What presidential candidate would be most beneficial to the climbing community and land access?

Bill Kirby wrote: Who the f:ck smokes pot 2-3 times a month? Everyone I know smokes at least once a day if not all day.

Lots of people I know only smoke on weekends, so around 4 times a month. Not everyone who smokes pot smokes all day every day.

Quinn Baker wrote: Lots of people I know only smoke on weekends, so around 4 times a month. Not everyone who smokes pot smokes all day every day.

Must be an east coast thing. I know two kinds, the daily then there's the once in a while. You know the ones that partake on climbing trips, bachelor parties or vacations.

Wow, you guys just totally miss the whole point here...

What President would be better for the climbers?

THE ONE BUILDING A WALL, obviously! Trump said it would be 35 to 90 feet tall and 1000 miles long so on the north side (note: the shady side) you could bolt on a few million climbing holds and you got yourself a kickass taxpayer-owned climbing facility!

Realistic estimates are that it would cost about $25billion for the short version or three or four times as much for the tall one, but I figure screw it, that is only like $1000 bucks per household and why not make all these non-climbers pay for our stuff for a change? Or I also hear Trump will make the Mexicans pay for it, so it might be free!

Finally a candidate that is speaking to our needs! So smart!

Tony,

Yes, I suppose there is no question there for you, more for Mike, but I was curious about Libertarians views of what he said.

I have been surprised to learn of this anarcho-capitalist theory that some guy came up with relatively recently. Chomsky seems to say the anarchists don't believe in private ownership of production and that Libertarians are a dangerous American anomaly.

Here's another question: If one is forced out of necessity to work for wages then are they not a slave to whoever employs them or to who they owe money? If they have no choice then how are they free?

In our current system we are forced to work for wages, not by the State but by businesses and corporations. The only protection for employees from the extreme abuses prevalent in capitalism has come from the State. Do you prefer to be a direct slave to the rich instead of the State?

We pay the State in taxes but the bigger financial burden for most is bills. Bills that are paid to businesses. Businesses that hold us financially captive by not letting communities own resources and technology. So these businesses are forcing me to work because they say I owe them money. Then they decide how much to pay and what benefits I may be granted.

We already have private wealth controlling us and our State. How would a Libertarian world be different from the one we know today? Does greed change with political structure? Do you think you can be free in a world where some one owns the food and water you need to survive?

Bill Kirby wrote: Must be an east coast thing. I know two kinds, the daily then there's the once in a while. You know the ones that partake on climbing trips, bachelor parties or vacations.

-shrug- I can only attest to what I have seen lol. I know some people that would fit all three scenarios.

I would like to look at some data on this, but I don't know that anyone is out there sending surveys to potheads lol.

Quinn Baker wrote: -shrug- I can only attest to what I have seen lol. I know some people that would fit all three scenarios. I would like to look at some data on this, but I don't know that anyone is out there sending surveys to potheads lol.

There isn't much out there. I did find this looking for that data. I'm pretty sure we can agree this is accurate! Haha

coed.com/2009/05/18/the-24-…

Lying, thieving, double-crossing cocksuckers!

Bill Kirby wrote: Who the f:ck smokes pot 2-3 times a month? Everyone I know smokes at least once a day if not all day.

I wouldn't be terribly surprised if you actually knew a lot of casual users who just don't talk to you about it, given your views on the matter.
Yes, there are surveys on this kind of thing, and if you count the amount of pot consumed (est) and the number of people consuming it (est) you don't really come up with a picture that most people are all-or-nothing.
A little search engine will help if you want to do that work.

Tim Lutz wrote: I am all for legalizing psychedelics, and think it is possible in my lifetime, but unlikely. People still get life for LSD manufacture. But then again, I didn't think we would have retail pot shops in 3 states in 2016! Mushrooms seem most likely because like weed, it is just the plant. But you haven't addressed the limitations of legalizing addictive hard drugs: meth, heroin, coke.

OK, I'll address that.
A few countries have decriminalized it, and look what happened.
I'm pro legalization on all of them.

Not for health benefits, but because the war is worse than the drug in my estimation, to people's health (impure drugs = problems) our society (black market organized crime), the corruption of our legal system (war on our on people, and financial interests trumping justice), and of our society and families (too many people in jail, unable to get jobs, broken families, etc...).

So I've addressed that now, but probably not how you had in mind. people write entire books on this stuff, so it's hard to cover in a post, right?
Ever check out Narconomics? It's not a final word on anything of course, but it is plain-speak...

"So in Switzerland, funnily enough, since they "legalized" heroin in this very, very limited, restricted, controlled way, the number of new users has actually fallen quite a lot and, of course, the illegal supply has dried up almost entirely, because the supply is now run by the government."

http://www.npr.org/2016/02/15/466491812/narconomics-how-the-drug-cartels-operate-like-wal-mart-and-mcdonalds

Long Duk Dong wrote:Tony, Yes, I suppose there is no question there for you, more for Mike, but I was curious about Libertarians views of what he said. I have been surprised to learn of this anarcho-capitalist theory that some guy came up with relatively recently. Chomsky seems to say the anarchists don't believe in private ownership of production and that Libertarians are a dangerous American anomaly. Here's another question: If one is forced out of necessity to work for wages then are they not a slave to whoever employs them or to who they owe money? If they have no choice then how are they free? In our current system we are forced to work for wages, not by the State but by businesses and corporations. The only protection for employees from the extreme abuses prevalent in capitalism has come from the State. Do you prefer to be a direct slave to the rich instead of the State? We pay the State in taxes but the bigger financial burden for most is bills. Bills that are paid to businesses. Businesses that hold us financially captive by not letting communities own resources and technology. So these businesses are forcing me to work because they say I owe them money. Then they decide how much to pay and what benefits I may be granted. We already have private wealth controlling us and our State. How would a Libertarian world be different from the one we know today? Does greed change with political structure? Do you think you can be free in a world where some one owns the food and water you need to survive?

I'm not interested in any discussion within the framing that some random out-of-context idea you got from Chompsky is the starting point for. He has his own political views, yes, and I'm not that interested in entertaining this particular broad brushstroke.

As for your argument that corporations hold me a slave? Nope.
I can start my own business. So that's that and the question is answered.
I can leave or change my job as I please, including working for myself.

All the framing of your questions is false dilemma, so why should I acknowledge it other than to dismiss it?

Any excuse to not go to a Reagan funeral is a good one.

As for the rest of your screed, the long history of US 'foreign policy', interventions and skullduggery in Central and South America over a couple of hundred years makes Che and Fidel look like frigging boy scouts by comparison.

Long Duk Dong wrote:Tony, Yes, I suppose there is no question there for you, more for Mike, but I was curious about Libertarians views of what he said. I have been surprised to learn of this anarcho-capitalist theory that some guy came up with relatively recently. Chomsky seems to say the anarchists don't believe in private ownership of production and that Libertarians are a dangerous American anomaly. Here's another question: If one is forced out of necessity to work for wages then are they not a slave to whoever employs them or to who they owe money? If they have no choice then how are they free? In our current system we are forced to work for wages, not by the State but by businesses and corporations. The only protection for employees from the extreme abuses prevalent in capitalism has come from the State. Do you prefer to be a direct slave to the rich instead of the State? We pay the State in taxes but the bigger financial burden for most is bills. Bills that are paid to businesses. Businesses that hold us financially captive by not letting communities own resources and technology. So these businesses are forcing me to work because they say I owe them money. Then they decide how much to pay and what benefits I may be granted. We already have private wealth controlling us and our State. How would a Libertarian world be different from the one we know today? Does greed change with political structure? Do you think you can be free in a world where some one owns the food and water you need to survive?

so many problems with your argument... I don't even know where to begin.

Tony B wrote: I wouldn't be terribly surprised if you actually knew a lot of casual users who just don't talk to you about it, given your views on the matter. Yes, there are surveys on this kind of thing, and if you count the amount of pot consumed (est) and the number of people consuming it (est) you don't really come up with a picture that most people are all-or-nothing. A little search engine will help if you want to do that work.

I call BS.

Todd Graham wrote:The speech Obama should have given in Cuba: President Raul Castro, I am proud to come to this city as your guest, and grateful for the chance to address you, your Council of Ministers, your Council of State, and the Cuban people.. I have not come here to praise you, however. Sometimes, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for guests to speak frankly and lay aside the gilded norms of diplomatic etiquette. Seven years and half a century ago, you and your brother stole this country from the Cuban people and established yourselves as absolute monarchs. Your brother Fidel sat on the throne first, ruthlessly crushing all opponents for forty-seven long years, and then, when he became too feeble to rule, you assumed his blood-soaked mantle. Your shameful record of human rights abuses speaks for itself. You have executed and disappeared so many thousands of Cubans that a precise number of victims cannot be reckoned. You have crushed dissent and imprisoned a higher percentage of your own people than most other modern dictators, including Stalin. You have condoned and encouraged torture and extrajudicial killings, and continue to do so, flagrantly. You have censored and continue to censor all means of expression and communication. You have driven nearly twenty percent of your people into exile, and prompted thousands to meet their deaths at sea, unseen and uncounted. Enslaving your own people is not your only crime against humanity, however. Shortly after I was born, you and your brother aimed nuclear warheads at my country and brought the entire world to the brink of annihilation. Ever since, you have allied yourself with my country’s deadliest enemies, fomented violence overseas, and striven to turn other nations against us. Now, fifteen months after I extended a hand of friendship to you, I have come here to remind you of the words of Martin Luther King, Jr. : “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.” Now, here in Havana, I urge you to free your own people, the Cuban people. Let your fellow Cubans breathe free, let them join the rest of the civilized world. Tear down your repressive machinery, Raul. Step down from your throne and call for free and fair elections, and freedom of expression and assembly. Free your political prisoners. Allow Cubans to travel freely. Open up the internet in Cuba, open up a free market economy, tear down all your state-owned and state-run monopolies. Do the right thing, Raul, drop dead or go away, and take your brother and your military junta with you.

While I understand the motivation of your post, I don't think the president of the US going to Cuba and publicly insulting their government is such a good idea lol.

Quinn Baker wrote: You do not understand the mathematics involved here. It is not simply that nobody votes third party because no one votes third party. First Past The Post voting systems trend inevitably towards two parties. Change the voting system to instant runoff and implement mixed-member proportional representation and you will have the utopia you desire. Until then, voting for a third party is actively against your self-interest. Please, go watch the video i posted upthread, it contains a lot of information you desperately need to understand. Once you do, you will get why third party candidates cannot possibly win the presidency.

Quinn,
It is a common mistake for people to believe that those who do not agree with their own dispositions are ignorant or under-informed. I'm guilty of that same error at times. I have a lot of information you "desperately need to understand" as well... but you see, understand and agree with are not the same.

For some background, I suppose at this point I should state that I've been an advocate for run-off or approval voting since I heard of it, decades ago... I'm not ignorant of what it is. I've talked to some of our reps & lobbied for a bill on it. Guess how likely that is to pass a D/R controlled state or federal legislature!?!?
And most D/R citizens I know don't want it because they are convinced that it will hurt their candidate the most... it's part of the 'stolen elections' mythology.

Approval ratings of any politician are terrible, and when polled, the #1 reason why nobody votes 3rd party is because 'they can't win' which is because nobody votes for them... This is a self-fulfilling prophesy you are perpetuating.

Now, a lot of this is bluster (yes, most D's will still vote for Hillary), but...

Let's count that independents are now the largest group of voters... at 43%
gallup.com/poll/180440/new-…

And that with the Dems,
huffingtonpost.com/h-a-good…

And that with the R's,
hotair.com/archives/2016/03…

It's the myth of "can't win" that always makes these numbers higher than they poll for the D/R ticket.

Quinn Baker wrote: Also, the only thing preventing Sanders from "having a chance" is people's belief that he doesn't have a chance. Well-meaning democrats aren't voting for him just because they believe Hillary will win the nomination anyway.

Ohhhhh... the irony.

Quinn, if a instant runoff election can garner the votes to put a 3rd party in the office, that means that enough folks preferred them to put them in office.
The runoff in and of itself functionally removes the 'they can't win' barrier, and little more. So to say the IRV is the answer, but that 'they can't win' is not the problem is contradictory.

Stagg54 wrote: I call BS.

How fitting. I've gotten the impression that a lot of what you say is 'BS' and here it is precisely 33% of your last post.

How about by the numbers...
In Colorado, 23% of pot buyers surveyed are 'daily smokers' and that includes the MMJ folks. And they account for 67% of the consumption.
The other 77% of the consumers account for 33% of the consumption.

By simple math, that means that the non-daily people smoke about 1/7 the amount on aggregate average as the daily-smoker folks. So about weekly... Since some number of these have not used in the last month, some number use weekly or more, but not daily.

As one should expect, it is not an all or nothing affair, and the consumption rates lie along a distribution, as I stated previously. Just like for alcohol... or any other drug.

harpers.org/archive/2016/04…

Quinn Baker wrote: -shrug- I can only attest to what I have seen lol. I know some people that would fit all three scenarios. I would like to look at some data on this, but I don't know that anyone is out there sending surveys to potheads.

Actually, there are tons of such surveys - call them 'market studies' these days...

Todd Graham wrote:Quinn ... normally... insulting a foreign government on their soil is bad diplomacy. But for Cuba ... an exception must be made. To stand, as Obama did, and shake hands and raise arms together with Raul, a murderous thug, was absolutely disgusting.

Raised arms together with Raul....LOL!!!! Sure Cuban government is pretty bad, but there's a whole lot worse out there that we are allied with and that our heads of state have been 'raising arms together' with for decades.

Tony B wrote:Approval ratings are terrible, and when polled, the #1 reason why nobody votes 3rd party is because 'they can't win' which is because nobody votes for them... A self-fulfilling prophesy you are perpetuating.

You keep saying that, but if you truly understood the current voting system, you would know that this isn't true, or at the very least isn't as simple as you're making it out to be. Yes, its theoretically possible for a third party candidate to win if people were to vote for him. But, no third party candidate has ever won the presidency. Why is this? The media? No, because it never happened even before the media was as money-controlled as it is now. Voter apathy? No, because it never happened in the youth of our two party system, when that wasn't an issue. Plus, voter apathy is a SYMPTOM of a greater problem, which is that citizens' votes do not count they way they should. The United States has never had anything but a two party system. From the 1790's to now, there have only ever been two main parties. It wasn't always Democrats and Republican, but it has ALWAYS been 2 major parties. The voting system we have mathematically does not allow for third party candidates to be successful. If they do well, but do not win, they all but ensure the victory of the candidate their voters least agree with by taking away votes from their 2nd choice, creating minority rule. If they win, whichever candidate got the least votes fills the same role the third party candidate filled previously, and you still have minority rule.

The current voting system is what is to blame for the lack of success of third parties, not the idea that nobody votes third party because nobody votes third party. Nobody votes third party because third party candidates have never, in the history of the United states, won the presidency. Why vote for a candidate if they cannot win? You are throwing your vote away at best and actively voting against your own interests at worst.

You say that disagreement =/= lack of understanding. That's true, but what you have said beyond this demonstrates that you do not adequately understand the topic at hand. I don't care if you disagree with me, it isn't really a matter of opinion. Facts are true whether you believe them or not. And you do not understand the relevant facts.