Patterico's Pontifications

8/6/2015

Questions For The 2016 GOP Debates

Filed under: General — Dana @ 6:29 am



[guest post by Dana]

The Fox News debate is tonight at 9:00 pm ET, while the second-tier group will be on stage for a separate debate at 5:00 pm ET.

With that, I was reading a number of questions that Americans would like asked of the candidates. If the questions posted are reflective of voters at large, then we’re all in BIG trouble because they are really dumb questions. Further, they clearly come from the left side of the aisle. But then I repeat myself.

So, which questions would you like the candidates to be asked? Tell us why you think your question is relevant and how it impacts the country. Also, from which candidate(s) would you like to hear a response. I would also love to hear if you have your own litmus test for any of the candidates – a single issue/policy that is a make-or-break for you and your vote.

–Dana

142 Responses to “Questions For The 2016 GOP Debates”

  1. Hello.

    Dana (86e864)

  2. Question: “We’ve heard what you have said you will do as President; what have you actually done as a governor/senator/business executive that would show you can do what you say you’ll do?

    The Dana with some common sense (f6a568)

  3. To Donald Trump:

    When you talked with former President Bill Clinton in May, before deciding to run for presieent, did you discuss immigration? And if so, did what he said more or less agree with what you later said, or was it different?

    Sammy Finkelman (8bf66e)

  4. i suppose “Will you actually uphold the Constitution” is too broad.

    “Which Executive Orders will you rescind on January 20 2017?” , we should hear how the candidates think about the use of Executive Orders and which ones go too far.

    Litmus test? hate those, but i suppose it would be a promise to do the utmost to force the Senate to get going on a real budget and a budget that spends less money in real terms.

    seeRpea (9f5b2d)

  5. While I am not a big fan of Ron Paul, I thought that his response about prison / drug reform in the 2010 debate was a great one. As I posted here (IIRC), the other candidates were all looking at their shoes while he talked about people in prison for dealing and using weed.

    Given the number of states and municipalities that have legalized or decriminalized marijuana, that would be an obvious area for questions. Is that “from the left?” I don’t think so; I think that it’s pro-liberty and pro local governance. The last elected Republican administration put Tommy Chong in prison for 6 months; for Pete’s sake, let’s show some hope and change.

    Oh, and what Dana said :)

    carlitos (c24ed5)

  6. “The Congress has been stonewalled by rogue bureaucrats who have used the Federal government to advance the current administration’s political goals. Is this appropriate and if not, what do you intend to do to correct this situation if elected?”

    bobathome (601aa0)

  7. “Which Executive Orders will you rescind on January 20 2017?” , we should hear how the candidates think about the use of Executive Orders and which ones go too far.

    I don;’t even understand what that means. Some people seem to have a thing about executive orders, and think there’s something somehow illegitimate about them. I don’t get it; what exactly is it that you expect a president to do, and how exactly can he do it except by issuing an order to his employees? If you want him to have the EPA review all its regulations for reasonableness, that’s an executive order. If you want him to tell the voting rights section DOJ that #blackviolationsmatter, and that anyone who disagrees is invited to resign, that’s an executive order. If you want him to tell the Education Department to stop its ridiculous misinterpretations of Title XI, that’s an executive order.

    An executive order is simply an instruction from an employer to his employees; I don’t understand how it can go too far. If a president exceeds his powers, that is the problem, not whether he issued an order about it. It makes no difference whether he personally does something he can’t do or tells a flunky to do it.

    Milhouse (a04cc3)

  8. most executive orders were persuant to legislation, not in lieu off, and they didn’t affect every conceivable area of human activity,

    narciso (ee1f88)

  9. rogue bureaucrats who have used the Federal government to advance the current administration’s political goals

    I don’t understand that either. The government is the administration. Of course it acts to advance its goals. That’s the point of government, isn’t it? The constitution says the executive power is vested in the president. That means the entire bureaucracy works for him, not for “the people”, and exists to implement his policies.

    Milhouse (a04cc3)

  10. most executive orders were persuant to legislation, not in lieu off, and they didn’t affect every conceivable area of human activity,

    What does that even mean?

    Milhouse (a04cc3)

  11. I won’t watch it. I’ll depend on you guys to tell me how Walker did.

    nk (dbc370)

  12. Question: Do you think our society, from its culture to its economics, has grown too liberal, too leftwing? If so, why? If not, why not?

    Question: Would you say most areas throughout the US that are dominated by liberals or Democrats (socially and governmentally) are, overall, in great shape? If so, why? If not, why not?

    Mark (78b181)

  13. Most executive orders are the exercise of authority granted the President by legislation, same as administrative agency regulations.

    nk (dbc370)

  14. Question: Do you understand that the career staff of the State Department have, for the last 50 years or more, run their own foreign policy regardless of who the president is and what his policies are? Do you understand that they think they have the right to do this, and that they work for “the people” rather than the president? Do you understand that they have sabotaged previous attempts to bring them into line, by presidents who didn’t understand that they were an active opposition?

    Do you also understand that it is generally understood in the State Department that if you impress the Saudis with your devotion to their interests, you can look forward to a nice sinecure after you retire from government service?

    And if you do understand all this, what do you plan to do about it?

    The answer I’d like to hear is that the candidate would hire John Bolton to clear the jungle, fire anyone who refuses to accept that they work for the current president and are there only to implement his policies. And that government employees will be barred, for five years after retirement, from working for any employer that is funded, directly or indirectly, by a foreign government. Also that he would implement Glenn Reynolds’s Revolving Door Tax.

    Milhouse (a04cc3)

  15. ditto Mr. nk @ #10

    i’m still struggling through that sense8 crap on netflix

    nothing anyone says will change my mind anyways

    I’m in tank for Mr. Governor Scott Walker

    happyfeet (a037ad)

  16. 1. “The current DoJ has shamelessly looked the other way as widespread criminal behavior has erupted throughout the administration and its agencies. Would your DoJ finally investigate and prosecute the worst of these, or would you just want to move on?”

    2. “Do you feel the Presidency has amassed too much power? If so, what structural changes do you think might help rebalance the three branches? Will you work with Congress to make needed changes through legislation or amendment? Followup: Same question about the Courts.”

    3. “The federal government is sprawling, bloated and costly. SOme agencies seem to do nothing, others seem to be creating additional missions for themselves. As part of a program to balance the budget, what percentage of the overall federal workforce do you think redundant?”

    4. “There are millions of illegal immigrants here in the United States, primarily from Mexico and Central America. Once some resolution has been achieved, what proportion of these immigrants do you expect to remain legally? All? None? A ballpark percentage?”

    5. “Obamacare: Clearly the new system doesn’t work, is far too costly, and it remains wildly inequitable for the self-employed and early-retired. Yet it contained one or two reforms that were popular. Do you intend to repeal and go back to the unmodified old system, or do you intend to offer a substantially different plan of reform?”

    6. “Medicare: Everyone who looks at Medicare says that it is unsustainable, even in the short run. What will be your approach to reform? Higher payroll taxes? Vouchers for private insurance? Rolling it into whatever replaces Obamacare?

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  17. my only litmus test was a record of governance that demonstrated an ability to prioritize the important stuff and to tackle big things

    happyfeet (a037ad)

  18. Assuming that the candidate has the wherewithal to win an election (not all do), my basis is, in decreasing order:

    1. Wants to make an example of those that have flouted the rule of law as government officials. This is critical going forward. The tree of liberty needs watering.

    2. Wants to re-establish a proper balance between the branches of the federal government, and a true federal separation between DC and the states. Extra credit: says good things about Lochner, or bad things about Wickard.

    3. Does not think s/he will be King.

    4. Approaches domestic problems from a non-statist viewpoint, but recognizes that there are times where the government must act.

    5. Is able to reach beyond their inclinations when the situation demands it. At times, Nixon has to go to China, and I want a person complex enough to see that. This is perhaps more than one gets from a debate, but for me is the difference between being Presidential and just a politician.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  19. I want a set-it-and-forget-it president I can trust to make Good Choices while I live my life unburdened by the kinds of anxieties you have when a borderline psychotic, grotesquely anti-american, genocidally anti-semitic food stamp whore is in your oval office

    and I really hardly ever ask for anything, so please can i have just this one thing

    happyfeet (a037ad)

  20. Some people seem to have a thing about executive orders, and think there’s something somehow illegitimate about them.

    When the orders go outside the areas that Congress has authorized, they are completely illegitimate.

    For example, if the president ordered the IRS to ignore taxes due by some segment of the population, that would be illegitimate. It’s not clear that it could be contested in the courts, though; who would have standing?

    Another example would be ordering the INS to issue green cards to otherwise undocumented immigrants, or to admit all persons who present themselves at the border. Again, who has standing, and these actions become difficult to unravel.

    At the very least, legislation establishing standing for any member of Congress to challenge an executive order, irrespective of a showing of harm.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  21. “Who would you like to see as Speaker of the House and Majority Leader of the Senate during your presidency?”

    ThOR (a52560)

  22. What we will probably get:

    Twelve questions about Planned Parenthood and abortion.

    Another 12 about gay marriage for the windmill tilters and dead-horse beaters.

    A lot of posturing and bluster by Trump, often interrupting other speakers.

    A number of answers that make a lot of sense, but get factchecked to death by people who miss the point.

    Winners: Fiorina and maybe Perry at the junior debate. Walker and Cruz at the regular one. To win the initial debate, you have to come off as being Presidential material. Nothing else really matters at this point in time.

    Deepest desire: Trump insults Christians.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  23. How would your use of the powers of the presidency differ from 43 and 44?

    crazy (cde091)

  24. If push came to shove would you invade Iran to prevent them from acquiring a nuclear weapon?

    ropelight (c7944e)

  25. Milhouse, thank you for the comment. Perhaps this will clarify my suggested question:

    The Congress has been stonewalled by rogue bureaucrats who have illegally used the Federal government power to advance the current administration’s political goals. For example, attempts to subpoena mandated Federal records, emails and the like, that would shed light on a number of conspiracies, such as Fast and Furious, the use of a personal computer by Secretary Clinton to store classified materials, and the harassment of Tea Party groups by the IRS, have been thwarted by claims of failed equipment that have been shown to be false. Witnesses to the deaths of State Department employees, including an Ambassador, were sent on assignments and forced to sign nondisclosure agreements that prevented Congress from interviewing them. Is this appropriate and if not, what do you intend to do to correct this situation if elected?

    I also dispute your assertion regarding the purpose of the Federal government:

    The government is the administration. Of course it acts to advance its goals. That’s the point of government, isn’t it? The constitution says the executive power is vested in the president. That means the entire bureaucracy works for him, not for “the people”, and exists to implement his policies.

    Most Federal activities are governed by Civil Service laws and the purpose of these activities are defined by other laws or regulations that (presumably) Congress has knowledge off. For example, the mailman delivers my mail despite the fact that he knows (or suspects) that I am a Republican. That is his job. He is not an agent of the President free to extemporize. Also, Federal employees are not allowed to work on campaigns or use government facilities to further campaigns. In principle, Federal employees do work for the people. These ideas date back to the 1880s with civil service reform, and I am not aware any revisions to the underlying concept. The fail point we are experiencing is due to corruption at the highest levels. The Attorney General has been complicit in these cover ups, and Congress doesn’t have the resources to supplant the malfeasance.

    bobathome (601aa0)

  26. Carlitos wrote:

    As I posted here (IIRC), the other candidates were all looking at their shoes while he talked about people in prison for dealing and using weed.

    About two weeks ago, my darling bride (of 36 years, two months and 18 days) got stuck on the turnpike behind a bad, bad accident. Two women, high on marijuana, did something stupid with their automobile, while they had four kids in the car. Two kids were belted in, and went to the regular pediatric floor, and two were not; one died at the scene, and the other went to Peds ICU, and was unlikely to survive.

    Every time I start to get all libertarian feelings about drugs, another story like this pops up Marijuana users and dealers need to go to jail, where they can’t hurt other people.

    The Dana married to a nurse (f6a568)

  27. Dana – the entirety of my adult life, I have had close friends who use marijuana, and there have been several times in my life where a large percentage of my social circle has used. *None* of my friends who use have hurt other people in the way that you describe; all of them are hard working people and are (marijuana use aside) otherwise reputable; many of them are harder working than I am.

    The public would not be better off for these people being in jail.

    aphrael (c4a2c9)

  28. How much of the Federal government do you intend to fire? Do you have any percentages or areas of focus?

    luagha (e5bf64)

  29. Mr Feet wrote:

    I want a set-it-and-forget-it president I can trust to make Good Choices while I live my life unburdened by the kinds of anxieties you have when a borderline psychotic, grotesquely anti-american, genocidally anti-semitic food stamp whore is in your oval office

    I want a set-it-and-keep-his-eyes-on-it President, one who will not only set the right policies, but take care to see that his instructions are actually followed.

    The sadly realistic Dana (f6a568)

  30. ok i can go with that

    happyfeet (a037ad)

  31. Aphrael wrote:

    Dana – the entirety of my adult life, I have had close friends who use marijuana, and there have been several times in my life where a large percentage of my social circle has used. *None* of my friends who use have hurt other people in the way that you describe; all of them are hard working people and are (marijuana use aside) otherwise reputable; many of them are harder working than I am.

    The public would not be better off for these people being in jail.

    My darling bride is a pediatric nurse, and she has said that she has never, never! seen a case of child abuse in which drugs and/or — usually just and — were not involved. The vast majority of adults wind up having to care for children at some point in their lives. Drugs, even marijuana, are a terrible scourge on our society, and they should be banned. I’d ban alcohol if I could, too.

    The very serious Dana (f6a568)

  32. The Robert staying at home wrote:

    The Attorney General has been complicit in these cover ups, and Congress doesn’t have the resources balls to supplant the malfeasance.

    FTFY

    The editor Dana (f6a568)

  33. Every time I start to get all libertarian feelings about drugs, another story like this pops up Marijuana users and dealers need to go to jail, where they can’t hurt other people.

    The Dana married to a nurse (f6a568) — 8/6/2015 @ 9:40 am

    And that’s why we have criminalized stupidity, testosterone, alcohol and sleeping pills, so that people can’t drive their cars and kill kids.

    carlitos (c24ed5)

  34. I’d ban alcohol if I could, too.

    The very serious Dana (f6a568) — 8/6/2015 @ 9:50 am

    Wow. OK.

    carlitos (c24ed5)

  35. pot was banned in 1937, yet it didn’t become a serious problem until the 60s, because of the adopters of said practices, cocaine probably even longer, until the mid 70s,

    narciso (ee1f88)

  36. The constitution says the executive power is vested in the president. That means the entire bureaucracy works for him, not for “the people”, and exists to implement his policies.

    So then he’s not a president, he’s a despotic constitutional figurehead. If the “entire bureaucracy” works just for him and not “the people” and the nation then he can order them to do anything he wants as long as they are “his policies”. Poppycock!

    Rev. Barack Hussein Hoagie (f4eb27)

  37. The very serious Dana – I think you’re conflating the following two:

    “The majority of cases of [child abuse] involve drug use” and
    “The majority of cases of [drug use] involve [child abuse]”.

    The parent-drug-users I know are, from what I can tell, all good parents.

    Now, it’s true that my social circle is mostly selected to be highly educated and is generally (but not exclusively; my best friend is a restaurant manager and was a busser when I met him) drawn from professional circles – which means the results of drug use in my social milieu may be different than the results in other social milieus.

    And yet I’ll stand by my claim: the country wouldn’t be better off for putting the drug users I know in jail; it would be worse off as it would be depriving itself of the benefit of their skills and their work, while incurring the cost of housing and feeding them.

    aphrael (c4a2c9)

  38. Do you believe that the President has the authority to “unappoint,” with the advice and consent of the Senate, federal judges, and, if you do, would you unappoint Justices Ginsberg, Breyer, Sotomayor and Kagan?

    The Dana engaged in wishful thinking (f6a568)

  39. Dana, evolution is still at work, much as we might like to think otherwise. Children don’t have their choice of parents, and some parents make horrible choices that harm their children. Sadly, the courts tend to support parental rights to the point of repeatedly returning children to drug and alcohol addicted parents. I suspect that this is because far too many judges partake of the same substances.

    As I said, evolution is still at work. It’s not very pretty.

    bobathome (601aa0)

  40. Oh, and thank you Dana for that FTFY!

    bobathome (601aa0)

  41. Aphrael wrote:

    The very serious Dana – I think you’re conflating the following two:

    “The majority of cases of [child abuse] involve drug use” and
    “The majority of cases of [drug use] involve [child abuse]”.

    Not at all: that’s like saying that the majority of traffic accidents involve alcohol and thus the majority of people who drive under the influence of alcohol have accidents. Clearly, most people who drive drunk don’t have an accident, but that doesn’t mean we should make it legal to drive under the influence as long as you don’t have a wreck.

    Now, it’s true that my social circle is mostly selected to be highly educated and is generally (but not exclusively; my best friend is a restaurant manager and was a busser when I met him) drawn from professional circles – which means the results of drug use in my social milieu may be different than the results in other social milieus.

    Really? Then your social circle consists largely of people who are intelligent enough to risk felony convictions and their professional licenses and careers to smoke pot. The probabilities that they will get caught might be smaller in professional circles, but the penalties can be a lot greater; tell me how that demonstrates wisdom, intelligence and good judgement. Are they so needful of getting high that they have to take a really stupid chance?

    And, of course, whilst your professional circle friends are probably not involved in violent crime, you have to ask: was there no violent crime at all involved in getting marijuana or other drugs to them? What responsibility do you think that they bear, as consumers of illegal drugs, for the beatings and killings that are a part of drug trafficking?

    The Dana who looks at the big picture (f6a568)

  42. Sadly, the courts tend to support parental rights to the point of repeatedly returning children to drug and alcohol addicted parents.

    What do you mean by “sadly”, bobathome? What can the courts do but return the children to their parents. There aren’t enough foster families and I sure don’t want them turned over to some state institution. What else is there?

    Rev. Barack Hussein Hoagie (f4eb27)

  43. > Then your social circle consists largely of people who are intelligent enough to risk felony convictions and their professional licenses and careers to smoke pot

    I live in a state where there is no risk of a felony conviction for smoking pot, and as an adult I have always done so.

    In New York, possession is an infraction punishable by a $100 fine. Possession in public view is a misdemeanor punishable by a $500 fine, but it’s reasonably difficult (in New York City) for a white person to get arrested for possession in public view.

    In California, possession is an infraction punishable by a $100 fine.

    My professional friends are generally speaking computer programmers, for which there would be *zero* professional repurcussions for arrest for possession, and lawyers – and while in theory it’s possible for lawyers to be disciplined for a possession charge, I’m not aware of it happening in California in my lifetime.

    > Are they so needful of getting high that they have to take a really stupid chance?

    Needful? I wouldn’t describe it as a need; I’d describe it as something they enjoy doing for which there is no real world risk of harm beyond the minor annoyance of dealing with a legal problem equivalent in seriousness to a parking ticket.

    All of which is, incidentally, somewhat orthogonal to my point – I do not see how the public is better off for putting these people in jail. :)

    > And, of course, whilst your professional circle friends are probably not involved in violent crime, you have to ask: was there no violent crime at all involved in getting marijuana or other drugs to them? What responsibility do you think that they bear, as consumers of illegal drugs, for the beatings and killings that are a part of drug trafficking?

    The question of what responsibility a consumer has for the harms caused by the production of the good he is consuming is a good one, and it’s a complex one. I know that the production of metals used in the development of my cell phone involves absolutely *horrendous* abuse by armed militias in the Congo; what responsibility do I, as a consumer of smart phones, bear for those abuses? :)

    aphrael (c4a2c9)

  44. 1. What do you intend to do to reverse illegal immigration and protect American sovereignty?
    2. How do you plan to punish Sanctuary Cities?
    3. How do you plan to reverse the damage the democrats have done to the African American families?
    4. Do you have a plan to encourage American Jews to stand with the Republicans, Netanyahu and Israel rather than with the democrats, mullahs and terrorists?

    Rev. Barack Hussein Hoagie (f4eb27)

  45. There is no use arguing with a person who espouses drug use, Dana. People who use drugs, booze and other mind altering carcinogens are not well footed morally to hold off their desires or to control their impulses. The drugs own them and you will not reach them about it. To admit so would be to admit they are weak.

    Rev. Barack Hussein Hoagie (f4eb27)

  46. Drugs, even marijuana, are a terrible scourge on our society, and they should be banned. I’d ban alcohol if I could, too.

    Dana, as a long-time recovered alcoholic, I can understand this temptation. But I have come to understand that these bans don’t accomplish much and do great harm, both to individuals and to the very fabric of society you wish to protect. The cure is far worse than the disease.

    I personally know several people who have become unemployable due to chronic marijuana use. The stoner stereotype has a real basis in fact. But still I would make it legal, like alcohol.

    EXACTLY like alcohol, matter of fact. I despise the current CA regime with it’s mostly unregulated pot trade, where a store that gets caught selling to minors can reopen under a new name a week later down the block.

    No, what you do is you limit pot sales to a subset of liquor stores that have applied and paid for a pot permit, and who will lose BOTH permits if they screw up either one. Then you allow anyone who can buy booze to buy pot.

    If there was one thing I would change, is to require a state ID to buy booze or pot, and card everyone. Courts could revoke this privilege for cause, marking the ID “May not purchase alcohol before ______”

    If you really want to threaten an alcoholic, don’t threaten his driving privilege, threaten his drinking privilege.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  47. The Imam Barack Hussein Hoagie wrote:

    There is no use arguing with a person who espouses drug use, Dana. People who use drugs, booze and other mind altering carcinogens are not well footed morally to hold off their desires or to control their impulses. The drugs own them and you will not reach them about it. To admit so would be to admit they are weak.

    Aphrael is the kind of (moderately) liberal person who is a blessing on sites like this: he argues coherently — unlike another liberal of our mutual acquaintance — and coolly enough to be a good debating opponent. There is much I disagree with him about, but I can, and do, respect him.

    The Dana who respects Aphrael even if he disagrees with him (f6a568)

  48. Kevin – I agree that there is a real basis in fact to the stoner stereotype, and I certainly knew people in college who fit it. It’s an interesting question why the *adults* I know who use don’t fit it (including people I’ve met through things other than my professional life). I somewhat wonder if there’s a bimodal distribution among adult users – there are nonfunctioning stoner-stereotype types, and there are the people who figured out how to use in ways that didn’t interfere with the rest of their lives – and the latter are simply more likely to be out and about and doing things instead of hiding in the basement. :)

    As someone who voted for the medical marijuana initiative, i’m really irritated at how it’s been *abused* – it was not supposed to be recreational use under another name, it was supposed to be medical use by people with legitimate medical needs. (My vote for this was influenced by the fact that, in 1987 while my grandmother was dying of cancer in Texas, her doctor advised her to obtain marijuana to help deal with the side effects of chemo). I would have voted for full legalization, but that’s not what the initiative was for, and I wish the state had been better able to adopt rules in alignment with the purpose of the initiative.

    I’ll almost certainly be back in California in time to vote for a full legalization initiative in 2016.

    aphrael (c4a2c9)

  49. Mr M wrote:

    I personally know several people who have become unemployable due to chronic marijuana use. The stoner stereotype has a real basis in fact. But still I would make it legal, like alcohol.

    Prior to my previous comment, I took a few minutes out of the office on my Caterpillar 936E loader; if I had fouled up and had some sort of accident, the company would take me down for the whiz quiz, and if I tested positive for marijuana, my employment would come to an abrupt end, even though current testing methods can only tell if I had used marijuana within the time frame in which the waste metabolites were still detectable in my system, and not whether I had actually been stoned while operating the loader.

    Of course, some people would say that writing that entire paragraph as one sentence is evidence of some kind of drug use. :)

    Nothing good comes from using chemicals which alter your brain or your thinking.

    The always sober Dana (f6a568)

  50. People who use drugs, booze and other mind altering carcinogens are not well footed morally to hold off their desires or to control their impulses. The drugs own them and you will not reach them about it. To admit so would be to admit they are weak.

    Drug use has almost nothing to do with morality and abstinence almost nothing to do with strength. Those ideas are not only false but harmful, as they suggest solutions that don’t work.

    The Kevin who is 12 days shy of 10,000 days sober (25bbee)

  51. I’ll almost certainly be back in California in time to vote for a full legalization initiative in 2016.

    And I will likely vote against them, since they do not have effective controls on sales. Would you be for BOOZE sales with no real rules? All you need is a sign and some booze?

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  52. Aphrael wrote:

    Kevin – I agree that there is a real basis in fact to the stoner stereotype, and I certainly knew people in college who fit it. It’s an interesting question why the *adults* I know who use don’t fit it (including people I’ve met through things other than my professional life). I somewhat wonder if there’s a bimodal distribution among adult users – there are nonfunctioning stoner-stereotype types, and there are the people who figured out how to use in ways that didn’t interfere with the rest of their lives – and the latter are simply more likely to be out and about and doing things instead of hiding in the basement.

    P’raps it’s simply the coincidence of your social circle; the stoner types aren’t professionals, and thus you have few dealings with them.

    As someone who voted for the medical marijuana initiative, i’m really irritated at how it’s been *abused* – it was not supposed to be recreational use under another name, it was supposed to be medical use by people with legitimate medical needs. (My vote for this was influenced by the fact that, in 1987 while my grandmother was dying of cancer in Texas, her doctor advised her to obtain marijuana to help deal with the side effects of chemo). I would have voted for full legalization, but that’s not what the initiative was for, and I wish the state had been better able to adopt rules in alignment with the purpose of the initiative.

    One of the benefits of being married to a very pretty nurse is that I learn things about drugs. My wife sometimes has to administer a drug called Marinol®:

    Marinol is used to treat loss of appetite that causes weight loss in people with AIDS. It is also used to treat severe nausea and vomiting caused by cancer chemotherapy. Marinol is for use only when other medications have been unable to control the nausea and vomiting.

    Marinol is a form of man-made cannabis, which has the supposed benefits of medical marijuana without the “getting high” effects. We had “medical marijuana” all along! The initiatives were nothing but getting a foot in the door to full legalization.

    The very sober Dana (f6a568)

  53. Nice thread steal, btw.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  54. The following is how I would phrase my question:

    Good evening, If I were PotUS, my top three priorities would be to 1) call for the Congress to pass a proper budget for me to sign and end the madness of continuing resolutions, 2) Reduce the size of the Federal bureaucracy by first placing a freeze on all hiring in all depts under my control during my term and reducing the number of agencies by consolidation and then the elimination of redundant paperwork, 3) secure the borders by partnering with each state and allowing each state to implement their own strategy using Federal resources to ensure compliance with existing immigration law. If you were president, how would you go about achieving these three goals?

    felipe (56556d)

  55. Drug use has almost nothing to do with morality and abstinence almost nothing to do with strength.

    From my experience and observation, they do.

    Those ideas are not only false but harmful, as they suggest solutions that don’t work.

    The fact that you find “ideas” false and harmful is sad. Sadder yet, you seem to be saying solutions with which you disagree don’t work. Those chemicals have obviously affected you. Apparently drugs make one stubborn and closed minded. Take another 10,000 days and call back.

    Rev. Barack Hussein Hoagie (f4eb27)

  56. That’s it, I vote for felipe!!

    Rev. Barack Hussein Hoagie (f4eb27)

  57. Mr M wrote:

    Drug use has almost nothing to do with morality and abstinence almost nothing to do with strength. Those ideas are not only false but harmful, as they suggest solutions that don’t work.

    My best friend finally found the strength to quit smoking . . . when he was struck down by COPD. My mother, who always lectured us about not smoking, finally found the strength to quit smoking herself, when the same thing happened to her. She went to her eternal reward when only 61 thanks to cigarettes.

    Sometimes it is a matter of strength, the strength to do what is necessary when faced with utter necessity.

    Full disclosure: I haven’t been tested in that way personally.

    The coldly realistic Dana (f6a568)

  58. Rev. Hoagie, my experience suggests that the state will return kids to irresponsible parents even when a good alternative is available. We lived next door to some grand parents who would be granted custody of their grand kids while the parents were in jail or undergoing treatment for various drug usage issues. When they first got custody, the kids and their parents had been living in a car for several months. At one point. after the kids had been with their grandparents for a couple of years, their mother finally convinced her minders that she was once again fit. After a few chaotic months, and with a lot of pressure from the grand parents, the state finally moved in and gave custody of the kids permanently to the grandparents. The parole officer (or whatever they call themselves) had repeatedly neglected to report continued alcohol use by the mother. And that was the biggest hurdle faced by the grandparents. They had to get past the minder.

    Adoption of infants would be a much more viable option if the authorities were color blind. But they aren’t. And that may result in increased late term abortions.

    bobathome (601aa0)

  59. Kevin M, at 52: I was just responding to something I found objectionable. :)

    I’m happy to go back to the original topic, although I think the questions I would ask are not questions that the peanut gallery here would ask.

    Somewhat merging the two topics:

    * the Obama administration has taken a relatively hands-off approach to the legalization of recreational marijuana use in certain states. would you continue that hands-off approach? if no, how is that consistent with your belief in states’ rights? if yes, would you extend that to legalization of other drugs?

    * how would you manage federal relief to states undergoing natural disasters? would you make such aid contingent on states doing work to reduce the amount of damage from such disasters (by discouraging settling in flood zones, adopting better construction standards in earthquake and hurricane zones, etc)?

    * how would you handle the situation if ethnic Russian seperatists were to engage in anti-government protests in the Baltic countries and Russia were to respond with barely concealed military support?

    * now that political relations with Cuba are normalizing, under what circumstances would you support ending the embargo?

    * how concerned are you about the drawdown of aquifers throughout the west, and what policy changes, if any, would you support to help address it?

    aphrael (c4a2c9)

  60. Q. “Our last three presidents were drug abusers. Could you describe how their drug abuse led them to abuse their children?”

    Follow-up Q. “Which of the five children of these three presidents was most damaged by their abusive, drug addled parent(s) and how?”

    ThOR (a52560)

  61. Can we address questions to a specific candidate?

    Jeb Bush: If it comes down to a choice between you and Hillary, why should anyone care?

    Gerald A (e1ec12)

  62. Q. “Our last three presidents were drug abusers. Could you describe how their drug abuse led them to abuse their children?”

    AFAIK Bush did not do drugs.

    Gerald A (e1ec12)

  63. ThOR: I would vote against anyone who answered that question, in either party. If we don’t keep children of officeholders offlimits, then nobody who is a parent will run for political office, and that will be very, very, very bad for us.

    aphrael (c4a2c9)

  64. So, children of those who are not officeholders are fair game? Why the double standard?

    ThOR (a52560)

  65. ThOR – huh? I’m not following how you inferred this double standard from what I said.

    It’s one thing to talk about children in the abstract – education policy is about children, after all, and arguably so is debt policy.

    But when you start making public attacks on national television about an individual’s treatment of *their specific children*, it’s not the same thing at all – and if enduring such attacks becomes a price that one must pay to be able to hold public office, then nobody with children is going to be willing to serve in those offices.

    I didn’t like the attacks on Palin’s children coming from my friends on the left; they were mean spirited, for one thing, they had nothing to do with Palin’s fitness for office under the most charitable reading of them, and they violated the rule of civility I’m remarking on here. *And* they were coming from the peanut gallery, as it were, rather than from the candidates themselves.

    Your question asks the candidates to attack politicians via their children. There can be no positive outcome of them doing that.

    aphrael (c4a2c9)

  66. Thor, this is the first time I have noticed you acting like a troll. It isn’t pretty. Just a friendly observation.

    felipe (56556d)

  67. Dana, at 51:

    some of it is the coincidence of my social circle, certainly. But I’ve met people who smoke pot through other means than my professional life (random coming together at music events; board game conventions) and the people I encounter there have their lives together in a way that defies the stoner stereotype.

    so I wonder – is the issue that the people who meet the stoner stereotype have simply dropped out of circulation (because they meet the stoner stereotype) and so I don’t encounter them?

    > Nothing good comes from using chemicals which alter your brain or your thinking.

    I would observe that the people I know who use chemicals – including myself, as I drink :) – think that something good *does* come. Otherwise we wouldn’t do it. :)

    The question lies in how you evaluate the cost vs the benefit, and I don’t think it’s fair to assume that everyone should come to the same conclusion about where that balance lies.

    aphrael (c4a2c9)

  68. Kevin: it is too soon to tell, I think, what the regultory regime set up by the initiatives will be.

    As much as I loathe Newsom – and I voted *against* him in 2010 because of that loathing – I think he has enough interest in political self-preservation that the initiative put forward by his group will establish a system that is decently well regulated.

    They haven’t submitted it yet, though, so I can’t comment in a way that isn’t mere speculation.

    aphrael (c4a2c9)

  69. Not that I would watch Fox’s version of demolition derby, but my questions are. When will you start deporting Crimaleins? Will you get rid of the base-line accounting system that screws the taxpayer? Will you repeal the obama years? Thank you and good-day.

    mg (31009b)

  70. > Nothing good comes from using chemicals which alter your brain or your thinking.

    That’s pretty absolutist. Folks who benefit from anti-psychotics and anti-depressants might disagree. College kids clamoring for adderal seem to like what it does for their thinking. Also fans of booze and pot enjoy their effects, and there is an obvious benefit to folks who need an ambien or even a Unisom to zonk out for the night.

    Based on opinions like yours and the scare tactics that follow, we waste billions of dollars on ineffective solutions, overly empower law enforcement and ruin hundreds of thousands of lives via incarceration for recreational drug use.

    Just this week, The NYC police were attempting to scare us about synthetic marijuana by showing 10-year-old clips of COPS that showed a guy on PCP.

    carlitos (c24ed5)

  71. Oops –NYPD link here.

    carlitos (c24ed5)

  72. Carlitos – to be fair, I’ve only heard terrible things about synthetic marijuana. And in NYC it seems odd; the real thing is pretty easy to get.

    aphrael (c4a2c9)

  73. Oh, no doubt, I was just pointing out the joke of a presentation. The experts on drug enforcement” don’t even know what they are or what they do.

    He might as well have showed a Scott Baio / Willie Aames after school special on angel dust.

    carlitos (c24ed5)

  74. felipe,

    There is an appeal to emotion embraced by the temperance faction rubs me wrong. Does my sympathy for recreational drug users make me an enabler of child abuse? Comments to that effect feel like trolling to me. My dander was up.

    By the way, I was one of the uncool kids in high school/college who disapproved of drug use and I still do.

    ThOR

    ThOR (a52560)

  75. Thinking generally about the questions, I’m hoping that they are phrased in such a way that the candidate is required to fill in some pieces. I’d like to see how these guys think. We aren’t trying to interrogate them, nor are we concerned about the meaning of “is”, nor should the Fox panelists be trying to trick them into “gotcha” moments. Do they exhibit an understanding of history and how our government is supposed to work, or do they just demagogue an issue with straw men and promises of jobs, peace, retirement at 55, compassionate healthcare, etc. One thing that will really turn me off is a promise to run the government more efficiently, to eliminate waste, and on and on. The inefficiencies and waste are designed into the system, and a Harvard MBA is not the solution. We tried that with the Vietnam War, and it turned out badly. And yet this claim that Republicans do it better is a staple of RINO rhetoric.

    bobathome (601aa0)

  76. 1. What do you think of “Common Core”?
    2. How old do you think the earth is?
    3. What limits do you think should be put on the freedom of religion?
    4. When a scientist uses the word theory what does he/she mean?

    Gil (febf10)

  77. Boxers or briefs?

    Just because 90’s nostalgia.

    Mark Johnson (5c2d01)

  78. Mark, and then every candidate can do a minute long saxophone solo?

    aphrael (c4a2c9)

  79. Here is a question since 1988 the republicans have won the popular votes just once when kerry and the unions were ambivalent on the immigration issue and bush went after the hispanic vote and democrats made sure that will never happen again. 100,000 minority kids turn voting age every month and 20,000 angry old white conservatives die every month. Where are you going to get the votes to defeat hillary?

    happy hiroshima day! (c3b6c5)

  80. Kevin M:

    Some people seem to have a thing about executive orders, and think there’s something somehow illegitimate about them.

    When the orders go outside the areas that Congress has authorized, they are completely illegitimate.

    Then the problem is with what the president has attempted to do, not that he did so by executive order. I am puzzled by it, but some people really seem to think that executive orders themselves are somehow objectionable, regardless of what they say. I think some people have a notion that executive orders are a kind of law that is not mentioned in the constitution. But they’re not; they’re just memos from the boss to his workers, telling them how to do their jobs.

    ThOR:

    “Who would you like to see as Speaker of the House and Majority Leader of the Senate during your presidency?”

    The only proper answer to that is, “I would hope to see Republicans in those positions, but it would really be none of my business”.

    If push came to shove would you invade Iran to prevent them from acquiring a nuclear weapon?

    I don’t think it would be proper for a candidate to answer that. I don’t think it’s even proper for an elected president to answer such a question, or to make that decision until push has actually come to shove.

    The Congress has been stonewalled by rogue bureaucrats who have illegally used Federal power to advance the current administration’s political goals

    You’re assuming they really are rogue. That’s possible, but if so their boss doesn’t seem displeased. The alternative is that they were faithfully executing what they correctly believed to be their boss’s wishes (whether he actually told them what he wanted, or correctly assumed that they could figure it out themselves.) In that case the problem is not rogue bureaucrats but a rogue president, and obviously every candidate is going to strenuously deny that he plans to go rogue!

    bobathome:

    Most Federal activities are governed by Civil Service laws […] For example, the mailman delivers my mail […] He is not an agent of the President […] In principle, Federal employees do work for the people. These ideas date back to the 1880s with civil service reform, and I am not aware any revisions to the underlying concept.

    These ideas date back to the Googooo and Progressive movements, and their underlying concept is contrary to the constitution. The constitution is quite clear that the mailman does work for the president. Congress can and has made laws restricting how the president uses his employees, what orders he can give them and what sort of work he can have them perform. And of course the constitution itself places such restriction; he is bound by the first and fourth amendments, and therefore so are the people he employs to handle your mail.

    Milhouse (a04cc3)

  81. The sphere of individual liberty must be shrunken, indeed, if it cannot enclose all that lies within a man’s skin, and the powers of the ruler, extensive indeed, if they can reach down the citizen’s throat and explore his digestive organs. It is not mere bombast to declare that the esophagus, the duodenum, lacticals, and capillary ducts of free-born Americans are, and of right should be, forever inviolable; and that if the Declaration of Independence does not avail to save the contents of our stomachs and bladders from chemical analysis and legislative discussion, it is full time to make another declaration that shall mean something.

    papertiger (c2d6da)

  82. I would like them to be asked how they’ll handle the predictable smear tactics in the general (which somehow takes many Republicans by surprise) should they be nominated.

    For example: “When your Democrat opponent accuses you of wanting to eliminate women’s access to contraception, how will you respond”? The kind of response they give would tell us a lot. For example, Bush might respond something along the lines of “When I was Governor of Florida, we increased women’s health spending by blah blah”.

    Or “How will you respond to the accusation you’re anti-immigrant”? The only good answer is something like “Hillary Clinton (or whoever the nominee is) and the entire Democrat party keeps insulting everyone’s intelligence by equating illegal immigration with legal immigration” etc. Again that’s clearly not the answer Bush would give.

    Gerald A (e1ec12)

  83. Hoagie:

    The constitution says the executive power is vested in the president. That means the entire bureaucracy works for him, not for “the people”, and exists to implement his policies.

    So then he’s not a president, he’s a despotic constitutional figurehead.

    Um, you clearly don’t understand the word “figurehead”. A despotic figurehead is by definition impossible.

    If the “entire bureaucracy” works just for him and not “the people” and the nation then he can order them to do anything he wants as long as they are “his policies”.

    And as long as they are things he can legally do.

    Poppycock!

    If you don’t like the constitution we have, propose an amendment. Lotsa luck with that.

    Dana:

    Do you believe that the President has the authority to “unappoint,” with the advice and consent of the Senate, federal judges,

    No, he does not. I’m shocked that you would imagine he did.

    Milhouse (a04cc3)

  84. ThOR (a52560) — 8/6/2015 @ 12:37 pm Good comment Thor, welcome back.

    felipe (56556d)

  85. Children don’t have their choice of parents, and some parents make horrible choices that harm their children. Sadly, the courts tend to support parental rights to the point of repeatedly returning children to drug and alcohol addicted parents.

    On the contrary, I wonder where judges think they get the right to take children away from their parents, no matter how bad. It seems to me that:

    1) In principle: The right of parents to raise their children (which the Supreme Court recognized in, for instance, Pierce v Society of Sisters and Prince v MA) is fundamental, so basic that it never even occurred to the framers of the Bill of Rights that it needed to be mentioned. They could not imagine that any branch of government would ever purport the authority to remove children from their parents’ custody, as if the children belonged to them. The notion that children belong to the state is so repulsive, and so contrary to everything that America is supposed to stand for, that I don’t think it can be allowed.

    2) In practise: The experience of the current system has shown that for every case where a chhild’s life has been improved by the state removing it from its parents’ custody, several other children’s lives have been made much worse. Undoubtedly state-employed social workers have saved many children’s lives by kidnapping them from their parents; but equally without doubt they have killed many more children in exactly the same way. So as a practical matter I think it’s dangerous to allow the state this power, even if in a given case it means a child is likely to die.

    So, what should happen in those cases where a child clearly needs to be away from its parents? Well, what happened in those cases before states began employing social workers, and courts began authorizing them to take children into protective custody? If the neighbors or other community members saw a serious problem, they would do what they thought was necessary, and the law would turn a blind eye. Neighbors would give a beaten child shelter, and not let the parent take it home, not because they purported any right over the child but becuase in the circumstances they didn’t see any other choice. No, this didn’t always work, but it probably worked more often than the current system does. And the perception that this was not really legitimate, and was justified only by necessity, kept it from being done too often.

    Milhouse (a04cc3)

  86. i’d rather eat bugs than do drugs

    happyfeet (a037ad)

  87. Marinol is a form of man-made cannabis, which has the supposed benefits of medical marijuana without the “getting high” effects.

    And many patients have found that it doesn’t work for them.

    Milhouse (a04cc3)

  88. felipe:

    call for the Congress to pass a proper budget for me to sign and end the madness of continuing resolutions,

    You can call for anything you like, but Congress will give you what its members work out between themselves. Your only choice is to sign and keep the government open, or not to sign and close it.

    by first placing a freeze on all hiring in all depts under my control during my term

    Well, I guess that’s one way to stop terrorist attacks on recruitment offices; close them down.

    allowing each state to implement their own strategy using Federal resources

    As a state governor, I would love that. An open check on Uncle Sam for anything I can justify under “border security”.

    Milhouse (a04cc3)

  89. The fact that you find “ideas” false and harmful is sad.

    Um, what?

    Milhouse (a04cc3)

  90. Milhouse,

    I wrote: “Who would you like to see as Speaker of the House and Majority Leader of the Senate during your presidency?”

    And you responded: “The only proper answer to that is, “I would hope to see Republicans in those positions, but it would really be none of my business”.”

    This is very similar to the answer W gave when asked why he was vetoing so few pieces of legislation, but it is precisely what got him in trouble with conservatives. At the time, I completely agreed with him, but not so much now. Bush’s (and your) underlying assumption is that these Republican legislators are grownups who don’t need babysitting by a Republican executive. I no longer believe that.

    ThOR (a52560)

  91. aphrael:

    how would you manage federal relief to states undergoing natural disasters?

    I would ask Congress to repeal all such relief, and leave it up to the states, localities, and private charities to do what they think best. Here’s why.

    now that political relations with Cuba are normalizing, under what circumstances would you support ending the embargo?

    The embargo was imposed because the Cuban regime had stolen property belonging to US citizens. The thieves have not yet returned that property, and I would not lift the embargo until they do.

    Milhouse (a04cc3)

  92. So, children of those who are not officeholders are fair game? Why the double standard?

    Do you want parents to run for office or do you not? Like the man said, if questions like yours are allowed to be asked in a campaign, no parent will ever run for office again. Is that something you are willing to accept?

    Milhouse (a04cc3)

  93. Nothing good comes from using chemicals which alter your brain or your thinking.

    Carl Sagan is evidence against that.

    Milhouse (a04cc3)

  94. 2. How old do you think the earth is?

    Twelve thousand, one hundred and fifty-three years, forty-one days, seven hours, ten minutes and thirty seconds, as of <glances at watch>. . . wait for it . . . now. <waits for laughter to die down> Why? How old do you think it is? And why should anyone care what either one of us thinks about it?

    3. What limits do you think should be put on the freedom of religion?

    Why don’t you tell me what limits do you think should be put on the freedom of the press? What sort of censorship would you accept on newspapers, and on TV news reporting? Then we can discuss the free exercise of religion.

    Milhouse (a04cc3)

  95. Where are you going to get the votes to defeat hillary?

    Easy. I’m going to track you down, Perry, put a gun to your head, and force you to vote for me 100,000 times, in different people’s names.

    Milhouse (a04cc3)

  96. OT for this thread, but the subject came up here not long ago
    http://borepatch.blogspot.com/2015/08/more-on-shooting-down-drones.html

    kishnevi (93670d)

  97. I wrote: “Who would you like to see as Speaker of the House and Majority Leader of the Senate during your presidency?”

    And you responded: “The only proper answer to that is, “I would hope to see Republicans in those positions, but it would really be none of my business”.”

    This is very similar to the answer W gave when asked why he was vetoing so few pieces of legislation, but it is precisely what got him in trouble with conservatives

    Not at all. Whether to veto legislation is very much the president’s business. Whom the congressional majoirity parties elects as their leaders is very much not. The only legitimate answer a presidential candidate can give is that he hopes those positions are held by Republicans, i.e. that the Republicans hold majorities in both houses.

    Milhouse (a04cc3)

  98. 85. i’d rather eat bugs than do drugs

    happyfeet (a037ad) — 8/6/2015 @ 2:26 pm

    It sounds like you and aphrael have come to a perfect agreement as to how to divide up the world.

    Steve57 (5a07a9)

  99. 75. 1. What do you think of “Common Core”?
    2. How old do you think the earth is?
    3. What limits do you think should be put on the freedom of religion?
    4. When a scientist uses the word theory what does he/she mean?
    Gil (febf10) — 8/6/2015 @ 12:41 pm

    No doubt Gil will vote for the senile grandma who doesn’t know that movements of NATO fighter jets in response to international crises are classified and are not to be discussed on a any unclassified system, let alone an unencrypted unsecured home brew system in your own basement.

    Somehow I think that safeguarding classified information is more relevant to the job than prying into someone’s religious beliefs, but if we stressed core competencies no liberal would get elected.

    Steve57 (5a07a9)

  100. I would vote for a Manatee if it meant never listening to another State of the Union Speech.

    Plus, no Manatee has ever tried to evade congressional oversight by fabricating its own private email system.

    Steve57 (5a07a9)

  101. It sounds like you and aphrael have come to a perfect agreement as to how to divide up the world.
    Steve57 (5a07a9) — 8/6/2015 @ 3:22 pm

    LOL, no offense offered to my fellow commenters, but that right there, is funny.

    felipe (56556d)

  102. Q: Donald Trump… the Clinton camp has confirmed that Bill Clinton called you before you threw your hat into the ring. What was the gist of that conversation?

    A: Bill Clinton asked if I could recommend a laundry detergent that would remove stains on blue dresses and a huge stain on the office of POTUS.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  103. it’s carly fiorina’s whirl Mr. 57 me and Mr. aphrael just get to shop in it for sundry consumer packaged goods and tasty foozles

    when did sales tax in Chicago head north of 12 percent btw im not getting all the memos

    happyfeet (02c20a)

  104. Actually there is no evidence of such, colonel.

    narciso (ee1f88)

  105. You can call for anything you like, but Congress will give you what its members work out between themselves. Your only choice is to sign and keep the government open, or not to sign and close it.

    What a useless Prez you would make, Milhouse. As prez, I would veto every continuing resolution until the Congress passed a proper budget. The electorate would support me because it would be something I promised to the American people. Presidents keeping explicit campaign promises is something rare these days.

    felipe (56556d)

  106. I would make sure each veto was televised.

    First veto: I would slowly tear into little pieces before using a boot-shaped stamp to veto the entire pile to the applause of my staff.

    Second veto: I would hold it by one corner and lower it over a candle shaped like the statue of liberty.

    Third veto: I would invite Senator Hoagie to do the honors before I gave it the veto.

    Fourth veto: General Haiku would be indulged with his treatment of the document before I give it the “boot.”

    And so on….

    felipe (56556d)

  107. That’s why the flippant answer, narciso. If it happened, it was just Clinton running interference for his shrew.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  108. he just feels guilty for giving her his herpes i bet

    happyfeet (831175)

  109. Nothing good comes from using chemicals which alter your brain or your thinking.

    Depends on the chemical(s) and the user. There are a number of “mental problems” that can be effectively managed (sadly, not cured) by the proper use of the proper drugs. My life over the last half-century might have been very different if I’d been prescribed stimulants in the 1960s; I wasn’t.

    Q1) What are your plans to a) balance the budget, and b) reduce the deficit, and c) pay off the national debt?

    Q2) What are your plans to improve the medical treatment available from the VA for verterans? Do you intend to increase the restrictions on those eligible for care, or to relax those restrictions?

    Q3) Will there be a return to a GI Bill like there was after WW2, or will it continue to be a savings program?

    htom (4ca1fa)

  110. You got it, felipe. Take your case before the people and make the enemy hide their faces. Oh, and don’t forget to call out members of the media who aid and abet the bums.

    Rev. Barack Hussein Hoagie (f4eb27)

  111. 108.Nothing good comes from using chemicals which alter your brain or your thinking.

    Stop being ridiculously literal. He meant illegal drugs mixed up in a double-wide in Tennessee or a burned out building in Baltimore. Or do you argue just to hear yourself type?

    Rev. Barack Hussein Hoagie (f4eb27)

  112. As prez, I would veto every continuing resolution until the Congress passed a proper budget.

    Your comment shows how little you know about the subject. What do you mean by “passed a proper budget”? Since when does a president ever sign a budget? (Technically I suppose they’re subject to the presentment clause, but I don’t think a budget has ever actually been presented, because it would be pointless.)

    If you mean that you would insist on appropriation bills for a full year, would you be OK with one obmnibus bill, or would you insist on 13 separate ones?

    And no, the public would not support you closing the government down, any more than it supported Reagan doing so. The rule of government shutdowns seems to be that they are always the Republicans’ fault, no matter whether it’s a D president against an R congress (as in the cases of Clinton and 0bama) or vice versa (as in the case of Reagan).

    Milhouse (a04cc3)

  113. By the way, what exactly is your objection to continuing resolutions?

    Milhouse (a04cc3)

  114. Q1) What are your plans to a) balance the budget, and b) reduce the deficit, and c) pay off the national debt?

    You have A and B reversed. Balancing the budget means reducing the deficit to zero. Reducing it but not all the way to zero obviously comes before getting it all the way. Paying off the debt can only begin after the deficit has been eliminated.

    What are your plans to improve the medical treatment available from the VA for verterans?

    I’d do the exact opposite: get rid of the VA’s medical treatment altogether, and buy each eligible veteran a policy with a private insurer.

    Milhouse (a04cc3)

  115. Will there be a return to a GI Bill like there was after WW2,

    Gawd no, that would be about the worst thing possible. The higher education bubble that Instapundit keeps talking about is bad enough as it is. This would only make it worse.

    Milhouse (a04cc3)

  116. Red queens spokesdrone said there was no call with the oligarch.

    narciso (ee1f88)

  117. A 30-second search of Al Gore’s internets shows that we’ve gone way past the GI Bill. https://bigfuture.collegeboard.org/pay-for-college/financial-aid-101/for-veterans-paying-for-college

    nk (dbc370)

  118. Red queens spokesdrone said there was no call with the oligarch.

    narciso (ee1f88) — 8/6/2015 @ 5:36 pm

    With her record of honesty, you can take it to the bank!

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  119. With her record of honesty, you can take it to the bank!

    Of course, but what is the basis for supposing the call did happen?

    Milhouse (a04cc3)

  120. So what if you would be a lousy prez, Milhouse? Don’t take it so hard. I’m sure I could find something for you, too. But give me a little time to find something… er…you could handle.

    Let me just review your past performance:

    I don;’t even understand what that means. Milhouse (a04cc3) — 8/6/2015 @ 7:05 am

    What does that even mean? Milhouse (a04cc3) — 8/6/2015 @ 7:11 am

    Um, what? Milhouse (a04cc3) — 8/6/2015 @ 2:43 pm

    I have it! You shall take up Josh Earnest’s post.

    felipe (56556d)

  121. Anonymous sources who may not even exist.

    narciso (ee1f88)

  122. or who may exist, narciso. He’s tapped into the swell of anger out here, but…

    It will be interesting tonight.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  123. re: #99 , it would be nice if that stupid event stopped taking place.
    Just send a note and be done with it.

    seeRpea (181740)

  124. Hey! One of my questions got asked – but only of Scott Walker, who didn’t seem to answer it so much as say that under a Walker presidency the situation would never arise.

    aphrael (c4a2c9)

  125. @Millhouse

    Why? How old do you think it is? And why should anyone care what either one of us thinks about it?

    4.5 billion years old. I care because it goes to your grasp on reality.

    Why don’t you tell me what limits do you think should be put on the freedom of the press? What sort of censorship would you accept on newspapers, and on TV news reporting? Then we can discuss the free exercise of religion.

    Because I’m not running for president. Why do my views on censorship have any bearing on your ability to answer a simple question?

    @Steve

    No doubt Gil will vote for the senile grandma …… let alone an unencrypted unsecured home brew system in your own basement.

    Where did this come from? No I would not vote for Hillary, the home based email server scandal was outrageous. She should be disgraced out of the public circle for that alone (let alone all the other objections).

    Somehow I think that safeguarding classified information is more relevant to the job than prying into someone’s religious beliefs, but if we stressed core competencies no liberal would get elected.

    I think the Republicans will have classified information under control which is why I would not ask about it. I did not ask about religious beliefs I asked about a basic scientific fact. But in any case why should asking someone about their religious beliefs be called “prying”? We are talking about the next president. Id like to know what makes them tick.

    Gil (4e1585)

  126. Can’t wait to hear the probing questions you’ve no doubt prepared for the Empress Dowager, aphrael.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  127. Add Jack higgs of Oregon as another of those well adjusted consumers of cannabis.

    narciso (ee1f88)

  128. I have it! You shall take up Josh Earnest’s post.

    Go jump in the lake. If you’re not interested in honest conversation, and insist on engaging in dishonest personal attacks, and you’re not even amusing like happyfeet, then you are no use to anybody in the world, and should remove yourself from it. You are no better than Perry. Maybe you are Perry.

    Milhouse (a04cc3)

  129. I care because it goes to your grasp on reality.

    It’s not my grasp on reality you need to worry about, it’s every Democrat candidate’s.

    Let me ask you a few simple questions, since you’re so interested in testing people’s grasp on reality: Is there any possibility that vaccinations cause autism? Is there any possibility that power lines cause cancer? Is there any reason to avoid eating genetically modified foods? Is there any health advantage in eating “organic” produce? Is there any value in homœopathy? Is there any significant risk from fracking? Is there a safer method of producing electricity than nuclear power? Did anyone get sick from Love Canal? Did Rockefeller sell oil at a loss in order to drive competitors out of business? Was Alger Hiss guilty? How about Sacco and Vanzetti? Was Che Guevarra a bloodthirsty murderer with no redeeming qualities? Was Michael Brown murdered? Did he try to surrender? Was Trayvon Martin murdered? Was Karen Silkwood murdered? Was Giordano Bruno a martyr for science? Was Hypatia? Did any of Columbus’s critics think the earth was flat? Does going to college increase a woman’s chance of being raped? Are whales endangered, and is there any justification for continuing the global moratorium on whaling? Since 2000 have global average temperatures gone up, down, or stayed the same? Was the Benghazi attack caused by a video? Did George W Bush have advance warning about the World Trade Center attacks? Can fire melt steel? Did he lie about what was known of Iraq’s WMD programs?

    Why don’t you ask some of those questions to the D candidates, and see how they answer, before you worry about irrelevant questions like the age of the world?

    Milhouse (a04cc3)

  130. Mr Johnson suggested:

    Boxers or briefs?

    Just because 90’s nostalgia.

    So, do we get to ask Carly Fiorina, “Bikinis or thongs?” I really would like to know the answer.

    The Dana who will have to go to Confession (f6a568)

  131. She wears skirts (looks good in them too). I thought Catholic boys knew about patent leather shoes.

    nk (dbc370)

  132. @Millhouse

    Right now Im talking to a Republican. Your continued inability to answer a simple question and 30 question diatribe are telling. I guess we shouldnt expect a straightforward administration from you – Regardless of what democrats think.

    Gil (4e1585)

  133. Got talk to your girlfriends, the widow and her five daughters, Gil.

    nk (dbc370)

  134. However, anyone who asks, “Bikinis or thongs?” of Hillary Clinton is a soul beyond redemption.

    My apologies, in advance, to anyone who was eating while reading this comment.

    The thoroughly grossed out Dana (f6a568)

  135. Our Windy City knife collector wrote:

    I thought Catholic boys knew about patent leather shoes.

    Alas! We were way, way, way! too poor for me to go to parochial school, and ’twas public school for me. The girls were still required to wear dresses or skirts, but the fashion of the day was either penny loafers of saddle oxfords to the girls.

    The trailer park trash Dana (f6a568)

  136. 133.However, anyone who asks, “Bikinis or thongs?” of Hillary Clinton is a soul beyond redemption.

    Depends.

    nk (dbc370)

  137. It’s a shame that this fine site doesn’t have the thumbs up/ thumbs down comment ranking, ’cause I’d surely give our garrulous Greek a thumbs up for that last one! :)

    The amused Dana (f6a568)

  138. The earth is not 4.5 billion years old, Gil. The earth is 4,377,156,432 years 7 months and 16 days old. God told me.

    Now can you see how stupid you look? No one, especially someone as closed minded as you, knows the age of the earth. To claim you do know is like shouting “I’m stupid” for all the world to hear.

    Rev. Barack Hussein Hoagie (f4eb27)

  139. 85. i’d rather eat bugs than do drugs

    happyfeet (a037ad) — 8/6/2015 @ 2:26 pm

    It sounds like you and aphrael have come to a perfect agreement as to how to divide up the world.

    Steve57 (5a07a9) — 8/6/2015 @ 3:22 pm

    1 – Steve57, that was funny as hell. :)
    2 – Believe it or not, bugs are the next trendy protein in the hip, foodie crowd.

    http://time.com/3649922/2015-food-trends/

    http://www.eatclean.com/trends/cricket-foods

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/food/article-2936565/Insect-eating-latest-culinary-trend-hit-UK.html

    carlitos (c24ed5)

  140. Colonel Haiku – I’m sure that when the Democratic debates come around, I’ll have questions for those candidates, too. :)

    I should note that I did not vote for Sen. Clinton in 2008, and that she starts with a couple of strong negatives in my mind. I think it’s very likely that I will vote against her in the primary.

    aphrael (c4a2c9)

  141. No one, especially someone as closed minded as you, knows the age of the earth

    If you actually did some research into the matter at a library you could probably find tens if not hundreds of references that show otherwise. Hell even Wikipedia has links to 30 some references and 10 or more related reading suggestions.

    Oh I know the problem. The data and research found in libraries might contradict the literal biblical understanding. That would mean its wrong, and is falsely being put in there because of a vast cabal of god hating scientists. Nevermind about that. Please continue to make assertions with no evidence. Its easier that way.

    Gil (4e1585)

  142. No one, especially someone as closed minded as you, knows the age of the earth

    If you actually did some research into the matter at a library you could probably find tens if not hundreds of references that show otherwise. Hell even Wikipedia has links to 30 some references and 10 or more related reading suggestions.

    And every one of those boils down to somebody’s guess, based on certain assumptions. Nobody knows, and nobody competent claims to know.

    Milhouse (a04cc3)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.5756 secs.