-
ICMag and The Vault are running a NEW contest! You can check it here. Prizes are seeds & forum premium access. Come join in!
Bernie Sanders calls for an end to marijuana prohibition
- Thread starter Cur
- Start date
- Status
I've seen grass roots politics evolve.....doesn't happen often enough.
Get enough people fed up with status quo, things can change.
_tessarecting
ஓ
We live in the schism of such a strange conundrum...this change you speak of...you know it will happen...is happening...but isn't happening in that real changey way that you know is eventually going to happen somehow...but how...you run simulations in the mind...lines at corruptasfuck vote machines looks the equivillence of american idol on psilocybe cubensis...whole swaths of populations duped and divided into nothing like sports teams like race...you wonder if just skydiving with an atom bomb into a supervolcano eraser on the day of the dead there was said to be a comet that day in 2016AD but just smile instead because who cares...the older you get the more of a farci it becomes as veil after veil is lifted the same way but different each time...be the change be unchanged by the changing...smoke hash like its your last day on this planet
What they say and what they do, are 2 different things. He wants to be like Sweden, yet they are the hardest in Europe against pot. Free University? How would he pay for it? It would never get through the house or senate. I.m tired of the same old people. He's been a politician for 40 years, yet people want to change things. As for medicinal pot. It's up to the States themselves, you do know that? He hasn't the power as pres. Do your homework on socialism. I lived in Sweden, believe me, you don't want the US like that. 7 bucks a gallon gas. Tax, and more Tax.
R
Robrites
"smoke hash like it's your last day on this planet" -tessarecting
Be a killer signature.
Be a killer signature.
I am not sure if he has the power to decriminalize pot at the state level. If they want to they can choose to prohibit pot, at least I think so. There are 'dry' counties in the south for instance.
Still a step in the right direction. No fan of socialism or Bernie but looking for a bright side to him if he does win. Socialized medicine would be a good thing imo, about the only thing socialism is good for. Social security is also socialism, not sure on that one, I have paid into it so want to get some return.
The old timers have already taken more than they put into ss, another debt monster has been created. It was designed for people that had no more than 10 years to live on it. Lots of them use medical that amounts to millions just so they can continue to 'live', hooked to machines, taking all kinds of pills, surgeries, etc.
Still a step in the right direction. No fan of socialism or Bernie but looking for a bright side to him if he does win. Socialized medicine would be a good thing imo, about the only thing socialism is good for. Social security is also socialism, not sure on that one, I have paid into it so want to get some return.
The old timers have already taken more than they put into ss, another debt monster has been created. It was designed for people that had no more than 10 years to live on it. Lots of them use medical that amounts to millions just so they can continue to 'live', hooked to machines, taking all kinds of pills, surgeries, etc.
The old timers have already taken more than they put into ss, another debt monster has been created. It was designed for people that had no more than 10 years to live on it. Lots of them use medical that amounts to millions just so they can continue to 'live', hooked to machines, taking all kinds of pills, surgeries, etc.
I worked for 40+ years before SS. The stock market impacted millions (esp. seniors) in 2001, 2008. True, Seniors are living longer than ever before, the cost of being healthy has increased four fold, primarily of Rx/insurance profits, new technology.
Change is slow, change not always good.
Hard to dissolve good ol' boy system of insurance, pharmaceutical lobby who are making billions on everyone.
Bernie would like to cap bank, industry CEO profits.
The vast majority just complain about rising prices and not involve a , "No, we're NOT going to do it anymore." statement.
There is no easy remedy.
I worked for 40+ years before SS. The stock market impacted millions (esp. seniors) in 2001, 2008. True, Seniors are living longer than ever before, the cost of being healthy has increased four fold, primarily of Rx/insurance profits, new technology.
Change is slow, change not always good.
Hard to dissolve good ol' boy system of insurance, pharmaceutical lobby who are making billions on everyone.
Bernie would like to cap bank, industry CEO profits.
The vast majority just complain about rising prices and not involve a , "No, we're NOT going to do it anymore." statement.
There is no easy remedy.
H
Huckster79
He has laid out how he'll pay for it... Taxing wall st!!! Let em pay up! We bailed them out they can help us back! Besides the lower classes have paid in blood for wars to benefit the wealthy- our blood their money, they still get a better deal! I'm tired of living in a ward cleaver society because we are scared of the change, while the rest of the world does these things we don't out of our cowboy culture. If we aren't careful n don't catch up they will need no military to become dominant over us! They will simply out smart us! Further education is a national security issue! Not all wars are fought with guns.
true, the various states could still maintain laws against weed. but...the president could call in the head of the DEA etc & tell them, "i'm going to move cannabis completely out of the scheduling. it's not going to be 1, 2, nothing. get the paperwork done on your end, or put in your resignation. you have exactly twelve hours before i issue an executive order." and yes, it would be exactly that easy. would congress whine & bitch like kicked puppies? would the GOP howl like rabid dogs with their tail stuck in a light socket? would LEO & prison guard unions get pissy & file lawsuits? sure! but fuck them. it IS in the power of the presidency to do this. do the right damn thing & let the chips fall where they may...
I really like the old " pull yourself up by your bootstraps" montra and really wish that everything worked this way. Unfortunately the reality is that since the early 80's everything that supply side economics calls for has happened: unions are at all time lows, government regulations is way down, corporate effective tax rates are only 12%, free trade is flourishing across borders, company benefits to employees are down... the list goes on. Apple, google, GE are paying like 1% tax whIle common men are paying twenty fold. I had been a life long conservative and worked my 50 hours every week, you can only do so much before you realize that us common people are not able to rise up.... Americans wages have been flat for 40 years while the costs of healthcare has quadrupled and there's no such thing as a pension anymore in the private sector. These are the results when the big business is deregulated. Do you really think that we can cut taxes and all of a sudden these rich folk are gonna give us all a raise and everything will work out, no of course that won't happen. Before obamacare we were the only country in the world without socialized medicine. Our medical expenses are 17% of gdp, the highest in the world, the next country down is 11%. And on top of this, our life expectancy is among the lowest in the developed world!
On paper , for anyone that has studied economics, the conservative route makes more sense. But we do not live on paper. Deregulation and the destruction of unions has brought our country to be among the worst compensated, overworked, under vacationed and under educated populations in the modern countries. Anybody that follows history knows that through raegan, bush,clinton, and bush that regulations have gone down. But do an actual analysis on the conditions of working people and you will see that we have been losing ground for decades. I have researched and experienced both sidesides of this subject, and if you TRUELY understand history and economics, there is no argument to be made that laissez Faire will do anything but hurt the average working person
On paper , for anyone that has studied economics, the conservative route makes more sense. But we do not live on paper. Deregulation and the destruction of unions has brought our country to be among the worst compensated, overworked, under vacationed and under educated populations in the modern countries. Anybody that follows history knows that through raegan, bush,clinton, and bush that regulations have gone down. But do an actual analysis on the conditions of working people and you will see that we have been losing ground for decades. I have researched and experienced both sidesides of this subject, and if you TRUELY understand history and economics, there is no argument to be made that laissez Faire will do anything but hurt the average working person
H
Huckster79
Well put coldcanna! I to am an ex-conservative... Glad I seen the light of who has my back! The GOP is a master at tricks to get common folk to support them yet F the shit out of em once in and they are so good at the ppl smile n take it! Look just for one example - working class catholic vote was always almost in the bucket for dems. GOP politicizes abortion and they pulled them over to a primarily GOP vote - yet they give them little to no real meat and potatoes to end abortion just rattle their sabers election years and give them token but often (not totally tho) meaningless legislation. Why? They don't want abortion illegal! It would then loosen the religious vote for them to maybe be more free floating... They are masters at this!
I know, I was one of them!!
I know, I was one of them!!
No so fast oldchuck.
Although he whopped Hillary by a huge margin of votes, which I was glad to see, those delegates didn't all go to him.
Earlier in this thread I mentioned the super delegates....
He received 60 percent of the votes, compared to 38 percent for Clinton. But that only assured Sanders a majority of New Hampshire’s pledged delegates, 13 to Clinton’s 9.
But he still came up two short in the total count, because six New Hampshire superdelegates — party insiders from each state who can support any candidate of their choice — pledged their loyalty to Clinton.
In other words, despite losing by 22 points in votes, Clinton still managed to win the total delegate count in New Hampshire, 15-13. And it’s these delegates who decide who the Democratic presidential nominee will be, not majority vote.
So the vote of those in HN looks great for Bernie but it doesn't mean shit cause even tho he won Hillary won the majority of the delegates which puts her in the lead fucking the voters and Bernie.
Politics is a wonderful thing eh. And the press isn't reporting much if anything about it.
Why vote at all if a handful of privileged persons can undo the complete will of a process.
this could be, but if Sanders continues to win?
the insider card is there, but it stinks like shit
it won't be enough for Clinton if things continue
insider whore or not
The super delegates can pretty much decide who the nominee is. For instance, before a single voter had showed up at a caucus or a booth, Clinton had amassed 392 delegates to her side. This is nation wide. In the upcoming Nevada dem caucus the majority of super delegates have already aligned with her. So NV dem voters go spend half the day participating in a rigged process and leave feeling like they made a difference if they vote for Bernie over Hillary.
The magic number to clinch the nomination is 2,382. So with this guaranteed insider support, the Clinton campaign’s tie in Iowa and crushing defeat in New Hampshire matter little — she’s still at 431 total delegates, 18% of the way to the party nomination and over eight times Sanders’ delegate count. Super delegates were put into place to keep a candidate outside the mainstream of the democratic party like Bernie no matter how much popular voter support they receive out of the big game. They exist for no other reason than to prop up the preferred candidate.
There's even been talk that if Bernie continues to whip Hillary that the dem convention party masters will replace Hillary with another that will beat Bernie. Joe Biden's name has been tossed around for this very purpose. The party just doesn't want him in the office.
Much like the repub establishment don't want Trump as their nominee.
Personally, it tickles me to see both of them shaking up the foundation of their respective parties.
H
Huckster79
I agree resinrider, seeing the party shook up doesn't hurt them to remind them we still could undo them somehow even by a long shot their supreme power is not absolute...
We need both parties to swing leftward a bit as the extreme right of the gop of late has pulled most dems more center (office holding ones at least) so we end up with a moderate but not centrist set of parties, who hold Ademently to their beliefs but at end of day the greater good of all shall trump their purity and comprises negotiated in good faith will occur...
Lofty and unlikely but sure would be nice
We need both parties to swing leftward a bit as the extreme right of the gop of late has pulled most dems more center (office holding ones at least) so we end up with a moderate but not centrist set of parties, who hold Ademently to their beliefs but at end of day the greater good of all shall trump their purity and comprises negotiated in good faith will occur...
Lofty and unlikely but sure would be nice
_tessarecting
ஓ
Phase change maybe.
Chrysalisness, maybe.
Solve et coagula
Chrysalisness, maybe.
Solve et coagula
This is the first I've heard of that, even with the surprise I can't say that it's shocking, I wonder how much money is greasing the palms of these super delegates behind the scenes? Do you have a list of names for these delegates or is that not released to the public?
R
Robrites
Q: Who gets to be a Superdelegate?
A: Every Democratic member of Congress, House and Senate, is a Superdelegate (240 total). Every Democratic governor is a Superdelegate (20 total). Certain “distinguished party leaders,” 20 in all, are given Superdelegate status. And finally, the Democratic National Committee names an additional 432 Superdelegates—an honor that typically goes to mayors, chairs and vice-chairs of the state party, and other dignitaries.
Q: So they have way more importance than an ordinary voter?
A: Oh yeah. In 2008, each Superdelegate had about as much clout as 10,000 voters. It will be roughly the same in 2016.
Q: How did this system come to exist?
A: I’ll make this history lesson brief: In 1968, after the riots at the Democratic national convention in Chicago, party leaders knew they needed to change the nomination process to give ordinary people more of a say in how the potential president was chosen. Thus, the state-by-state primary/caucus system was born. By the 1980s, the party elites felt left out of the process, bereft of all influence, and they thought their absence had hurt the party with weaker candidates like George McGovern and Jimmy Carter. Jim Hunt, Governor of North Carolina, was commissioned to come up with a new system, and by 1984 the Superdelegate system was implemented. Democrats thought that by giving more power to party leaders, it would prevent “unelectable” candidates, beloved by the populace, from costing them the general election.
http://www.pastemagazine.com/articles/2016/02/after-sanders-big-win-in-new-hampshire-establishme.html
The author contends that Superdelegates in the end wouldn't go against the popular vote because it would be bad for public relations. It's a relevant point, because as the author points out , the Republicans could touted the slogan that "your own party didn't even elect you". But I've grown to expect the worst out of the establishment so nothing could surprise me anymore. Basically, Clintons PAC gives tons of money to the DNC and that trickles down to the state senators and governors for their races, Bernie does not, therefore I have a hard time believing they would ever support him.
A: Every Democratic member of Congress, House and Senate, is a Superdelegate (240 total). Every Democratic governor is a Superdelegate (20 total). Certain “distinguished party leaders,” 20 in all, are given Superdelegate status. And finally, the Democratic National Committee names an additional 432 Superdelegates—an honor that typically goes to mayors, chairs and vice-chairs of the state party, and other dignitaries.
Q: So they have way more importance than an ordinary voter?
A: Oh yeah. In 2008, each Superdelegate had about as much clout as 10,000 voters. It will be roughly the same in 2016.
Q: How did this system come to exist?
A: I’ll make this history lesson brief: In 1968, after the riots at the Democratic national convention in Chicago, party leaders knew they needed to change the nomination process to give ordinary people more of a say in how the potential president was chosen. Thus, the state-by-state primary/caucus system was born. By the 1980s, the party elites felt left out of the process, bereft of all influence, and they thought their absence had hurt the party with weaker candidates like George McGovern and Jimmy Carter. Jim Hunt, Governor of North Carolina, was commissioned to come up with a new system, and by 1984 the Superdelegate system was implemented. Democrats thought that by giving more power to party leaders, it would prevent “unelectable” candidates, beloved by the populace, from costing them the general election.
http://www.pastemagazine.com/articles/2016/02/after-sanders-big-win-in-new-hampshire-establishme.html
The author contends that Superdelegates in the end wouldn't go against the popular vote because it would be bad for public relations. It's a relevant point, because as the author points out , the Republicans could touted the slogan that "your own party didn't even elect you". But I've grown to expect the worst out of the establishment so nothing could surprise me anymore. Basically, Clintons PAC gives tons of money to the DNC and that trickles down to the state senators and governors for their races, Bernie does not, therefore I have a hard time believing they would ever support him.
- Status
