I resent ECF's campaign regarding the New Mexico State Rep. Liz Thompson
- Thread starter VapingTurtle
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
So, your distaste of Heartland? Is that (BT) a single issue for you is is there more too it?
Maybe you would like to explain your grievances to me, a simple freedom loving American that does not yet understand your issues ?
TIA
Having read most of this thread, I would say that the thread shows why ECF should not be endorsing or encouraging donations to political candidates. It would make a lot more sense for people of all political views to work on education and advocacy within their own parties or organizations. That is where most policy decisions are made, and where an individual can make the most difference.
Education and advocacy are step one. Defeating bad bills is step two. Punishing bad actors by hitting them where it hurts (their re-election efforts, the one thing most politicians value more than anything) is step three. If you refuse to engage in step three, politicians will learn that so long as they can convince their colleagues to ignore the letters and phone calls from their constituents, there will be no negative repercussions for trying to tax e-cigs like cigarettes, ban or restrict flavors, ban usage, etc.
This kind of debate is healthy. To their credit, even the anti-Heartland folks haven't said that they're going to boycott ECF or start their own forum.
If ECF is gracious enough to participate in this again, I'd definitely want us to target people from both sides of the aisle, although with the caveat that the people we're targeting actually have to be in tough primary campaigns or tough re-election campaigns. Once you target a D and a R, the argument that this is a partisan battle goes out the window. Unfortunately, as I mentioned earlier in this thread, there just weren't any anti e-cigarette Republicans to target, as the Rs who voted for the e-liquid ban in the NY Senate all appear to be in fairly safe districts (especially this year where, at least on paper, it looks like Republicans will have larger turnouts).
Last edited:
You and I read the very same description of Heartland and come to very different conclusions about them. And yet there is room enough for both of us in this country. Ain't it a great place?
No, it is not single issue based. None of my attitudes towards a person, organization, or any entity are as simplistic as single issue.
We could hash it out over all of those issues, and many more, but this isn't the forum for that.
Last edited:
Have you ever tried punishing a puppy six hours after he chewed your new shoes? He is unable to associate your actions with his behavior.
The same is true with this campaign effort. If Rep. Thompson should lose this close election do you really think it will be attributed by anyone to the maybe a couple of hundred dollars sent to her opponent by this campaign? Will her opponent (who is not a vaping advocate, who has spoken to you once on the phone and seems remotely open to listening to our side of the vaping issue) see ECF as his champion? Will AVA, CASAA, and ECF really be able to go out and beat their collective chest and say the vaping community has brought down this mighty one-term state representative?
Your steps number one and two are as far as it goes, Greg. Money spent supporting Rep. Thompson's opponent in the NM House could be better spent by CASAA on issue education.
Last edited:
I really think politics in the U.S. has long been in a "Cold War" state: each side feels threatened by the other and afraid that compromising an inch will lead to the other side instantly leaping forward and crushing them. It's become a "winner-takes-all" game in most people's minds, and not in a paranoid way (many parties, when they have complete control of a region, actually do implement a "zero compromise" agenda).
It's my belief that corporations are a much bigger threat than the government, because the corporations control the government (or, more accurately, its elected officials). Both major political parties capitalize on this, and feed the flames of fear in their constituents to get them to become more firmly in their partisan camp, so more money rolls in. The system is hopelessly corrupt, and will not change until the whole thing collapses (the economics it's built on are not indefinitely sustainable).
I am generally left-leaning, but also strongly anti-authoritarian, against government limiting anyone's freedoms (unless their actions would harm others). That's why I get beyond irritated when many supposed "progressives" want to restrict others based on "what's good for them." The decision to voluntarily cause potential or actual harm to oneself (including suicide) should be no more illegal than one's sexual orientation. I feel the same way about one's right to defend oneself (including using a firearm to prevent an assailant from harming you).
IMO, people in favor of such restrictions are usually acting on a feeling of personal dislike of the activity, rather than actual harm-reduction. And, to bring this back on-topic, the site owners have every right to support who they like, regardless of whether anyone else approves of it or not. They aren't forcing anyone else to do so; if people want to support a candidate who may work against other of their best interests, that's their own decision.
It's my belief that corporations are a much bigger threat than the government, because the corporations control the government (or, more accurately, its elected officials). Both major political parties capitalize on this, and feed the flames of fear in their constituents to get them to become more firmly in their partisan camp, so more money rolls in. The system is hopelessly corrupt, and will not change until the whole thing collapses (the economics it's built on are not indefinitely sustainable).
I am generally left-leaning, but also strongly anti-authoritarian, against government limiting anyone's freedoms (unless their actions would harm others). That's why I get beyond irritated when many supposed "progressives" want to restrict others based on "what's good for them." The decision to voluntarily cause potential or actual harm to oneself (including suicide) should be no more illegal than one's sexual orientation. I feel the same way about one's right to defend oneself (including using a firearm to prevent an assailant from harming you).
IMO, people in favor of such restrictions are usually acting on a feeling of personal dislike of the activity, rather than actual harm-reduction. And, to bring this back on-topic, the site owners have every right to support who they like, regardless of whether anyone else approves of it or not. They aren't forcing anyone else to do so; if people want to support a candidate who may work against other of their best interests, that's their own decision.
The three branches of American government are supposed to check each other. We are supposed to check all of them with the fourth branch of government. The press. As long as the media remains biased, manipulative and just plain dishonest (on both sides) we will remain divided. Didn't someone once say something about united, divided, something something?
I assure you more than a couple hundred dollars has been donated to the Conrad James campaign and related GOTV (Get Out The Vote) efforts, so you're wrong on that. I can also assure you that vape shops in or near Thomson's district have been letting voters know about Thomson's position on vaping and that vapers from across the U.S. have joined those GOTV efforts by making phone calls this week to ensure that people send in their mail-in ballot or go to the polls next Tuesday. Lastly, I can assure you that regardless of if Conrad wins or loses (and obviously we are hoping for and working hard for a win -- I wouldn't be in Albuquerque right now if we weren't), the fact that vapers and business owners stepped up to make donations to his campaign and work the phones for him will quickly get around to state legislatures across the country.
I have every confidence that Conrad James will be far better than Rep. Thomson on vaping. Period.
Keep trying to create justifications for vapers not getting involved in elections ... Unless, of course, it's a Republican that we're targeting. I assume you'll have the same "Why bother?" attitude when that campaign comes up?
Ya I'll buy that BS when yall take on Chris Christie.
He did just have an election(13) all quiet on the western front.
He did just have an election(13) all quiet on the western front.
I accept your apology in advance.
The Christie-and-Kasich Tax Show | National Review Online
Christie's 'sin tax' on e-cigs would burn quitters: Op-ed | NJ.com
Christie counts on tax changes in budget plan
FFS, is it really that hard to Google "Gregory Conley" "Chris Christie" before making a post?
And by the way, thanks to bipartisan opposition, that tax was removed from the budget.
YA and the BS moral outrage at all Republicans and fundraising against him here Sanctioned ON ECF is where? I am aware of Christie's stance on ecigs, hence.....(drum rolll) why I brought it up.
Apology for you posting new reports? what kinda lawyer are you seriously.
Apology for you posting new reports? what kinda lawyer are you seriously.
Where exactly would this money go? His imaginary Democrat opponent for when he (most likely does not) seek re-election in several years? To the New Jersey Democratic Party, several members of which voted in favor of a bill separate from Christie's budget that would have taxed e-cigs?
I'd like an apology because you inferred that I don't take on Republicans like Chris Christie when a simple Google search would have revealed you to be dead wrong.
I'm a lawyer who spends just about every day of his life fighting against anti-vaping legislation at the state level and federal regulations that would hand the e-cigarette market over to Big Tobacco. My apologies if I'm not living up to your high standards of how an attorney should behave.
Edit: And by the way, even if Christie had proposed the e-cigarette tax before his election, any money to his opponent Barbara Buono would have been money wasted. Her campaign was DOA from the day she won the nomination.
Last edited:
I didnt realize the entire topic and problem being addressed was all about you, you alone, personally.....ego issue...suppose that does go into lawyer box.
(Crap, I didnt google YOU!)
(Crap, I didnt google YOU!)
Much of this thread has kind of been about attacking me, so my apologies for assuming you were speaking about me. It still doesn't change the fact that what you suggested -- ECF raising money to fight Christie -- is absurd due to, you know, him not being in re-election battle and all.
You're obviously very passionate about vaping, so I look forward to meeting you when you come out to testify at a state legislative hearing one day. And if you already have come to a hearing, hopefully your second or third one will be one that I'm in attendance for.
Last edited:
Oh it's about me now.... ?
Have been to some in CA, hasnt come up here in NC since I have been here, but trust me also yelled at plenty of politicians from other states.... Also called and talked to the Air force surgeon general Lit Gen Green who randomly announced to ban ecigs from the air force....was on the phone for him for an hour and half. plus like 20 to and back emails. Course that was back when I was an ecf moderator and the ecf medical liaison(not that they second title meant much besides massive paperwork thread moving, but was real handy for that call)
Guess what that ban didnt happen.... now you cant google my name up in the news(OH YA it wasnt about ME) and I dont Doubt he had other influences certainly sent him to enough sources and the vapors in the airforce of course. Now looking they gotta new guy...might have to do it again.
But ya we were not talking about shaming me? Assuming I haddnt dont jack for the general community and this we are back to how your the sole hero of ecigs no???????
Have been to some in CA, hasnt come up here in NC since I have been here, but trust me also yelled at plenty of politicians from other states.... Also called and talked to the Air force surgeon general Lit Gen Green who randomly announced to ban ecigs from the air force....was on the phone for him for an hour and half. plus like 20 to and back emails. Course that was back when I was an ecf moderator and the ecf medical liaison(not that they second title meant much besides massive paperwork thread moving, but was real handy for that call)
Guess what that ban didnt happen.... now you cant google my name up in the news(OH YA it wasnt about ME) and I dont Doubt he had other influences certainly sent him to enough sources and the vapors in the airforce of course. Now looking they gotta new guy...might have to do it again.
But ya we were not talking about shaming me? Assuming I haddnt dont jack for the general community and this we are back to how your the sole hero of ecigs no???????
Great. Always happy to see vapers get involved. Keep up the good work.
Last edited:
Last edited:
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
