Chump for President

[marshallnoise]

"You can't be pro-gun, pro-smaller government, and pro-business yet at the same time NOT be anti-liberal since those three things are what the liberals are against (guns, small government, and business)."

Wrong. You have been led to believe something that just is not true.

Conservative politicians make a whole lot of noise about these things but at the end of the day it is mostly a con.

While there are plenty of anti gun people out there, the majority of people want to see reforms that prevent gun crime. Taking guns away is not the answer but neither is arming toddlers. Policy meeting this is possible.

Please tell me (and Tomi Lahren) how small government relates to an individual and their rights to do with their body as they please? Small government and the war on drugs work how? Maybe it is small government related to the US prison system.

Being pro business and pro screwing workers/environment/etc. are not mutually exclusive. Those that promote this are greedy selfish jerks.

I disagree with you. You can't prevent crime. If you want to prevent gun crime, you take the guns away and you have regular crime. So the problem isn't the gun, its the people committing crime. Tougher sentences for crimes (period), allowing people to defend themselves, and not allowing prisoners to become a transgendered individual would help.

A small government has nothing to do with the war on drugs or Planned Parenthood. A small government can have bad policy. When people talk about small government, they mean small footprint in our lives. In your example about the environment, the EPA has to be huge to solve those perceived issues you have. Same for Department of Labor.

You conflate two issues when talking about pro-business versus the environment or labor. Protecting the environment will always come at the cost of freedom. Protecting labor will always come at the cost of economic output.

A classical liberal says something like this regarding guns, business and small government: Guns don't kill people, people kill people. A rising tide raises all ships (re: Business). The government should protect us from foreign enemies and not bother us (they shouldn't be bothering us daily).

[LBJefferies]

I agree, they are not Classical Liberals (some are ie. Freedom Caucus). But hating on just the Republicans and not liberals too (cause they ain't classical liberals either) is just plain weird.

It's not weird because the Democratic party doesn't claim to be Classically liberal. I may disagree with the Democratic party on most issues but they are an inherently weak party because they have to appeal to a giant blob of every type of person. They aren't lying about what they want. The Republicans on the other hand have complete disdain for their base, and claim to be something that they aren't. The Democrats are incompetent, the Republicans are dangerous liars. There's a big difference. Trump is incompetent though so we will see how this goes.

[Dagamus(NM)]

I disagree with you. You can't prevent crime. If you want to prevent gun crime, you take the guns away and you have regular crime. So the problem isn't the gun, its the people committing crime. Tougher sentences for crimes (period), allowing people to defend themselves, and not allowing prisoners to become a transgendered individual would help. You can prevent crime. A more accurate statement is that you can deter crime. With respect to gun crime, you have to choose to prosecute those providing guns to criminals. I agree that the problem isn't the gun, the gun is merely a tool.

A small government has nothing to do with the war on drugs or Planned Parenthood. A small government can have bad policy. When people talk about small government, they mean small footprint in our lives. In your example about the environment, the EPA has to be huge to solve those perceived issues you have. Same for Department of Labor. The government saying what people can/cannot put into or do with their body is absolutely big government. You just disagree with the actions that people choose to take so think it is cool for government to determine that.

You conflate two issues when talking about pro-business versus the environment or labor. Protecting the environment will always come at the cost of freedom. Freedom to pollute? What about my freedom to clean air and water? What freedom are you speaking of? Protecting labor will always come at the cost of economic output.

A classical liberal says something like this regarding guns, business and small government: Guns don't kill people, people kill people. and mentally unfit people with large capacity magazines kill lots of people A rising tide raises all ships (re: Business) if people run business ethically and not be caught up in pure greed. The government should protect us from foreign enemies and not bother us (they shouldn't be bothering us daily).anti police much?

[z31maniac]

Tougher sentences for crimes (period)

No, just no.

This has been shown to be ineffective.

The 3 strike rule in California for instance, has worked wonders hasn't it!

[marshallnoise]

No, just no.

This has been shown to be ineffective.

The 3 strike rule in California for instance, has worked wonders hasn't it!

Three strikes isn't tougher sentences. It's stupid policy. And California releases criminals whenever it feels like it. Whatever this state does is not a good example.

[BraveUlysses]

No, just no.

This has been shown to be ineffective.

The 3 strike rule in California for instance, has worked wonders hasn't it!

We're already #1 in the world for number of people incarcerated and also highest per capita!

USA #1 USA #1 USA #1

[z31maniac]

Three strikes isn't tougher sentences. It's stupid policy. And California releases criminals whenever it feels like it. Whatever this state does is not a good example.

How is it not? 3x = mandatory life

No one steals in the middle east either since they will cut off your fingers/hand, huh?

The Death Penalty in this country keeps people from murdering?

[marshallnoise]

How is it not? 3x = mandatory life

No one steals in the middle east either since they will cut off your fingers/hand, huh?

The Death Penalty in this country keeps people from murdering?

Because it's arbitrary. You can write a bad check on accident and that be your third strike. If you want gun crime to stop, actual crime, you make the penalty so huge moat people won't do it.

Sent from my XT1575 using Tapatalk

[Dagamus(NM)]

Because it's arbitrary. You can write a bad check on accident and that be your third strike. If you want gun crime to stop, actual crime, you make the penalty so huge moat people won't do it.

Sent from my XT1575 using Tapatalk

In an ideal world. For certain crimes and criminals the fear of the penalty of being caught deters them from the crime. Mentally ill people miss this often. Angry and irrational people miss this.

Three strikes was supposed to be for violent crimes, not lower class felonies. Honestly, a lot of felonies should be misdemeanors.

Driving my M-Coupe at 135mph on an empty highway in Arizona could have constituted a felony. Dumb laws.

[marshallnoise]

In an ideal world. For certain crimes and criminals the fear of the penalty of being caught deters them from the crime. Mentally ill people miss this often. Angry and irrational people miss this.

Three strikes was supposed to be for violent crimes, not lower class felonies. Honestly, a lot of felonies should be misdemeanors.

Driving my M-Coupe at 135mph on an empty highway in Arizona could have constituted a felony. Dumb laws.

This we agree on. No matter what, the insane or temporarily insane cannot be stopped. Thus, doing everything in the name of stopping crime is a fraudulent goal. Its chasing the last 1% that takes the most resources and is a fool's errand.

[TimeMachinE30]

Three strikes isn't tougher sentences. It's stupid policy. And California releases criminals whenever it feels like it. Whatever this state does is not a good example.

Nice to hear you accept this....

[Dagamus(NM)]

Well, I guess we will all get to see what Trump intends to do to show the supposed strength he has that Obama didn't with respect to Syria and the DPRK.

Personally, if I were running policy I would hold China directly accountable for any actions of the DPRK and encourage China to completely annex them.

Same approach with Syria and Russia.

[marshallnoise]

Nice to hear you accept this....

I'd be nuts to think whatever CA does is right. This place is run by the inmates.

[marshallnoise]

Well, I guess we will all get to see what Trump intends to do to show the supposed strength he has that Obama didn't with respect to Syria and the DPRK.

Personally, if I were running policy I would hold China directly accountable for any actions of the DPRK and encourage China to completely annex them.

Same approach with Syria and Russia.

That's an interesting approach to the problem. Especially interesting since that's an imperialist move that is supposedly hated universally.

[Dagamus(NM)]

That's an interesting approach to the problem. Especially interesting since that's an imperialist move that is supposedly hated universally.

Beats the alternative and leaves us out of it. China is not what it was with respect to communist expansion. I would rather have China running the place completely than the uncertainty it has now.

Either way, the actions of governments propped up by Russia and China should be held against both the offending government and Russia and China as though the actions were their own. Same for us for any of our puppet governments (foreign locations of US military bases as I see it).

Assad needs to be tried and executed for his crimes.