Lawrence Lessig: The Man You Have Never Heard Of Who Should Be Running In 2016

originally posted by: tavi45
a reply to: smithjustinb

We know it's futile but hope is preferable to despair. I know you're just dying to get a new white overlord to bow to. We want a return to "by the people, for the people"

A white overlord? No. Actually, my vote would be for Ben Carson if he'd run. So don't try to go down the race road unless you want to further your display of ignorance.

Prepare for despair. Because, come Tuesday, you'll be full of it. And I will have high hopes for the future of my country.

We are the real patriots

Only in your mind.

I'm hoping Ben Carson runs, I don't care which party he's affiliated with. If he runs, I'm voting for him.

a reply to: smithjustinb

My argument on gun control???

God you assume so much. I happen to be pro Second Amendment and am a gun owner. Zealotry, blinding, isn't it?

a reply to: smithjustinb

Hehe. Couldn't the "in your mind" argument go both ways? My #1 issue is getting money out of politics, returning to true democracy.

The gun debate is not as red and blue as the parties would have some believe.

I consider myself a lock and load liberal. Yes, we exist, and are actually quite populous outside of any metro loop confine.

Just felt it important to continue to point out that red and blue, conservative and liberals, etc., are by no means black and white on all issues. If only our country would become color blind, on all things seeking to artificially separate us, we might have a little more united in these states. Sigh.

Back to watching for coyote. And yea net neutrality and a few other items from said professor.

Peace

ETA: I wouldn't really shoot near the coyote unless it was set on eating my chickens. His land too I figure.

originally posted by: Hefficide
a reply to: smithjustinb

My argument on gun control???

God you assume so much. I happen to be pro Second Amendment and am a gun owner. Zealotry, blinding, isn't it?

It doesn't matter if you are anti gun or pro abortion or whatever. The fact is, not everyone will agree on every thing.

If you were so anti gun regulation as you claim, you wouldn't be playing the devil's advocate here.

a reply to: smithjustinb

Maybe he's just being reasonable and realizes that Lessigs position on guns is just that, a position. He's not an anti gun crusader. He's an anti corruption pro democracy crusader.

a reply to: DancedWithWolves

Of course there are issues that some find themselves in a gray area on. For example, I'm for the legalization of recreational marijuana. Democrats and republicans may both be against it.

I have my own beliefs that I formed independently of being involved with a political party. Then, when my beliefs were formed, I realized that my beliefs corresponded in many ways to conservative beliefs. So, I labeled myself a conservative.

Honestly, I wish we could all just get along, but I know that isn't going to happen. The left is just too far against what I stand for:

-Personal Responsibility
-Distribution of power to individuals and taken away from the government
-Low, but reasonable, and equal taxes
-Limited government
-Individual freedom
-Free market

a reply to: smithjustinb

No devils advocacy at all. The man stands for getting $$$ out of Washington, campaign finance reform, and integrity. The fact that he signed, along with dozens of others, a letter about gun control only shows that he, in theory, sees a problem that needs fixing. All politicians do, as do most citizens - the balance between the Second Amendment and crime. Are there easy answers? Not really. But background checks are a good idea.

originally posted by: Hefficide
a reply to: smithjustinb

No devils advocacy at all. The man stands for getting $$$ out of Washington, campaign finance reform, and integrity.

That's all well and good. But, those traits alone, aren't enough, imo as a voter, for me to consider him as a worthy candidate (if he was a candidate).

The fact that he signed, along with dozens of others, a letter about gun control only shows that he, in theory, sees a problem that needs fixing. All politicians do, as do most citizens

A lot of people agree that there is a problem. But, not everyone agrees on the cause of the problem or the solution to it.

- the balance between the Second Amendment and crime. Are there easy answers? Not really. But background checks are a good idea.

A good idea would be to stop giving people medication for false diseases like ADD. The pharmaceutical industry has a lot of stuff out there that can really mess with people's heads, and indeed, the problem, is that people are messed up in the head. Not that weapons are too powerful. I 100% blame big government and the over-sensitivity propagated by special interests groups for the retardation of the American public.

We already have back ground checks. Back ground checks are fine as they are. We don't need greater back ground checks. There are enough already and there is already a lot, in my state, that can disqualify you from being able to own a gun. But, what isn't fine, is his support of further limiting the capacity of magazines and the type of gun you can own. If he supports that, I consider him not worthy of my vote, regardless of his stance on any other issue.

originally posted by: tavi45
a reply to: smithjustinb

So because he wants reasonable limitations on guns he's a tyrant. He's quite far from a tyrant. Maybe you should look into him more. He seems like an all around nice guy. He has done nothing but try to fight for democracy and the little guy.

He would have my vote.
The corporate and banking fascists have wayyyyy to much power over our government and need to be reigned in.

Anyone else find it ironically amusing, that the guy started a PAC to change donations of PACS. Basically he is saying the system works.

a reply to: thinline

His PAC is crowdfunded - not funded by the 132 people who fund the other PACS. And it's purpose is to put an end to PAC's. When money is the only language Washington speaks - one has to become fluent in it.

a reply to: tavi45

In NH where I live the militia was washed into the national guard. The whole idea is that we want a militia that we the people regulate for our own protection. The guard is controlled by the government, whereas a militia would be regulated by the people. The primary reason for having a militia is to defend against a threat, whether that threat is from another country that makes its way into ours or from our own government should they get so powerful that they try to physically oppress us. If China invaded the US right now we would be so outnumbered that we would end up forming militias anyways to try and stay alive.

I cannot legally form a militia in my state though. This is because of all of the legilation that would classify me as a terrorist or that bans the forming of a militia because my state has the guard.

The same thing tracks with 30 round magazines. If the military can use them to defend us why can't we? When it comes down to it we don't just stop having a military when we arent at war, we keep a running military for if things get bad again. The same should be said with the militias. Just because we don't need a militia at this very second (or a 30 round magazine) does not mean that we shouldn't have it. We should stay prepared and ready for anything that can happen, and even in disaster scenarios when the Govt. cannot fully protect us a militia could try. Most of the guys that I know who support a militia are all fire/rescue/police/former military and would all volunteer their time in a crisis to help rescue people and bring them to safety.

a reply to: Hefficide
S&F for thread. I wouldn't vote for him because he is a lawyer, and to me they are a big part of the problem, not the solution.

originally posted by: smithjustinb
. And I will have high hopes for the future of my country.

Well lets wait until we find out its between Bush III and Clinton II and see how those high hopes are

originally posted by: Tarzan the apeman.
a reply to: Hefficide
S&F for thread. I wouldn't vote for him because he is a lawyer, and to me they are a big part of the problem, not the solution.

I tend to agree with the sentiment about lawyers - though if one with true integrity were to run, I would consider voting for him or her. Having said that, my observations over nearly fifty years of life is that something about winning the Presidency changes people. Maybe that first day briefing is enough to destroy a persons conscience and soul. Maybe the truth of things is so ugly that it instantly destroyes hope and integrity in those who are exposed.

Just a thought.

a reply to: Hefficide
It seems to me that presidents do seem to go gray awfully quickly. I always ask myself if a lawyer should write there own laws. Think about how much they could manipulate it to their advantage. I am however with this person on the money issue. There has to be a better way. Maybe money can only come from individuals and there is a cap on how much can be given. That wouldn't be liked by many politics. They would loose a source of income which is obtain legally but yet deceitfully or illegally. To much money and its not all being accounted for.