General US Politics

[Johann]

Just now, Zasplach said:

This may very well be true, I think you are slightly conflating the statements of a few, admittedly influential, senators and a general policy.  Remember President Trump, unlike most GOP candidates, ran on not cutting SS, Medicare, and Medicaid (I understand he lies, but I suspect some old people may stop supporting him if he lies on this, unlike the other lies).  But if they have control of both the house and the senate after next year's mid-terms, I would argue that the American populous generally wants 'entitlement reform' (now I understand that gerrymandering is a thing, but +10 for the Democrats will ensure they have the House, maybe even the Senate, so the American people have recourse).  So if we have a GOP senate and House in 2019 I would think that the country wants entitlement reform, what other conclusion should I come to?

• The GOP wanting to cut Medicare and other services is not a new thing, though. They've railed against it since its inception.
• I guarantee you Trump would sign whatever the GOP slaps on his desk, regretful voters be damned.
• The GOP relies on gerrymandering and voter suppression to acquire a majority. Their victories aren't a good metric of what the majority of the country wants.
• In broad terms, I think most people would support "reforming" entitlements (including expansion and revisions to be more cost-effective), but there's polling showing that cuts are definitely not what people want.

[Zasplach]

15 minutes ago, Johann said:

• The GOP wanting to cut Medicare and other services is not a new thing, though. They've railed against it since its inception.
• I guarantee you Trump would sign whatever the GOP slaps on his desk, regretful voters be damned.
• The GOP relies on gerrymandering and voter suppression to acquire a majority. Their victories aren't a good metric of what the majority of the country wants.
• In broad terms, I think most people would support "reforming" entitlements (including expansion and revisions to be more cost-effective), but there's polling showing that cuts are definitely not what people want.

The make up of the political parties have changed drastically in the past century, the movement of the party of George Wallace from the Dems to the GOP is only a small piece of the overall movement and in fact a considerable number of Republicans voted for both the SS act and the Medicare act; granted the parties were less ideologically rigid, there were conservative dems and liberal gopers, but they did participate in their creation and sometimes it was conservative Dems who made the passage of such programs difficult. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/aug/28/howard-dean/dean-claims-social-security-and-medicare-were-pass/ 

Trump is a narcissist first and foremost, thus why he talks so much about 'winning', so he doesn't give a damn about regretful voters,  but he does care about 2020 and I believe that undertaking entitlement reform in a unipartisan way would ensure that old people who voted for him would either switch sides or just not vote, making him a heavy underdog.  

I think you are overemphasizing the importance of gerrymandering in the GOP's power, yes there is evidence to some effect of its existence, but the gerrymandering was  created by duly elected legislatures and governors of the citizens of many states, ergo in a republic, it's what they wanted, elections have consequences.  The GOP didn't create the boundaries to states which gave President Trump the win, those were created over a long period of time with only a little political interference.  You live in a Republic, a conservatively drafted republic, the nature of the elected officials is the only tried and try way to know the will of the American people, yes some states, like my own, have referendum, recall, and initiative, but the Constitution does not provide, nor does it really believe in those things.  If you want them, rally for them and get 3/4 of the country's support.  And I think the country is generally more conservative than you think, but that's not really something I care to argue, we live in a Republic, it doesn't much matter.

Polls are important, they help way the general feelings of the American electorate, but elections are the only thing with consequences, win and you make policy, lose and you have to fights hard to get what you want.

[Johann]

10 minutes ago, Zasplach said:

The make up of the political parties have changed drastically in the past century, the movement of the party of George Wallace from the Dems to the GOP is only a small piece of the overall movement and in fact a considerable number of Republicans voted for both the SS act and the Medicare act; granted the parties were less ideologically rigid, there were conservative dems and liberal gopers, but they did participate in their creation and sometimes it was conservative Dems who made the passage of such programs difficult. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/aug/28/howard-dean/dean-claims-social-security-and-medicare-were-pass/ 

You're missing the point, which is that the bulk of Republican lawmakers are pretty antagonistic towards Medicare and other government support programs.

15 minutes ago, Zasplach said:

Trump is a narcissist first and foremost, thus why he talks so much about 'winning', so he doesn't give a damn about regretful voters,  but he does care about 2020 and I believe that undertaking entitlement reform in a unipartisan way would ensure that old people who voted for him would either switch sides or just not vote, making him a heavy underdog.  

Believe what you will, but bear in mind that he considers any piece of legislation that he can sign as a "win", which he relishes. I would argue that his foresight is also extremely poor and he rarely, if ever, considers the consequences of his actions.

17 minutes ago, Zasplach said:

I think you are overemphasizing the importance of gerrymandering in the GOP's power, yes there is evidence to some effect of its existence, but the gerrymandering was  created by duly elected legislatures and governors of the citizens of many states, ergo in a republic, it's what they wanted, elections have consequences.  The GOP didn't create the boundaries to states which gave President Trump the win, those were created over a long period of time with only a little political interference.  You live in a Republic, a conservatively drafted republic, the nature of the elected officials is the only tried and try way to know the will of the American people, yes some states, like my own, have referendum, recall, and initiative, but the Constitution does not provide, nor does it really believe in those things.  If you want them, rally for them and get 3/4 of the country's support.  And I think the country is generally more conservative than you think, but that's not really something I care to argue, we live in a Republic, it doesn't much matter.

Polls are important, they help way the general feelings of the American electorate, but elections are the only thing with consequences, win and you make policy, lose and you have to fights hard to get what you want.

People get shit they don't want from people they voted for all the time. The Electoral College is a different animal altogether, as well. Gerrymandering is only one side of the issue; the other is voter suppression, which employs tactics designed to affect minorities and young people primarily, who tend to lean liberal. Regulations designed to combat supposed problems like voter fraud make it difficult or impossible to vote if you don't meet the criteria (such as a driver's license or other govt issued ID). Both gerrymandering and voter suppression are legal measures elected officials can use to unfairly rig the electoral process, so voting itself is not exactly a good metric for determining what people really want. Don't forget that people can use the courts to overrule the actions of elected officials.

[Zasplach]

3 minutes ago, Johann said:

You're missing the point, which is that the bulk of Republican lawmakers are pretty antagonistic towards Medicare and other government support programs.

Believe what you will, but bear in mind that he considers any piece of legislation that he can sign as a "win", which he relishes. I would argue that his foresight is also extremely poor and he rarely, if ever, considers the consequences of his actions.

People get shit they don't want from people they voted for all the time. The Electoral College is a different animal altogether, as well. Gerrymandering is only one side of the issue; the other is voter suppression, which employs tactics designed to affect minorities and young people primarily, who tend to lean liberal. Regulations designed to combat supposed problems like voter fraud make it difficult or impossible to vote if you don't meet the criteria (such as a driver's license or other govt issued ID). Both gerrymandering and voter suppression are legal measures elected officials can use to unfairly rig the electoral process, so voting itself is not exactly a good metric for determining what people really want. Don't forget that people can use the courts to overrule the actions of elected officials.

I wouldn't use the word bulk or antagonistic, 'most are suspicious' of government 'welfare programs', but we are probably parsing words, it's hard to narrow down exactly how they all feel.

President Trump is strange to me, so your interpretation may be valid, I'm just calling what I see, and I feel like being a one term president would sit really poorly in his craw and he's rich enough and seemingly in good enough health he could live another 20,30 years.

We live in a republic, when you vote for someone, you endorse everything they stand for and vote for, it's why every vote should be carefully considered.  And yes, I know what 'voter suppression' is, Republicans make it tougher for the poor and the young to vote and while I think the policies are stupid (so few Americans participate in the electoral process as is, those who want to participate should be encouraged), I don't suspect that the Robert's court is going to find them unconstitutional, maybe I'm wrong.  But I don't think these measures rise to the level of poll taxes and the like and I expect that's what the court will rule.  Making it tougher to vote is dumb, not illegal and I suspect that the court will find while the provisions set by the conservative states made it harder for the poor and the young and minorities to vote, it didn't make it impossible.  I suppose we will see about the court's ruling though.      

[Lord Raven]

A) you consider yourself center-right? You seem quite centrist in the sense that your views are guided seemingly by research and logic rather than ideology, which makes you in favor of free markets etc (which I don’t believe makes you right wing — but left/right is stupid and being pro-free market should be independent of the spectrum).

B) I feel like you’re trying to explain the Machiavellian politics in congress so we can see it from the politician’s point of view, but I think we all understand that and hate it. I complained not because I’m surprised but because my Wednesday was an awful travel day (the most awful) and the smug ass press conference with McConnell, Ryan, Pence, and Trump was on in the airport and made my blood boil

[Zasplach]

Complain to your heart's content, our politicians are obnoxious, I'm just both a rationalizer and conflict averse so I like to make platitudes to 'why can't we all just understand each other'.

I think I said it earlier, but the spectrum of 'left-right' is a construct that we use to place ourselves into groups needlessly, but you clarify your own mind when you use them to layer your thoughts.  Centrist may be more accurate, but I come from a long tradition of Calvinist Whigs in this country and though I'm no longer a Calvinist (I consider myself Arminian) I still firmly believe in the family's Whig roots.  And to be frank, I have a blood and soil relation to how I think, not a vile Nazi blood and soil where you try to expand your empire and expel other racial groups, but rather a real connection to what is real in the present requires an understanding and connection to what is real in the past whether you want to run towards it or flee from it and I consider myself a traditionalist in many ways.  We've been conservative Whigs since the country's foundation, not Tories who believed in the crown, but believers in the limited republicanism  of the Constitution in direct opposition to Jacksonian Democracy.  And the country my family comes from in Illinois, Bureau, near where Ronald Reagan was born (Grandma loved that story, a long sill one) is near where one of the first meetings of the Republican party was in 1854 and we've been Lincoln, Roosevelt and Eisenhower Republicans ever since.  I'm a Republican mostly because of pragmatism, the Maricopa Democratic party hardly holds primaries so I might as well try to help the GOP run not crazy people, mostly unsuccessfully, but also because of tradition.  Besides, I consider a lot of the vileness, vehement anti immigrant (minorities too) anti free trade, and anti US world power, in the Republican party right now to be a direct result of 'populist' movements, which in a Fisher/Stone (my family names) will always be associated with President Jackson and his rabble overrunning the White House in a party in 1829 and then William Jennings Bryan and his 'cross of gold' and then the Marxists movement that swept across Europe and ruined once great countries.  When the party of Lincoln let George Wallace into our party, my family's confidence in the republic died a little.

[Johann]

16 hours ago, Zasplach said:

I wouldn't use the word bulk or antagonistic, 'most are suspicious' of government 'welfare programs', but we are probably parsing words, it's hard to narrow down exactly how they all feel.

Party loyalty is huge in the GOP, which is why they'll support terrible people or legislation. The party's agenda is to get rid of things like entitlement programs and privatize whatever they can, and they fall in line or else risk losing campaign funding. There may be some who actually believe their agenda is in the nation's best interest, but the brains behind the party are very much aware of what their actions will do to the country (case in point: the massive permanent corporate tax cuts). No need to give them the benefit of the doubt.

16 hours ago, Zasplach said:

President Trump is strange to me, so your interpretation may be valid, I'm just calling what I see, and I feel like being a one term president would sit really poorly in his craw and he's rich enough and seemingly in good enough health he could live another 20,30 years.

If Trump could actually pull off a full 8 years without an aneurysm, then I'd be shocked that not only did he beat his investigation, but won another election, and didn't have a massive aneurysm or heart attack along the way. I'd honestly be surprised if he lived longer than 10 or 15 years. 

16 hours ago, Zasplach said:

We live in a republic, when you vote for someone, you endorse everything they stand for and vote for, it's why every vote should be carefully considered.  And yes, I know what 'voter suppression' is, Republicans make it tougher for the poor and the young to vote and while I think the policies are stupid (so few Americans participate in the electoral process as is, those who want to participate should be encouraged), I don't suspect that the Robert's court is going to find them unconstitutional, maybe I'm wrong.  But I don't think these measures rise to the level of poll taxes and the like and I expect that's what the court will rule.  Making it tougher to vote is dumb, not illegal and I suspect that the court will find while the provisions set by the conservative states made it harder for the poor and the young and minorities to vote, it didn't make it impossible.  I suppose we will see about the court's ruling though.      

John Oliver did a good piece on voter suppression that I think you'd find interesting.

Edited December 24, 2017 by Johann

[Zasplach]

20 hours ago, Johann said:

Party loyalty is huge in the GOP, which is why they'll support terrible people or legislation. The party's agenda is to get rid of things like entitlement programs and privatize whatever they can, and they fall in line or else risk losing campaign funding. There may be some who actually believe their agenda is in the nation's best interest, but the brains behind the party are very much aware of what their actions will do to the country (case in point: the massive permanent corporate tax cuts). No need to give them the benefit of the doubt.

If Trump could actually pull off a full 8 years without an aneurysm, then I'd be shocked that not only did he beat his investigation, but won another election, and didn't have a massive aneurysm or heart attack along the way. I'd honestly be surprised if he lived longer than 10 or 15 years. 

John Oliver did a good piece on voter suppression that I think you'd find interesting.

John Oliver bits are always fun, though I have a distinct memory of watching something similar, I just think you're misunderstanding what I'm saying about Voter ID Laws.  I think they are stupid and unnecessary, I might find them okay under certain circumstances like having those ID producing offices open 5 days a week for 12 hours a day and if their services were free and if the government gave assistance in traveling to those locations, but that'll never happen, so the laws are dumb.  I don't think the Robert's court is going to rule that these laws are unconstitutional, hell they struck down most of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which enabled these laws to happen, don't get my started on all the activist judges on the court.  These laws mostly inhibit inner-city residents who have no need for driver licences from voting, mostly students and minorities, people who generally vote overwhelmingly for Democrats, I understand it; I don't see any means by which they will be ruled unconstitutional expect by the 'rule of stupid' and the Constitution doesn't have that. 

Party loyalty is huge in both parties, it's the nature of the creation of ideological, rather than coalition parties like the US has historically had; Republicans to me seem to be the less 'united' party, there have been a lot of grievances aired publicly and votes gone down that only needed GOP support (I'm thinking of the Sen. McCain moment with Obamacare) on the other hand, Democrats, even those from Trump states, have stood lock-step against the President's agenda.  I'm not arguing whether this is good or bad, rather what it seems to me.  Besides it makes sense to me that the party who avows individuality would be more raucous than the party who avows cooperation.  Secondly, I think you should be careful about characterizing bad motives to 'others', it creates a society where we have divisions and rifts that can't be solved.  I'm not going to say I love or wholeheartedly support GOP leadership, least of all the President, but I think you're applying needlessly nefarious motives to that which can be prescribed to pragmatism and circular thinking.  The point is the GOP is mostly citizens like myself and my family and millions of others who generally, not all, want what's best for the country as a whole; just like I assume you're a Democrat, correct me if I'm wrong, but needless to say there are millions of citizens, not all, who belong to the party who wants what bests for the country as a whole.

 You could be right about the President's health, but to me he seems like the crotchety old person type and in my experience those are the kind of people that life has got to beat down several times before they are ready to die; only time will tell.

[Lord Raven]

I think Democrat voters in general are more fickle than Republican voters who have the evangelical block in lockstep. I don’t think this is much less than an objective fact. But on the other hand some Republicans refused to vote Trump, kind of along the same lines as anti-Clinton democrats.

It’s an anecdote though but you didn’t see some people come in here and stand against Clinton because in the past she was against gay marriage? I think the democrats rely on huge voter turnout and republicans rely on suppression. The republican politicians actively want to subvert democracy — I think it’s kind of trivial to call it “pragmatism” because effective politicians are naturally pragmatic.

Edited December 25, 2017 by Lord Raven

[Zasplach]

3 hours ago, Lord Raven said:

I think Democrat voters in general are more fickle than Republican voters who have the evangelical block in lockstep. I don’t think this is much less than an objective fact. But on the other hand some Republicans refused to vote Trump, kind of along the same lines as anti-Clinton democrats.

It’s an anecdote though but you didn’t see some people come in here and stand against Clinton because in the past she was against gay marriage? I think the democrats rely on huge voter turnout and republicans rely on suppression. The republican politicians actively want to subvert democracy — I think it’s kind of trivial to call it “pragmatism” because effective politicians are naturally pragmatic.

Both parties have enthusiastic and fickle voters, African Americans voted for Mrs. Clinton at about a 90% clip and evangelicals voted for President Trump at about an 80% clip.  What I was specifically referring to in that idea was that the Democratic Congressional members were more lockstep with leadership's ideas than their Republican counterparts.  Both parties basically rely on winning by getting certain people to vote and getting certain people not to vote.  Look at what happened in Alabama, are you telling me that if the same people who had voted in 2016, even with the new people who voted in 2017, that Doug Jones would have won?  The country is pretty entrenched as we speak, most people's vote don't swing, it's really about who votes.  

It's hard to say, but I suspect that if every American voted, Presidential elections would look relatively similar to what it looked like in 2016, Democrats would run up huge numbers in states like California, but Republicans would squeak out elections in states like Ohio and Michigan.  Yeah, voter ID laws make it harder for students and minorities, I suspect mostly African Americans to vote, but Americans tend to like voter ID laws for one reason or another, probably a misunderstanding of how vote fixing worked in the 19th century with political machines, and I don't think the laws are unconstitutional.  

[Johann]

6 hours ago, Zasplach said:

John Oliver bits are always fun, though I have a distinct memory of watching something similar, I just think you're misunderstanding what I'm saying about Voter ID Laws.  I think they are stupid and unnecessary, I might find them okay under certain circumstances like having those ID producing offices open 5 days a week for 12 hours a day and if their services were free and if the government gave assistance in traveling to those locations, but that'll never happen, so the laws are dumb.  I don't think the Robert's court is going to rule that these laws are unconstitutional, hell they struck down most of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which enabled these laws to happen, don't get my started on all the activist judges on the court.  These laws mostly inhibit inner-city residents who have no need for driver licences from voting, mostly students and minorities, people who generally vote overwhelmingly for Democrats, I understand it; I don't see any means by which they will be ruled unconstitutional expect by the 'rule of stupid' and the Constitution doesn't have that. 

Party loyalty is huge in both parties, it's the nature of the creation of ideological, rather than coalition parties like the US has historically had; Republicans to me seem to be the less 'united' party, there have been a lot of grievances aired publicly and votes gone down that only needed GOP support (I'm thinking of the Sen. McCain moment with Obamacare) on the other hand, Democrats, even those from Trump states, have stood lock-step against the President's agenda.  I'm not arguing whether this is good or bad, rather what it seems to me.  Besides it makes sense to me that the party who avows individuality would be more raucous than the party who avows cooperation.  Secondly, I think you should be careful about characterizing bad motives to 'others', it creates a society where we have divisions and rifts that can't be solved.  I'm not going to say I love or wholeheartedly support GOP leadership, least of all the President, but I think you're applying needlessly nefarious motives to that which can be prescribed to pragmatism and circular thinking.  The point is the GOP is mostly citizens like myself and my family and millions of others who generally, not all, want what's best for the country as a whole; just like I assume you're a Democrat, correct me if I'm wrong, but needless to say there are millions of citizens, not all, who belong to the party who wants what bests for the country as a whole.

 You could be right about the President's health, but to me he seems like the crotchety old person type and in my experience those are the kind of people that life has got to beat down several times before they are ready to die; only time will tell.

I think we're pretty much on the same page, primarily a matter of whether or not we have hope that voter suppression laws can be overruled or otherwise negated. I'm a pretty optimistic person, though I'd say it's a toss-up n depends entirely on what courts/judges review the laws and appeals.

The divides in both parties have seen a substantial highlighting since the election, with the Democrats being split between the Clinton-esque establishment types and Franklin/Sanders-esque democratic socialism types, and Republicans having a divide loosely categorized as being for or against Trump. On the left, while a lot of major issues have shared opinions (primarily social issues), there is still an ongoing shakeup of party leadership, heavy criticism of certain in-party norms and some major economic policy views, and no clear & unifying candidate for Democrats in 2020. Meanwhile, on the right, support for questionable candidates like Trump or Moore is rather consistent despite their history remained rather strong, and seen as a "ends justify the means" for ensuring that issues were handled as per the party agenda. Dissent from the norms within the party tend to come from representatives in bluer states (MA, NY, CA, NJ to name a few), which tend to produce different kinds of Republicans.

Bear in mind that I'm not necessarily characterizing individuals who vote/register as Republican as part of this agenda, but the party's leadership, who have a dominating influence over their legislators and other key actors. Regarding individual Republican voters, I would say there's sort of spectrum of intention and consequence, with those cautious of economic and military threats on one side, who are making decisions based on issues like terrorism and globalism, and those with exclusive (and in its most extreme forms, actively targeting) towards "others" (minorities, LGBTQ, refugees, etc) who are seeking to oppress those they deem "weighing down" the country/world. I would also argue that Repulicans are more in that former side of the spectrum, and some of their worldviews are driven by fear or misconception.

In regards to Trump's health, well, neither of us are his doctor, but the guy never exercises, gets little sleep, eats poorly, and has one of the most stressful jobs in the world, and he's 70, all of which doesn't help his odds.

[Lord Raven]

I think that republican voters aren’t fearful so much as they are indirectly told to be fearful by politicians. I think that happens on both sides, but one side preaches it from a personal safety angle and the other from xenophobia.

Im still trying to be careful to detach the voters from the leadership, because it feels like a bunch of snake oil salesmen who know who to sell it to. I also dont think the Democrats have put forth legislation to restrict evangelical voters. I think Zasplach is mainly making the point that we shouldn’t blame constituents for their politicians.

[Zasplach]

1 hour ago, Lord Raven said:

I think that republican voters aren’t fearful so much as they are indirectly told to be fearful by politicians. I think that happens on both sides, but one side preaches it from a personal safety angle and the other from xenophobia.

Im still trying to be careful to detach the voters from the leadership, because it feels like a bunch of snake oil salesmen who know who to sell it to. I also dont think the Democrats have put forth legislation to restrict evangelical voters. I think Zasplach is mainly making the point that we shouldn’t blame constituents for their politicians.

Those things all sound fair, I'm afraid that most voters are best motivated by fear honestly.  Whether it be fear of others or fear of having benefits being taken from you or fear of having higher taxes or whatever, the ideas are numerous.  And I don't think your wrong that the GOP leadership is dubious, I just don't think I have much nicer things to say about the leadership in the Democratic party.  But like I said, I think most of the population has the government it deserves, so it's a mixed bag.  Some people in the GOP really are bad, hell it was only 50 years ago when George Wallace said this to great applause https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6C-kBVggFrs (Segregation forever speech).The system really isn't designed for the kind of participation it has now or the amount of transparency it has.  Even before the political machines of 19th century, American politics were always on the dirty side and the personal side too.  The Constitution is pretty much the penultimate example of about 100 men getting together to tell the nation what was best for it.  President Trump's election shook my faith in the Republic, it's sad but true, I've always been a cynic, but an optimistic one, and yeah I didn't think we would ever produce a meme president.  There's going to have to be structural changes to the system, whether it be a movement towards a truly liberal democracy, because the framework we play in isn't really close to that, or we have to restructure the Republic somehow because that speech broke federalism for good reason and 50 years haven't fixed it.

 

[Tryhard]

There hasn't been too much going on recently aside from Trump threatening North Korean with bigger nuclear buttons and all that, but I found this funny.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/jan/03/donald-trump-russia-steve-bannon-michael-wolff

Bannon isn't trusted, but if people who hang on his words actually listen to him, lol.

Edit: Trump slammed Bannon in response.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-01-03/trump-says-bannon-lost-his-mind-after-leaving-white-house

Edited January 3, 2018 by Tryhard

[Shoblongoo]

DoJ announcing reversal of Obamacare-era policy, on non-interference with state laws legalizing marijuana. All of my hate to Jeff Sessions.

Edited January 4, 2018 by Shoblongoo

[Slumber]

1 hour ago, Shoblongoo said:

DoJ announcing reversal of Obamacare-era policy, on non-interference with state laws legalizing marijuana. All of my hate to Jeff Sessions.

Sessions is probably the next one to go. Republicans are calling for it, and since Mueller has to report to the DoJ, canning Sessions gives Trump a way to interfere with the investigation that won't get him in trouble. 

[Lord Raven]

so much for states rights

i swear donald trump just says a bunch of shit he doesnt understand and his supporters fill in the blanks. legal weed was one of those things i recall

then this happens and some people wonder where we went wrong...

EDIT: our president also said this should be a states issue, so the fact that he's allowing federal overreach on a states issue means that he's lied again lol and people wonder why we don't listen to what he says, because he's always lying

Edited January 4, 2018 by Lord Raven

[Thane]

6 hours ago, Shoblongoo said:

DoJ announcing reversal of Obamacare-era policy, on non-interference with state laws legalizing marijuana. All of my hate to Jeff Sessions.

So what does this mean in practice? I thought Republicans were against this sort of thing, and I thought many states were going ahead and legalizing/decriminalizing marijuana. How fast will this have an impact on that, and will states like California and Colorado be forced to criminalize it again?

[Lord Raven]

Just now, Thane said:

So what does this mean in practice? I thought Republicans were against this sort of thing, and I thought many states were going ahead and legalizing/decriminalizing marijuana. How fast will this have an impact on that, and will states like California and Colorado be forced to criminalize it again?

republicans have been very transparent about "states rights until i disagree" which basically meant "states rights unless I can oppress people"

it won't have much of an impact and in fact could change the political landscape in 2018 and 2020 by painting the administration as horrible due to the fact that they a) hired Sessions, b) he allowed for expansion of slavery/private prisons, and c) he's anti-pot and wants to send potheads to for-profit prisons

it's pretty fucked, and I'm not sure how it will coincide with the 6 or so states with legal recreational and the 30 or so states with legal medicinal, but it's basically a very strict enforcement of a shitty law as opposed to Obama whose enforcement was limited to "people who sell marijuana to our children"

[Zasplach]

1 hour ago, Lord Raven said:

so much for states rights

i swear donald trump just says a bunch of shit he doesnt understand and his supporters fill in the blanks. legal weed was one of those things i recall

then this happens and some people wonder where we went wrong...

EDIT: our president also said this should be a states issue, so the fact that he's allowing federal overreach on a states issue means that he's lied again lol and people wonder why we don't listen to what he says, because he's always lying

In a mild defense of President Trump, the DOJ does have some Independence from the President, the AG could have have set different priorities in terms of marijuana laws without very much input from him(DJT). This was pretty much going to happen if any Republican won the presidency, that whole supremacy clause thing and the SOUTUS has already ruled on this in the feds favor.  It really is bad, in my opinion, for societies to selectively enforce laws, it puts too much power in the hands of those who enforce laws and too little in the hands of the legislature. If people want a change, they should send legislators to Congress to change the law.  

States rights don't exist, Governor Wallace and his merry men of idiots killed them, plus the civil war and the Depression too, everyone basically believes in a centralized state with 50 states.  Republicans say 'states rights' when they want to shrink the size of the Federal government.  

2 minutes ago, Thane said:

So what does this mean in practice? I thought Republicans were against this sort of thing, and I thought many states were going ahead and legalizing/decriminalizing marijuana. How fast will this have an impact on that, and will states like California and Colorado be forced to criminalize it again?

It means that the Federal government will enforce marijuana laws in those states, not that states have to do it; states can enforce their own laws as desired (federalism), but the feds will do the same.

[Thane]

1 minute ago, Lord Raven said:

republicans have been very transparent about "states rights until i disagree" which basically meant "states rights unless I can oppress people"

"The people have spoken, but we didn't like what they had to say" indeed. At this point I can only assume that the Republican propaganda machine must be bloody amazing at what it does because I'm not really sure how people could otherwise vote for blatant hypocrisy.

2 minutes ago, Lord Raven said:

it won't have much of an impact and in fact could change the political landscape in 2018 and 2020 by painting the administration as horrible due to the fact that they a) hired Sessions, b) he allowed for expansion of slavery/private prisons, and c) he's anti-pot and wants to send potheads to for-profit prisons

I've heard of private jails in the U.S. How does that even work? Also, how can a politician be allowed to mak a profit off of that? Shouldn't that be strictly illegal?

2 minutes ago, Zasplach said:

It means that the Federal government will enforce marijuana laws in those states, not that states have to do it; states can enforce their own laws as desired (federalism), but the feds will do the same.

Wait, will it be legal and illegal at the same time?

[Zasplach]

1 minute ago, Thane said:

Wait, will it be legal and illegal at the same time?

Basically, state authorities work for state governments which only have to cooperate sparingly with the feds, depending on the rules set by state governments, but federal authorities work for the federal government where marijuana is still illegal, so the DEA can enforce those laws in the states.

[Moblin Major General]

1 minute ago, Zasplach said:

Basically, state authorities work for state governments which only have to cooperate sparingly with the feds, depending on the rules set by state governments, but federal authorities work for the federal government where marijuana is still illegal, so the DEA can enforce those laws in the states.

I can see those states circumventing the DEA by refusing to prosecute anyone arrested by the DEA. If that doesn't work, they could try to defund the DEA in those states. 

[Zasplach]

Just now, Hylian Air Force said:

I can see those states circumventing the DEA by refusing to prosecute anyone arrested by the DEA. If that doesn't work, they could try to defund the DEA in those states. 

Can't, it's against federal law to smoke marijuana so they can take them straight to federal courts and the DEA isn't funded in individual states, it's funded through the taxes individuals pay, which the federal government redistributes to different agencies.  

[Moblin Major General]

3 minutes ago, Zasplach said:

Can't, it's against federal law to smoke marijuana so they can take them straight to federal courts and the DEA isn't funded in individual states, it's funded through the taxes individuals pay, which the federal government redistributes to different agencies.  

Then it'll be Prohibition all over again, with local and state authorities warning pharmacies and pot shops about an impending raid.