What a disappointing AMA. He answers stupid questions about his favorite basketball player and the white house beer recipe, but completely ignores the important ones about decriminalization of marijuana.
Fuck him. I'm not voting for him. He's a mild and more sociable version of Romney.
Why on Earth would he go touch marijuana legalization with a 10-foot pole? He's not Ron Paul; he's actually trying to win the election. The average swing voter is a middle-aged mom, and you want him to talk about marijuana legalization?
You can either be a frank politician who addresses all questions honestly, or you can be a politician who wins elections.
Hands down, the best [TED] talk this year was from Bryan Stevenson on injustice in the US criminal legal system. For example, the number of prisoners in the last 40 years has grown from 300,000 to 2.3 million (primarily, I believe, due to non-violent drug infractions). One third of young African American men are in prison, on probation or on parole. Ours is the only country in the world that gives life sentences to 13 year olds. As for the death penalty, one out of nine defendants sentenced to death have been exonerated. in California a billion dollars will be spent defending and executing the death penalty in the next 5 years, although a referendum is on its way to re-direct those funds to police enforcement budgets.
What made the talk great was Stevenson's ability to weave in his personal stories, recounting memories of what it was like to grow up among activists like Rosa Parks. There was so much enthusiasm for Stevenson and his cause that TED Curator Chris Andersen jumped on the occasion to solicit donations for Stevenson's private foundation. Right there many of us stood up and, in aggregate, pledged close to a million dollars!
You just wooshed my comment, hard. I'm not saying it's not a real issue, I'm saying he'd have to be an idiot to address it. It's a no-win situation for him: either piss of the young voters he's trying to court, or piss off the swing voters he needs to court. There is simply nothing for him to gain by addressing marijuana legalization.
Ron Paul doesn't suffer from this problem. He's not trying (or able) to win the White House; he's trying to bring issues to the forefront of the public consciousness and raise awareness of libertarian positions. Ron Paul can afford to address the issues that would lose real candidates elections, as he's not about to win any elections outside of his House seat.
> He's not trying (or able) to win the White House; he's trying to bring issues to the forefront of the public consciousness and raise awareness of libertarian positions.
No, he's trying to make money from campaign donations. He always succeeds.
Along with the (Nobel Peace Prize Winner's) wars, this is the major reason why I have left the US until there is a revolution. It is simply sickening that most voters ignore this issue.
As far as I am concerned, the United States of America, as conceived by Thomas Jefferson, no longer exists. That is why I choose to reside outside the USA.
If any possibility arises of a shooting revolution, I will be back with a gun, and willing to give my life for freedom.
All I see on Google is other folks saying he would support de-criminalization of marijuana (and AG Holder actually de-prioritized drug offenses for awhile before the DEA basically decided to ignore them and still continue their busts).
I don't really see what you're getting at. Do you think the Whitehouse policy on drugs has changed since the last time they addressed legalizing marijuana [1]? If not, how is anyone served by hearing the same answer rehashed?
"What a disappointing AMA. He answers stupid questions about his favorite basketball player and the white house beer recipe, but completely ignores the important ones about decriminalization of marijuana."
Wonderful way to be lazy while pretending to take a moral stand: Claim they're all crooks, that you can't see any difference between them, and that you refuse to participate.
It's laziness mixed with condescension and moral outrage. Perfect!
In Ancient Greece, elections were considered (rightfully) as oligarchic, and sortition was the true instrument of democracy.
Sure, their democracy was flawed (not everyone was a citizen), but it's still better than our so called modern "democracies" where a closed oligarchy of influent and wealthy people rule the world while providing the illusion of freedom.
Elections are the circuses of our times, a modern game used to distract the masses, where people get to support their champion and their party.
Fuck him. I'm not voting for him. He's a mild and more sociable version of Romney.