|
There's no ethical way to be a US Citizen but you don't see people saying it's 'accurate' that it's a moral good to kill yourself
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2021 18:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 21:08 |
|
|
LionArcher posted:But it’s accurate. You're all chicken poo poo idiots with failed relationships and kids you don't love might not be a winning platform
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2021 18:54
|
|
|
LionArcher posted:Well they decided to become a parent, so we already know they are a stupid loving idiot bowing to society pressure using the kids as social climbing ladders. Knock off this echofacist Malthusian bullshit. There’s plenty of resources to go around if we didn’t have 1% of the population hoarding them like greedy dragons.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2021 18:54
|
|
|
Murphy is close up being up a full point.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2021 18:54
|
|
|
Hellblazer187 posted:It's weird that we're talking about weed in the "dems didn't do anything FOR ME" discussion because Yeah, and I'm willing to give credit on state-level victories where we can get them - we managed to pass medical marijuana down here in Florida (on the same ballot year that got DeSantis elected lmao) but it certainly hasn't been pretty. Because of the way it's handled federally, it's still largely a cash-only operation except in places where they accept, I think it's called, CanPay which forces you to round your purchase up to the next $5 because of Reasons, and it's largely just a handful of privately owned, monopolistic dispensaries (all of which except one seem absolutely dedicated to that asinine inventory model where you count poo poo that's in transit as in stock), and it'd be nice if it was just recreational and it was federal, and didn't cost hundreds of dollars a year to maintain your license to toke but...we did it, in some capacity. But then also straight up asinine poo poo happens, like the state overwhelmingly voting to restore the right to vote to citizens returning from the incarceration system and then the republican governor (again elected the very same ballot year, lmfao) going "actually, no." and then...that being the end of it. in summary, florida politics is a land of contrasts. eta: please for the love of god do not associate my disappointment with the child tax credit not being a universal tax credit with...whatever the gently caress lionarcher is on about eta2: to be clear, these were not policies brought on by the democrats' party, these were policies voted on directly through ballot initiatives Lib and let die fucked around with this message at 19:02 on Nov 3, 2021 |
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2021 18:55
|
|
|
SourKraut posted:Don't take this the wrong way, but you might want to take a break for a bit, just for mental health. Antinatalism is another form of Civic Calvinism. It is normal and OK to want to have kids. It is because of our lovely economic system that it is as difficult to afford to do that and that the future is as bleak as it is. Kill the liberal in your brain, LionArcher
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2021 18:55
|
|
|
LionArcher posted:Well they decided to become a parent, so we already know they are a stupid loving idiot bowing to society pressure using the kids as social climbing ladders. Hello internet stranger, I know you don't know me but I sincerely hope you log off and talk to some folks because while I am no a mental health professional, screeching about the goddamn breeders online is some unhinged poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2021 18:55
|
|
|
LionArcher posted:But it’s accurate. Do you have a citation for the 90% figure? That seems a little bit unbelievable to me but I'm open to seeing some data.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2021 18:56
|
|
|
Kraftwerk posted:And you keep repeating the talking point... You don't say you're not gonna answer or that you don't know. You stick to the message. It's intellectually dishonest. It won't fly in Debate club. But guess what? Your audience doesn't give a poo poo. Just keep promising free poo poo without telling anyone what it costs and people will show up and vote for it. You're not here to score intellectual points or get a good grade in your university level political science class... Disabuse yourself of this notion. Is that what they're for, though? Your idea would probably work up to the point where they won and then were expected to actually do any of the things they said they'd be doing, but they don't actually want to do them. If you go so far as saying that you want to cut the profit margins of the people who run everything, you don't get elected. Even if people like you, apparently, as I think we can glean from Bernie Sanders still being one of the most-liked politicians in the country while still being entirely unelectable on national stage for Reasons. And it's been that way as far back as I've read -- the actual socialists who want to break the systems that bind people are either discredited in blatantly financially motivated character assassinations (like with Corbyn and anti-semitism) or just like, atually assassinated. I don't think demagoguery will really get you where you need to go politically. But I think that might be a bias I'm holding because I don't think the system can be used to stop itself from doing what it was designed to do, so... LionArcher posted:Also like 90% of parents are really, really bad at their jobs, and more often than not people have kids as ways of justifying trying to fix sub par relationships with their partners they are too chicken poo poo to have a real conversation with. What angle are you going with here? Malthusianism? General distaste for children? ExtremistRadFem all sex is rape because the costs are disparate and incontrovertibly hurt women? Or like, are you making a point about bringing in children against their will into a dying and unsalvageable situation? Gotta make it a bit more beefy! You can't just say 90% of something is bad and so we shouldn't have it and have that actually work out for you. If that kind of logic worked we wouldn't have a senate or police.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2021 19:00
|
|
|
Can the "Biden is the next FDR!!!" crowd provide a justification as to why federal student loans are still on track to be resumed come February, particularly in light of the electoral results from last night? I had to confirm my automatic debit information just now and I am none too pleased. But hey, why let good politics and good policy get in the way of bad politics and bad policy?
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2021 19:01
|
|
|
Gumball Gumption posted:You're all chicken poo poo idiots with failed relationships and kids you don't love might not be a winning platform T-Mac 2024: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CXb4fElJcKk&t=16s
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2021 19:01
|
|
|
Edmund Lava posted:Knock off this echofacist Malthusian bullshit. There’s plenty of resources to go around if we didn’t have 1% of the population hoarding them like greedy dragons. There's room to debate the ethics of having kids in 2021. Probably deserves its own thread, though. One reason I don't have kids, besides simply not wanting them, is that I know I wouldn't want to be alive in whatever future is coming up in 40-50 years and I would not willfully subject someone to that by creating them now. It's not necessarily about the resources they'd take up (although that's part of it) it's just that I expect the world to be a pretty difficult place in that time. It's a really difficult place right now. I very much wish that my parents had chosen not to have children. Also my mom and grandfather both had Parkinson's so I really don't like my chances and wouldn't want to risk passing that on. OP was 100% wrong - it's not always unethical or stupid to have children. But there's ethical considerations around having children that go beyond "ecofascist Malthusianism" However, Gumball Gumption posted:You're all chicken poo poo idiots with failed relationships and kids you don't love might not be a winning platform In the context of discussing US current events I think the more salient discussion is what can/should US political parties and activists do to make having children less economically painful.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2021 19:02
|
|
|
Edmund Lava posted:Knock off this echofacist Malthusian bullshit. There’s plenty of resources to go around if we didn’t have 1% of the population hoarding them like greedy dragons. Nope, there really isn’t. I never said anything about adopting. I never said you can’t have children if you ended up pregnant. But planning on having kids? Go ahead, but know that no matter what your excuse is, you’re part of the problem. It’s also not echofacist to point out a real problem and it’s such a dumb loving whistle to use when people point out how racist it is we act like people in the US and other first world countries can consume at the level we do and it’s not going to lead to global genocide, but since it’s not your buddies it’s all fine nothing we can do shrug let me tell you about my new Tesla boat beach house my angel is so special she got fifth in interpretive dance class! I’m taking a break though, and to the person who suggested to take a break, you’re right.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2021 19:03
|
|
|
davecrazy posted:Murphy is close up being up a full point. If I had to guess I'd say he ends up winning by about six points. Still 11% of the vote to count and it's all write-ins. Much more comfortable than it looked even, like, five hours ago, but still significantly under the 16 points or whatever that Biden won the state by last year.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2021 19:04
|
|
|
Darkrenown posted:What the gently caress are you talking about? I'm not diabetic or trans, I am still happy when things improve for them. Would UBI be good? gently caress yes, I'd be pleased if you got it, because I'm not an insanely selfish person who pops into the thread and says Im representative of the average voter and guess what most people have wildly schizophrenic voting habits and personal convictions. I believe that very few people truly set out and our actively hateful. Of course I believe that trans people should be safe but so should everyone same thing with insulin, but it doesnt affect me and it doesnt motivate me to vote dem. Sending me an OZ of weed in the mail would though
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2021 19:07
|
|
|
Ershalim posted:Is that what they're for, though? Your idea would probably work up to the point where they won and then were expected to actually do any of the things they said they'd be doing, but they don't actually want to do them. If you go so far as saying that you want to cut the profit margins of the people who run everything, you don't get elected. Even if people like you, apparently, as I think we can glean from Bernie Sanders still being one of the most-liked politicians in the country while still being entirely unelectable on national stage for Reasons. And it's been that way as far back as I've read -- the actual socialists who want to break the systems that bind people are either discredited in blatantly financially motivated character assassinations (like with Corbyn and anti-semitism) or just like, atually assassinated. It's always useful to remember that Socialists held a legislative majority in Italy when Mussolini marched all the cops, vets and hicks into the capital and the King handed him power with support form every industry in the country. Elections that Socialists win can easily be erased by the actual parties that hold power.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2021 19:08
|
|
|
Fister Roboto posted:You're completely missing their point, which is that the vast majority of voters don't care or care very little about things that don't affect them personally. They aren't going to be motivated to vote on *just* a platform of protecting and extending trans rights, as an example, even if that's the right thing to do! It would be awesome if they did, but they don't. You need to do something to help them out to get their vote, like UBI. And hey, you know what would help trans folks out a ton? UB loving I. It's a win-win. No, I'm not. They made the point in a way that showed they're a horribly selfish person who only wants things which benefit them while any good things which don't benefit them directly don't matter and I'm reacting to that. Unless TA was not stating their views but instead posing as a hypothetical generic voter? It didn't seem like that though. And yeah, UBI would help out trans people of course, but unless it's enough for them to move out of red states it's not going to prevent them being harassed and murdered for using the "wrong" bathroom or whatever other moral panic item the GoP stirs up and perpetuates, which is why not giving a poo poo about bathroom bills is a lovely position. Not that I expect there's no transphobia in Blue states, but hopefully there's less actual transphobic laws... So yeah, I agree with the point that the dems/whoever need to deliver wide-ranging Good Things to win votes, but when a person here starts listing specific marginalized groups that they don't give a poo poo about because it doesn't include them I think that's lovely of them. Terminal autist posted:Im representative of the average voter and guess what most people have wildly schizophrenic voting habits and personal convictions. I believe that very few people truly set out and our actively hateful. Of course I believe that trans people should be safe but so should everyone same thing with insulin, but it doesnt affect me and it doesnt motivate me to vote dem. Sending me an OZ of weed in the mail would though 
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2021 19:10
|
|
|
You can already see the Dem narrative in DC and on news channels shifting towards "It's the Progressives fault this is happening!" and it's starting to really fill me with anxiety.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2021 19:11
|
|
|
Kirios posted:You can already see the Dem narrative in DC and on news channels shifting towards "It's the Progressives fault this is happening!" and it's starting to really fill me with anxiety. Buffalo was pretty much cold hard proof the party will move right when feeling threatened instead of compromising with the left and trying to negotiate like adults.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2021 19:13
|
|
|
Gumball Gumption posted:You're all chicken poo poo idiots with failed relationships and kids you don't love might not be a winning platform Considering both major parties' policies on climate change, "you don't love your kids anyway: vote for us" is their implied slogan already
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2021 19:14
|
|
|
Darkrenown posted:No, I'm not. They made the point in a way that showed they're a horribly selfish person who only wants things which benefit them while any good things which don't benefit them directly don't matter and I'm reacting to that. Unless TA was not stating their views but instead posing as a hypothetical generic voter? It didn't seem like that though. As of a 2019 Gallup poll, ~12% of Americans regularly engage in a federally criminal offense: https://news.gallup.com/poll/284135/percentage-americans-smoke-marijuana.aspx. Federal legalization of marijuana would decriminalize the behavior of ~39,000,000 people. Nearly 60% of the American population is some flavor of nonwhite. You keep deriding people who won't vote for centrist shitlibs as selfish brats that just want to sit at home and smoke weed and take naps, so I thought some actual numbers might disabuse you of this notion. This is, of course, only representative of those comfortable enough to self-report as smoking marijuana.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2021 19:15
|
|
|
Police_monitoring posted:It's always useful to remember that Socialists held a legislative majority in Italy when Mussolini marched all the cops, vets and hicks into the capital and the King handed him power with support form every industry in the country. Elections that Socialists win can easily be erased by the actual parties that hold power. According to Wikipedia the Socialists had 24.7% of the vote in 1921, and were not included in the coalition government. So, this is not true. They were the largest single party, but they had not won. A coalition of liberals and conservatives won. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1921_Italian_general_election Hellblazer187 fucked around with this message at 19:21 on Nov 3, 2021 |
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2021 19:16
|
|
|
Darkrenown posted:No, I'm not. They made the point in a way that showed they're a horribly selfish person who only wants things which benefit them while any good things which don't benefit them directly don't matter and I'm reacting to that. Unless TA was not stating their views but instead posing as a hypothetical generic voter? It didn't seem like that though. Terminal Autist said, pretty directly, that they believed the average voter doesn't care about things that don't effect them, and then went on to say that as a non-transperson who wasn't diabetic, that they didn't care about those issues. Like, you're free to say that that makes them a lovely person and that you dislike them for saying that, but it's a very accurate way of seeing how most people view the world. If people just did the Right Thing because it was obviously correct and good, none of this would have ever been a problem. Understanding that all of your coalitions will be built with people who think like TA is a very useful thing to learn. Doubly so if you can manage to interact with them without openly despising them, as that tends to make them less receptive to what you're saying even if you are giving them weed money.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2021 19:17
|
|
|
Kirios posted:You can already see the Dem narrative in DC and on news channels shifting towards "It's the Progressives fault this is happening!" and it's starting to really fill me with anxiety. It was always going to be this way, regardless of the outcome. If the night had gone differently, the media would have been trampling one another to spam headlines about how the pivot to the center is working. Don't let it get you down. The narrative will always be this way until/unless there's a legitimate progressive watershed moment. We aren't there yet and if the Party moves further Right, they will risk a bloodbath of 2010 proportions. Be prepared for things to get worse- but don't let it crush your optimism completely.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2021 19:19
|
|
|
Ershalim posted:Is that what they're for, though? Your idea would probably work up to the point where they won and then were expected to actually do any of the things they said they'd be doing, but they don't actually want to do them. If you go so far as saying that you want to cut the profit margins of the people who run everything, you don't get elected. Even if people like you, apparently, as I think we can glean from Bernie Sanders still being one of the most-liked politicians in the country while still being entirely unelectable on national stage for Reasons. And it's been that way as far back as I've read -- the actual socialists who want to break the systems that bind people are either discredited in blatantly financially motivated character assassinations (like with Corbyn and anti-semitism) or just like, atually assassinated. You need to resonate with people to the point where being assassinated or arrested makes you even more popular... History is full of unremarkable politicians who've done worse things than promise to help people who upon being assassinated or somehow thrown out of office in an illegal way get shitloads of public support and even a revolution in their names despite they themselves not supporting such things. There's a shitload of politically toxic poo poo tied to socialism that makes you unelectable in America. These are semantics. If you get dragged into the quagmire of debating what is socialism and what isn't you're just gonna lose. The main point is figure out what sticks and you focus on doing it. If you have opponents that are trying to stop you, you point them out and tell people this is why you can't have it and if you help me deal with him and put someone more co-operative in their place, then you can have the thing you want. What I've realized is it's not about the intellectual content of your words but rather your tribal identity and the story you can tell people that makes emotional sense in their hearts. We are a paranoid society loaded with conspiracy theorists because the true explanation is mundane and it's difficult to identify villains and heroes in what is a morally bankrupt system with no recourse for anything. You need to understand the people as a good entertainer understands his audience. You need to stir up their emotions, make them angry or otherwise heavily motivated to right a wrong. Donald Trump did this. He connected with his audiences emotionally and played these emotions to get what he wants. He's quite good at it. In the left wing world we are all honest academics who believe in truth, integrity and intellectual rigor. It isn't always true but in the vast majority of cases progressives and liberals come from educated bourgeoise classes, lower nobility and embarrassed wealthy classes who don't quite fit into high society and seek to destroy them so they can be on top. Every political upheaval was a result of a groundswell of discontent and emotion driven by apolitical world events like famines, weather, disease and supply chain shortages just like this one. The intellectuals/middle classes/liberals would just capture that energy and ride it on a political surfboard to power. Often when they get this power they then betray many of the people that put them there and as long as they have the right political alliances they can hold their power. It's a story as old as America itself and it constantly retells itself in different ways. So back to your first sentence. You conduct secret meetings with like minded individuals where you agree upon a particular set of policy goals. You recruit trustworthy people while always understanding your organization will be infiltrated by spies and that's just a cost of doing business so make sure you're good at trusting the right people. From there you work on propelling many of these people to political office with the understanding that the goal is implementing particular policy goals... However, in public you're just playing people's heart strings and not committing to anything that might upset the wealthy. You construct narratives where you are the hero and certain people who oppose your policies (Which you confirm the vast majority of the people want) are villains who are trying to stop it. Thread that needle and you'll either become a martyr or you'll pull it off... It isn't easy but it's a start. You have to agitate and rile people up and keep these ideas fresh in their minds until they're an inescapable cultural phenomenon. The Soviet Union was incredibly successful in making a lot of Marxist ideas mainstream. It forced die hard conservative governments to make concessions in other countries because if they did not, these marxist movements would've overthrown them too. Everyone thinks the New Deal came from the goodness of people's hearts. It did not. It was a pragmatic gesture to prevent revolution and communism from seizing the American system. The rich are just complacent now because there's no counter ideology or mass movement that threatens them. Nobody.. not even a wealth oligarchy with all of the military muscle in the world can rule without implied consent from its people. Somehow, somewhere, someone gets sloppy. Someone gets too permissive or loose and it creates an opportunity to break through and change things politically. Either via concessions, elections or revolution.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2021 19:19
|
|
|
Darkrenown posted:No, I'm not. They made the point in a way that showed they're a horribly selfish person who only wants things which benefit them while any good things which don't benefit them directly don't matter and I'm reacting to that. Unless TA was not stating their views but instead posing as a hypothetical generic voter? It didn't seem like that though. It is lovely but what's even shittier is having the power to help these groups and not doing it. You know what would help trans people in red states (hi, btw, I'm one) move if they want? Money they save if someone in power wanted to provide healthcare or student loan relief. Also lol at the implication that blue states or cities are magical transphobia-free lands that trans people just need to escape to. But yeah I'm saving my anger for the people who can do these things, right now, and chose not to, because they don't want to.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2021 19:20
|
|
|
Well this is a fun read: https://twitter.com/kottke/status/1455933538830852112?s=21quote:Using advanced data processing software and a modeling tool developed by the Environmental Protection Agency, we mapped the spread of cancer-causing chemicals from thousands of sources of hazardous air pollution across the country between 2014 and 2018. The result is an unparalleled view of how toxic air blooms around industrial facilities and spreads into nearby neighborhoods. quote:At the map’s intimate scale, it’s possible to see up close how a massive chemical plant near a high school in Port Neches, Texas, laces the air with benzene, an aromatic gas that can cause leukemia. Or how a manufacturing facility in New Castle, Delaware, for years blanketed a day care playground with ethylene oxide, a highly toxic chemical that can lead to lymphoma and breast cancer. Our analysis found that ethylene oxide is the biggest contributor to excess industrial cancer risk from air pollutants nationwide. Corporations across the United States, but especially in Texas and Louisiana, manufacture the colorless, odorless gas, which lingers in the air for months and is highly mutagenic, meaning it can alter DNA.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2021 19:20
|
|
|
Lib and let die posted:As of a 2019 Gallup poll, ~12% of Americans regularly engage in a federally criminal offense: https://news.gallup.com/poll/284135/percentage-americans-smoke-marijuana.aspx. Federal legalization of marijuana would decriminalize the behavior of ~39,000,000 people. Nearly 60% of the American population is some flavor of nonwhite. You keep deriding people who won't vote for centrist shitlibs as selfish brats that just want to sit at home and smoke weed and take naps, so I thought some actual numbers might disabuse you of this notion. The poster in question literally said they don't care about insulin costs or bathroom bills, but would be motivated to vote for weed. Again, is the correct answer for me to say "I don't smoke weed, no one I care about is in jail for weed, so I don't give a gently caress." ? This seems to be the stance you are defending, so is it OK for me to do the same? Will you defend me when people say that's a lovely position? I do give a gently caress though, because I'm capable of caring about things which don't directly affect me. I also already replied to you saying I don't think anyone should be in jail for weed, but that TA's post didn't seem to be concerned with imprisoned weed-smokers either, they just want some to smoke themselves. Ershalim posted:Terminal Autist said, pretty directly, that they believed the average voter doesn't care about things that don't effect them, and then went on to say that as a non-transperson who wasn't diabetic, that they didn't care about those issues. Like, you're free to say that that makes them a lovely person and that you dislike them for saying that, but it's a very accurate way of seeing how most people view the world. If people just did the Right Thing because it was obviously correct and good, none of this would have ever been a problem. Understanding that all of your coalitions will be built with people who think like TA is a very useful thing to learn. Right, I agree with your post overall in regards to winning elections. But I am not trying to impart election-winning lessons onto the DNC strategists cribbing notes from this thread. I was directly telling Terminal Autist that I thought that was a lovely view to have. Darkrenown fucked around with this message at 19:32 on Nov 3, 2021 |
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2021 19:22
|
|
|
Hellblazer187 posted:According to Wikipedia the Socialists had 24.7% of the vote in 1921, and were not included in the coalition government. So, this is not true. They were the largest single party, but they had not won. A coalition of liberals and conservatives won. Sorry, I'm a dipshit. I think it is still useful to remember that the liberal parties siding with the fash came in direct reaction to the huge socialist gains of the previous years
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2021 19:24
|
|
|
Ershalim posted:Terminal Autist said, pretty directly, that they believed the average voter doesn't care about things that don't effect them, and then went on to say that as a non-transperson who wasn't diabetic, that they didn't care about those issues. Like, you're free to say that that makes them a lovely person and that you dislike them for saying that, but it's a very accurate way of seeing how most people view the world. If people just did the Right Thing because it was obviously correct and good, none of this would have ever been a problem. Understanding that all of your coalitions will be built with people who think like TA is a very useful thing to learn. Yeah, it comes down to it, are you here to judge people or win their votes? If you're here to win votes you probably shouldn't judge them and should figure out some other way to motivate them. If all that person needs is weed for them to be willing to give you permission to improve their life and the lives of a bunch of other people I'd say that's a pretty good deal.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2021 19:24
|
|
|
marshmonkey posted:Well this is a fun read: https://twitter.com/kottke/status/1455933538830852112?s=21 Don't forget this delightful bit quote:Wayne Davis, the former EPA scientist, managed the RSEI program under the Trump administration. He said that some of his supervisors were hesitant about publishing information that would directly implicate a facility. “They always told us, ‘Don’t make a big deal of it, don’t market it, and hopefully you’ll continue to get funding next year.’ They didn’t want to make anything public that would raise questions about why the EPA hadn’t done anything to regulate that facility.”
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2021 19:27
|
|
|
Darkrenown posted:No, I'm not. They made the point in a way that showed they're a horribly selfish person who only wants things which benefit them while any good things which don't benefit them directly don't matter and I'm reacting to that. Unless TA was not stating their views but instead posing as a hypothetical generic voter? It didn't seem like that though. Whether TA is a selfish jerk or not is immaterial, because the point is that the majority of the electorate *is* selfish jerks. It would be super cool if they weren't, but that's reality! But you can work with that, and it turns out that promising good things to selfish jerks makes them more likely to vote for you, and shaming them for being selfish jerks does not. Why would they care? They're selfish jerks! You're making this an issue of morality rather than politics.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2021 19:29
|
|
|
Darkrenown posted:The poster in question literally said they don't care about insulin costs or bathroom bills, but would be motivated to vote for weed. I look at it like this: a President can, with the stroke of a pen, essentially legalize marijuana, or erase student debt. There's no fight in that. The President has the authority. If I can't expect someone to do something good with a stroke of a pen when there's little to no institutional path of obstruction to it, how can I expect them to go to the mat on issues where they're going to have to fight the far-right culture war machine? If you won't even use your office to objectively improve lives with minimal pushback, do you really expect me to believe you'll fight when it matters?
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2021 19:30
|
|
|
Lib and let die posted:I look at it like this: a President can, with the stroke of a pen, essentially legalize marijuana, or erase student debt. There's no fight in that. The President has the authority. If I can't expect someone to do something good with a stroke of a pen when there's little to no institutional path of obstruction to it, how can I expect them to go to the mat on issues where they're going to have to fight the far-right culture war machine? If Biden did this, he'd single handedly save the Democratic party. He won't do this.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2021 19:37
|
|
|
Lib and let die posted:I look at it like this: a President can, with the stroke of a pen, essentially legalize marijuana, or erase student debt. There's no fight in that. The President has the authority. If I can't expect someone to do something good with a stroke of a pen when there's little to no institutional path of obstruction to it, how can I expect them to go to the mat on issues where they're going to have to fight the far-right culture war machine? The president cannot legalize marijuana with a stroke of a pen, it will require Congressional action to change the Controlled Substances Act to deschedule it from Schedule I.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2021 19:37
|
|
|
I think I've posted about this too much already, so I'll just say yeah I basically agree with the above two replies to me regarding winning elections.
Darkrenown fucked around with this message at 19:51 on Nov 3, 2021 |
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2021 19:40
|
|
|
HonorableTB posted:The president cannot legalize marijuana with a stroke of a pen, it will require Congressional action to change the Controlled Substances Act to deschedule it from Schedule I.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2021 19:40
|
|
|
HonorableTB posted:The president cannot legalize marijuana with a stroke of a pen, it will require Congressional action to change the Controlled Substances Act to deschedule it from Schedule I. "He's so weak he can't even try" is a great way to demotivate voters. And the Democratic Party members in Congress haven't done poo poo either. It's an unbelievably popular policy and none of them are going to do it. If they wanted to do these things, they would, wouldn't they now? Same thing with countless other policies that are overwhelmingly popular with everyone. I can't pay the bills with good intentions and I'm not going to cry when it turns out that rich politicians can't either (except in their personal lives they totally can lol, different worlds and all).
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2021 19:44
|
|
|
He could reschedule it which would help decriminalize but not legalize. It would also blow up the existing market in places where weed is legal. Biden could absolutely start pardoning people and generally signaling that the admin wants this changed. At the least he could pardon people. The number of people in prison and allowed to stay there when something could be done is the truly horrible part.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2021 19:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 21:08 |
|
|
Like, there's not really any room for argument about whether or not the president can legalize marijuana for recreational use. The president has more leeway to legalize medical marijuana via executive action, sure, but it's straight up not possible for biden to wake up one day and pick up the phone to yell I DONT GIVE A HOT GAY gently caress WHAT THE DEA SAYS, LEGALIZE WEED NOW DUDE at the attorney general. The Controlled Substances Act requires all drugs of abuse to be placed on one of 5 schedules. Schedule I includes LSD and weed, and are banned for any use except in federally approved research projects. When Congress made the original scheduling decisions in 1970, they deemed marijuana to have no redeeming medical uses and a high potential for abuse but also authorized the Attorney General in conjunctio, with the Sec of HHS to reschedule or de-schedule drugs. However there are problems: 1. The CSA requires the AG to comply with international treaties when making all scheduling decisions. This particular limitation on the AGs scheduling authority is found in 21 U.S.C. Section 811(d): If control is required by United States obligations under international treaties, . . . the Attorney General shall issue an order controlling such drug under the schedule he deems most appropriate to carry out such obligations. . . Furthermore, the treaties referenced by Section 811(d), including the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, require member states to ban the recreational use of marijuana. But wait, since when do we care about international law? 2. The CSA's own scheduling criteria do not permit the AG to legalize drugs of abuse for recreational use. The CSA views psychoactive substances through an exclusively (some would say myopically) medical prism. That much is clear from the statutes scheduling criteria think of these as the factors that the AG is supposed to consider when making scheduling decisions. On the benefits side of the scheduling ledger, the statute considers only a drugs medical utility basically whether the drug is effective at treating a medical condition or its symptoms. By contrast, the fact that a drug is fun to use does not justify relaxing controls on it. Indeed, if anything, the fact that a drug has recreational appeal suggests it should be subject to tighter controls in other words, recreational appeal is a harm, rather than a benefit, for purposes of scheduling. Thats because recreational appeal increases the temptation for people to abuse the drug, which the statute defines in purely medical terms as any non-medical use of a drug. To simplify: if a drug is used just for fun, it is abused; and if a drug is abused, it must be scheduled. TLDR: congress must act Sharkie posted:"He's so weak he can't even try" is a great way to demotivate voters. And the Democratic Party members in Congress haven't done poo poo either. It's an unbelievably popular policy and none of them are going to do it. If they wanted to do these things, they would, wouldn't they now? Same thing with countless other policies that are overwhelmingly popular with everyone. If your expectations include the president doing things that the president cannot legally do then you're going to be in for a lot of disappointment in your life
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2021 19:48
|
|