analysis of Rand or posting of his stories that are negative.

Conway is for amnesty. Eight Senators including Bunning just wrote a letter to Obama telling him he should NOT parole/refuse enforcement re: illegal immigration unilaterally as it is apparently rumored he is considering doing since the Senate doesn't have the votes for amnesty. This may not be an issue Rand wants to jump on, but there isn't any reason supporters can't.

BamaFanNKy
06-23-2010, 07:41 AM
Conway is for amnesty. Eight Senators including Bunning just wrote a letter to Obama telling him he should NOT parole/refuse enforcement re: illegal immigration unilaterally as it is apparently rumored he is considering doing since the Senate doesn't have the votes for amnesty. This may not be an issue Rand wants to jump on, but there isn't any reason supporters can't.

Exactly. We can press the issues outside of what the campaign can. We can press Jack. Time to be more than a fundraising arm for the Liberty movement.

I know will some say, But.... I'm in SF or NY. Do you know where Jack's been at lately? He's traveling the U.S. Time to get him on camera since he runs from the media.

sailingaway
06-23-2010, 08:02 AM
Exactly. We can press the issues outside of what the campaign can. We can press Jack. Time to be more than a fundraising arm for the Liberty movement.

I know will some say, But.... I'm in SF or NY. Do you know where Jack's been at lately? He's traveling the U.S. Time to get him on camera since he runs from the media.

I think he's in DC at that Arnold and Porter event next, isn't he? He left L.A. before I knew he was here. If we see where he is going we should start a 'Where's Waldo' thread with his location people can check to see if he is anywhere they can film him. I agree, we need to track him.

DeadheadForPaul
06-23-2010, 10:37 AM
As a teenager, one of the main reasons I got into the liberty movement was due to prohibition

Over the past few years, I've come to realize that it is simply not a winning issue to CAMPAIGN on - especially if the liberty movement wants to take over the GOP

You cannot win over GOP voters with this message

Now, once you get in office, feel free to vote against it. After all, if you never campaigned on being pro-drug or anti-drug, you wouldn't be a liar/hypocrite.

Drug prohibition is one of those issues that can lose someone's vote - based strictly on that issue. Some Republicans would not vote for a pro-legalization candidate even if they agreed with 90% of their positions.

The economy and low taxes are WINNERS