The costs of running this huge site are paid for by ads. Please consider registering and becoming a Supporting Member for an ad-free experience. Thanks, ECF team.

Presidential Candidates that are pro vaping?

Discussion in 'Campaigning discussions' started by Jman8, Jan 30, 2016.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Image has been removed.
URL has been removed.
Email address has been removed.
Media has been removed.
  1. Jman8

    Jman8 Vaping Master ECF Veteran

    Jan 15, 2013
    Wisconsin
    You could say this about any single issue. Feel free to present one, and I'd be glad to use very similar wording that would amount to 'the fraction that care and actually base a presidential vote on it has to be much smaller than some folks seem to believe. The issue is simply too small for a presidential election.'

    Seriously, pick an issue, any issue.
    Even if you picked one that would be 'large' by most standards, I'd argue (all day) that it won't make a difference who is picked. Not really. Like 'national security' is good example. Or 'economy' is perhaps even better example. So, perhaps I wouldn't conclude with 'too small for a presidential election,' but surely would conclude (and argue) that too big / elusive for it to possibly matter who holds the white house.

    This issue, thus far, in shared reality is a political hot potato and very partisan at the national level. At the state level, not so partisan or one sided. Pubs in some states are seemingly actively working against vaping/vapers. But at national level, it so far shows up as Dems working against vaping/vapers and Pubs making some noticeable motions to work for vaping/vapers.

    That potentially matters, big time, for the presidential election.

    It seems entirely reasonable to presume that a conservative type president wouldn't favor an FDA that seeks to shut down / greatly curtail a new market based on regulatory science. It's possible, as you are arguing, that it doesn't register on their radar and they let it slip by without ever mentioning what happened and why (vapers got screwed). But also seems very plausible that a Dem president would tout it as a very good thing that the FDA went in this direction to protect the children and because nicotine is so addictive (both lies).

    What you are clearly neglecting, and which makes sense right now to do so, is the role that 'we the people' play in the upcoming elections with regards to vaping. Right now, you appear 'spot on' with idea that we vapers won't make a darn difference to what national presidential candidates consider as a possible avenue for them in their current political campaign. Yet, as I noted earlier this is primary season. This is really about taking all issues that are the standard bearer for your own party (all issues 25 years or older) and declaring whether you are moderate or extreme, according to your own party's measurement stick on those issues.

    I can think of at least a half dozen issues that have come up in national political news within last 5 years that aren't even being whispered by any of the candidates right now. Thus possible to assert that none of them care about those issues. Highly unlikely that this is accurate, and far more likely that when it comes to pitting top dog for Dems against top dog for Pubs, that it will come up. Likely in a debate. Probably for the 'smaller issues' it'll be 3 minutes of a debate or less.

    IMO, the reality is that what presidential candidates tend to emphasize is stuff that sheeple seems to care about greatly, but even that assertion I find highly questionable. It's far more likely that 'we the people' have issues that are 25 to 200 years old that we do have fairly firm opinions on, and that candidates for office can offer up assertions on that will make sense in a sound bite way, plus stick to what is commonly understood as facts. Though that becomes (highly debatable) when a) they don't stick to soundbite rhetoric or b) don't stick to commonly accepted facts, which then leads to voter confusion, possibly apathy.

    With vaping, it is rather simple and has sound bite rhetoric, but really (really really) if the candidate is speaking to larger government role in lives of people or less of a role, they are speaking on this issue (indirectly). If they have lobbyists from BP, that will impact this issue. If they have history with anti-smoking legislation and don't stipulate that at all, that will impact this issue.

    Being the betting person I am, I'd go with around 20 to 1 odds that this comes up in national presidential politics before November 2016. I think it is semi likely, and certainly not out of the question. Part of me thinks it is more like 5 to 1 odds, but again, I'm a betting person, and if I were to put money on it, I'd want those kind of odds.

    You (@aceswired) are presenting it like it is 10,000 to 1 odds. If you think of it in this vein, I would love to wager my $1 to your $10,000 on whether or not it comes up in any (explicit/direct) way among a presidential candidate before November 2016.
     
    • Like Like x 4
  2. mcclintock

    mcclintock Ultra Member ECF Veteran

    Oct 28, 2014
    One thing that vaping is pointing out is that the Democrats are possibly changing, or at least taking a side I wouldn't expect from them traditionally. The classic Nolan chart describes the left as favoring personal freedoms but gov't control of the economy, and the right as vice versa. Yes, odd as it may seem, our major parties/sides are not split over differences in how much freedom, just in where it applies, one reason it's such an irritating thing to choose between them. In the case of vaping, however, the Dems are dropping their normal support of personal freedoms but somehow Republicans are taking it as an economic freedom issue. If Reps could drop their opposition to personal freedoms on religious grounds and the Dems continue on this path, perhaps we will end up with pro-freedom and pro-regulation parties.

    Fact is, if you choose 6 important subjects and compare the parties, typically half will be supported by one party and half by the other. Their own platforms provide nothing to choose between them unless you decide one issue is more important than another for you.
     
  3. aceswired

    aceswired Ultra Member Verified Member ECF Veteran

    Oct 3, 2013
    Minnesota
    Sorry man. I'm not going for dismissive here. I just think your imagination is running away with you. It's not a presidential issue. It's only barely a legislative issue at these levels, and not a campaigning one at that.

    Sent from my SM-T320 using Tapatalk
     
    • Like Like x 1
  4. Myrany

    Myrany Vaping Master Verified Member ECF Veteran

    Supporting member
    Apr 14, 2013
    Louisiana
    Yes and No it depends on your point of view.

    I think the consistent regulating into non existence of so very many small businesses and the overall effect of that on Jobs is a Presidential issue. Not just about vaping but on so very many fronts be it FDA or EPA.
     
  5. aceswired

    aceswired Ultra Member Verified Member ECF Veteran

    Oct 3, 2013
    Minnesota
    Well yes, a stance on general regulation is probably something we can expect. Though I'm not sure it does much to illuminate what folks specifically seem to be wanting.

    Sent from my SM-T320 using Tapatalk
     
  6. Myrany

    Myrany Vaping Master Verified Member ECF Veteran

    Supporting member
    Apr 14, 2013
    Louisiana
    Highlighting the situation with regulations by using what they are trying to do to vaping as an example however might well create some of the buzz we need though.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  7. nicnik

    nicnik Ultra Member ECF Veteran

    Apr 20, 2015
    Illinois, USA
    Grover Norquist still thinks it's gonna be a big issue in the 2016 Presidential elections.

    Grover Norquist: Election Will 'Be Determined By The Vaping Community'

    http://gawker.com/where-was-all-the-vape-talk-at-the-debate-demands-righ-1759063082
     
    • Like Like x 3
  8. mcclintock

    mcclintock Ultra Member ECF Veteran

    Oct 28, 2014
    In my recent post, I wasn't really talking about the presidential level and my first post said it would hurt them to mention it. However, I'd really like to see the election become about corruption, influence and Truth in which case vaping could be important as an example. It's not an ideal example in that many people will never be sympathetic, but good in being quite obvious.

    Vaping isn't a political action yet because they haven't banned it. Just like they're finding {other stuff} isn't dangerous when no longer a political movement, vaping's going to be very dangerous for them if it becomes a political action.
     
  9. Jman8

    Jman8 Vaping Master ECF Veteran

    Jan 15, 2013
    Wisconsin
    How are you using the word "dismissive?" Because everything about this post and your posts in this thread are dismissive. Hence my desire to wager on it. Opening post mentions, quite clearly, that thus far it hasn't come up in national presidential discussion, and your point is conveying it never will.

    You have said vaping and (national politics) amount to:
    - micro pet issue
    - really doesn't warrant mention
    - issue of no consequence to 99% of the electorate

    And pretty much the same thing in every other post, other than the faux concession ones.

    Given what retired1 said on page 1, and which I very much agree with (about how politicians will lie), I really don't get why anyone votes (in presidential elections). What possibly could they be saying right now that is 100% truth/what they actually believe, and more importantly what they actually will stick to once elected? IMO, it is all micro pet issues, relatively speaking. Of course, the electorate treats them like really huge deals, and in shared reality, they do appear as big deals. Emphasis on appear. In actual reality, not really big deals, or no deal/issue is inherently bigger than another. I'm always interested in the discussion or debate on this, but so far, I've not been philosophically persuaded to see a reason why voting (in national elections) is anything more than a dog and pony show. Far closer to entertainment than meaningful activity that enhances life, liberty and pursuit of happiness for 99% of the electorate.

    And right about now, as part of the ongoing entertainment, I'd like to see vaping mentioned, perhaps even discussed. And if not, it's cool. Again, from the black market perspective, it would be far better if it weren't brought up, cause chances are pretty good if someone is given a national platform, they'll either say something very negative about vaping, or made to look like an idiot by a media that is overwhelmingly negative about vaping. Then again, it's pretty hard to find media fully positive about anything anymore.
     
  10. aceswired

    aceswired Ultra Member Verified Member ECF Veteran

    Oct 3, 2013
    Minnesota
    Not sure what else to tell you man. Your mind is made up.
     
  11. Jman8

    Jman8 Vaping Master ECF Veteran

    Jan 15, 2013
    Wisconsin
    ^ said the pot to the kettle ^
     
  12. aceswired

    aceswired Ultra Member Verified Member ECF Veteran

    Oct 3, 2013
    Minnesota
    So what are you saying? That I should continue to try to convince him that this is a non issue in terms of a presidential race? Why? To what end? The fact that it has not come up is pretty well proof that it's not. If he won't accept that pretty plain and objective evidence, a million posts aren't changing his mind.

    Sent from my SM-T320 using Tapatalk
     
  13. Jman8

    Jman8 Vaping Master ECF Veteran

    Jan 15, 2013
    Wisconsin
    I'm saying your mind is made up. The thread wasn't intended for pointing out ad nauseam that it still hasn't been mentioned as of today, by any presidential candidates. If desiring to stick to that, then once is all that is needed to be said. If desiring to press the issue, then let's wager on it. A wager tells me that you've honestly considered both possibilities. Are open to both sides of looking at this. For once it is mentioned (anywhere by a presidential candidate before November 2016), the side saying 'it'll never happen because this is a pet issue,' loses.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  14. aceswired

    aceswired Ultra Member Verified Member ECF Veteran

    Oct 3, 2013
    Minnesota
    I'm not really saying never. With this field of jokers, ANYTHING could come up. I'm saying it shouldn't be an issue for selecting the leader of the free world.

    Sent from my SM-T320 using Tapatalk
     
  15. Woofer

    Woofer Vaping Master ECF Veteran

    Oct 8, 2014
    PA, SK, CA
    :facepalm:
     
    • Like Like x 2
  16. aceswired

    aceswired Ultra Member Verified Member ECF Veteran

    Oct 3, 2013
    Minnesota
    Care to elaborate? Do you find the turn of phrase offensive? Or do you just deny that the United States is the largest free nation in the world? It would be easier if you were specific in your criticism, rather than just tossing out empty emojis.

    As to the point at hand, and WHY vaping rights aren't a presidential issue. Off the sheer top of my head, we've got Chinese expansionism, the escalating militarization of radical Islam, rising tensions in Israel and Palestine. We're facing the specter of crushing global climate change. The nation has barely peeked its head out of the most dire economic hole in the past half century. The future of the nation's health care direction hangs in the balance. We've got Iran's nuclear threat, the devaluation of the dollar, the ticking time bomb that is OPEC, the balance of the Supreme Court, and about three dozen other critical issues that really ought to be considered.

    But yeah. Vaping regulations. THIS is what we should be basing our votes on. The smallness of is is almost staggering.
     
  17. Jman8

    Jman8 Vaping Master ECF Veteran

    Jan 15, 2013
    Wisconsin
    Vaping would be prime example of how the nation may not be so free on things.

    All things that POTUS will either do nothing about or very little. All of these are at least 15 years old, and if anything POTUS has only made things worse.

    Same answer as above. POTUS flies around in big ol' plane. Tells me that POTUS is not really serious about the issue.

    Health care is the only one I'd concede on. The rest are items POTUS will again either make no difference on or very little difference.

    Cause POTUS can change what is visibly overreach on this issue, and because of all the issues you named, it actually relates to freedom.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  18. nicnik

    nicnik Ultra Member ECF Veteran

    Apr 20, 2015
    Illinois, USA
    I don't think you meant to include "the balance of the Supreme Court" in the "no difference on or very little difference" category, did you?
     
    • Like Like x 2
  19. Jman8

    Jman8 Vaping Master ECF Veteran

    Jan 15, 2013
    Wisconsin
    You're right, that would be another one. But that's always the case, like for last 200 or so years. Congress is showing now that they have a pretty big role in that as well. Just as they can/do with vaping.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  20. aceswired

    aceswired Ultra Member Verified Member ECF Veteran

    Oct 3, 2013
    Minnesota
    Like I said before, not much further point discussing. You've made your position clear that the president is irrelevant in foreign affairs, but the key to vaping regulation policy.

    I see it differently.

    Sent from my SM-T320 using Tapatalk
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice