House Republicans Want To Sue The President For Not Arresting People For Marijuana - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Anonyma;44257648]Why do libertarians even vote for republican these days?[/QUOTE] because while they might be social idiots they agree on the most important thing in everyone's lives: no taxes

[QUOTE=darunner;44258776]This could actually work out well. Forcing the Executive Branch to make a solid decision on these laws effectively sets whether or not they are binding. If he chooses to not enforce the federal marijuana laws, then they are basically null.[/QUOTE] well no? that's not how laws work, he is sworn to uphold the law, there is wiggle room historically but just because the president chooses not to enforce the laws doesn't mean he isn't upholding the law. he has followed the trend of letting the states decide this matter before the fed gets involved, just like george bush and Clinton before him both allowed for medicinal marijuana to be decided on a state level

[QUOTE=Sableye;44260346]well no? that's not how laws work, he is sworn to uphold the law, there is wiggle room historically but just because the president chooses not to enforce the laws doesn't mean he isn't upholding the law. he has followed the trend of letting the states decide this matter before the fed gets involved, just like george bush and Clinton before him both allowed for medicinal marijuana to be decided on a state level[/QUOTE] correct. He is allowing for medical marijuana to be decided on a state level. But neither allowed for recreational use to be legal. By allowing recreational use to be legal, you are effectively saying that you're just not going to enforce the law. Also, this has an impact on immigration. Currently, they are just not enforcing the laws in certain places because they don't agree with our immigration laws. That's another problem. But do you guys REALLY want to start the precedent of not enforcing laws that you don't agree with? Would you guys think this was just as silly if it was firearms laws that they weren't enforcing? I agree with this. It's basically saying that if it's a law, you have to enforce it. It should ultimately result in some laws getting fixed or repealed, but it will result in a better system. Because honestly, if they aren't going to enforce certain laws because they don't agree with them, then I don't need to follow any of the laws that I don't agree with either....

[QUOTE=Dr.C;44255743]I thought republicans were against a powerful federal government and were for state's rights[/QUOTE] Far-right republican politicians these days seem to be for not-Obama and not-Liberals, and that's about it. If something is approved by either of the two, they hate it.

It's tough being conservative these days. Everyone in office is insane and I'm just left sitting here looking bitter. Get the old people out of politics. :(

[QUOTE=Starlight 456;44258767]The way you worded that made it sound like you meant to repeat the conspiracy theory that the two party system is fake, the US elections are rigged, the president is a puppet, and that no matter who gets elected they would do the same things to further some secret society's goal.[/QUOTE] You're pretty much proving my point by associating my comment about corruption in the government with some "secret society" that I never mentioned or even tried to imply.

[QUOTE=BLOODGA$M;44263592]You're pretty much proving my point by associating my comment about corruption in the government with some "secret society" that I never mentioned or even tried to imply.[/QUOTE] So pretty much do not deny that you believe the rest of the stuff he posted? You do know in political science they teach you that you win elections based upon uninformed voters most of the time, right? You cater your campaign to pleasing the largest group of people possible within swing states. Whichever candidate pleases the largest group of people wins. Simple, any public vote for anything always ends up this way, whether it is an online poll or a general election, to claim that every single person elected only works for personal gain however is ignorant beyond belief.

[QUOTE=deadoon;44263781]You do know in political science they teach you that you win elections based upon uninformed voters most of the time, right? You cater your campaign to pleasing the largest group of people possible within swing states. Whichever candidate pleases the largest group of people wins. Simple, any public vote for anything always ends up this way, whether it is an online poll or a general election, to claim that every single person elected only works for personal gain however is ignorant beyond belief.[/QUOTE] That's fucking disgusting, political parties should have their own set of values and keep consistent with that otherwise what's the point, might aswell enforce only one political party that uses the popular opinion in society. It's just a big popularity fest, let's cater to the masses because they have no ideals to chase!

With the way that the GOP has cockblocked him since taking office i hope Obama tells em all to go fuck themselves

I refuse to believe people are this stupid. They had to make loads of money and be clever to get where they are just to shit all over politics when they get there. These people are scum. Trying to act like they are the good guys. Despicable. If they all died I highly doubt the world would turn into a worse place. This is a despiseful thing to say but it just shows how "valuable" they actually are, actively contributing to the worlds downfall. IMO Obama did good. Do these guys care for public healthcare? Probably not since they have enough money for private healthcare. I read about people breaking an arm or almost suffocating in a restaurant and then paying medical bills for the rest of their life. No one gives a shit about that? Really? I bet Third World Countries have the same Healthcare system.

I like how Russia is invading Ukraine right now and this is still an issue they talk about.

[QUOTE=Recurracy;44263820]That's fucking disgusting, political parties should have their own set of values and keep consistent with that otherwise what's the point, might aswell enforce only one political party that uses the popular opinion in society. It's just a big popularity fest, let's cater to the masses because they have no ideals to chase![/QUOTE] When you only have 2 parties and people are deeply entrenched in voting for only one of them(non swing states) you have to be able to collect a large number of people from the swing states to have a chance to win. Popular opinion actually doesn't matter, you know. You can have a campaign that may contradict the popular opinion at parts, but if you use those parts and advertise them where beneficial, you can win. Like advertising as anti immigration in some areas but not in others. The two parties rather than a single super party allows you to get a general idea of what that person stands for and believes, but you need to look at his personal takes. The problem is that many voters just go for either republican or democrat without even considering the other party.

[QUOTE=Anonyma;44257648]Why do libertarians even vote for republican these days?[/QUOTE] because money is more important than rights so they align with the party that shares their view on money

I can actually see this being a legitimate grievance from a legal perspective. It's a sort of shit or get off the pot thing going on. If the president is not going to pursue prosecution based on a federal law, the federal law should be struck down.