Disgusted by the Trump administration part II

  • Tue, Dec 12, 2017 5:27 PM
    posted by Commander of Awesome

    Right up Sleeper's alley:

     

    https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/12/grandparents-raiding-grandchildren/548117/?utm_source=feed

     

    "The wealthiest, highest-income age cohort also is now those Boomers nearing retirement. The second wealthiest? Those already in retirement.

    Who’s not doing well in the current economy? Younger Americans. (This is even more true for children: The poverty rate amongst children in America has now risen above 20 percent.) And they’re being asked to cover a heavier and heavier burden for the old: When Social Security was launched, there were 42 workers paying Social Security and Medicare payroll taxes for each individual retiree. Today, that ratio has fallen to just under three-to-one, and will fall again as the Boomers retire. Every young couple today can expect to foot the bill for a Boomer’s retirement—not counting, of course, their own parents."

    Obama spent 8 years digging the hole.  We can't expect to get out of it in 8 months. 

    Thu, Jan 4, 2018 4:30 PM
    posted by justincredible

    http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/367384-sessions-will-end-policy-that-allowed-marijuana-to-prosper-report#.Wk4_dMS3YW8.facebook

    Sessions is a turd. This is one of my biggest peeves with Republicans. They LOVE state's rights. Except when they don't. Absolutely no consistency.

    It's almost like Sessions and Trump sat down and said "ok, after the tax bill screwed those big liberal states, what else can we do to piss them off?"

    Thu, Jan 4, 2018 4:46 PM
    posted by justincredible

    http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/367384-sessions-will-end-policy-that-allowed-marijuana-to-prosper-report#.Wk4_dMS3YW8.facebook

    Sessions is a turd. This is one of my biggest peeves with Republicans. They LOVE state's rights. Except when they don't. Absolutely no consistency.

    I think that if the federal government allows something and states say "We don't want that here." That is okay.  That is a state's rights issue.  

    When the federal government outlaws something,  states don't have the right to say "Oh no, it's totally okay here."

    That being said,  I think weed should be legal.   If Idiots like Ted Lieu would work in  Congress to repeal the federal ban,  instead of trying to lead the Twitter resistance, it would be legal.   

    Thu, Jan 4, 2018 5:32 PM
    posted by justincredible

    http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/367384-sessions-will-end-policy-that-allowed-marijuana-to-prosper-report#.Wk4_dMS3YW8.facebook

    Sessions is a turd. This is one of my biggest peeves with Republicans. They LOVE state's rights. Except when they don't. Absolutely no consistency.

    It's one of the main reasons (and legistlation via the bible) why a lot of people stopped supporting the party.  

    Thu, Jan 4, 2018 5:42 PM
    posted by justincredible

    http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/367384-sessions-will-end-policy-that-allowed-marijuana-to-prosper-report#.Wk4_dMS3YW8.facebook

    Sessions is a turd. This is one of my biggest peeves with Republicans. They LOVE state's rights. Except when they don't. Absolutely no consistency.

    The obsession with marijuana being a "bad" drug is mind boggeling.  I don't smoke weed - never much cared for it.  But to worry about it like this is unbelievable.  Why weed and not alcohol - arguably a much more dangerous mind altering drug?

    Thu, Jan 4, 2018 6:49 PM
    posted by superman

    I think that if the federal government allows something and states say "We don't want that here." That is okay.  That is a state's rights issue.  

    When the federal government outlaws something,  states don't have the right to say "Oh no, it's totally okay here."

    That being said,  I think weed should be legal.   If Idiots like Ted Lieu would work in  Congress to repeal the federal ban,  instead of trying to lead the Twitter resistance, it would be legal.   

    The Feds have abused the "commerce clause" far beyond the framers intent and it should absolutely be ignored by the states. It wasn't meant as a justification to regulate every goddamn thing in existence.

    Fri, Jan 5, 2018 2:15 AM
    posted by justincredible

    The Feds have abused the "commerce clause" far beyond the framers intent and it should absolutely be ignored by the states. It wasn't meant as a justification to regulate every goddamn thing in existence.

    I disagree that the Feds have legislated beyond the scope of the broad power to regulate interstate commerce intended by the founders. James Madison himself signed into law the Second bank of the United States in 1816 for the purpose of regulating credit nationwide. Other Founding Fathers determined this was a necessary and proper method of executing Congress’ expressed powers in McCulloch v. Maryland. 

    Indeed the acceptance of the Federalist position on federal power by Madison essentially decimated the Federalist Party’s need to exist. 

     

    So so the point is following the example of Madison himself Congress has the power to regulate weed if it affects interstate commerce but that doesn’t mean they SHOULD or MUST. 

     

    The state by state approach to marijuana legalization seems to be a good example where the Feds should take a step back. 

    Fri, Jan 5, 2018 9:38 AM
    posted by justincredible

    http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/367384-sessions-will-end-policy-that-allowed-marijuana-to-prosper-report#.Wk4_dMS3YW8.facebook

    Sessions is a turd. This is one of my biggest peeves with Republicans. They LOVE state's rights. Except when they don't. Absolutely no consistency.

    Are you sure it's Sessions that you should be upset with?

     

    "...Sessions has a point, or a piece of a point, when he argues that the Obama-era memos did not merely clarify DOJ practices but in effect changed federal law over the heads of Congress. It would be better if Congress changed federal law to better accommodate states in which marijuana is legal; it would be even better if Congress did not have to do so, the federal jurisdiction being confined to its proper role in these matters, which is interstate and international. John Paul Stevens will forgive me for suggesting that the Supreme Court erred in its decision in Gonzales v. Raich, which enshrined the federal power to regulate marijuana consumption within the borders of a single state under its interstate commerce powers, a nonsensical conclusion but one not entirely inconsistent with precedent regarding the interstate-commerce clause, the elasticity of which apparently is infinite. ..."

    Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/455170/jeff-sessions-marijuana-legalization-solution

     

    Fri, Jan 5, 2018 9:48 AM

    Maybe not, but he seems to be the one changing the direction of the DOJ in regards to legal cannabis in the states. In the end, though, it is a failure of the federal government as a whole that has allowed him to do so.

    Fri, Jan 5, 2018 9:57 AM

    I am pretty conservative on a lot of things, but the war on drugs and the hangup on weed is so fucking dumb. States should definitely be able to decide how they want to handle this, as per what their constituents want. The classification of weed as 0 medicinal purpose and all the other shit is such garbage. 

    On the topic, did anyone watch the Profit weed episode with Marcus Lemonis going to Humbolt county california where weed farming basically started and is continuing? Pretty interesting and huge sums of money involved.

    Fri, Jan 5, 2018 10:03 AM
    posted by iclfan2

    States should definitely be able to decide how they want to handle this, as per what their constituents want.

    The [sadly] hilarious thing is if you look at this vs. gun control.  Conservative think the Fed should battle drugs, but no regulate guns.  Liberals think the Fed should regulate guns, but leave drugs to the states.

    When you start looking at the inconsistencies on the Dem/Repub platforms (not to mention how actual legislation aligns - or doesn't align or exist - with those platforms) it's kind of hard to take any of this seriously.

    Even if the Dems controlled all 3 branches - and they did not long ago - they won't do anything because marijuana is still a losing issue in most conservative and swing states.

    Fri, Jan 5, 2018 10:12 AM
    posted by justincredible

    Maybe not, but he seems to be the one changing the direction of the DOJ in regards to legal cannabis in the states. In the end, though, it is a failure of the federal government as a whole that has allowed him to do so.

    It's never been legal with regard to the feds...at least not for a very long time now.  Sessions believes federal law should be changed to accomodate States who want it to be legal and doesn't believe that it's the Feds responsibility to over see such things.....but he continues to carry out the responsibility he's been tasked with.

    Fri, Jan 5, 2018 10:13 AM
    posted by gut

    The [sadly] hilarious thing is if you look at this vs. gun control.  Conservative think the Fed should battle drugs, but no regulate guns.  Liberals think the Fed should regulate guns, but leave drugs to the states.

    I figured someone would bring up guns. The difference is the constitution makes it a federal gov thing, and also states that everyone has a right to own them. It isn't exactly an apples to apples comparison. California is in the process of getting sued for their gun laws that are stopping people from being able to buy ammo, which has already been found as unconstitutional.

    I personally think tax dollars spent on "the war on drugs" was a complete waste, and weed should be legalized and taxed. I fail to see how it is worse than alcohol or cigarrettes and is a huge taxable base being wasted.

    Fri, Jan 5, 2018 12:29 PM
    posted by justincredible

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn

    Overreach.

    How was the Agicultural Adjustment Act which attempted to control purely intrastate agricultural production due to its effects on the national markets substantively different from the Second Bank of the United States signed into law by James Madison - one of the two original tea partiers along with Thomas Jefferson - for the purpose of controlling purely intrastate issuance of private bank notes due to the effects they had on national markets? 

    In other words, your claim and the claim is generally that New Deal laws in a time of great national crisis due to WWII and the great depression - regulate commerce, etc. beyond that which conservative Founders would approve. 

    And yet, the most anti-federalist founding father of them all, James Madison, signed legislation that massively and federally regulated local private commerce. 

    It is my humble opinion that this argument is a cop-out from having to make the moral/political case as to why federal regulation of X is wrong or improper. It is clear by the actions of Thomas Jefferson and Madison once they became President that the regulatory powers of congress that may be necessary and proper are essentially unlimited depending on the emergency or circumstances. IMHO when Madison signed the charter of the Second National Bank it was over - Hamilton won. It just took until the New Deal for the dust to settle. 

    Instead, make the argument as to why - even if Congress has broad regulatory authority - why they should choose restraint e.g. regulation can cause more harm than good, etc. If a certain regulation is "overreach" it's not because it is beyond the power of Congress but because it is beyond the prudent exercise of Congress' broad powers. 

    Fri, Jan 5, 2018 12:31 PM
    posted by Con_Alma

    It's never been legal with regard to the feds...at least not for a very long time now.  Sessions believes federal law should be changed to accomodate States who want it to be legal and doesn't believe that it's the Feds responsibility to over see such things.....but he continues to carry out the responsibility he's been tasked with.

    Realistically I don't see anything changing. All he did was revoke a memo wherein the DOJ announced it wouldn't enforce the law essentially. This will hurt economic growth in the sector IMHO but I doubt you see any increase in enforcement actions. 

    Fri, Jan 5, 2018 12:33 PM
    posted by gut

    The [sadly] hilarious thing is if you look at this vs. gun control.  Conservative think the Fed should battle drugs, but no regulate guns.  Liberals think the Fed should regulate guns, but leave drugs to the states.

    When you start looking at the inconsistencies on the Dem/Repub platforms (not to mention how actual legislation aligns - or doesn't align or exist - with those platforms) it's kind of hard to take any of this seriously.

    Even if the Dems controlled all 3 branches - and they did not long ago - they won't do anything because marijuana is still a losing issue in most conservative and swing states.

    The Democrats will play marijuana like they did gay marriage and undocumented immigrants - be heavily against it save the most hardcore (think Dennis Kucinich praising gay marriage in 2004) and then act like they were for marijuana legalization all along. 

    Fri, Jan 5, 2018 12:40 PM
    posted by gut

    The [sadly] hilarious thing is if you look at this vs. gun control.  Conservative think the Fed should battle drugs, but no regulate guns.  Liberals think the Fed should regulate guns, but leave drugs to the states.

    When you start looking at the inconsistencies on the Dem/Repub platforms (not to mention how actual legislation aligns - or doesn't align or exist - with those platforms) it's kind of hard to take any of this seriously.

    Even if the Dems controlled all 3 branches - and they did not long ago - they won't do anything because marijuana is still a losing issue in most conservative and swing states.

    Of course Conservatives will reasonably point out that the second amendment explicitly mentions a right to keep and bear arms. However, it should be noted that the war on drugs has been one of the primary methods through which our fundamental rights to enjoy our property without unreasonable search and seizure have been encroached upon e.g. Is that a bag of coke in your pocket or you just happy to see me?

    Fri, Jan 5, 2018 12:42 PM
    posted by BoatShoes

    How was the Agicultural Adjustment Act which attempted to control purely intrastate agricultural production due to its effects on the national markets substantively different from the Second Bank of the United States signed into law by James Madison - one of the two original tea partiers along with Thomas Jefferson - for the purpose of controlling purely intrastate issuance of private bank notes due to the effects they had on national markets? 

    In other words, your claim and the claim is generally that New Deal laws in a time of great national crisis due to WWII and the great depression - regulate commerce, etc. beyond that which conservative Founders would approve. 

    And yet, the most anti-federalist founding father of them all, James Madison, signed legislation that massively and federally regulated local private commerce. 

    It is my humble opinion that this argument is a cop-out from having to make the moral/political case as to why federal regulation of X is wrong or improper. It is clear by the actions of Thomas Jefferson and Madison once they became President that the regulatory powers of congress that may be necessary and proper are essentially unlimited depending on the emergency or circumstances. IMHO when Madison signed the charter of the Second National Bank it was over - Hamilton won. It just took until the New Deal for the dust to settle. 

    Instead, make the argument as to why - even if Congress has broad regulatory authority - why they should choose restraint e.g. regulation can cause more harm than good, etc. If a certain regulation is "overreach" it's not because it is beyond the power of Congress but because it is beyond the prudent exercise of Congress' broad powers. 

    I could certainly be wrong on the founders intent, and if so I vehemently disagree with whatever their justifications may have been. I cannot think of one good moral argument for regulating what a farmer grows on private property for their own consumption. To claim it as "interstate commerce" because, if they hadn't grown the crops they WOULD have engaged in interstate commerce is, IMO, absurd mental gymnastics to justify control over matters they have no business in. 

    Ad