and I'd love for a legitimate 3rd party to emerge. Unfortunately, Libertarians aren't it.

http://www.wral.com/haugh-i-actually-do-...m=facebook

Quote:Laslo asked Haugh whether he has smoked marijuana during the current campaign.

"I actually do," Haugh replied. "This is the first time I’ve ever admitted it to anybody, but this is the first time anybody’s ever asked me directly."

"You know, I'm 54. I have arthritis, but I don't have arthritis pain, thanks to that," Haugh said with a smile, adding that it also helps ease pain from a carpal tunnel problem. "It has a lot of real medical benefits."

"How's North Carolina weed?" Laslo asked.

"Certainly a hell of a lot better than what I saw in the '70s," Haugh answered.

http://www.newsweek.com/libertarian-pizz...ate-279400

You may be right. But this seems trivial to me, so I personally wouldn't disqualify him on this alone.

I would vote for him in a heart beat based on his honestly alone.

Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

If we can just get 100% of the country stoned all our problems will solve themselves.

At least he's honest about it... and admitted he inhaled.

so others elected do blow and screw their staff members, but some weed is an issue?

(10-28-2014 09:07 AM)fsquid Wrote:  so others elected do blow and screw their staff members, but some weed is an issue?

Exactly.

(10-28-2014 08:13 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  I would vote for him in a heart beat based on his honestly alone.

Perhaps that's the point of the OP. No-one trusts an honest politician.

(10-28-2014 09:09 AM)mlb Wrote:  

(10-28-2014 09:07 AM)fsquid Wrote:  so others elected do blow and screw their staff members, but some weed is an issue?

Exactly.

Not my point. This man delivers pizzas for a living and admits to smoking pot. Not exactly what most would consider a serious candidate.

(10-28-2014 11:29 AM)blunderbuss Wrote:  

(10-28-2014 09:09 AM)mlb Wrote:  

(10-28-2014 09:07 AM)fsquid Wrote:  so others elected do blow and screw their staff members, but some weed is an issue?

Exactly.

Not my point. This man delivers pizzas for a living and admits to smoking pot. Not exactly what most would consider a serious candidate.

At least he delivers something. That's more than can be said for most of Congress.

(10-28-2014 11:29 AM)blunderbuss Wrote:  

(10-28-2014 09:09 AM)mlb Wrote:  

(10-28-2014 09:07 AM)fsquid Wrote:  so others elected do blow and screw their staff members, but some weed is an issue?

Exactly.

Not my point. This man delivers pizzas for a living and admits to smoking pot. Not exactly what most would consider a serious candidate.

So he has first-hand experience with the challenges small businesses face, knows what it's like to be low income but still doesn't favor redistribution, and is extremely unlikely to favor continuing the drug war. What's not to like?

(10-28-2014 11:29 AM)blunderbuss Wrote:  

(10-28-2014 09:09 AM)mlb Wrote:  

(10-28-2014 09:07 AM)fsquid Wrote:  so others elected do blow and screw their staff members, but some weed is an issue?

Exactly.

Not my point. This man delivers pizzas for a living and admits to smoking pot. Not exactly what most would consider a serious candidate.

show me your serious candidates then because they will keep disappearing at lightening speed as these Super Pacs grow on both sides.

(10-28-2014 01:00 PM)fsquid Wrote:  

(10-28-2014 11:29 AM)blunderbuss Wrote:  

(10-28-2014 09:09 AM)mlb Wrote:  

(10-28-2014 09:07 AM)fsquid Wrote:  so others elected do blow and screw their staff members, but some weed is an issue?

Exactly.

Not my point. This man delivers pizzas for a living and admits to smoking pot. Not exactly what most would consider a serious candidate.

show me your serious candidates then because they will keep disappearing at lightening speed as these Super Pacs grow on both sides.

I'd like to see candidates that aren't from career political families and families that handed them a business to run that was already successful. Someone who built from the ground up and *truly* understands how hard it is to build from scratch.

Neither party has given us that kind of candidate in decades. Ross Perot was the last guy who fit that mold.

Don't tell me Romney either... he not only is from a career politician family, he went into established businesses thanks to his dad's political connections. Did he make them better? It appears so. Does that mean he understands how to build a business from scratch? No way.

(10-28-2014 11:29 AM)blunderbuss Wrote:  

(10-28-2014 09:09 AM)mlb Wrote:  

(10-28-2014 09:07 AM)fsquid Wrote:  so others elected do blow and screw their staff members, but some weed is an issue?

Exactly.

Not my point. This man delivers pizzas for a living and admits to smoking pot. Not exactly what most would consider a serious candidate.

*shrug* I don't fault a man for doing honest work. And why can't an everyman be a good rep for the people?

(10-28-2014 08:13 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  I would vote for him in a heart beat based on his honestly alone.

Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

this.

(10-28-2014 01:08 PM)mlb Wrote:  Don't tell me Romney either... he not only is from a career politician family, he went into established businesses thanks to his dad's political connections. Did he make them better? It appears so. Does that mean he understands how to build a business from scratch? No way.

Uhm.. Romney's dad was in politics all of 10 years. Governor of Michigan, Sect. of Urban Development. That does not IMO, qualify aas a career politician familiy.

Bob Dole would have fallen in that category, but he was basically a "throw away" candidate, given that being up against Clinton, and due to the economic boom at the time, you knew he was getting shellaced.

So he'd fall in your line of reasoning, although you could argue he's been a career politician.

(10-28-2014 03:08 PM)DaSaintFan Wrote:  Uhm.. Romney's dad was in politics all of 10 years. Governor of Michigan, Sect. of Urban Development. That does not IMO, qualify aas a career politician familiy.

He was also the Secretary of HUD (appointed position) after his failed Presidential bid.

Quote:Bob Dole would have fallen in that category, but he was basically a "throw away" candidate, given that being up against Clinton, and due to the economic boom at the time, you knew he was getting shellaced.

So he'd fall in your line of reasoning, although you could argue he's been a career politician.

I fail to see where Bob Dole fits any of my idea of someone who truly worked from scratch to build something. He is a veteran, and for that I like him, but he started in politics in 1950.

(10-28-2014 01:00 PM)fsquid Wrote:  

(10-28-2014 11:29 AM)blunderbuss Wrote:  

(10-28-2014 09:09 AM)mlb Wrote:  

(10-28-2014 09:07 AM)fsquid Wrote:  so others elected do blow and screw their staff members, but some weed is an issue?

Exactly.

Not my point. This man delivers pizzas for a living and admits to smoking pot. Not exactly what most would consider a serious candidate.

show me your serious candidates then because they will keep disappearing at lightening speed as these Super Pacs grow on both sides.

I don't disagree. The super PAC battle in NC is disgusting. I told my wife just last night that if I were to believe everything the PACS were saying that I'd come to the conclusion that both candidates were the exact same person.

It's just unfortunate that we can't have a legitimate 3rd party in this country. That's the point of the OP. I don't believe that Libertarians are a legitimate threat because MANY of them tend to have bizarre fringe views on certain things that social conservatives will NOT tolerate. If you can't get the social conservative vote you're not getting elected, plain and simple.

This is coming from somebody who has no issue with marijuana. I just know that many conservatives do and it's a deal breaker for sometimes otherwise likeable, electable and/or qualified candidates.

(10-28-2014 03:32 PM)blunderbuss Wrote:  It's just unfortunate that we can't have a legitimate 3rd party in this country. That's the point of the OP. I don't believe that Libertarians are a legitimate threat because MANY of them tend to have bizarre fringe views on certain things that social conservatives will NOT tolerate. If you can't get the social conservative vote you're not getting elected, plain and simple.

Tell that to this guy. . .



If there are going to be three viable parties (very unlikely based on our system), then social conservatives would not be who the Libertarians would target. Instead, it would be a coalition of socially liberal Republicans and fiscally conservative Democrats. And with three viable parties, all it would take to win an election is 30% to 40% of the vote. That number can certainly be achieved without social conservatives.

If Libertarian candidates appealed to social conservatives, how would they distinguish themselves from Republicans?

That's what i don't understand JH

Why virtually no liberals, who above all should believe in the right to be who you are, would not support a party that encourages individual liberty over one who encourages conformity. The left would argue that they don't encourage conformity but that is far far from the truth... they merely encourage a different set of social norms than the right.