Author Topic: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting  (Read 79304 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 20550
  • Bad Craziness
Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
« Reply #210 on: May 11, 2017, 06:05:39 PM »
Word around the campfire is that he didn't setup the WH staff, including the press secretary, in as much as he completely blindsided them. He didn't think anybody would object and didn't bother preparing for that outcome. Spicer and his deputy were back-filling the intel to the best of their ability, or basically scrambling to control the narrative.

The person who should be pissed off is Rosenstein. Here's a guy whose credibility is his biggest asset and, intentional or not, they used him. The scrambling to control the narrative had him outed as the person who recommended it when all he did was put together the concerns Grabby asked for.
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline jingle.boy

  • DTF's resident deceased dictator
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 23994
  • Gender: Male
  • The changing of the worrd is inevitabre!!!
Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
« Reply #211 on: May 11, 2017, 06:55:34 PM »
Word around the campfire is that he didn't setup the WH staff, including the press secretary, in as much as he completely blindsided them. He didn't think anybody would object and didn't bother preparing for that outcome. Spicer and his deputy were back-filling the intel to the best of their ability, or basically scrambling to control the narrative.

The person who should be pissed off is Rosenstein. Here's a guy whose credibility is his biggest asset and, intentional or not, they used him. The scrambling to control the narrative had him outed as the person who recommended it when all he did was put together the concerns Grabby asked for.

Fair enough.  Whether intentional or not, the end result is that he made them look uninformed at best, or played them like a fiddle at worst.
Can you imagine some alien race comes to a large nebula they've never seen before, and it just turns out it's the Federation's dumping ground for space-smile?
And TAC can suck it  :biggrin:, this is heavy in all the right places.  :tup

Offline antigoon

  • Not Elvis
  • DT.net Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 10289
  • Gender: Male
  • This was a triumph.
Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
« Reply #212 on: May 12, 2017, 07:16:23 AM »
Bill Clinton meeting Loretta Lynch on the tarmac: Very Bad

FBI Director Comey dining with POTUS, who tried to coerce a loyalty pledge out of him: ???

Offline Chino

  • Be excellent to each other.
  • DT.net Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 20031
  • Gender: Male
Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
« Reply #213 on: May 12, 2017, 07:20:36 AM »
Bill Clinton meeting Loretta Lynch on the tarmac: Very Bad

FBI Director Comey dining with POTUS, who tried to coerce a loyalty pledge out of him: ???

You know who asks people beneath them to pledge loyalty? Dictators. The only thing an FBI agent should be pledging loyalty to is the constitution.

Offline RuRoRul

  • Posts: 1499
  • Gender: Male
Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
« Reply #214 on: May 12, 2017, 07:48:44 AM »
Bill Clinton meeting Loretta Lynch on the tarmac: Very Bad

FBI Director Comey dining with POTUS, who tried to coerce a loyalty pledge out of him: ???

You know who asks people beneath them to pledge loyalty? Dictators. The only thing an FBI agent should be pledging loyalty to is the constitution.
:tup
According to the story (coming from two people Comey told about the conversation), Donald twice asked for Comey to pledge loyalty and he instead promised "honesty". I think that conversation will make a pretty good scene in the eventual HBO Series about this.

Quote
As they ate, the president and Mr. Comey made small talk about the election and the crowd sizes at Mr. Trump’s rallies. The president then turned the conversation to whether Mr. Comey would pledge his loyalty to him.

Mr. Comey declined to make that pledge. Instead, Mr. Comey has recounted to others, he told Mr. Trump that he would always be honest with him, but that he was not “reliable” in the conventional political sense.

By Mr. Comey’s account, his answer to Mr. Trump’s initial question apparently did not satisfy the president, the associates said. Later in the dinner, Mr. Trump again said to Mr. Comey that he needed his loyalty.

Mr. Comey again replied that he would give him “honesty” and did not pledge his loyalty, according to the account of the conversation.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/11/us/politics/trump-comey-firing.html?action=Click&contentCollection=BreakingNews&contentID=65284618&pgtype=article&_r=0

Of course this is just one side of the story - for balance, here is the White House's account:
Quote
The White House says this account is not correct. And Mr. Trump, in an interview on Thursday with NBC, described a far different dinner conversation with Mr. Comey in which the director asked to have the meeting and the question of loyalty never came up. It was not clear whether he was talking about the same meal, but they are believed to have had only one dinner together.

“We don’t believe this to be an accurate account,” said Sarah Huckabee Sanders, the deputy press secretary. “The integrity of our law enforcement agencies and their leadership is of the utmost importance to President Trump. He would never even suggest the expectation of personal loyalty, only loyalty to our country and its great people.”

At the dinner described by Mr. Trump in his interview with NBC, the conversation with Mr. Comey was quite different. Mr. Trump told NBC that Mr. Comey requested it to ask to keep his job. Mr. Trump said he asked the F.B.I. director if he was under investigation, a question that legal experts called highly unusual if not improper. In Mr. Trump’s telling, Mr. Comey reassured him that he was not.

Mr. Trump did not say whether he asked Mr. Comey for his loyalty.
Very tough to decide which is more believable. I'm not sure I can buy the idea of Donald talking about the electoral college and crowd size, and the WH spokesperson's assurance that he would never expect personal loyalty fits so well with his character. And watching his congressional testimony, Comey totally seems like the type to fold under a little bit of questioning and not just stick to "I can neither confirm nor deny" when pressured to talk about FBI investigations.

(Also, I love that in Trump's version he even has to change it to Comey coming to him to request a private dinner rather than the other way around. Reminiscent of his handshake "power move" thing  :lol )

Offline Chino

  • Be excellent to each other.
  • DT.net Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 20031
  • Gender: Male
Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
« Reply #215 on: May 12, 2017, 08:18:01 AM »
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/12/us/politics/trump-threatens-retaliation-against-comey-warns-he-may-cancel-press-briefings.html?_r=0

Quote
WASHINGTON — President Trump on Friday warned James B. Comey, the former F.B.I. director he fired this week, against leaking anything negative about the president and warned the news media that he may cancel all future White House briefings.

In a series of early-morning Twitter posts, Mr. Trump even seemed to suggest that there may be secret tapes of his conversations with Mr. Comey that could be used to counter the former F.B.I. director if necessary. It was not immediately clear whether he meant that literally or simply hoped to intimidate Mr. Comey into silence.

“James Comey better hope that there are no ‘tapes’ of our conversations before he starts leaking to the press!” Mr. Trump wrote on Twitter.

Remember that time Obama wore a brown suit? Man, I'm glad we don't see anything that bad happening today  ::) Seriously though, could you imagine the outrage had Obama suggested the White House no longer engage with the press and that he may or may not have been secretly recording conversations in the Oval Office??

Offline El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 20550
  • Bad Craziness
Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
« Reply #216 on: May 12, 2017, 08:24:38 AM »
Ideally he's subpoenaed by the Senate investigation committee post hast. That's what I've been hoping for ever since he was shit-canned. While they probably couldn't make very much of it public, it seems to me that as he's no longer affiliated with any investigation he could probably be compelled to disclose what he knows to the Senate. Regardless of Grabby's immature understanding I suspect that Comey has enough integrity to keep his mouth shut. Very few people rush off to start blabbing about the dirty laundry. He might well relish the chance to testify under oath to congress, though.
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 20550
  • Bad Craziness
Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
« Reply #217 on: May 12, 2017, 08:36:17 AM »
Real good time to be investing is CCA. Mass incarceration took a hit under Obama and Holder. The Sessions memo will just be the first of many.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/05/12/sessions-doj-releases-memo-to-all-94-us-attorneys-calling-for-reversal-holder-era-policy.html
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 12837
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
« Reply #218 on: May 12, 2017, 09:00:26 AM »
The "mis-steps" I'm talking about are not his failings - we all learn from our failures.  What I'm referring to is things like stiffing contractors, not taking the advice of his predecessor and (essentially) chief counsel in warnings about Flynn, his character, his demeanor, his xenophobia, his misogyny, his nepotism, his racism... Regardless of financial or economic success, these are things I personally don't think qualify him as an even mediocre businessman.

Oh, and he completely contradicted his own letter, and the WH spin on the reasons for firing Comey.

But separate those out.   You're just throwing shit at the wall and seeing what sticks.   "Stiffing contractors" - especially in that market - isn't "a misstep".  In some cases, it's good business.   I can sit here for the rest of the day telling stories about things just like that.   I can also tell you the very first thing my contracts professor told me in law school:  "BREACH OF CONTRACT IS NOT ILLEGAL, AND NOT A BAD THING".   It is what it is, and presumably the parties have remedies in the case of breach.  That's what contracts are for.    Is it bad PR?  SURE.  Is it a self-limiting policy?  Perhaps, though not always.    Some of those other things again, are not "missteps" but your observation on things.   His character? His demeanor?  Who are you to say that's a "misstep"?  I don't like it either, by the way (I abhor it, actually; I was the guy that thought that Bill Clinton should put the shades and sax away and act Presidential; I'm the guy that wished Obama would stay the FUCK off the late night TV circuit).   I'll give you the xenophobia, though only by proxy; not the so-called "Muslim ban" that doesn't even apply to 90% of the world's Muslims, let alone ban them ("Hey Bob, here's a condom.  It lets through 90% of sperm, and doesn't prevent 90% of pregnancies, but its a CONDOM!"), but rather the tariffs.  It's not exactly xenophobia, but it works to that effect. 

For the record, his stunning lack of consistency is annoying to me, personally, but I'm not the President, I didn't vote for him, and it's kind of the least of my worries.  I focus more on the policy of things than the petty bullshit.  There was just as much that annoyed me about Obama, and Bush, and Clinton, it's part of the cycle.  No one is going to be perfectly all things to all people.   

Offline antigoon

  • Not Elvis
  • DT.net Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 10289
  • Gender: Male
  • This was a triumph.
Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
« Reply #219 on: May 12, 2017, 09:21:59 AM »
Real good time to be investing is CCA. Mass incarceration took a hit under Obama and Holder. The Sessions memo will just be the first of many.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/05/12/sessions-doj-releases-memo-to-all-94-us-attorneys-calling-for-reversal-holder-era-policy.html

Damn, Sessions is a real prick, huh.

Offline jingle.boy

  • DTF's resident deceased dictator
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 23994
  • Gender: Male
  • The changing of the worrd is inevitabre!!!
Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
« Reply #220 on: May 12, 2017, 09:28:45 AM »
@ Stadler... some good points, and totally valid to benchmark what you believe to be "good business".  I do love your use of the word "presumably" when it comes to remedies, considering how many lawsuits he's had brought forth against him.  We'll simply have to agree to not see eye-to-eye on what makes a good businessman.  I was simply stating my case challenging Grabby'sTM business-sense of when/why to fire someone - which, as it turns out, was completely justified since the WH has spun the story multiple different ways now.  If everything was on the up-and-up, why not just come out and disclose all facets of the truth from the outset?

Very tough to decide which is more believable.

Really?  How many falsehoods have come out of Grabby'sTM mouth in the last week alone, let alone during the Presidency so far, and his campaign.  Maybe your comments about Comey are legit, but I still have to take everything from the WH with a few sacks of salt.
Can you imagine some alien race comes to a large nebula they've never seen before, and it just turns out it's the Federation's dumping ground for space-smile?
And TAC can suck it  :biggrin:, this is heavy in all the right places.  :tup

Offline RuRoRul

  • Posts: 1499
  • Gender: Male
Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
« Reply #221 on: May 12, 2017, 10:22:27 AM »
Very tough to decide which is more believable.

Really?  How many falsehoods have come out of Grabby'sTM mouth in the last week alone, let alone during the Presidency so far, and his campaign.  Maybe your comments about Comey are legit, but I still have to take everything from the WH with a few sacks of salt.
Sorry, I was being 100% sarcastic  :lol. Since none of us were there we can't know for sure what was actually said and if people who talked to Comey say one thing and Donald and the White House says another then if people want to believe Trump then it's up to them, but to me it is a laughably easy choice as to which account is more believable, even before you take into account the credibility of the sources.

Offline jingle.boy

  • DTF's resident deceased dictator
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 23994
  • Gender: Male
  • The changing of the worrd is inevitabre!!!
Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
« Reply #222 on: May 12, 2017, 01:49:10 PM »
Gotchya.  Haven't seen enough of your posts to know your position on things like this.  I thought it had to be sarcastic, but ya never know.
Can you imagine some alien race comes to a large nebula they've never seen before, and it just turns out it's the Federation's dumping ground for space-smile?
And TAC can suck it  :biggrin:, this is heavy in all the right places.  :tup

Offline Cable

  • Posts: 1513
  • Gender: Male
Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
« Reply #223 on: May 12, 2017, 02:30:13 PM »
Real good time to be investing is CCA. Mass incarceration took a hit under Obama and Holder. The Sessions memo will just be the first of many.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/05/12/sessions-doj-releases-memo-to-all-94-us-attorneys-calling-for-reversal-holder-era-policy.html

Damn, Sessions is a real prick, huh.


For what it's worth, they are now named CoreCivic. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CoreCivic . I doubt the name change has *anything* to do with a bad reputation. It's not like Comcast went with Xfinity, or TimeWarner to Spectrum to change their terrible reputations.

Yeah this will just make everything worse, and further strain the budget. As the war on drugs has been soooo successful and appropriate.  :tdwn :tdwn :\ ::) ::)
---

Offline El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 20550
  • Bad Craziness
Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
« Reply #224 on: May 12, 2017, 02:53:56 PM »
Real good time to be investing is CCA. Mass incarceration took a hit under Obama and Holder. The Sessions memo will just be the first of many.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/05/12/sessions-doj-releases-memo-to-all-94-us-attorneys-calling-for-reversal-holder-era-policy.html

Damn, Sessions is a real prick, huh.


For what it's worth, they are now named CoreCivic. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CoreCivic . I doubt the name change has *anything* to do with a bad reputation. It's not like Comcast went with Xfinity, or TimeWarner to Spectrum to change their terrible reputations.

Yeah this will just make everything worse, and further strain the budget. As the war on drugs has been soooo successful and appropriate.  :tdwn :tdwn :\ ::) ::)
Yeah, I actually saw that when I was looking for their stock symbol.  I wasn't kidding about it being a good time to invest, at least if you're looking to cash in on human misery and suffering.


edit: Oh, and speaking of which, whatever Taser International is calling itself now is fixing to corner the market on cloud storage for police bodycam video. Aside from charging for storage, part of the contract grants them all rights to the video, so they'll be able to charge for access. Nice, eh?
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline Cable

  • Posts: 1513
  • Gender: Male
Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
« Reply #225 on: May 12, 2017, 05:11:13 PM »
^ Oh I know El Barto, and you are correct. This guy is turning back the clock, and thinking marijuana is just a notch below opioids. This is what is so frustrating. The criminal justice field (I'm in it) has finally accepted, or more so the public, that mass incarceration fails on so many levels. And the shift was slowly happening, and consequently going to impact Core Civic. The truth is there, but it's like screw that! More prisoners! I wouldn't be shocked if Sessions, or someone close to him was a big share holder in CoreCivic. More people incarcerated = more business for their terrible model, and more back pockets lined.
---

Offline El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 20550
  • Bad Craziness
Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
« Reply #226 on: May 12, 2017, 05:48:59 PM »
^ Oh I know El Barto, and you are correct. This guy is turning back the clock, and thinking marijuana is just a notch below opioids. This is what is so frustrating. The criminal justice field (I'm in it) has finally accepted, or more so the public, that mass incarceration fails on so many levels. And the shift was slowly happening, and consequently going to impact Core Civic. The truth is there, but it's like screw that! More prisoners! I wouldn't be shocked if Sessions, or someone close to him was a big share holder in CoreCivic. More people incarcerated = more business for their terrible model, and more back pockets lined.
Nah, he's just an asshole. He is the throwback you refer to. Drugs are undermining society and putting dopers in prison where they belong is the only way to save us all.
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline Cool Chris

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 6217
  • Gender: Male
  • Rest in Peace
Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
« Reply #227 on: May 12, 2017, 07:26:11 PM »
Drugs are undermining society and putting dopers in prison where they belong is the only way to save us all.

The drugs aren't, but the junkies are. And I agree jailing them all isn't the solution, but neither is letting them all camp out wherever they want, trashing neighborhoods and public places, and committing any number of crimes to support their destructive habit.
"Nostalgia is just the ability to forget the things that sucked" - Nelson DeMille, 'Up Country'

Offline Chino

  • Be excellent to each other.
  • DT.net Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 20031
  • Gender: Male
Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
« Reply #228 on: May 12, 2017, 09:06:10 PM »
Can we at least agree that those who wish to buy cannabis over the counter are not in the same class as those who will hold someone at knife point for heroin funds?

Offline El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 20550
  • Bad Craziness
Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
« Reply #229 on: May 12, 2017, 09:55:53 PM »
Drugs are undermining society and putting dopers in prison where they belong is the only way to save us all.

The drugs aren't, but the junkies are. And I agree jailing them all isn't the solution, but neither is letting them all camp out wherever they want, trashing neighborhoods and public places, and committing any number of crimes to support their destructive habit.
I would agree with that. So would all of the pinko-liberal US attorneys operating under the auspices of the Holder manifesto. The difference is that they were supposed to start at the bottom and work their way up to the appropriate sentence. Under Sessions they're supposed to seek the maximum possible penalty, which will always prison time, and if they feel it should be less they need to seek approval first. What do you think of that approach?
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline lonestar

  • DTF Executive Head Chef
  • Official DTF Tour Guide
  • ****
  • Posts: 16337
  • Gender: Male
  • First Follower
    • Lady Obscure Music Magazine
Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
« Reply #230 on: May 13, 2017, 11:00:31 PM »
Can we at least agree that those who wish to buy cannabis over the counter are not in the same class as those who will hold someone at knife point for heroin funds?

Yup.

My hierarchy of "what would I do to score" would go...

Heroin/opiates/meth
.
.
Booze (you'd be shocked at what a drunk is capable of doing)
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Weed
Quote from: nightmare_cinema
So should lonestar and I have babies or something now, is that how this works?
Dang, you're easily the coolest fogey I know of

Offline Cool Chris

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 6217
  • Gender: Male
  • Rest in Peace
Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
« Reply #231 on: May 14, 2017, 12:05:24 PM »
What do you think of that approach?

Honestly, I don't know what to think. What I know is that these drugs are destroying our communities, and there seems to be nothing to stop it, whether it be ultra pinko-liberal progressive bleeding heart policies, or hard-ass law and order lock 'em up and throw away the key policies.
"Nostalgia is just the ability to forget the things that sucked" - Nelson DeMille, 'Up Country'

Offline El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 20550
  • Bad Craziness
Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
« Reply #232 on: May 14, 2017, 02:23:49 PM »
What do you think of that approach?

Honestly, I don't know what to think. What I know is that these drugs are destroying our communities, and there seems to be nothing to stop it, whether it be ultra pinko-liberal progressive bleeding heart policies, or hard-ass law and order lock 'em up and throw away the key policies.
I don't know as the pinko approach has gotten a good opportunity yet. Remember that the hardassed approach has been going on nearly 100 years. Mere possession of pot used to land you in prison. States have only been liberalizing their drug laws for 10-15 years or so, and it's happened gradually. We know exactly what to expect from the Joe Friday approach. The opposite is still a relative unknown.
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline Cool Chris

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 6217
  • Gender: Male
  • Rest in Peace
Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
« Reply #233 on: May 14, 2017, 07:02:20 PM »
I will reply here, and your subtlety even went over my head! I will reply here though.

Yes, I have been through the CJ system a few times, and feel I have benefited from a liberally-slanted interpretation of the law each time. And one of those times I even had a public defender! So I never bought way my out of the system. None of them involved drugs, unless you want to count DUIs as a "drug crime." If you don't, I cannot relate directly to the subject at hand. Also, I was thinking on a more local level. I don't think of junkies camped out in city parks as a DOJ issue. If we don't toss them in jail (which I agree we shouldn't), and if we offer them help, which they don't want, what are we to do?

"Nostalgia is just the ability to forget the things that sucked" - Nelson DeMille, 'Up Country'

Offline portnoy311

  • Posts: 880
Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
« Reply #234 on: May 14, 2017, 08:10:05 PM »
DUIs absolutely are drug crimes. I've never had one myself, but I've known plenty who have. My old roommate was on probation, got house checks and random piss tests. I'm OK with that route for other drugs.

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 12837
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
« Reply #235 on: May 15, 2017, 10:27:13 AM »
Can we at least agree that those who wish to buy cannabis over the counter are not in the same class as those who will hold someone at knife point for heroin funds?

Yup.

My hierarchy of "what would I do to score" would go...

Heroin/opiates/meth
.
.
Booze (you'd be shocked at what a drunk is capable of doing)
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Weed

But why do we have to make this determination in order to move forward?   By most accounts, once you get past the nature of the user while under the influence, they are both damaging.  Both change the brain's chemistry in unanticipated ways when used by those whose brains have not fully developed yet (basically anyone under the age of 25).    Both have similar tendencies with respect to use/abuse (users tend to be clustered as very casual users or heavy users; there doesn't seem to be a continuum).  Both have similar outcomes with prolonged heavy usage and performance of the user.   

I think the marijuana movement has been stymied by this over-reliance on the idea that "hey, it's not so bad!  It's not as bad as alcohol!"  Why would you base your entire movement on an argument that can't be proved and that is usually pre-determined in the eyes of the people you're looking to convert?   I find it fascinating, and VERY informative, that Colorado's ECONOMIC success has led to more states adopting similar structures in the last year or two than all of the so-called "harm" arguments combined over the past several decades. 

Offline portnoy311

  • Posts: 880
Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
« Reply #236 on: May 15, 2017, 10:42:25 AM »
The fact that it has been a success across the board and has not led to any increase in crime (actually decrease in both violent and property crime both here and Washington), while adding to tax revenue with no public health problems cannot be understated. Pot advocates are being proven right in their  "No Harm" stances, and bozos like Sessions sound so ridiculous when they refute that, despite all the data we now have.

Offline El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 20550
  • Bad Craziness
Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
« Reply #237 on: May 15, 2017, 10:43:04 AM »

I think the marijuana movement has been stymied by this over-reliance on the idea that "hey, it's not so bad!  It's not as bad as alcohol!"  Why would you base your entire movement on an argument that can't be proved and that is usually pre-determined in the eyes of the people you're looking to convert?   I find it fascinating, and VERY informative, that Colorado's ECONOMIC success has led to more states adopting similar structures in the last year or two than all of the so-called "harm" arguments combined over the past several decades. 
The harm arguments had been paying dividends, though. As I said earlier, we've had generations of the Joe Friday approach. The reality has demonstrated that it doesn't cause people to go insane. It doesn't make white women sleep with the negroes. It doesn't turn people into junkies. As a result, many places had already started to lax their prohibition policies quite a bit. I'd suggest that the trends towards taxation stem more from that than the strictly economic aspect.
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 12837
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
« Reply #238 on: May 15, 2017, 10:46:38 AM »

I think the marijuana movement has been stymied by this over-reliance on the idea that "hey, it's not so bad!  It's not as bad as alcohol!"  Why would you base your entire movement on an argument that can't be proved and that is usually pre-determined in the eyes of the people you're looking to convert?   I find it fascinating, and VERY informative, that Colorado's ECONOMIC success has led to more states adopting similar structures in the last year or two than all of the so-called "harm" arguments combined over the past several decades. 
The harm arguments had been paying dividends, though. As I said earlier, we've had generations of the Joe Friday approach. The reality has demonstrated that it doesn't cause people to go insane. It doesn't make white women sleep with the negroes. It doesn't turn people into junkies. As a result, many places had already started to lax their prohibition policies quite a bit. I'd suggest that the trends towards taxation stem more from that than the strictly economic aspect.

I disagree.   Pot is not "paying dividends" because it is "harmless", at least on in the sense of harm to the specific user.  It's paying dividends because it is economically sound to do so.  "Crime" isn't down because a pot high is "peaceful, man!".  It's down because law-abiding citizens don't have to go to Compton or Father Panick Village to get their stash.  They don't have to deal with a dude named "Junior" with gold teeth who may or may not give you a baggy of actual weed when he takes your ten bucks.   You would see the same benefits with a legalization of heroin and/or cocaine, and are you really going to make the same "harm" arguments?   

Offline portnoy311

  • Posts: 880
Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
« Reply #239 on: May 15, 2017, 11:03:13 AM »
It's also proving bozos like Sessions wrong who predicted legalizing it would lead to all the things Barto listed. Which is key to spreading the idea of legalization in this country. Colorado is basically printing free money and having zero ramifications for doing so. You don't think attitudes towards pot itself are softening up, even over the last 5 - 10 years? I'd say they definitely are.

Offline El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 20550
  • Bad Craziness
Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
« Reply #240 on: May 15, 2017, 11:56:29 AM »

I think the marijuana movement has been stymied by this over-reliance on the idea that "hey, it's not so bad!  It's not as bad as alcohol!"  Why would you base your entire movement on an argument that can't be proved and that is usually pre-determined in the eyes of the people you're looking to convert?   I find it fascinating, and VERY informative, that Colorado's ECONOMIC success has led to more states adopting similar structures in the last year or two than all of the so-called "harm" arguments combined over the past several decades. 
The harm arguments had been paying dividends, though. As I said earlier, we've had generations of the Joe Friday approach. The reality has demonstrated that it doesn't cause people to go insane. It doesn't make white women sleep with the negroes. It doesn't turn people into junkies. As a result, many places had already started to lax their prohibition policies quite a bit. I'd suggest that the trends towards taxation stem more from that than the strictly economic aspect.

I disagree.   Pot is not "paying dividends" because it is "harmless", at least on in the sense of harm to the specific user.  It's paying dividends because it is economically sound to do so.  "Crime" isn't down because a pot high is "peaceful, man!".  It's down because law-abiding citizens don't have to go to Compton or Father Panick Village to get their stash.  They don't have to deal with a dude named "Junior" with gold teeth who may or may not give you a baggy of actual weed when he takes your ten bucks.   You would see the same benefits with a legalization of heroin and/or cocaine, and are you really going to make the same "harm" arguments?
Well, first off I didn't mean to suggest that pot was paying dividends. I was saying that the "no harm" mentality was paying dividends with regards to pot. And as for you greater point, I'd simply ask where these economic benefits were in 1980? Or 2000? Or 1930? We've only gotten to the point where this was acceptable because people started to realize that it actually is generally harmless and that prohibition never works. Unfortunately, our new AG doesn't appear to be a real person.

On a side note, I've been procuring grass one way or another since 1983, and I've never had any of the experiences you speak of. Remember, the free market works even in an illicit trade (you could ask Scalia if he weren't worm food). Dealers tend to be pretty honest folk out of necessity.
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 12837
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
« Reply #241 on: May 15, 2017, 12:23:25 PM »
It's also proving bozos like Sessions wrong who predicted legalizing it would lead to all the things Barto listed. Which is key to spreading the idea of legalization in this country. Colorado is basically printing free money and having zero ramifications for doing so. You don't think attitudes towards pot itself are softening up, even over the last 5 - 10 years? I'd say they definitely are.

Well, qualify "zero ramifications".  "Zero IMMEDIATE ramifications"?   Maybe.   But all those kids that now smoke that wouldn't have before it was legal who's brains haven't fully formed yet... there are ramifications there.  Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying CO shouldn't have, I'm just saying, let's not overstate the argument.   There ARE downsides to this.

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 12837
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
« Reply #242 on: May 15, 2017, 12:27:20 PM »

I think the marijuana movement has been stymied by this over-reliance on the idea that "hey, it's not so bad!  It's not as bad as alcohol!"  Why would you base your entire movement on an argument that can't be proved and that is usually pre-determined in the eyes of the people you're looking to convert?   I find it fascinating, and VERY informative, that Colorado's ECONOMIC success has led to more states adopting similar structures in the last year or two than all of the so-called "harm" arguments combined over the past several decades. 
The harm arguments had been paying dividends, though. As I said earlier, we've had generations of the Joe Friday approach. The reality has demonstrated that it doesn't cause people to go insane. It doesn't make white women sleep with the negroes. It doesn't turn people into junkies. As a result, many places had already started to lax their prohibition policies quite a bit. I'd suggest that the trends towards taxation stem more from that than the strictly economic aspect.

I disagree.   Pot is not "paying dividends" because it is "harmless", at least on in the sense of harm to the specific user.  It's paying dividends because it is economically sound to do so.  "Crime" isn't down because a pot high is "peaceful, man!".  It's down because law-abiding citizens don't have to go to Compton or Father Panick Village to get their stash.  They don't have to deal with a dude named "Junior" with gold teeth who may or may not give you a baggy of actual weed when he takes your ten bucks.   You would see the same benefits with a legalization of heroin and/or cocaine, and are you really going to make the same "harm" arguments?
Well, first off I didn't mean to suggest that pot was paying dividends. I was saying that the "no harm" mentality was paying dividends with regards to pot. And as for you greater point, I'd simply ask where these economic benefits were in 1980? Or 2000? Or 1930? We've only gotten to the point where this was acceptable because people started to realize that it actually is generally harmless and that prohibition never works. Unfortunately, our new AG doesn't appear to be a real person.

On a side note, I've been procuring grass one way or another since 1983, and I've never had any of the experiences you speak of. Remember, the free market works even in an illicit trade (you could ask Scalia if he weren't worm food). Dealers tend to be pretty honest folk out of necessity.

Admittedly, I'm skewing things here.  The heroin trade here in CT is rampant, and it's not at all as "gentleman friendly" as apparently your weed transactions are.  My wife works in Probate, and she sometimes helps families to get through the process and she's done two now where people died because of the "blue bag" heroin that's going around.   

That, by the way, is one of the two single biggest upsides of legalization (that and the revenue) for me.   Liquor is harmful, no doubt about it, but at least when you buy that bottle of Tito's you know what you're getting. It's not cut with water, or bleach, or Windex or whatever the fuck.   I think the quicker we get some desperate fuck out of the business of stretching his supply as far as he can, the better off we are "as a society".  The less "harm".   

Offline Chino

  • Be excellent to each other.
  • DT.net Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 20031
  • Gender: Male
Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
« Reply #243 on: May 15, 2017, 12:29:16 PM »
It's also proving bozos like Sessions wrong who predicted legalizing it would lead to all the things Barto listed. Which is key to spreading the idea of legalization in this country. Colorado is basically printing free money and having zero ramifications for doing so. You don't think attitudes towards pot itself are softening up, even over the last 5 - 10 years? I'd say they definitely are.

Well, qualify "zero ramifications".  "Zero IMMEDIATE ramifications"?   Maybe.   But all those kids that now smoke that wouldn't have before it was legal who's brains haven't fully formed yet... there are ramifications there.  Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying CO shouldn't have, I'm just saying, let's not overstate the argument.   There ARE downsides to this.



Just something to think about.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/colorado-s-teen-marijuana-usage-dips-after-legalization/

Offline cramx3

  • Chillest of the chill
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 18067
  • Gender: Male
    • The Home of cramx3
Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
« Reply #244 on: May 15, 2017, 12:35:58 PM »

I think the marijuana movement has been stymied by this over-reliance on the idea that "hey, it's not so bad!  It's not as bad as alcohol!"  Why would you base your entire movement on an argument that can't be proved and that is usually pre-determined in the eyes of the people you're looking to convert?   I find it fascinating, and VERY informative, that Colorado's ECONOMIC success has led to more states adopting similar structures in the last year or two than all of the so-called "harm" arguments combined over the past several decades. 
The harm arguments had been paying dividends, though. As I said earlier, we've had generations of the Joe Friday approach. The reality has demonstrated that it doesn't cause people to go insane. It doesn't make white women sleep with the negroes. It doesn't turn people into junkies. As a result, many places had already started to lax their prohibition policies quite a bit. I'd suggest that the trends towards taxation stem more from that than the strictly economic aspect.

I disagree.   Pot is not "paying dividends" because it is "harmless", at least on in the sense of harm to the specific user.  It's paying dividends because it is economically sound to do so.  "Crime" isn't down because a pot high is "peaceful, man!".  It's down because law-abiding citizens don't have to go to Compton or Father Panick Village to get their stash.  They don't have to deal with a dude named "Junior" with gold teeth who may or may not give you a baggy of actual weed when he takes your ten bucks.   You would see the same benefits with a legalization of heroin and/or cocaine, and are you really going to make the same "harm" arguments?
Well, first off I didn't mean to suggest that pot was paying dividends. I was saying that the "no harm" mentality was paying dividends with regards to pot. And as for you greater point, I'd simply ask where these economic benefits were in 1980? Or 2000? Or 1930? We've only gotten to the point where this was acceptable because people started to realize that it actually is generally harmless and that prohibition never works. Unfortunately, our new AG doesn't appear to be a real person.

On a side note, I've been procuring grass one way or another since 1983, and I've never had any of the experiences you speak of. Remember, the free market works even in an illicit trade (you could ask Scalia if he weren't worm food). Dealers tend to be pretty honest folk out of necessity.

Admittedly, I'm skewing things here.  The heroin trade here in CT is rampant, and it's not at all as "gentleman friendly" as apparently your weed transactions are.  My wife works in Probate, and she sometimes helps families to get through the process and she's done two now where people died because of the "blue bag" heroin that's going around.   

That, by the way, is one of the two single biggest upsides of legalization (that and the revenue) for me.   Liquor is harmful, no doubt about it, but at least when you buy that bottle of Tito's you know what you're getting. It's not cut with water, or bleach, or Windex or whatever the fuck.   I think the quicker we get some desperate fuck out of the business of stretching his supply as far as he can, the better off we are "as a society".  The less "harm".   

There's definitely a difference between your marijuana dealer and heroin dealer.  Maybe they are the same person in some places, but the culture of those two drugs doesn't really clash so unlike what Sessions might say, there's very little similarities between marijuna purchase/usage and heroin.  I personally believe it has to do with the addictiveness of the drugs.  Someone with a bad marijuana experience is likely to not buy again or find another source, but for heroin, you might still be going back to the shady guy on the street who sold you a mixed bag before because you are looking for that fix and will take those risks.  It's one reason why i've always felt weed should be legal, it's definitely mentally addicting (it makes you feel great, so it's going to be addicting on some level) but it's not a physical addiction that drives you like heroin or alcohol.  And because of that, people with bad experiences are more likely to kick the habit compared to other drugs.