Sessions rescinds Obama-era directive on eased federal marijuana enforcement for legalized states - Polidicks

[QUOTE=elixwhitetail;53029569]It's Georgia.[/QUOTE] What the fuck is wrong with the South East of the US?

[QUOTE=Dadman;53029628]lots of politicians are hopping on the bandwagon for having sessions step down.[/QUOTE] Ya but for the republicans its so another AG can fire mueller. The freedom caucus has decided to attack the whole process.

[QUOTE=ZombieDawgs;53029974]What the fuck is wrong with the South East of the US?[/QUOTE] They still think it's the fucking '40s. I used to think all the stereotypes about us being backwards hicks were just the rest of the country being assholes, but they're not. Somewhere in the North of the state people managed to force creationism to be taught in schools alongside evolution. And the primary argument was "Evolution is just a theory." Get me the fuck out of here. [editline]6th January 2018[/editline] Oh and racism, I guess I didn't cover that at all. Yeah racism is everywhere. Most of the time it's not blatant, but a lot of people I know throw around the N word at least occasionally. That shit's so pervasive I don't think it's possible to get rid of it. LGBT+ are treated even worse. It's disgusting.

If they attempted to enforce this, federal agents would die. Theres a LOT of strong libertarian types in Colorado who hate feds

If this is enforced, and enough people sue the federal government, could this eventually snowball into outright legalization or rescheduling?

[QUOTE=Megadave;53030456]If this is enforced, and enough people sue the federal government, could this eventually snowball into outright legalization or rescheduling?[/QUOTE] What could they to sue for/under? It's a law that they are saying will now be enforced. It's not an unconstitutional law. It's just a stupid and outdated one.

[QUOTE=Zephyrs;53030770]What could they to sue for/under? It's a law that they are saying will now be enforced. It's not an unconstitutional law. It's just a stupid and outdated one.[/QUOTE] They have grounds on a states rights basis. These states are making tax money off of these industries, any assault on that will be fought pretty tooth and nail.

I think a more productive way to handle this than outing Sessions would be a bipartisan effort to legalize it.

[QUOTE=Berman Slick;53030919]You still think Russia got him elected?[/QUOTE] If Russia was complicit, or if the Trump campaign was complicit with Russia and committed obstruction of justice in the events following that, then that is worth investigating. That's a reasonable position, right?

[QUOTE=PunishedMod;53030137][B]If they attempted to enforce this, federal agents would die.[/B] Theres a LOT of strong libertarian types in Colorado who hate feds[/QUOTE] This is so overdramatic I gagged.

[QUOTE=Berman Slick;53030967]Clinton played with Russia, too, let's not forget. Everybody's to be investigated. But I don't think that Russia alone got Trump elected; the DNC's utter fumbling of Bernie, their platform, and their citizen-appeal/demographics is to blame for most of it[/QUOTE] Where are you getting that Clinton worked with Russian agents/intelligence to influence the election?

[QUOTE=Berman Slick;53031075]Not related to the election[/QUOTE] So why even compare the two? "Playing" with the Russians through questionable funding streams for a registered charitable foundation is nowhere near the same ballpark, let alone galaxy, as potentially working with a hostile foreign power to influence the outcome of an election.

[QUOTE=Berman Slick;53030967]Clinton played with Russia, too, let's not forget. Everybody's to be investigated. But I don't think that Russia alone got Trump elected; the DNC's utter fumbling of Bernie, their platform, and their citizen-appeal/demographics is to blame for most of it[/QUOTE] Not nearly in the same way context or form Hilary isn't someone I like, but facts are that she's not as guilty and evil as she's painted to be. Incompetent in her own right for sure but she isn't what people like you often believe her to be

[QUOTE=Berman Slick;53031112] How has Trump winning favoured Russia? I'm actually asking because I'm not sure how. [/QUOTE] Depends on what they were trying to accomplish. If the goal was to weaken and inhibit the USA then I can think of worse strategies than helping to elect a corrupt moron so that he can immediately set about dismantling any and all elements of government that oppose his agenda. Donald Trump wants what's best for Donald Trump and his swamp of corporate cronies- even if that would (and already has) run counter to what's best for America, it's image, and it's people. To a hostile power, electing Trump has had all of the same the benefits of assassinating the president. Removing effective leadership, grinding normal political process to a halt, and causing massive division within the populace. If Russia wanted to weaken the USA Trump is a dream come true.

[QUOTE=Berman Slick;53031112]How are they hostile if they colluded to win an election that would, presumably, favour them both?[/QUOTE] What are you really asking here? Do you honestly think that someone working to put foreign interests with a historically hostile country before the interests of their fellow citizens is anything other than hostile? Just because Trump might not see Russia as hostile doesn't mean Russia's actions are not hostile. The only way this even remotely makes sense would be if you think Trump's personal interests are equivalent to the interests of the United States, and that of the general citizenry. Working with a foreign power to undermine the public institutions of the United States pretty well rules out that idea. Clandestine intervention in the internal affairs of another country is by definition a hostile action from the perspective of the state. It's a perversion of the democratic processes by which we govern and are governed [I]because[/I] the interests of the people in that state are no longer the priority. US citizens' interests are not being served by working to sway the outcome of an election to favor the interests of a hostile foreign power. Russia, North Korea, and Iran are [URL="http://news.gallup.com/poll/189503/four-nations-top-greatest-enemy-list.aspx"]three[/URL] of the countries most commonly described as being full blown enemies of the United States. There's no point pretending that Russia is anything other than a hostile foreign power after the shit they've pulled with [URL="https://www.rferl.org/a/russia-fuelled-oil-north-korea-reuters/28947618.html"]North Korea[/URL], Syria, and pretty much every other major point where US interests are involved. For fucks sake, look at the shit Russia pulled with Kaspersky and mapping and [URL="http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/ct-russian-hackers-electricity-grid-20161230-story.html"]penetrating[/URL] our utilities. Russia continues to engage in hostile actions against the US. They [URL="http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/russia-us-is-unfriendly-and-even-hostile/article/2638812"]see us as a hostile power[/URL]. How can attempted intervention in our elections be seen as anything other than a hostile action? [QUOTE]How has Trump winning favoured Russia? I'm actually asking because I'm not sure how.[/QUOTE] The US has been losing on the global stage since Trump's election. See Evan Osnos' "[URL="https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2018/01/08/making-china-great-again"]Making China Great Again[/URL]" for a decent rundown of some recent events. [QUOTE] So far it would appear that Hillary would have been better for Russia as she was already doing backdoor shady shit with them prior to the election :v: [/QUOTE] How and why exactly would Hillary have been better for Russia? What backdoor shady shit are you even talking about, and how does that compare to the [URL="https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/inside-trumps-financial-ties-to-russia-and-his-unusual-flattery-of-vladimir-putin/2016/06/17/dbdcaac8-31a6-11e6-8ff7-7b6c1998b7a0_story.html?utm_term=.87fdb70c4760"]extensive financial ties[/URL] the Trump family has to Russian oligarchs? [QUOTE]I disagree. Trump may be the gun to your forehead but Hillary is the gun to the back of your head.[/QUOTE] Explain. Don't fucking repeat sound-bytes and bullshit rhetoric. [I]Precisely[/I] what about Clinton is more dangerous than Trump, if that's what you're implying? It looks like you're either woefully uninformed on a variety of issues, or just shitposting honestly. None of your ideas seem to lead into each other or build a cohesive argument. It's just a bunch of distractions and deflections.

[QUOTE=Berman Slick;53031112]How are they hostile if they colluded to win an election that would, presumably, favour them both? How has Trump winning favoured Russia? I'm actually asking because I'm not sure how. So far it would appear that Hillary would have been better for Russia as she was already doing backdoor shady shit with them prior to the election :v:[/QUOTE] Clinton's (and the Democrats by extension) entire foreign policy stance stands diametrically opposed to Russia. Not to mention the personal grudge Putin holds against her for challenging his legitimacy. You're going to have to do way better than "backdoor shady shit" to convince me that her presidency would have been a positive for Russia. [QUOTE=Berman Slick;53031112]I disagree. Trump may be the gun to your forehead but Hillary is the gun to the back of your head. [/QUOTE] This was wrong 18 months ago. It's downright ludicrous to say this after Trump's first year in office. Clinton bought out the DNC to rig an election in her favor while siphoning money meant for state and local Democrats and she has a terrible (but not uniquely terrible, it seems) history of cybersecurity negligence but she wouldn't have taken healthcare from tens of millions of Americans, or signed a tax bill that was massively lopsided in favor of the rich, or censored her own bureaus from talking about climate change, or do irreparable damage to America's reputation abroad. [QUOTE=1legmidget;53031242] The US has been losing on the global stage since Trump's election. See Evan Osnos' "[URL="https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2018/01/08/making-china-great-again"]Making China Great Again[/URL]" for a decent rundown of some recent events. [/QUOTE] I agree with everything in this post but this article specifically is [I]fantastic[/I].[QUOTE] In March, 1959, President Eisenhower argued that America’s authority could not rest on military power alone. “We could be the wealthiest and the most mighty nation and still lose the battle of the world if we do not help our world neighbors protect their freedom and advance their social and economic progress,” he said. “It is not the goal of the American people that the United States should be the richest nation in the graveyard of history.”[/QUOTE] 'member when the Republican party wasn't a dumpster fire?

There's real criticism to be made of Hillary Clinton but "she did some shady shit with russians" is idiotic at best and xenophobic at worst. I'd like you to provide any sort of proof Slick

[QUOTE=Banned?;53030944]This is so overdramatic I gagged.[/QUOTE] Have you considered not trying to swallow it? [QUOTE=Berman Slick;53031112]How are they hostile if they colluded to win an election that would, presumably, favour them both? How has Trump winning favoured Russia? I'm actually asking because I'm not sure how. So far it would appear that Hillary would have been better for Russia as she was already doing backdoor shady shit with them prior to the election :v:[/QUOTE] You're joking, right? How could interfering in a foreign nation's elections for your own benefit, especially one that you've historically been the enemy of, NOT a hostile action?

[QUOTE=Alice3173;53031908]Have you considered not trying to swallow it? You're joking, right? How could interfering in a foreign nation's elections for your own benefit, especially one that you've historically been the enemy of, NOT a hostile action?[/QUOTE] Well, you're the one with a stick up your ass, allegedly. [highlight](User was banned for this post ("and you're the one shitposting" - UncleJimmema))[/highlight]

[QUOTE=Berman Slick;53030967]Clinton played with Russia, too, let's not forget. Everybody's to be investigated. But I don't think that Russia alone got Trump elected; the DNC's utter fumbling of Bernie, their platform, and their citizen-appeal/demographics is to blame for most of it[/QUOTE] Whataboutism at its finest. If Hillary Clinton did anything illegal, investigate her by all means. I'm sore about Bernie's loss as well. But Trump is a bigger issue right now, by far, as he's actively fucking us over.

[QUOTE=Banned?;53030944]This is so overdramatic I gagged.[/QUOTE] It isn't meant to be dramatic, it's just the truth. It might not be full blown civil war but the loss of life over enforcing marijuana laws would definitely not be worth it.

[QUOTE=PunishedMod;53032839]It isn't meant to be dramatic, it's just the truth. It might not be full blown civil war but the loss of life over enforcing marijuana laws would definitely not be worth it.[/QUOTE] If the Bundy standoff is anything to go by, people are going to start shooting once they start raiding people's farms and shops.The types of people who are setting up farms around Colorado and Cali are the types that are sometimes armed to the teeth for the exact reason that the feds might come knocking, even though it's legal at state level. Colorado is also full of hard Libertarians that sure as hell won't take kindly to the government destroying their livelihood. Will it be a bloodbath? Probably not, but there WILL be shots fired at some of the farms. The shops in urban areas will most likely comply and shutdown, but farms in the sticks are all but guaranteed to fight back.

[QUOTE=Blackavar;53032464]Whataboutism at its finest. If Hillary Clinton did anything illegal, investigate her by all means. I'm sore about Bernie's loss as well. But Trump is a bigger issue right now, by far, as he's actively fucking us over.[/QUOTE] They're on [URL="https://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1590381"]round 9(?)[/URL] and it will probably fizzle. I could give a fuck about the clintons, but rightwing showmen are doing an exceptional job keeping her relevant.

[QUOTE=Berman Slick;53036666]Typically I reserve the term "hostile" for "enemies" not "working together to rig an election that would benefit both parties through future actions/deals". I'd call that collusion or being in cahoots. And what has Russia stood to gain from Trump's election? Again I'm actually wondering what big secret goal they wanted to achieve together [editline]8th January 2018[/editline] I agree. He's one of if not the biggest threat to the fucking planet. But it's not all Russia's fault he got elected. Her party ensured her loss with their campaign when it came to anyone who wasn't already going to vote Dems by default, and racist hicks were ready for a white guy in office again[/QUOTE] You do know some of Trumps first actions were trying to reverse sanctions that he had promised to reverse, right?

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;53036697]You do know some of Trumps first actions were trying to reverse sanctions that he had promised to reverse, right?[/QUOTE] And was unsuccessful because Congress for once held him in check.

[QUOTE=Berman Slick;53036666]Typically I reserve the term "hostile" for "enemies" not "working together to rig an election that would benefit both parties through future actions/deals". I'd call that collusion or being in cahoots. And what has Russia stood to gain from Trump's election? Again I'm actually wondering what big secret goal they wanted to achieve together[/QUOTE] There are two pretty clear reasons why Russia would want Trump to win: 1: Trump likes Russia. In a day and age when Russia was becoming more and more unpopular in the US, especially with their recent invasion of Ukraine, Trump seemed to have a pretty favorable opinion of Russia and Putin, especially during the campaign trail. There's plenty of evidence pointing to Trump having business connections to Russia, and even some suggestions that they may be blackmailing him. Considering his opposition to the sanctions levied against Russia, it would seem like he's got a vested interest in gaining their favor. 2: And this is the bigger reason, Russia knew Trump would be terrible for the US. What better way to improve your position on the global stage than to undermine the most powerful nation on Earth. They knew that he'd make terrible policy decisions. They knew he'd ruin the US's reputation. And they knew he'd worsen the political division that's splitting our country apart. And the weaker the US gets, the more Russia can get away with.

[QUOTE=The Vman;53036761]There are two pretty clear reasons why Russia would want Trump to win: 1: Trump likes Russia. In a day and age when Russia was becoming more and more unpopular in the US, especially with their recent invasion of Ukraine, Trump seemed to have a pretty favorable opinion of Russia and Putin, especially during the campaign trail. There's plenty of evidence pointing to Trump having business connections to Russia, and even some suggestions that they may be blackmailing him. Considering his opposition to the sanctions levied against Russia, it would seem like he's got a vested interest in gaining their favor. 2: And this is the bigger reason, Russia knew Trump would be terrible for the US. What better way to improve your position on the global stage than to undermine the most powerful nation on Earth. They knew that he'd make terrible policy decisions. They knew he'd ruin the US's reputation. And they knew he'd worsen the political division that's splitting our country apart. And the weaker the US gets, the more Russia can get away with.[/QUOTE] And it's the exact same reason their intelligence apparatus has, for years, been whipping up tensions by pretending to be on [b][u]both[/u][/b] extremes of our political spectrum: to divide the country further, to increase tribalism and extremist politics, to increase the us-or-them extremism that got someone as laughably incompetent as Trump elected, and to make people more suspicious and hateful of the Other Team until our democracy falls apart or turns into a (probably Republican-run) dictatorship. The Russians don't have to gain anything, they just have to make us lose something.

[QUOTE=Berman Slick;53036666]Typically I reserve the term "hostile" for "enemies" not "working together to rig an election that would [B]benefit both parties[/B] through future actions/deals".[/QUOTE] How do the [B]American people[/B] benefit from a foreign power working to subvert their laws, public institutions, and geopolitical interests?

[QUOTE=Berman Slick;53037838]My question as well[/QUOTE] They don't. If Trump teamed up with the Russians, it wasn't for the benefit of the American people, it was for the benefit of Trump.