Polls show Hillary's lead slipping!

[BotanyBoy]

there's a big difference between a cable bill for your internet access and having half of your village sent to a concentration camp. Be careful with your Nazi comparisons.

Not really, it's just a matter of time.

Eventually they will run out of excuses as to why the metric fuck ton of regulations and bazzaillions spent in policing those regs have resulted in massive wealth/opportunity inequality and such a huge prison population.

Eventually you NeoLliberals are going to HAVE to face that music and when you do you'll blame white men and start shipping them off to labor camps.

By the way, big government created your internet.

That doesn't make letting corporate goons write entire industries into their pockets a sound economic management policy.

Get a clue.

 

[patient1]

Well considering the voters of your own state rejected the "big business" pro-pot vote last time and are now doing it right this time. It's a little sad and pathetic (I just perfectly describe you good job me!) that you literally don't even know what's going on in your own state.

I don't claim to be knowledgeable about what's going on in California with regard to marijuana laws. But it does seem to me that as a casual tourist that the state has a lot of successful experience with both microbreweries and wineries. It seems to me that the practical considerations are very much the same, keeping the stuff away from kids, preventing impaired people from driving home, organic certification in the growing process, keeping the bugs and mouse turds out of the processing areas, and proper labeling, measuring and packaging, and last but not least, collecting taxes. Those sorts of things. Apparently the regulations aren't so onerous, or there wouldn't be so many wineries and craft breweries, or for that matter, vineyards and beer distributors.

So since Californians have those proven models which provide tax revenue, employment, and tourism, with little apparent harm, why do they have to re-invent the wheel, or copy something from another state, unless it's a matter of cronyism? Why is that "getting it right"?

 

[BotanyBoy]

I don't claim to be knowledgeable about what's going on in California with regard to marijuana laws. But it does seem to me that as a casual tourist that the state has a lot of successful experience with both microbreweries and wineries. It seems to me that the practical considerations are very much the same, keeping the stuff away from kids, preventing impaired people from driving home, organic certification in the growing process, keeping the bugs and mouse turds out of the processing areas, and proper labeling, measuring and packaging, and last but not least, collecting taxes. Those sorts of things. Apparently the regulations aren't so onerous, or there wouldn't be so many wineries and craft breweries, or for that matter, vineyards and beer distributors.

So since Californians have those proven models which provide tax revenue, employment, and tourism, with little apparent harm, why do they have to re-invent the wheel, or copy something from another state, unless it's a matter of cronyism? Why is that "getting it right"?

1) All booze are distributed by 3 companies. 1 is pretty new and likely because the other 2 just got awarded a few billion a year by Sacramento with their pot distribution licences.

2) You can have a perfectly clean, zoned and signed off on set up, but unless you suck big dick with big money you won't get any licence to run a winery/microbrew. Those lucrative businesses are limited and for wealthy cool kids only. Like so many other licences in NeoLiberal California.

 

[JackLuis]

Hillz poll numbers are staying pretty much the same, it is only Trump's numbers that are falling and putting her ahead. Johnson and Stine are gaining a bit, mostly from Trump's support.

 

[JackLuis]

Hillary is holding pretty fast at ~44% but that is not showing much improvement since June or earlier.

Trumps numbers are improving a bit but not much.

 

[1sickbastard]

I don't think it was dumb luck.

I think it was more free markets that made it possible.

No, it was WW2 and the immediate aftermath(like the US having its industrial base intact along with four years of few consumer goods meaning enforced savings, near 100% employment rates during the war, not to mention the GI bill which allowed millions of Vets to go to college and move into white collar professions, along with vibrant unions which made it possible for blue collar laborers to become middle class AND a progressive income tax which kept wealth from concentrating in the hands of the uber-rich) that made a large middle class possible in the USA.

Also, you may want to look into where the nations economic power was before the 1905 Sherman Anti-Trust Act. A laissez-faire economy directly results in a very few corporations and/or cartels absolutely dominating the market. Warren Buffet is one of the wealthiest Americans alive, but the influence he wields is nothing like what John D Rockefeller, Andrew Carnegie or JP Morgan (to name a few) had.

Yes, current corporations do dominate the economic landscape and yes, regulations do up the costs to small businesses, but if you think that removing gov't regulations will create a more level playing field, history demonstrates you're just wrong.