|
cheese posted:When do things like the legalized recreational weed and the cigarette tax come into play? Pot is legal to have, but not legal to buy right now. You can grow your own plants right now, but you can't buy seeds yet, and you can't buy from OR or WA and import it because it's not legal to cross state lines with it. Starting in 2018, you'll be able to buy it recreationally. If somebody with a prescription buys it for you and money changes hands that's technically illegal. But them buying it with a prescription and giving it to you is legal.
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 21:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 08:31 |
|
|
Ideally universal healthcare would be federal-level "Medicare for All" expansion and replacing the Medicare Tax with premiums for recipients (waived or subsidized for children, elderly, disabled and poor) and eliminating Medicaid. People can purchase Medicare benefits, use their employer insurance, or purchase private insurance. Firstly, because Medicare is a thing that already exists and more or less works, and can be expanded with modifications. Secondly, because of the demographics of Medicare recipients (old, white, conservative) Medicare benefits are both sacrosanct and familiar to high-probability voters, as opposed to Medicaid which is seen as a fiscal sinkhole giving unwarranted benefits to illegals. Thirdly, because it hits sweet spots with fiscal conservatives by eliminating a major tax and programs they hate. The benefits of single-payer healthcare are primarily in using mass buying power to negotiate lower costs on medications and services and reducing administrative costs for healthcare providers (the current system is a loving jungle). California alone obviously can't change federal programs like Medicare, so would most likely have to expand MediCal for single-payer. California's size alone gives it purchasing power comparable to nations like Sweden, Spain and France which effectively use their purchasing power to negotiate far better prices than America. MediCal for Everyone wouldn't remove the jungle though, so the administrative inefficiencies would remain.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 22:11
|
|
|
Also, it's very likely that under the new president and congress, there's a non-zero chance they'd finally get to switch Medicaid to block grants, and could subsequently threaten to defund Medicaid if we went single-payer.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 22:17
|
|
|
Just got back from the LA protest. Love you all, Cali
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 23:31
|
|
|
How did it go? I saw protesters in downtown San Jose on thursday (mostly high school students that walked out of school) and my facebook friends list is a lot lighter.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 23:35
|
|
|
Panfilo posted:How did it go? I saw protesters in downtown San Jose on thursday (mostly high school students that walked out of school) and my facebook friends list is a lot lighter. it was really good. huge turnout, no trouble from cops or counterprotestors, lots of support from motorists and people bumping gently caress Donald Trump out of their cars. went from MacArthur Park, did a loop through DTLA, then back to MacArthur. just a great crowd, and it did me a world of good to see that im not the only one who is pissed beyond belief.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 23:38
|
|
|
So where can I buy a box of the little plastic bags my supermarket can't hand out anymore?
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2016 00:18
|
|
|
coupbrick posted:So where can I buy a box of the little plastic bags my supermarket can't hand out anymore? ? Or spend like $5-$10 on a few reusable bags?
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2016 00:34
|
|
|
paranoid randroid posted:it was really good. huge turnout, no trouble from cops or counterprotestors, lots of support from motorists and people bumping gently caress Donald Trump out of their cars. went from MacArthur Park, did a loop through DTLA, then back to MacArthur. just a great crowd, and it did me a world of good to see that im not the only one who is pissed beyond belief. Oh hey, bet I saw you there!
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2016 03:54
|
|
|
My girlfriend and I went to the rally in downtown San Luis Obispo. Our chief of police gave a quick speech at the start that we could barely hear, but was apparently stressing that they are not our enemy and just want everybody to be safe. A couple more people got up and spoke messages of togetherness, which was nice to hear. Lots of "Not our president" chants that we didn't join in on, because he'll be it, like it or not. One lifted truck with two American flags in the back cruised past a couple times, to be obnoxious. Walked with the crowd for a bit, until it started getting too stressful and we had to bail. Unfortunately, the place I wanted to buy sign-making supplies was closed yesterday, so I couldn't make a poorly laid out sign that said fairvote.org, yescalifornia.org, and nationalpopularvote.org on it. Oh well. A couple of wise guys had Trump/Pence signs, but they were generally ignored. One group was protesting protests and everybody thought they were extremely clever.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2016 07:13
|
|
|
Instant Sunrise posted:Pot is legal to have, but not legal to buy right now. You can grow your own plants right now, but you can't buy seeds yet, and you can't buy from OR or WA and import it because it's not legal to cross state lines with it. Pulp Fiction reboot looking kinda boring.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2016 10:18
|
|
|
CPColin posted:My girlfriend and I went to the rally in downtown San Luis Obispo. Our chief of police gave a quick speech at the start that we could barely hear, but was apparently stressing that they are not our enemy and just want everybody to be safe. Nice. One thing that I've been very happy with is authority figures in CA standing up and explicitly taking the anti-hate side. I got emails from Janet Napolitano, George Blumenthal (Chancellor of UCSC), and the local graduate student administration all saying that Trump does not reflect the values of their organizations nor the values of Californians. quote:Lots of "Not our president" chants that we didn't join in on, because he'll be it, like it or not. I think this chant is more about Trump not being "their president" as in he is not the president that they personally elected, nor is he a president who reflects their values. Obviously he soon will actually be the president of the USA.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 02:05
|
|
|
VikingofRock posted:I think this chant is more about Trump not being "their president" as in he is not the president that they personally elected, nor is he a president who reflects their values. Obviously he soon will actually be the president of the USA. It also very probably stems from the fact that, like Dubya, he was not elected by a plurality in the popular vote.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 07:27
|
|
|
"This President is not the one I want and he doesn't reflect my values" is not as catchy and succinct as "NOT MY PRESIDENT"
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 07:33
|
|
|
mother. loving. satsumas. ive got a serious problem and am fiending hard, sadly there are no citrus laden pickups on the roadside at 8 pm
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2016 05:07
|
|
|
BattleHamster posted:Even if you think that everything he says is a lie, It seems like he'll have so much other poo poo on his plate that going against his platform of deregulation and states rights to stop marijuana use would be very low on his list of priorities. Told you legalized marijuana was a dead letter. quote:We need grown ups in Washington to say marijuana is not the kind of thing that ought to be legalized, it ought not to be minimized, that it is in fact a very real danger,” he said. “You’ll see cocaine and heroin increase more than it would have, I think, had we not talked about it.” Somehow Trump found the only person in the world who proved himself to be both a raging racist and militant pot opponent in a single sentence and is putting him in charge of enforcing the Civil Rights Act and federal drug laws.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2016 16:38
|
|
|
This doesn't really change my own opinions on the subject and I think you're jumping to conclusions calling it a dead letter especially since the uncertainty about what Trump will choose to actually do while in office is a big factor. While the appointment of Jeff Sessions increases the likelihood of a federal crackdown, I still think the Trump administration will be against fighting this battle. I don't have any great evidence for why this is but, based on that article, Session's whole problem with marijuana seems based around a morals and values system that I don't believe Trump subscribes to. Combine this with the fact that Trump appears to run a very tight ship with those he employs, his populist campaign platform, his opinions on marijuana espoused during the campaign, and the variety and amount of states that have some form of marijuana legalization in place and you end up with what I believe is a very unlikely scenario.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2016 19:41
|
|
|
I dunno. I imagine a weed crackdown is more likely than you think when you put it against a backdrop of his overall "law and order" policies. Like, I'm sure he's militarizing the police primarily to deport Mexicans, but if he can put some more black people in prison for nonviolent drug offenses, so much the better. Marijuana prohibition has always been kind of a dog whistle for racialized policing, after all.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2016 19:52
|
|
|
Felons usually can't vote, so create more felons.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2016 20:27
|
|
|
Trump himself is an unknown entity but he's surrounding himself with people who are very much both known entities and known shitheads. I have a sneaking suspicion that while Trump may take something of an active interest in governing early on, once he realizes how much work is actually involved in being President he'll start delegating, at which point the shitheads will have free reign to implement their shithead policies. In such a scenario Trump would probably still step in if one of them toes the line a bit too much and makes him look bad by proxy though, so the question is if trying to put certain genies back in the bottle (gay marriage, legal marijuana, actually affordable healthcare, etc) will cause enough of a public uproar that Trump will sigh and pull back on the leash. I honestly don't think Trump himself cares much.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2016 20:40
|
|
|
BattleHamster posted:Trump appears to run a very tight ship with those he employs Did you not live through the same election the rest of us did, or something?
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2016 21:00
|
|
|
ComradeCosmobot posted:Did you not live through the same election the rest of us did, or something? People are trying to forget the shitshow before it even starts or ends. It's pretty impressive really.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2016 21:36
|
|
|
Baby Babbeh posted:I dunno. I imagine a weed crackdown is more likely than you think when you put it against a backdrop of his overall "law and order" policies. Like, I'm sure he's militarizing the police primarily to deport Mexicans, but if he can put some more black people in prison for nonviolent drug offenses, so much the better. Marijuana prohibition has always been kind of a dog whistle for racialized policing, after all. Also most of the legal weed states are solidly blue states. Trump and Sessions don't give a gently caress about pissing off a bunch of people in California.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2016 21:40
|
|
|
BattleHamster posted:This doesn't really change my own opinions on the subject and I think you're jumping to conclusions calling it a dead letter especially since the uncertainty about what Trump will choose to actually do while in office is a big factor. While the appointment of Jeff Sessions increases the likelihood of a federal crackdown, I still think the Trump administration will be against fighting this battle. Wow, your naive optimism is something to behold.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2016 21:47
|
|
|
Papercut posted:Also most of the legal weed states are solidly blue states. Trump and Sessions don't give a gently caress about pissing off a bunch of people in California. Besides it won't be a crackdown on legal weed, just "criminal enterprises engaged in the illegal drug trade" which of course means all businesses selling recreational or medical weed.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2016 21:52
|
|
|
ComradeCosmobot posted:Did you not live through the same election the rest of us did, or something? Perhaps this was the wrong wording, but what I mean by this is that he seems willing to drop people from his staff for various reasons (perhaps as simple as dislike or perceived loyalty to the campaign) with very little diplomacy. I think we saw this with Paul Manafort and Corey Lewandowski, and are also seeing it with the recent news about Chris Christie's transition team. Cup Runneth Over posted:Wow, your naive optimism is something to behold. Thank you 
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2016 22:43
|
|
|
Ah yeah, "a tight ship" implies good organization and top-down control. Trump's ship is the opposite: he deliberately creates rivalries within his own organizations, pitting different advisors against each other, and his general management style is "sometimes you are in my favor, and sometimes I get annoyed with you" except as soon as he is annoyed with someone, he fires them. And his people constantly leak info to the press as part of their turf wars, the exact opposite of top-down control. This is part of the deep irony of his election. Trump ran in part on the premise that, as a successful businessman, he knows how to get things organized and make stuff happen etc. But in fact he is not a successful businessman: he's just rich. His management style is more similar to Stalin's than to an actual successful CEO. He doesn't forge consensus: he creates conflict. He doesn't get things done: he lets underlings try to get things done, taking credit when they succeed and deflecting blame when they fail. Worse, he appears to have absolutely no ability to judge character: some of the people close to him are randomly sort of OK people, but for the most part, he hires cheaters and charlatans and backstabbing bastards. Like it's not even about ideological purity with him, it's just about who is willing to suck up to him today. The greatest danger with a Trump presidency is if he so thoroughly loses interest that he lets some of these gigantic assholes keep their jobs for long periods. I think year 2+ of a Trump presidency will be a lot like that. In the short term, we're seeing people gain favor and then fall out of favor on a week-to-week basis. Of course, his actual cabinet has to be confirmed by the senate, so he is simply not going to be able to manage his cabinet the same way he managed his election campaign staff, but the senate majority seems more than willing to sign off on Trump's picks, as long as they're guys like Sessions: known (ultra-conservative) current and former politicians mostly at the national level. So taking all of the above into account, Trump would probably let his attorney general/state dept. run rampant against pot growers (or whoever) in pot-legal states, as long as nobody he cares about is screaming about it... but if there's any pushback from the right, he'll happily spin it as an out of control cabinet member/staff/blame it somehow on democrats, fire someone, and totally reverse on the issue. He is also going to nominate supreme court justices that please the senate majority, which means hardline conservatives who hate abortion, gays, and minorities (and therefore by extension, are in favor of harsh drug laws). And he can't fire them. I do think there's also a chance that within the first two years, Trump does a Palin and quits, because honestly the job of the presidency is an actual very hard job, and this is a man who has never worked a day in his life. He hates being inconvenienced and he is going to be constantly inconvenienced. Alternatively, he just lets Pence run the show anyway, a la Cheney, but moreso. The result is the same: we get a hardcore republican anti-gay anti-minority anti-regulation anti-environment hyper religious fundamentalist creationist isolationist pro-military hawkish administration. What all that means for California specifically? Not sure.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2016 01:32
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:Trump's ship is the opposite: he deliberately creates rivalries within his own organizations, pitting different advisors against each other, and his general management style is "sometimes you are in my favor, and sometimes I get annoyed with you" except as soon as he is annoyed with someone, he fires them. And his people constantly leak info to the press as part of their turf wars, the exact opposite of top-down control. i'm trying really hard not to godwin that, but i mean come on.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2016 01:36
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:What all that means for California specifically? Not sure. Probably that we're going to be filing a lot of lawsuits against the federal government. Some article I saw talked about how California was basically going to be the new Texas in attempts to fight the presidency and government at every turn, and it seemed like that could be the case. We're already talking about seceding, so we've got that down. Edit: Here's a link, since I brought it up. Only skimmed it earlier. Roland Jones fucked around with this message at 01:53 on Nov 19, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2016 01:50
|
|
|
Instant Sunrise posted:i'm trying really hard not to godwin that, but i mean come on. Mike Godwin has officially said, after the election, that Godwin's Law doesn't mean comparisons to Hitler are *never* appropriate.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2016 02:21
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:Ah yeah, "a tight ship" implies good organization and top-down control. Trump's ship is the opposite: he deliberately creates rivalries within his own organizations, pitting different advisors against each other, and his general management style is "sometimes you are in my favor, and sometimes I get annoyed with you" except as soon as he is annoyed with someone, he fires them. And his people constantly leak info to the press as part of their turf wars, the exact opposite of top-down control. This is a really good post I agree with fully.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2016 08:51
|
|
|
I'm sure taking the few hundred DEA field agents off their focus on illegal opioids and having them go around closing dispensaries instead is going to do wonders for public health and safety.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2016 20:24
|
|
|
It seems everyone around here isn't really enthusiastic about Gavin Newsome becoming the next governor. What's the problem with him? Not a rhetorical question, I don't know much about him.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2016 03:36
|
|
|
Ego-bot posted:It seems everyone around here isn't really enthusiastic about Gavin Newsome becoming the next governor. What's the problem with him? Not a rhetorical question, I don't know much about him. Same issue people had with Hillary, really. He's an establishment politician to the core who treats ascension to the next higher rung of power as his expected due. Although generically liberal, his positions come off less as deeply held beliefs than as carefully calculated appeals to what will play well with an urban California constituency. See: his pissing match with the legislature this year that culminated in a vanity ballot proposition addressing bills already passed by the legislature, because he wanted to be the one to get credit for his gubernatorial campaign.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2016 05:30
|
|
|
A great example was when he was on the Colbert Report quoting his new book and rattled off a bunch of political mumbo jumbo and Colbert basically called him on it saying "you haven't said anything at all to me." Whenever I think of Newsom I think of that, and also his American Psycho haircut. Of course Trump's kids have taken the place forever now as people who look the most like extras from that movie.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2016 21:39
|
|
|
He also got his start on the statewide political map by telling San Francisco city hall to issue marriage licenses to gay couples as a gently caress you to Prop 22. Later after the state Supreme Court legalized gay marriage he said that gay marriage was inevitable and would happen "whether you like it or not." Something the yes on 8 campaign replayed CONSTANTLY, and arguably was a major reason that prop 8 passed.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2016 21:54
|
|
|
Ego-bot posted:It seems everyone around here isn't really enthusiastic about Gavin Newsom becoming the next governor. What's the problem with him? Not a rhetorical question, I don't know much about him.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2016 21:55
|
|
|
I also never got the impression (although I could be wrong, memory failing) that he really cleared up the whole scandal regarding him sleeping with his campaign manager's wife. "hosed best friend's wife, caused a divorce" is something that'll probably be run non-stop in ads.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2016 22:57
|
|
|
Instant Sunrise posted:He also got his start on the statewide political map by telling San Francisco city hall to issue marriage licenses to gay couples as a gently caress you to Prop 22. Yeah, he wasn't wrong, though. Newsom can't really be blamed for prop 8. He is absolutely an extension and tool of the Getty family, though. He's a robot, but on the liberal side. Groomed for a path to the presidency from the very beginning. Exactly the wrong kind of candidate in today's climate, but he's got a long while before that.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2016 23:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 08:31 |
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Same issue people had with Hillary, really. He's an establishment politician to the core who treats ascension to the next higher rung of power as his expected due. While Newsom is a serviceable politician and liberal-enough, his Replicant demeanor means no one is fired up about him.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2016 23:09
|
|
