420chan now has a web-based IRC client available, right here
Leave these fields empty (spam trap):
You can leave this blank to post anonymously, or you can create a Tripcode by using the float Name#Password
[*]Italic Text[/*]
[**]Bold Text[/**]
[~]Taimapedia Article[/~]
[%]Spoiler Text[/%]
>Highlight/Quote Text
[pre]Preformatted & Monospace text[/pre]
1. Numbered lists become ordered lists
* Bulleted lists become unordered lists


Community Updates

420chan now supports HTTPS! If you find any issues, you may report them in this thread
Big troll thread by Sophie Fusslestirk - Sat, 18 Mar 2017 15:32:07 EST ID:NY3ouz89 No.389496 Ignore Report Quick Reply
File: 1489865527940.jpg -(36227B / 35.38KB, 473x600) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 36227
How do you reconcile your political beliefs (left-wing nanny-state or right-wing puritanical state) with your political actions (i.e, candidates you support)? I'm guessing most of the people in the USA here voted for Trump or Hillary or whomever, but that candidate - at least on the surface - takes a staunch "anti-drug" stance.

Shouldn't we be more vocal about making candidates support decriminalization and legalization of drugs, on all areas of the spectrum? It seems on both sides the "leaders" of the left and right both agree on being against this, which is a huge problem for progress.

All too often I hear some right winger railing about how "bleeding heart liberals are ruining dope" while simultaneously sucking the cock of Hitler who would ultimately consider them a weed-smoking/dope-slamming degenerate. An act of profound stupidity.

Similarly, the lefties don't acknowledge the invasive piss-test rehab that we put drug offenders through nor the center-left's ardent support of the "drug war" (at least in the USA) and the horrors it has inflicted.

I'm tired of hypocrisy from everybody and political people trying to claim drug use as their particular political belief's chic.

I personally believe we should immediately free all non-violent drug offenders, reinstate their voting rights, legalize weed at least and decriminalize all drugs, and offer state-run rehab programs for those who want out and leave the rest of us the fuck alone.

Where are the candidates that support decriminalization and legalization? (not limited to the USA)

How can we mobilize together, centrists, lefties and righties, to achieve the goals of decriminalization, clemency, normalization and legalization?
Lillian Firrybanks - Sun, 19 Mar 2017 00:28:45 EST ID:VLZSAHSu No.389519 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1489897725377.jpg -(185272B / 180.93KB, 860x644) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
Sweet proposals OP, the war on drugs causes far more harm than good, and the US prison population is significantly higher than Stalin's Gulags because of it. Poor private prisons would lose revenue though and they pay representatives to pass policy that increases the prison population, not the opposite.

The candidates who support decriminalization/legalization only pop-up conveniently after activists and non-profits put in the leg work to build popular support for decriminalization of legalization. Even then there's no guarantee the candidate will actually do what they say they'll do, because there's no mandates for our representatives elected. We have no influence over the policy they enact.

A fault in your analysis, imo, is the limited political spectrum you conceptualize, as I don't fall within that spectrum and I imagine the same for others. Maybe I misunderstand, and that's your target? Don't get me wrong though, seems like you're on the right track, but what do i know.
Lillian Saddlewater - Sun, 19 Mar 2017 11:58:14 EST ID:NY3ouz89 No.389544 Ignore Report Quick Reply
OK, so perhaps centrists, leftists and righties was a bit over-simplified. However, regardless of where you fit in the political spectrum, how can you get all of these disparate viewpoints to set aside their differences and work towards a common goal? I'm proposing what would be considered in parliamentary terms a "coalition," but since in the USA we lack parliamentary law, it would have to be some sort of cross-party organization that puts aside its differences in order to support a common cause. Like NORML on steroids.
Samuel Sellyhood - Mon, 20 Mar 2017 02:17:22 EST ID:VLZSAHSu No.389569 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1489990642249.jpg -(66269B / 64.72KB, 750x446) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
Tough question, frankly certain ideologies are opposed and can't work together, except maybe on an individual level, but their perspectives and end goals contradict. I'm referring to anarchists vs. fascists of course. Both are probably a small segment of the population, of which the majority maybe fall more within the lines you conceptualized earlier.

Democrat and Republican voters work together all the time on practical matters in daily life. Its the Parties that can't work toward a common goal, except for like a pay raise and draconian powers. Instead if politics were focused on the local level with a direct-democratic system for individuals and organizations to deliberate on matters that effect them all, I think people with seemingly disparate views could then work well together.

In this imaginary system the local level would have priority instead of as now: where the feds supersede. In a way its an expansion of the state sovereignty vs federal powers debate back in 1787 US, epitomized by the Federalist Papers. The local-national nexus is flipped on its head with mandated representatives sent by the localities to county councils, from there to regional, then each region sending mandated representatives to convene about national matters. Taken further, national representatives would then be sent to a global convention.

The decision-making process would take awhile to filter up to the grandiose global convention. To respond to incidents that require an immediate or fast response, as well as the day-to-day maintenance of infrastructure and operation of utilities, there'd be administrators elected to perform specific tasks. To forego corruption and abuse of power the administrators would be recallable and accountable by the people their actions effect. They would only be able to operate within the confines of their practical role.

I'm running off on a tangent here, pretty much this is an idea of a system (like Libertarian Municipalism) that would give more autonomy for local places to deal with their own shit and also be more representative and inclusive of a diversity of interests.

There'd have to be many representatives proportional to the percentage of people voting for certain proposals, so minority viewpoints are represented. Consensus doesn't work imo, it barely works small-scale. So majority wins after fair input from all, maybe the decisions only pass at a certain threshold, say 70%-80?

If 100% consensus is required to pass a proposal, minorities may be socially pressured to abstain rather than oppose, to not throw a wrench into the process (again), and clearly one person could gum up the works because they're a dick.

Many views are healthy, especially if they work together. A fuller, more real perspective is arrived at through the combination of many different perspectives. The current stifling system is incapable of representing the will or interests of the general populace.
Samuel Sellyhood - Mon, 20 Mar 2017 03:14:27 EST ID:VLZSAHSu No.389572 Ignore Report Quick Reply
> I'm proposing what would be considered in parliamentary terms a "coalition,"
Maybe if there were more than two major parties in the US or if the smaller third parties had significant presence in state and federal congresses, then a coalition of parties may work. Even then, as in Europe, there is still a disparity of influence over policy-making, albeit a more representative one.

Mandated representatives might help, if they say they'll support a certain policy when running, such as drug decriminalization, then they have to support the policy when they're in office. Perhaps also intentional voting blocs that coalesce around specific issues. For example telling each candidate if they don't support this issue they wont be voted for. If multiple candidates support the same issue then I guess a different issue would determine who'd be voted for.
Shit Gippermet - Mon, 20 Mar 2017 10:25:03 EST ID:WGJCZiJE No.389584 Ignore Report Quick Reply
This guy is actually very correct. U.S. politics is fucked. The GOP and the DNC are both already coalitions of very different interests. The two party system is fucked, because it weakens the abilities of coalitions to form across party lines.
David Sinnerwell - Mon, 20 Mar 2017 16:02:37 EST ID:deLgIbRQ No.389596 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>with your political actions (i.e, candidates you support)

That's the problem with the USA now. The extent of 99% of people's political actions is candidates they support or maybe $5/month to the Sierra Club.

Change will only occur when people are willing to do more, by taking consistant, strategic actions against things they feel need to change, be stopped, or be altered. Politicians are ignorant ("the internet is a series of tubes!") and represent themselves and the wealty, not the greater nation. Action must be taken and communities must be built by people of large scales that are strategic and can stand against that which is causing such widespread poverty and destruction of the environment.

Also, social media is shit and a cancer on us all
Samuel Sellyhood - Mon, 20 Mar 2017 19:20:38 EST ID:VLZSAHSu No.389597 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1490052038249.png -(2796188B / 2.67MB, 2880x4800) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
True that. Although there are exceptions to partisanship, like the blue dogs, conservative Democrats who occasionally break with the party-line to vote in favor of a Republican bill. Been plenty of ideological shifts within both major parties as well, pic related.

>Action must be taken and communities must be built by people on large scales
Yes! This is the next movement (i hope), connecting existing organizations and networks and building new ones based in neighborhoods. i.e. the Neighborhood Action Councils: https://portlandassembly.com/wp-content/uploads/NAC-GUIDE.pdf

>Politicians [..] represent themselves and the wealthy, not the greater nation.
Definitely an important elaboration, see Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens: https://scholar.princeton.edu/sites/default/files/mgilens/files/gilens_and_page_2014_-testing_theories_of_american_politics.doc.pdf

Someone posted a good counter to the above essay awhile back, calling into question the accuracy of the data, because reasons. Anyone know what that was?
Nicholas Ducklebanks - Tue, 21 Mar 2017 13:41:02 EST ID:NY3ouz89 No.389629 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1490118062726.jpg -(80808B / 78.91KB, 600x399) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
I agree completely. We are going up against the two-party system and a hidden coalition within them (the "drug-free/drug-war" coalition) which is what makes these goals so difficult.
Getting to the point where it's possible to support decriminalization or mandate your candidate supports it without being investigated by the FBI for drug trafficking seems key.

The so-called "blue dogs" and other socially conservative democrats could be seen as just a big an obstacle as the Republican base.

There are libertarian-leaning republicans out there who might support clemency, decriminalization, and legalization but few have the balls to speak out about it.
Polly Honeywater - Thu, 23 Mar 2017 17:21:01 EST ID:N+M5jlMw No.389738 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Wesley Pullernidging - Thu, 23 Mar 2017 17:30:47 EST ID:NY3ouz89 No.389741 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1490304647154.gif -(1000669B / 977.22KB, 345x178) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.

Report Post
Please be descriptive with report notes,
this helps staff resolve issues quicker.