|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Fergie wrote: Irontruth wrote: Perhaps instead of leaving, consider giving assistance to people who have been resisting oppression for decades. No one resists oppression harder then Comrade Anklebiter!
In fact, I heard he's raising money to resist oppression right now... Just to let you know, even though we only raised $360 of the goal of $1200, Young Gay Autistic Comrade's Sugar Daddy Comrade paid his bill; Mr. Comrade's paying his own way; and High School Student Comrade has reported that she can't go due to she can't skip her last week of classes.
So, the amount raised is sufficient to send Slightly Lumpen Student Comrade and we don't need any more. In case anyone here was thinking of donating, don't.
We've been taking it easy since May Day, getting all the young 'uns to read up on revolutionary integrationism and 1917 in preparation for summer camp, but we're waiting for word from last night's meeting about how the Boston left is going to respond to a fascist provocation down there this weekend.
Organize Boston To Stand Against Hate
In between starting to type this and finishing, I received word that fascists showed up at the meeting. Glad we got some unions on board, but the teachers association and the library workers? Couldn't anyone get the commie-led bus drivers union to sign on? Some workers with some muscles?
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Vidmaster7 wrote: Comrade Anklebiter wrote: Vidmaster7 wrote: 3 times? were you going for is a charm and got your out instead? I'm not sure what that means, but I heard that after age 65 you can attend Massachusetts state schools for free, so, assuming I'm still alive in a quarter-century, and assuming our civilization hasn't collapsed (neither of which I feel confident about), I'll finish up then. Third times a charm vrs 3 strikes and your out. Oh sorry, I shoulda been able to figure that out. Hee hee!
In the Lester Holt interview airing tonight, Trump says Comey asked for a dinner with him to ask Trump to let him keep his job. Trump said he would think about it and then asked Comey if he was under investigation.
Sounds like straight up blackmail to me. "If you want to keep your job, then don't investigate me."
Trump also said he was going to fire Comey regardless of any recommendations and that he is not under any investigation, just his presidential campaign.
I get that they're definitely corrupt. What amazes me is how incompetent they are. Evidently, the WH was completely surprised that firing Comey has turned into a thing. Like they didn't think anyone would care. They didn't organize their message or talking points. They didn't line up surrogates to go on the various shows. All of their strategy on the issue has leaked publicly.
I feel like I could run a more orderly White House and while I do technically have some relevant experience, I'm seriously under qualified.
Irontruth wrote: I get that they're definitely corrupt. What amazes me is how incompetent they are. Evidently, the WH was completely surprised that firing Comey has turned into a thing. Like they didn't think anyone would care. They didn't organize their message or talking points. They didn't line up surrogates to go on the various shows. All of their strategy on the issue has leaked publicly.
I feel like I could run a more orderly White House and while I do technically have some relevant experience, I'm seriously under qualified.
"This governing thing is hard."
There are leaks from the White House that suggest they assumed Democrats wouldn't be able to complain, since they'd complained about Comey themselves.
Despite the corruption and the bigotry, incompetence has been the defining characteristic of this administration. Almost as if electing a president with no political experience and no interest in relying on anyone with any such experience might be a bad idea.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
thejeff wrote: Despite the corruption and the bigotry, incompetence has been the defining characteristic of this administration. Thank goodness.
If they weren't so incompetent, things could be so much worse.
Knight who says Meh wrote: Trump also said he was going to fire Comey regardless of any recommendations and that he is not under any investigation, just his presidential campaign. Of course, accepting this means being willing to accept that Trump might be telling the truth.
At best - and I do think this is unfortunate - he's the old man who cried wolf.
CBDunkerson wrote: thejeff wrote: Despite the corruption and the bigotry, incompetence has been the defining characteristic of this administration. Thank goodness.
If they weren't so incompetent, things could be so much worse. Yes and no. They'd certainly be more effective at screwing us domestically. And probably at covering their trails and staying in power.
OTOH, less likely to blunder us into some serious foreign policy disaster, up to and including nuclear war.
Rednal wrote: Knight who says Meh wrote: Trump also said he was going to fire Comey regardless of any recommendations and that he is not under any investigation, just his presidential campaign. Of course, accepting this means being willing to accept that Trump might be telling the truth.
At best - and I do think this is unfortunate - he's the old man who cried wolf. Regardless of who you think is telling the truth (if anyone), it contradicts everything that was said about Comey's firing up to now. The part about the investigation not being about him but rather his campaign is just utter nonsense.
Some people who have family with Alzheimer's are noticing that Trump's behavior is quite similar to the early symptoms shown by their family members.
But the scariest thing is this from a conservative legal blog
Evaluation of the President as chief law enforcement officer usually rests on a judgment about whether the executive and his government followed the law. This remains, of course, a crucial test of performance and fitness, but respect for process, reflecting deep concern for the integrity of the legal system, is not less important. And failure on this score can invite, and it may portend, a more complete breakdown—at the point at which disregard for the legal system finally collapses into disregard of the law.
How It Was Done: The Problem Is Not Only That Trump Fired Comey, But How He Did It
The question for the Democrats is how they can get the Republicans to respect the law and legal processes, when McConnell has firmly refused to have a special prosecutor or independent investigation.
Although honestly, I wouldn't have offended so many FBI agents if I were trying to keep them from looking harder for evidence of wrong doing.
thejeff wrote: Irontruth wrote: I get that they're definitely corrupt. What amazes me is how incompetent they are. Evidently, the WH was completely surprised that firing Comey has turned into a thing. Like they didn't think anyone would care. They didn't organize their message or talking points. They didn't line up surrogates to go on the various shows. All of their strategy on the issue has leaked publicly.
I feel like I could run a more orderly White House and while I do technically have some relevant experience, I'm seriously under qualified.
"This governing thing is hard."
There are leaks from the White House that suggest they assumed Democrats wouldn't be able to complain, since they'd complained about Comey themselves.
Despite the corruption and the bigotry, incompetence has been the defining characteristic of this administration. Almost as if electing a president with no political experience and no interest in relying on anyone with any such experience might be a bad idea. It's not just the no experience thing. I don't have any experience in politics either, but it would only take me 10-15 minutes to come up with a better plan for firing Comey than the one they used. By 10-15 minutes, I mean with concrete details and several pages of answers for Spicer to use at the press breifing. Reading the details of how Spicer "briefed" the press makes it pretty clear that he probably didn't actually have any actual information.
And that letter. Jesus, you want to write that thing to be as boring as possible. Instead Trump puts details in it and now it's on the front page of the NYT. You want that thing to be so bland and dull, no one bothers to ever reference the thing.
This isn't lack of experience, this is complete ineptitude.
|
6 people marked this as a favorite.
|
MMCJawa wrote: Rednal wrote: Hmm... looking at the latest poll numbers, it looks like Trump's hit a disapproval rating of about 58% - which is, what, pretty much all Democrats and Independents? (I've heard some off-hand citations that most elections are for the ~20% of swing voters)
...
I admit, I'm curious to see if the disapproval rating keeps rising.
538 has him around ~53 disapproval. That's really high, but it seems like the republican core base still supports him. I am not sure what he would have to do to inch him past 60%. Nothing else he has said and done so far seems to be impacting the Republican base. Folks who talk about the absurdity of "false news" like to point to various facts and get exasperated about how Trump can just lie and change his position constantly and yet his supporters don't care. This is a prime example of not understanding the motivations of the other group.
Facts and evidence only matter if you care about those kinds of things, and largely, the strong Trump support base do not. They do not care about whether Trump flopped on an issue or whether the evidence and data are completely against some policy. What they care about is the appearance of power. This is why these same folks, when surveyed, are big fans of Putin - because he projects power and authority.
It's a sort of naive fascism - people who crave power and stability, but they haven't formed any way to articulate the fascist credo of acquiring power in the abstract through destruction. To them, Trump firing Comey is a sign of a powerful, decisive leader. Someone who doesn't tolerate minions who undercut him and obstruct his attempts to get things done. In their minds, Trump is a "decider" (to use a Bushism) who knows how to make things happen. So they will cheer him on as long as he continues to appear to have that power.
Trying to erode support by citing facts will never work against that base. Even if Trump starts hurting them with his policies, the hardcore among the base will say that it's because he's being sabotaged by enemies, and double down on support because "he has to fight harder." The only thing that will move that hardcore base will be if Trump appears weak. (This, in addition to ego reasons, is why Trump takes it so seriously when comedians make fun of him. Same reasons apply to why Trump dismisses underlings who look like they are either obstructing him or getting too influential - nobody can challenge his consolidation of power.)
Now, there's no special prosecution (and probably won't be, if Rathers was correct in his citation that the law allowing special prosecutors expired), so hardcore Trump base will continue to wave the flag and support him as long as he continues to bluster and wield the cudgel of authority. They want him to be dictatorial. They want him to cull people who oppose him, make bold statements about enemies, and continue to assert his authority and that he has done nothing wrong and he's doing it all to "protect the people."
That means this is a two-pronged problem. On the one hand, to make Trump lose support, you have to humiliate him and make him look powerless. On the other hand, just writing op-ends and doing stand-up comedy is not, in itself, enough to break the actual fascists who ride along in his wake.
thejeff wrote: Yes and no. They'd certainly be more effective at screwing us domestically. And probably at covering their trails and staying in power.
OTOH, less likely to blunder us into some serious foreign policy disaster, up to and including nuclear war.
Oh, were we assuming that isn't a goal?
Jesse Heinig wrote: Facts and evidence only matter if you care about those kinds of things, and largely, the strong Trump support base do not. They do not care about whether Trump flopped on an issue or whether the evidence and data are completely against some policy. What they care about is the appearance of power. This is why these same folks, when surveyed, are big fans of Putin - because he projects power and authority. I agree with other parts of your post but I do think that the answer to this one is simpler. Trump's base started liking Putin once Trump came out as liking Putin. They hated Putin a couple years ago. But when the leader started saying nice things about him the followers adjusted their opinions to match.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Coriat wrote: Jesse Heinig wrote: Facts and evidence only matter if you care about those kinds of things, and largely, the strong Trump support base do not. They do not care about whether Trump flopped on an issue or whether the evidence and data are completely against some policy. What they care about is the appearance of power. This is why these same folks, when surveyed, are big fans of Putin - because he projects power and authority. I agree with other parts of your post but I do think that the answer to this one is simpler. Trump's base started liking Putin once Trump came out as liking Putin. They hated Putin a couple years ago. But when the leader started saying nice things about him the followers adjusted their opinions to match. I seem to recall "Putin love" being a thing even while Obama was still in office, with some conservatives saying "we need a STRONG leader, a REAL man! Look at this guy, shirt off, ripped, I bet he wrestles BEARS!"
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Yeah, Putin love started on the right before Trump got big. I think I first noticed it after the whole Syrian chemical weapons "red line" thing, when they thought he'd outplayed Obama.
Hating Obama can bring even Republicans and Russians together.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
I'll just leave this here...
bugleyman wrote: I'll just leave this here...
OTOH, though I can't deny the parallels, there is resistance.
Protests, people in the streets, political action, etc. That slow, quiet slide isn't happening. Doesn't mean every bit of resistance succeeds. Doesn't mean every fight gets won, but the outrage is there and growing.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
thejeff wrote: bugleyman wrote: I'll just leave this here...
OTOH, though I can't deny the parallels, there is resistance.
Protests, people in the streets, political action, etc. That slow, quiet slide isn't happening. Doesn't mean every bit of resistance succeeds. Doesn't mean every fight gets won, but the outrage is there and growing. It won't matter at all if it doesn't translate into votes
It may not matter if it turns into votes.
BigNorseWolf wrote: thejeff wrote: bugleyman wrote: I'll just leave this here...
OTOH, though I can't deny the parallels, there is resistance.
Protests, people in the streets, political action, etc. That slow, quiet slide isn't happening. Doesn't mean every bit of resistance succeeds. Doesn't mean every fight gets won, but the outrage is there and growing. It won't matter at all if it doesn't translate into votes
It may not matter if it turns into votes. Good. Turn it into votes.
And it still matters, even before the next elections. Part of the whole problem is that far too much of the country only pays attention to politics during the election (if then.)
Guy Humual wrote: Irontruth wrote: Guy Humual wrote: Irontruth wrote:
It's not a strawman at all. He pointed out that people in the PNW held a deep seated hatred of the Clintons as part of his argument for why she lost the election, based on a single issue that was relevant to the PNW.
Did she lose the PNW? No, she didn't. So it seems like an issue that didn't cost her Oregon and Washington is probably not the reason she did lose Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Michigan.
Unless you want to claim at voters in Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Michigan cared even more about the spotted owl than voters in Oregon and Washington.
Trump voters had a median income of $71,000, while Clinton voters income came in around $56,000.
Based on that, which group do you think is more motivated by economic distress to pick a candidate?
Just so we're clear: your argument is that ALL of Donald Trump supporters are racist and sexist. You're rejecting the very notion that people could have voted for Trump for any other reason? Nope, that isn't my argument. then why are you arguing? Our point is not that none of the republican supporters are sexist and racist, our point is that there are many other reasons why people might have supported the Cheeto, and marijuana and spotted owls could have been two of those reasons. There well may have been a bong smoking, owl hating Trump supporter in Oregon, who was never going to vote for Hillary if she promised him ice cream and blow jobs.
I'm sure there's lots of sexist & racist Trump supporters. That wasn't what we were arguing though. Good job, bong smokers
|
5 people marked this as a favorite.
|
We have preserved the moral integrity of the united states by insuring that these long haired hippies will go to jail for dulling their senses with their foul, mind altering product!
Now lets go to the bar and celebrate!
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Knight who says Meh wrote:
Good job, bong smokers
Well exactly who were they supposed to vote for if you wanted the decriminalization of marijuana? Private prisons and big pharma have bought both parties.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Guy Humual wrote: Knight who says Meh wrote:
Good job, bong smokers
Well exactly who were they supposed to vote for if you wanted the decriminalization of marijuana? Private prisons and big pharma have bought both parties. The democrats
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Guy Humual wrote: Knight who says Meh wrote:
Good job, bong smokers
Well exactly who were they supposed to vote for if you wanted the decriminalization of marijuana? Private prisons and big pharma have bought both parties. I don't know. Perhaps you could check on which states and which parties have either decriminalized, legalized or at least enacted medical marijuana laws? And which parties controlled them?
This is another inane false equivalence. As we can see by the entirely predictable results.
Hell, even though I doubt pot smoking voters really care (at least until after they're arrested), Sessions reversed Obama's order reducing the use of private prisons. Which should come as no surprise to anyone.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Guy Humual wrote: Knight who says Meh wrote:
Good job, bong smokers
Well exactly who were they supposed to vote for if you wanted the decriminalization of marijuana? Private prisons and big pharma have bought both parties. Yup, the two parties are....
completely the same.
Oh wait.
Knight who says Meh wrote: Guy Humual wrote: Knight who says Meh wrote:
Good job, bong smokers
Well exactly who were they supposed to vote for if you wanted the decriminalization of marijuana? Private prisons and big pharma have bought both parties. The democrats Thanks to Sanders. Obama kicked the can down the road, calling for more studies, and it's nice that now, while they're out of power, they're calling for things that are decent and humane, we'll have to wait and see if any of these promises are kept once the Democrats are back in office.
thejeff wrote: Guy Humual wrote: Knight who says Meh wrote:
Good job, bong smokers
Well exactly who were they supposed to vote for if you wanted the decriminalization of marijuana? Private prisons and big pharma have bought both parties. I don't know. Perhaps you could check on which states and which parties have either decriminalized, legalized or at least enacted medical marijuana laws? And which parties controlled them?
This is another inane false equivalence. As we can see by the entirely predictable results.
Hell, even though I doubt pot smoking voters really care (at least until after they're arrested), Sessions reversed Obama's order reducing the use of private prisons. Which should come as no surprise to anyone. I'm sorry if I'm misunderstanding something here, but I thought it was the federal government that gets to decided if a drug is legal or not, and while Obama didn't have his AG go after these states that legalized medical and recreation marijuana use, he didn't even change the classification of the drug making medical testing impossible.
So states can legalize things, but the only thing potenutally keeping the Feds from cracking down is the republican belief in states rights, which seems pretty tenuous at best.
Irontruth wrote: Guy Humual wrote: Knight who says Meh wrote:
Good job, bong smokers
Well exactly who were they supposed to vote for if you wanted the decriminalization of marijuana? Private prisons and big pharma have bought both parties. Yup, the two parties are....
completely the same.
Oh wait. Well Clinton took over $130, 000 from private prison lobbyists, so it's hard to say that she would have kept Obama's last minute decision to not use them. They paid Trump more though.
Guy Humual wrote: Irontruth wrote: Guy Humual wrote: Knight who says Meh wrote:
Good job, bong smokers
Well exactly who were they supposed to vote for if you wanted the decriminalization of marijuana? Private prisons and big pharma have bought both parties. Yup, the two parties are....
completely the same.
Oh wait. Well Clinton took over $130, 000 from private prison lobbyists, so it's hard to say that she would have kept Obama's last minute decision to not use them. They paid Trump more though. Your claims that the party's are the same on this issue sound like bullshit to me. Feel free to continue spouting them, but that's what they sound like.
Irontruth wrote: Guy Humual wrote: Irontruth wrote: Guy Humual wrote: Knight who says Meh wrote:
Good job, bong smokers
Well exactly who were they supposed to vote for if you wanted the decriminalization of marijuana? Private prisons and big pharma have bought both parties. Yup, the two parties are....
completely the same.
Oh wait. Well Clinton took over $130, 000 from private prison lobbyists, so it's hard to say that she would have kept Obama's last minute decision to not use them. They paid Trump more though. Your claims that the party's are the same on this issue sound like b&#%+~@! to me. Feel free to continue spouting them, but that's what they sound like. Again, I think the phrase I used was they're not dissimilar, that may mean similar, but it does not mean the same.
Guy Humual wrote: Knight who says Meh wrote: Guy Humual wrote: Knight who says Meh wrote:
Good job, bong smokers
Well exactly who were they supposed to vote for if you wanted the decriminalization of marijuana? Private prisons and big pharma have bought both parties. The democrats Thanks to Sanders. Obama kicked the can down the road, calling for more studies, and it's nice that now, while they're out of power, they're calling for things that are decent and humane, we'll have to wait and see if any of these promises are kept once the Democrats are back in office. I'm not sure if you understand what powers the president has...
Guy Humual wrote: thejeff wrote: Guy Humual wrote: Knight who says Meh wrote:
Good job, bong smokers
Well exactly who were they supposed to vote for if you wanted the decriminalization of marijuana? Private prisons and big pharma have bought both parties. I don't know. Perhaps you could check on which states and which parties have either decriminalized, legalized or at least enacted medical marijuana laws? And which parties controlled them?
This is another inane false equivalence. As we can see by the entirely predictable results.
Hell, even though I doubt pot smoking voters really care (at least until after they're arrested), Sessions reversed Obama's order reducing the use of private prisons. Which should come as no surprise to anyone. I'm sorry if I'm misunderstanding something here, but I thought it was the federal government that gets to decided if a drug is legal or not, and while Obama didn't have his AG go after these states that legalized medical and recreation marijuana use, he didn't even change the classification of the drug making medical testing impossible.
So states can legalize things, but the only thing potenutally keeping the Feds from cracking down is the republican belief in states rights, which seems pretty tenuous at best. Nonetheless, if you've got one party that has actually been making the right changes, even on the state level (and not cracking down on the federal level), it seems pretty stupid to back the other party - as far as that issue is concerned.
Generally, there are laws against drugs on both the state and federal levels and the vast majority of arrests and prosecutions are under state law.
I don't even understand your last line. Are you suggesting Obama wasn't having his AG crack down because of the Republican belief in states rights? Cause that makes no sense at all.
Otherwise, you're right that's pretty damn tenuous and that's why someone concerned with this issue should have voted for Clinton.
It seems again as if your argument is the neither party is perfect, so there's no difference. Democrats hadn't actually made pot legal nationally, so there's no point in voting for them over Republicans promising a crackdown.
Guy Humual wrote: Irontruth wrote: Guy Humual wrote: Irontruth wrote: Guy Humual wrote: Knight who says Meh wrote:
Good job, bong smokers
Well exactly who were they supposed to vote for if you wanted the decriminalization of marijuana? Private prisons and big pharma have bought both parties. Yup, the two parties are....
completely the same.
Oh wait. Well Clinton took over $130, 000 from private prison lobbyists, so it's hard to say that she would have kept Obama's last minute decision to not use them. They paid Trump more though. Your claims that the party's are the same on this issue sound like b&#%+~@! to me. Feel free to continue spouting them, but that's what they sound like. Again, I think the phrase I used was they're not dissimilar, that may mean similar, but it does not mean the same. No, you didn't use that phrase. The quote is literally in this quote chain.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Irontruth wrote: No, you didn't use that phrase. The quote is literally in this quote chain. Guy said, "Private prisons and big pharma have bought both parties."
Would you like to offer facts to dispute that?
(The only one claiming, 'the parties are the same,' seems to be you, presumably sarcastically).
thejeff wrote:
I don't even understand your last line. Are you suggesting Obama wasn't having his AG crack down because of the Republican belief in states rights? Cause that makes no sense at all.
Otherwise, you're right that's pretty damn tenuous and that's why someone concerned with this issue should have voted for Clinton.
What I was suggesting was republicans and democrats switch the white house on a regular basis, not doing more, kicking the can down the road, was a failing of the Obama administration, and the only thing protecting these pot friendly states right now is this "states rights" thing that the republicans like to tout. That to me doesn't seem like good protection. Now I'm sure Obama expected Hillary to win, I'm sure everyone did, but he should have, at the very least, changed the classification of pot so independent drug studies could be done.
thejeff wrote: It seems again as if your argument is the neither party is perfect, so there's no difference. Democrats hadn't actually made pot legal nationally, so there's no point in voting for them over Republicans promising a crackdown. I follow politics, I am aware that there are differences, but how I vote and how the average American votes is kind of the point of this thread. The democrats don't need to convince me that they're better then the republicans, they need to convince folks with short memories and little or no knowledge of the candidates. If the Democrats are going to win against Pence in 2020 they need a candidate that different and better then the Republicans. I find Sander's positions on most issues better period. Is he perfect? No, and I'm not asking for perfect, just better then what the Democrats are currently suggesting.
Fergie wrote: Irontruth wrote: No, you didn't use that phrase. The quote is literally in this quote chain. Guy said, "Private prisons and big pharma have bought both parties."
Would you like to offer facts to dispute that?
(The only one claiming, 'the parties are the same,' seems to be you, presumably sarcastically). Thanks Fergie, I thought Irontruth was referring to a conversation we had earlier, and so I was using the same line I used back then. Your post was exactly how I'd have responded.
Guy Humual wrote: thejeff wrote:
I don't even understand your last line. Are you suggesting Obama wasn't having his AG crack down because of the Republican belief in states rights? Cause that makes no sense at all.
Otherwise, you're right that's pretty damn tenuous and that's why someone concerned with this issue should have voted for Clinton.
What I was suggesting was republicans and democrats switch the white house on a regular basis, not doing more, kicking the can down the road, was a failing of the Obama administration, and the only thing protecting these pot friendly states right now is this "states rights" thing that the republicans like to tout. That to me doesn't seem like good protection. Now I'm sure Obama expected Hillary to win, I'm sure everyone did, but he should have, at the very least, changed the classification of pot so independent drug studies could be done.
thejeff wrote: It seems again as if your argument is the neither party is perfect, so there's no difference. Democrats hadn't actually made pot legal nationally, so there's no point in voting for them over Republicans promising a crackdown. I follow politics, I am aware that there are differences, but how I vote and how the average American votes is kind of the point of this thread. The democrats don't need to convince me that they're better then the republicans, they need to convince folks with short memories and little or no knowledge of the candidates. If the Democrats are going to win against Pence in 2020 they need a candidate that different and better then the Republicans. I find Sander's positions on most issues better period. Is he perfect? No, and I'm not asking for perfect, just better then what the Democrats are currently suggesting. Then don't suggest it's reasonable to support Republicans (or not care) based on marijuana policy, just because Obama didn't go far enough in preventing Republicans from being able to change policy after his term.
Would it have been great if he'd done more? Yes.
Was it perfectly clear which party and which candidate was likely to continue and which would reverse the trend? Also yes.
You were talking about marijuana as a reason for some people to support Trump. You asked which party people who wanted decriminalization should turn to, as if there wasn't an obvious answer.
Fergie wrote: Irontruth wrote: No, you didn't use that phrase. The quote is literally in this quote chain. Guy said, "Private prisons and big pharma have bought both parties."
Would you like to offer facts to dispute that?
(The only one claiming, 'the parties are the same,' seems to be you, presumably sarcastically).
Literally in the part of the quote you cut out. Two links.
thejeff wrote: Then don't suggest it's reasonable to support Republicans (or not care) based on marijuana policy, just because Obama didn't go far enough in preventing Republicans from being able to change policy after his term. I wouldn't suggest that at all. Republicans have a strong track record of doing horrible things to people. However as I said earlier, I also follow politics, I had actually seen some clips of Sanders before he tried running for the nomination of the democratic party. I also know a bullshit artist when I see one, and I knew Trump was never going to keep his promises and his incompitance was pretty self evident, however it's pretty clear that some people couldn't see this.
thejeff wrote: You were talking about marijuana as a reason for some people to support Trump. You asked which party people who wanted decriminalization should turn to, as if there wasn't an obvious answer. Again, I don't think that answer is obvious at all. People thought Trump was sincere when he talked about drug treatment centers and leaving legalization to the states, maybe Hillary had more comprehensive plans to deal with these issues, but on the presidential campaign all we heard from her was how horrible Donald Trump was. If you have an obvious choice you don't lose elections.
Guy Humual wrote: thejeff wrote: Then don't suggest it's reasonable to support Republicans (or not care) based on marijuana policy, just because Obama didn't go far enough in preventing Republicans from being able to change policy after his term. I wouldn't suggest that at all. Republicans have a strong track record of doing horrible things to people. However as I said earlier, I also follow politics, I had actually seen some clips of Sanders before he tried running for the nomination of the democratic party. I also know a b$$!*&*! artist when I see one, and I knew Trump was never going to keep his promises and his incompitance was pretty self evident, however it's pretty clear that some people couldn't see this.
thejeff wrote: You were talking about marijuana as a reason for some people to support Trump. You asked which party people who wanted decriminalization should turn to, as if there wasn't an obvious answer. Again, I don't think that answer is obvious at all. People thought Trump was sincere when he talked about drug treatment centers and leaving legalization to the states, maybe Hillary had more comprehensive plans to deal with these issues, but on the presidential campaign all we heard from her was how horrible Donald Trump was. If you have an obvious choice you don't lose elections. If there's an obvious answer on one issue, it's easy to lose elections. If you think that a pro-pot position is an election winner, you're definitely mistaking the American electorate. It gets you some votes, loses others. Far from a sure thing. Honestly, far from a major thing for the vast majority.
Still: Guy wrote: our point is that there are many other reasons why people might have supported the Cheeto, and marijuana and spotted owls could have been two of those reasons. There well may have been a bong smoking, owl hating Trump supporter in Oregon, who was never going to vote for Hillary if she promised him ice cream and blow jobs. Guy wrote: Well exactly who were they supposed to vote for if you wanted the decriminalization of marijuana? Private prisons and big pharma have bought both parties. Maybe you really meant they were ignorant and fooled into it, but it sure didn't read that way.
as far as pot legalization goes, it realistically has to progress at an incremental rate, and I think you will only see massive changes in the federal system when a tipping point number of states have legalized it to the extent that it makes sense on the national level to push through a legalization measure. I'm not sure Obama could have really accomplished much more than he already did.
I feel like that, in these endless arguments, is consistently forgotten about. A president only controls one aspect of government. There are also state and more local governments, not to mention the courts, and two houses of congress. Electing a progressive president won't do much if the the other bodies of government are more conservative.
If Bernie Sanders had gotten elected (which, despite claims otherwise, I doubt he would have), He would still have had to deal with a Republican controlled Congress and a vast number of republican governors. You would see the same dynamic we see now, only instead of democrats saying no to everything and being largely ineffectual due to lack of numbers, Republicans would have said no to everything and just firmly blocked the administration.
thejeff wrote:
Still: Guy wrote: our point is that there are many other reasons why people might have supported the Cheeto, and marijuana and spotted owls could have been two of those reasons. There well may have been a bong smoking, owl hating Trump supporter in Oregon, who was never going to vote for Hillary if she promised him ice cream and blow jobs. Guy wrote: Well exactly who were they supposed to vote for if you wanted the decriminalization of marijuana? Private prisons and big pharma have bought both parties. Maybe you really meant they were ignorant and fooled into it, but it sure didn't read that way.
Well that's the way it was intended. We're talking about appealing to the electorate, I thought, not me personally.
MMCJawa wrote: as far as pot legalization goes, it realistically has to progress at an incremental rate, and I think you will only see massive changes in the federal system when a tipping point number of states have legalized it to the extent that it makes sense on the national level to push through a legalization measure. I'm not sure Obama could have really accomplished much more than he already did. By simply changing the classification of the drug from Schedule I to something with defined medical benefits you could have had medical testing on the benefits of cannabis at this very moment. Right now it's impossible to prove or disprove how harmless it is. He had the power to do so with an administrative action. Instead he insisted that such a decision should come form Congress.
Guy Humual wrote: By simply changing the classification of the drug from Schedule I to something with defined medical benefits you could have had medical testing on the benefits of cannabis at this very moment. Right now it's impossible to prove or disprove how harmless it is. He had the power to do so with an administrative action. I don't believe that is accurate.
Nothing I have seen suggests that the President can reclassify a drug personally. The attorney general may remove a drug from the list if they find that it does not meet the requirements, but they can't just reclassify it... and the President isn't supposed to interfere with AG decision making on that kind of thing (someone should tell The Donald).
The DEA could certainly do it, but Leonhart was fervently anti-marijuana. Some argued that Obama should have fired her to get action taken, but again... he wasn't Trump. He actually supported an impartial DOJ (including the FBI & DEA). Further, HAD he done any such thing the GOP would have screamed their heads off about the 'improper interference'... though they're now cool with massively larger breaches.
CBDunkerson wrote: Guy Humual wrote: By simply changing the classification of the drug from Schedule I to something with defined medical benefits you could have had medical testing on the benefits of cannabis at this very moment. Right now it's impossible to prove or disprove how harmless it is. He had the power to do so with an administrative action. I don't believe that is accurate.
Nothing I have seen suggests that the President can reclassify a drug personally. The attorney general may remove a drug from the list if they find that it does not meet the requirements, but they can't just reclassify it... and the President isn't supposed to interfere with AG decision making on that kind of thing (someone should tell The Donald).
The DEA could certainly do it, but Leonhart was fervently anti-marijuana. Some argued that Obama should have fired her to get action taken, but again... he wasn't Trump. He actually supported an impartial DOJ (including the FBI & DEA). Further, HAD he done any such thing the GOP would have screamed their heads off about the 'improper interference'... though they're now cool with massively larger breaches. Previous petitions to change the classification have taken FOREVER to go through the courts and government processes. The most recent petition was launched in 2002 but only denied in 2010. The President can not hamper the process, but can't simply rule by decree. The reverse is really really easy, as we can see from what Sessions has already done.
Really I suspect any sort of final change to scheduling will be at some point where states reach a critical mass on legalization, or the current generation of DEA officials retire, allowing younger folks with less hardline views to take power.
|
