cant cook creole bream posted:

Most insane conspiracy theory I have heard all year.

The woman who was on stage debating Trump was not even Hillary at all. It was another body double.

I felt sick reading that. It's the stupidest opinion I could possibly imagine. An actress who can convince millions of people to be a well known public figure for several hours while also memorizing countless political facts, keeping her calm around Donnie and baiting him so much, would be by far the most competent person alive.

I absolutely lost all political respect from the person who told me that. Like I can't even argue anything anymore. If he is so far down the hole, nothing I could ever say to him would make the slightest dent into his convictions.

I've read countless political articles and tweets and sometimes even their comment sections. But the stupidest conspiracy came from a personal friend. He's not even an uneducated blue collar worker. We recently got out college degrees.
I kind of hate him now.

try the new taco place posted:

he's a rapist.

botany posted:

how does that make assange better?

try the new taco place posted:

He's not a good guy either!

FourLeaf posted:

That "three P's" thing fits right in with those cheesy regressive catchphrases people would say at my childhood church and I'm honestly stunned I've never heard that one before.

iospace posted:

Speaking of Cuba!
https://twitter.com/TheBradMielke/status/782903033034252289

zokie posted:

Didn't Ecuador just save Assange? If they hadn't stopped him from influencing the US election couldn't the UK go: "This obviously isn't a diplomatic mission, what's to stop Assange from trying the same here. Embassy status revoked"

I know embassies are holy but letting Assange keep going with this blatant stuff shits on that holiness

kaleedity posted:

obviously voting for hilary is the best choice between the two, but she's unlikely — on her own — going to be some champion fighting against tides of democratic party-supported moneyed policies like charter schools and lovely marijuana laws.

emdash posted:

real talk, even if you hate Clinton from the left, accelerationism/Trump voting is incredibly inhumane and it will be easier to grow progressive/socialist orgs and momentum with a dem president than a fascistic nutcase. With the fascistic nutcase, the whole left spectrum is going to be under tremendous pressure to work together to oppose him, even if it means supporting things that aren't remotely progressive


Right on the policy section of her website it says she will make it Schedule II

dwarf74 posted:

My guess is she'll do basically what the Obama administration has done - let states vote for themselves as test-beds, watch what happens, and stay generally hands-off.

This gives everyone a chance to watch what actually happens and collect real data, which is kinda rad.

Zeno-25 posted:

All this talk of rigged elections might end up being a good thing if it keeps anyone stupid enough to believe it (Bernouts and Trumpenstaffel) from voting or otherwise participating in the system. We'd be better off as a country for it.

DrNutt posted:

If we don't get full socialism now, I guess we'd better not make any leftward movement at all. Because change never happens gradually.

Retro42 posted:

Some progress is better than none at all. Plus it'll lead to more changes in the future. Incrementalism and all that.

Cthulhumatic posted:

That jackass is probably voting Stein. Or not voting at all, because that's the smuggest of ivory tower bullshit cohices.

Retro42 posted:

If by she you mean the overall mindset of the US government then yes. There is no way for a president to walk into office and drop cannibis off the controlled substance list without burning every bit of political capital they have.

FactsAreUseless posted:

It's actually pretty loving important. Legalization of marijuana is one of many many many necessary criminal justice reforms in this country, but it'll make a difference, and a pretty immediate one. Nationally legalized pot doesn't solve all the problems, but it does help to slow down some negatives so reforms can continue on others.

Hollismason posted:

It's a good thing Hillary goes with whichever way the wind blows on progressive issues. It's not like she is going to suddenly just be like " removal all gun regulations" but if the wind blows toward " legalize marijuana" and it has a high approval rating she is going to say " legalize marijuana"


Also everyone can thank Joe Bidens " gaffe" for gay marriage support. That was a great movie by Obama " Oh no Joe what did you do?!"

Hollismason posted:

Also there's real data showing that legalizing marijuana is a bad thing when it comes to underage substance abuse. Colorado has seen its juvenile treatment centers become overwhelmed in some areas.

A Winner is Jew posted:

So if that's the case, then we could classify Tight Booty Shorts a loving moron stoner, or would he be a loving moron looking for a reaction?

Maybe we should start scheduling loving morons to clear these things up.

WampaLord posted:

Do you think the Republicans would be better about legalizing marijuana or removing it from the DEA scheduling of drugs?

A Winner is Jew posted:

Hmm, single issue concern loving moron.

Schedule II

WampaLord posted:

It's a two party system, buddy.

Also


Progress takes time. Back in college I was laughing my rear end off when I passed by the NORML people, thinking "there's no way it'll ever be legal, what a bunch of morons."

Now look where we are.

EugeneJ posted:

I just found this - interesting

http://www.pollingreport.com/drugs.htm


Why the gender gap on weed?

WampaLord posted:

At least I'm capable of admitting when I was wrong.

A Winner is Jew posted:

quote:

the authors used multilevel modeling to analyze data from 54 societies to find that women endorsed authoritarian values more than men, especially in individualistic societies with high levels of gender inequality

greatn posted:

Because more women have had more lovely stoner partners than men have.

Trabisnikof posted:

Except that is only a function of women's disadvantaged place in society:


So it isn't s "biotruth" it is another impact of our sexist culture.

A Winner is Jew posted:

It's more a relation to the relative gender inequality gap in the societies that they live in than just because they're women, but try again I guess.

A Winner is Jew posted:

It shows that the more sexist a society is the more authoritarian women tend to be in those societies.

Tiny Brontosaurus posted:

. Although vaping works wonders as a contraceptive.

A Winner is Jew posted:

As a result of a sexist culture.

Which means that sexism is the cause, not because they are inherently more authoritarian like you keep implying.

Pakled posted:

In the same way that fedoras, cargo shorts, and neckbeards function as contraceptives.

Trabisnikof posted:

"Women in our culture are more likely to endorse authoritarian the more we are sexistist against them" is not because of "biotruths" but because of our lovely culture. Women don't intrinsically like authoritarianism more than men.

That's a huge distinction you're missing.


You realize you're using the exact same lovely bigoted logic you're decrying here right?

Trabisnikof posted:

You're right it wasn't implied. It was explicit:



You are still wrong. It is not a "biotruth."

A Winner is Jew posted:

I mean you are a loving idiot.

A Winner is Jew posted:

lovely single issue concern trolls killed my parents.

Tiny Brontosaurus posted:

Field sobriety tests aren't scientific and weren't designed with weed in mind. And handing out DUIs after the fact doesn't solve the problem. Severity of punishment is not a deterrence, your estimation of the likelihood of getting caught is. And as much as comedians love that "8 miles an hour" gag the early show at the Chuckle Hut is not a domestic policy think tank.

Yoots do abuse tobacco and alcohol, but at least for tobacco it's at vastly diminishing rates, exactly the opposite of what has been observed in CO after weed legalization. I don't know about underage alcohol consumption other than our late legal drinking age seems to factor into college binge drinking culture. In either case it seems like you're saying we haven't fixed those problems so why try with weed, which yikes.

Tiny Brontosaurus posted:

Yeah I agree about second-hand smoke laws, I can just see it getting hairy with medical licenses.

The problem with youth consumption specifically to pot is that it can have much more lasting effects than tobacco or alcohol. Sure, if you binge drink you can die of alcohol poisoning, and if you smoke regularly you can increase your chances of getting cancer, but there isn't that age-specific danger zone that weed has where even what feels like normal recreational use levels can mess up how your brain develops. It seems like a case where the usual best approach of "let kids experiment and make their mistakes within safe boundaries" wouldn't be good enough. Teenagers can't process the concept of "if you do this thing now you will regret it later" because that part of their brain literally hasn't grown in yet, and smoking too much pot when they're young seems to mean it may never grow in right at all.