Everyone thinks the Democrats and Republicans are so different... they aren't. I hate seeing partisan shit, especially on this sub. I'd expect this sub to be able to see right through that.

Obama was CIA.

How is that any relevance to what we're talking about.

perhaps as CIA, Obama would prefer MaryJane stay illegal so that CIA can maintain it's profit stream resulting from such stance.

The CIA is prevented by their charter from acting domestically. They don't profit from drug related law enforcement actions that happen within our borders. That would be the FBI and the for-profit-prison system.

How about you look up air America and who ran that

Yeah. From wikipedia:

Air America was an American passenger and cargo airline covertly owned by the US government in 1950 as a dummy corporation for Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) operations in China. The CIA did not have enough work to keep the asset afloat and the National Security Council farmed the airline out to various government entities that included the USAF, US Army, USAID and for a brief time France. Essentially, Air America was used by the US government covertly to conduct military operations, posing as a civilian air carrier, in areas the US armed forces could not go due to treaty restraints contained in the 1954 and 1962 Geneva Accords.

Except for the name, there was nothing domestic about this airline.

They meant that the CIA runs drugs to fund covert operations, not that they make money from federal funding. Air America was a well known heroin transport line out of Laos and Cambodia; try somewhere other than Wikipedia.

And FYI, the war on drugs is fought overseas as well as at home. And yes, the CIA receives federal funds to combat cartels overseas in the war on drugs.

None of which matters, because reclassifying drugs here has nothing to do with what the CIA does in other countries. Here, the supposed reason for enforcing any drug law is public safety. But we don't give a shit about public safety in other countries. In the places where we fight drug cartels overseas it's because their profits are used to fund wars, terrorism, destabilize governments that are friendly to us in favor of governments that are friendly to them, and buy weapons that are used to kill massive numbers of people.

We can make pot 100% legal here and still be justified in chasing down cartels around the world who are growing or selling it.

So again, domestic policy on pot has NOTHING to do with the CIA.

So, completely ignore the most pertinent point and spout a bunch of demonstrably false nonsense.

Try regurgitating that garbage to CIA, DEA, and FBI agents who have been in Columbia since the '80s trying to stop cocaine from flooding our shores and see how hard they laugh at you. "Let's legalize it here but still say we need to fight it overseas."

So if we make pot (or all drugs) completely legal here, who will they sell it too? Aren't we the biggest consumer of contraband? Or anything for that matter?

I agree that many signs point to some kind of conspiracy which sects of the CIA almost certainly have a hand in to keep drugs illegal here with the bonus that the CIA gets which is A) continue the prison/industrial complex domestically B) Keep much of central/South America destabilized and hence not a threat/easy to control and sway.
The warlords and drug cartels that run central/South America aren't being taken down for a reason, and I highly doubt that reason is we haven't found them.

Bring on yet another set of downvotes for this comment, maybe even a ban. But it's the truth, and has to be said:

Everyone who keeps saying "drugs" instead of "pot" is a fucking moron. This is all within the context of why marijuana wasn't rescheduled, and the distinction is important. Everyone who keeps making the argument you just made, or downvoting me because they are thinking it, is a moron. The CIA doesn't profit from the prison industrial complex. They don't own any, not even through shadow companies. The money trail has been pretty thoroughly researched and documented in this area because our for-profit prison system is scandalous enough on it's own. And anyone who thinks central and south american pot is a money source for the CIA has never bought any, at least not in the last 20 years or so.

The weed that comes from there is "brick weed" and it's the nastiest thing you used to be able to find. I couldn't get any now if I tried, because no one wants it anymore. About 20 years ago it was the weed of last resort. But what everyone wanted was kb from Canada. And that's what people have been buying for 20 years. Brick weed has faded, and Canadian pot has faded, because we are now able to get domestically grown weed of better quality without the risks of crossing the border with customs. Anything grown outside of the country is no longer worth the risk, and that's been the case for at least the last 5 years. There can't be any CIA conspiracy because the simple facts of the way the world has changed means the CIA couldn't have any interest in the domestic pot market anyway.

IF there is a conspiracy here, it's between the police unions/for-profit prison system and Obama. But I think there would be enough interaction there that it would have been easy to follow. IF there is a conspiracy, it does not involve the CIA.

If you honestly believe the CIA doesn't work domestically you probably shouldn't be on this sub.

If you honestly believe that the CIA profits from the prosecution of pot users domestically, you don't have the mental resources to separate coincidence from conspiracy. If they profit from pot at all, it's from it's production and sale, not arresting people. Reclassifying pot would either have no effect on the CIA, or a positive one, if they are indeed doing anything involving pot domestically.

This is not a conspiracy.

If you honestly can't see how the higher the number of drug arrests directly affects the funding for the war on drugs, which the CIA gets a cut of, you don't have the mental resources to understand modern politics.

It's not the prosecution they are profiting off.

What do yu think they are profiting off of? The pot? If you think that, you never buy any. Shitty brick weed is all that gets imported from anywhere but Canada. It is the weed of last resort. And the cheapest shit there is. The stuff people pay for, or used to, came from Canada, but I say used to, because that is being rapidly replaced by stuff sold here, since it's much easier to cross state borders than national ones.

Anyone who actually smoked pot knows the only way any federal agency could possibly have been profiting off of it for at least one, maybe two decades, is if they were operating a growery in canada, and that even if that was the case, that time has come and gone, unless the DEA can quadruple their budget so they can have the manpower to enforce the law in the states that have legalized it.

And it's important to note, no matter what party your representative is a member of, it can't happen. More than half of the U.S. has legalized some form of marijuana, but the current classification is for drugs that are dangerous (lol) and have no medicinal use. So most representatives can't vote to help the DEA without losing their jobs because their state has already voted in at least a minimum amount of support for some level of pot usage.

Even if all the downvoters were right at some point in history, times have changed, and they changed before Obama took office. This isn't a conspiracy.

Had no response so you decided to reply with more bullshit to someone else? Hate to tell you shill but no one is buying what you're selling.

You should really consider posting AFTER spending atleast half a year or more here.

wow, being this new.

The CIA doesn't profit from Marijuana... the DEA does

cia takes a cut of everything

Everybody apart from users profit from it being illegal

You should reconsider your notion of profit. If you bought a joint, smoked it and got superbly high off it, would you call it a net loss or gain for yourself?

If there was no benefit- you wouldn't likely do it.

(Heroin- that's a different equation)

Good point - change profit to cash flow.

more interesting than marijuana laws. do u know about pic related?

This thread isn't about marijuana it's about trump supporters butthurt over the sessions thread pushing political bullshit on a conspiracy sub...over something that isn't a conspiracy. If the mods actually enforced the rules this shit wouldn't be here and we'd be talking about actual conspiracies.

Can't argue with ya there lol

is

You are absolutely correct he tried his best to destroy this country.

Yup, and did an adequate job at it.

How is that? He destroyed the country by fixing the economy and getting millions of people affordable healthcare?

Go away

Good retort!

I'm totally convinced now.

lmao he made healthcare unaffordable for a lot more people. You know, the people who actually contribute to society? The ones forced to be price gouged to pay everyone else's subsidized care. I mean why work when you can sit around smoking dope and eating cheetos on welfare.

he made healthcare unaffordable for a lot more people.

The insurance companies did that. The ACA slowed it down.

forced to be price gouged to pay everyone else's subsidized care

That's not how the ACA works. Those subsidies (tax credits) come from taxes.

lmao he made healthcare unaffordable for a lot more people.

Uh... no?

Recovery was slowest since great depression and he didnt even manage to repair the system; he also "gave" millions of people healthcare by legally mandating them to buy it and legally mandating companies to sell unprofitable insurance, causing everyone else's premiums to go up.

If obamacare was so affordable why did more people elect not to go on it?

How?

They never have an answer to this question...

Once everyone has access to healthcare, the lizard people will have more healthy surrogates to carry their spawn. Simultaneously Planned Parenthood murdered literally billions of future soldiers of our upcoming war for independence.

See isis via syrian war and iran nuclear "deal". Also weaponized every major government agency. See irs, nsa, dhs, cia. Revitalized race wars. Im sure im missing a lot of other examples...maybe selling guns to cartels? See fast & furious. Created a war on police.

not really tho

Democrats and Republicans Illusion of Choice

You do t think policies under each are different?

Go back to the-Donald. I'm affiliated with neither but can recognize how much worse the GOP is.

neo-cons and neo-libs are way more aligned than everyone within the GOP.

Worse? They both suck. Who cares which one sucks more.

The people who will die if ACA is repealed probably care.

What about the people whose livelihood was stolen from them as they try to keep up with rising Premium costs caused by Obamacare?

They are the SAME people.

Name calling, nice. I voted for Hillary actually, protested for gay rights in CA for prop 8 and I'm pro choice. But I disagreed with one of your opinions so I'm a nazi, right? Fucking hate politics in this country, grow the fuck up

It's all a rich man's trick.

All wars are bankers' wars.

Who are the bankers?

The ones who finance both sides and don't care who wins.

Swiss-Venetians.

Rothschild Zionists.

The goyim know. Shut it down.

DON'T ANSWER THIS GOY

You sound like Hitler

I always say wars are fought for riches, not freedom

If by "rich man", you mean "jew", then yeah you are correct

There some pretty messed up non Jews as well man you know that

We only have rich people because of jewish tricks like usury amd democracy. Under feudalism, these robber barons would actually be taxed

Yeah let's not revert to a feudal society.

Why not?

Do you know what the feudal contract is?

From my understanding wouldn't there have to be a ruling class in such a system?

...................

No

The entire point of feudalism is that you take the ruling class, and smash it into pieces. Serfs answer to 'lords' (historically, a variety of titles were used), and lords answer to some sort of monarch, or royal court. If you have a larger population, then some of the lords become middlemen - serfs will answer directly to someone like a baron, while a series of barons amswers to the lord. Feudalism is all about giving the people an immediate regional representative

This representation is imitated with the US congress, but it's a hollow imitation, because there is no contract between lord and vassal

Feudalism worled for thousands of years because of the feudal contract, where lord and vassal both agree on their responsibilities and obligations to each other

What we have now is a ruling class. They aren't actually bound by anything to do what we want - hence the endless war in the east, the drug war, income inequality, private healthcare, etc

Feudalism doesn't smash the ruling class into pieces, it grants the aristocracy absolute control of the arable land in their territory with which they use to exploit the peasant serfs who have no choice but to work for their lord to survive.

And don't forget the fact that there is only restricted or even no lateral movement.

That's not true at all, not even close. You don't know what the feudal contract is, obviously

Feudalism is literally the precursor to capitalism. With the death of manorialism in 16th century England, the feudal system evolved into agrarian capitalism which was then replaced by mercantilism during the age of discovery. In the mid 18th century the system shifted to industrial capitalism which led to our modern system of capitalism; the most dominant economic system for over a century, spread via globalization.

All of the problems we face with the aristocracy under capitalism are also present with the aristocracy under feudalism. If you think that becoming a serf will free you from the rich elite all you are going to get is a jew banker dick right up your ass.

http://i.imgur.com/EU7VUME.jpg

Ok. I'll be the king and you be my subject. Deal.

Ok. I'll be the king and you be my subject. Deal.

Ok. I'll be the king and you be my subject. Deal.

Great, I'm a lord then. I have a bunch of serfs that can march in you and make me king, since I don't like the way you brazenly installed yourself without offering the terms of our contract

You had a very short rule there, majesty

No. You were never a lots. Just a peasant. None of this came to pass. Long Live The King!

Yeah, and the other guy was never a king

Yes he was, long live the king. Also, you died of dysentery as a child because the rulers kept the cures and medicine to themselves. Have fun with that. LONG LIVE THE KING G

You don't seem to understand the concept of a contract

Contracts? In feudalism?

.....

Feudalism is a system of governance based entirely on contracts. The feudal contract is agreed upon by lord and vassal to determine their obligations and responsibilities to each other

So basically Sole proprietorship companies that hire based on contract?

More like two companies designing a contract for a merger, or a business partnership

So then what your saying is feudalism is a part of capitalism?

Capotalism is incompatible with feudalism - capitalism lets private individuals and corporations hoard wealth; these are third parties outside of the lord and vassal contract

But isn't a lord just a private individual hoarding wealth?

No, a lord is a lord - part of the state

So an appointed official?

In some cases - there are a variety of different ways that a family became a lordship

But really all your saying to me is that Lords are basically owners of companies/CEOs/Politicians, except a more easily corruptable system as it's what, an aristocracy?

No, I used a company as an example for comparison

A company is a business. A ceo is part of a business. A politician is many things, depending on your political system, pretty much a mesningless word without context

But a business is just a contractual relationship between an owner and it's employees or serfs, is it not?

No, a business is a third party that is neither citizen nor state

So what your saying is feudalism is contract between citizen and state?

Lord (state actor) and vassal (citizen), yes

But that just sounds highly corruptable? In capitalism if my lord or boss is bad I can find a new contract. If it's the case with a lord, the other lords all still work for the same guy. There's no escaping it. Then it's a corrupt upper "royal" class that doesn't work and a lower class that has very rare or no chance for lateral movement.

You've somehow confused a state with a capitalist business

What's so different is my point.

There are many differences between a state and a business. Go look up the words in a dictionary, and then think long and hard about whether that was a smart question to ask

Of course they are different. But my point is that they function in the same capacity except with less opportunity for corruption.

That's not even close to true

But...you just said it was an agent of the state ie: a lord giving contractual work to peasants. Sounds a lot like a business owner giving contractual work to the people, or a government giving out contractual work to citizens? How is that not similar?

If all businesses were owned by the state, it would be similar

How is that better?

Because all business would be regulated to serve the people

By Who? The government or ruling leader?

By the contract agreed upon between lord and vassal

Yes, as /u/TheShadyTrader said, you are just a peon. Take your allotted 1 bag of rice and shut up.

That's not how feudalism works - this was not agreed upon in any contract between me and you

Be quiet, serf.

You don't seem to understand the concept of a contract

Ahh wistful visions of a simpler, romantic time when we didn't even know what fundamental freedoms were, never mind not having them.

Yep, sounds like you don't know what the feudal contract is

Sounds like you have a very one-dimensional understanding of feudalism, not to mention what constitutes social progress.

Sounds like you don't actually know what feudalism is

Chasing your own tail whilst looking backwards to a beloved primitive class society? Neat trick.

What gets me is the fact that he thinks feudalism is a solution to our modern day problem of having power concentrated in the hands of the few. Feudalism is like a blueprint for that sort of thing.

>bashing a system without knowing what it actually is

'neat trick'

Jokes on you we're already in one

We didn't have taxation under feudalism, we had sergeantry. The King owns all the land and the vassals pay tribute in the form of anything from gold to military service to grain. The contract varied from fief to fief.

What do you think taxation is LOL? It's tribute in the form of money

Right, every year I pay my taxes in grain and my neighbor pays his with military service.

No, you're both forced to pay in us dollars, because we do not live in a free society

Exactly. Feudalism became capitalism thanks to the destruction of the manorial system in 16th century England. We are not free now and we certainly were not free then.

It's all a (((rich man's))) trick

Just helping you make your point.

If only many of these "We are the 99%" types would realize who 99% of the 1% that they hate so much is...

Says someone who wouldn't be affected by the repealing of the ACA

Is it possible to learn this power?

Only Republicans attempt to win elections by making it harder to vote. That's the difference.

Only Democrats attempt to win elections by making it easier for illegal aliens to vote. That's the difference.

...and dead people voting.... But like OP stated, fuck bipartisan

source?

Republicans do love to vote while they're dead.

True, but apparently they change their opinions in the afterlife and start voting Dem.

Maybe to Southern Democrat, but that's just another term for Republican now.

I was a dog I was like fuck all these bipeds

on shrooms tho

humpin bitches legs

Yup that's the only difference.

That's.. wow. Put down the glue.

Oh wow.. nothing to say.. just gibberish.

Even if I crafted a well thought out coherent and powerful piece, you'll just dismiss it, even might call me a shill or libtard. If you honestly believe, wholeheartedly, that there is the Democrats are actively helping illegals win, there is no amount of logic that would convince you otherwise.

You're right, because I have seen enough evidence of it over the last eight years, not to mention Dems fighting for it before then.

Use as many logical fallacies as you'd like, the fact remains that Dems have pushed as hard as possible to make it easier for illegal aliens to vote, and have fought tooth and nail to keep ANY form of voter ID laws off the books. "Voter ID laws are racist" you say? Tell that to Mexico and any number of third-first world countries that require AT LEAST one form of government issued ID to vote. Walk into Harlem or Chicago and try patronizing the "poor minorities who can't even afford an ID," I'm sure they'd love that.

If you have nothing to add to a discussion, wether you think someone will dismiss it or not, why comment?

I do love the username though.

Please share links.

Fucking google bro

I'll take that as you don't have any.

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/10/wikileaks-podesta-says-ok-illegals-vote-drivers-licence/

http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/immigration/221914-drivers-licenses-for-illegal-immigrants-an-issues-in-three

http://learningenglish.voanews.com/a/illegal-immigrants-can-now-get-a-drivers-license/2598128.html

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/feb/12/obama-amnesty-creates-loophole-for-illegal-immigra/

http://dailycaller.com/2015/10/13/napolitano-california-to-allow-illegal-immigrants-to-vote-for-the-next-president-video/

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/11/01/driver-licenses-id-cards-for-illegal-immigrants-causing-voting-concerns.html

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/10/wikileaks-podesta-says-ok-illegals-vote-drivers-licence/

Literally nothing about letting illegal aliens vote.

http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/immigration/221914-drivers-licenses-for-illegal-immigrants-an-issues-in-three

Colorado: A private company made a mistake. No one gave illegal aliens the right to vote.

Oregon: I didn't realize boarding a plane was literally voting. Because that is all they discussed. Voting wasn't even mentioned.

California: Again, nothing to do with voting. This is a problem with the TSA that the writer kept trying to, weakly, tie to voting.

This whole paper is an opinion piece trying to pass as a fact.

http://learningenglish.voanews.com/a/illegal-immigrants-can-now-get-a-drivers-license/2598128.html

Another opinion piece that uses the same flawed information as the hill.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/feb/12/obama-amnesty-creates-loophole-for-illegal-immigra/

This might have had more merit if it wasn't for the President of the United States granting amnesty. They are no longer considered illegal. Just like how hard working Americans can now be considered illegal by President Trump. This pendulum swings both ways.

http://dailycaller.com/2015/10/13/napolitano-california-to-allow-illegal-immigrants-to-vote-for-the-next-president-video/

This is, unfortunately for you, hearsay. It is literally "this is what Napolitano said" with no reporting or investigative journalism. Now if it did do those two things, it would have been a credible source. But alas, it is just a talking piece.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/11/01/driver-licenses-id-cards-for-illegal-immigrants-causing-voting-concerns.html

Opinion piece trying to pass off as news. This might actually qualify as fake news but I don't care to make such a distinction. There are a lot of unverified claims. In fact this line from the article:

"In terms of a check and balance that would prevent an individual who is a non U.S. citizen from registering to vote, that doesn't exist.

Is a complete lie. Legal residents of the United States have the right to vote.

Now I have no problem with these opinion pieces, but they are just that, opinions. I am sorry but if you consider this proof. Actual verifiable proof should have long swayed you that the Republicans have been practicing voter suppression, along with other atrocities committed by Republicans.

Dems want illegals to get DLs. Dems want to make getting a DL also automatically register you to vote. Dems want illegals to be able to vote.

I understand that none of those articles contained a quote from a Democrat saying "well we just want to make it possible for illegals to vote," but that's what they're doing.

You call making sure someone is who they say they are when they vote, voter suppression? Countries around the world, including Mexico, have voter ID laws. They're all racist atrocity committers too?

I'm sure the self-righteousness of standing up for the oppressed feels good to you but, this is how the "oppressed" actually feel about voter ID laws:

https://youtu.be/rrBxZGWCdgs

Again, you make extremely bold claims with no evidence to back this up. If it was so obvious, you would present some, at least lgoci dictates. No, Ami asking loaded questions to the uninformed public does not count. That is about as fluff news as you get. Instead, you should be using information gathered by studies.

Again, no Dem is going to come out and admit it. If you can't read between the lines then that's on you.

Asking black people in inner cities if they have IDs is pretty pertinent to claiming that voter ID laws are racist and disproportionately affect minorities. How much more informed are you about minorities in inner cities than they are?

Why don't you find me a study by a bunch of white PHDs who summer in the Hamptons to prove that voter ID laws are racist.

So you want me to disprove your point rather than you prove your own point? That only shows that you're already wrong.

You're the one claiming racism and "atrocities." I gave you articles that show what the Dems are doing and video interviews of the people affected.

Just because you're unable to see the truth unless it's spoonfed to you in a neat little quote or soundbite, doesn't mean the Democratic party has not actively pushed for measures that would allow illegal aliens to vote. Then cry racism (like you) when Republicans want to make sure only citizens vote.

But fuck the integrity of our vote right? Who gives a shit if illegals are voting in our elections as long as the Dems don't call us racist right?

You're right, because I have seen enough evidence of it over the last eight years.

No you haven't.

Indeed I have, see other comment for a fraction of sources.

So you haven't actually seen it? My point stands. Tired of people saying they've seen something, and they haven't. Like "I've seen illegal immigrants getting healthcare" when they haven't.

How wonderful it must be for you to live in a world where nothing exists unless you've seen it with your own two eyes.

Better then living in world where I don't question things.

Says the shill arguing for the mainstream narrative.

You realize all your links of "proof" were mainstream media, right? And sad that you are downvoting everything I say instead of having a real conversation. Also, just because someone disagrees with you, doesn't make them a shill.

That english one is not, thehill isn't exactly MSM. And yeah, MSM reports on some of this stuff, on page C-9 not A-1, what's your point?

Had I posted five obscure links you would have bitched about that too. You are wrong, and you know it, so instead of arguing the point you distract with garbage that has nothing to do with the subject at hand; being Dems using illegal aliens to pad their votes. Go away and come back when you have something meaningful to say.

Source?

See my other comment, five links.

link?

They make it harder for democratic constituents i.e. poor people. But the democrats essentially bribe people to vote.

And then he accepts $400,000 to speak to Wall Street bankers. He's been a corporatist from day one.

Every president has this opportunity, every single one. Don't lie you'd take that deal in a second if anyone would offer it to you, you are no different.

Lmfao no shit. When you're a former president people want to pay you money to hear your ideas. WHO KNEW.

You want him to be the first black president to have rescheduled marijuana? That would go well with the right-wing. After all his birtherism crap, he wouldn't touch any black stereotype with a ten-foot pole.

And

Everyone thinks the Democrats and Republicans are so different... they aren't.

Totally! Remember what AG Sessions is doing?

Hillary Clinton Campaign Says She Would Reschedule Marijuana

The DEA's decision to keep pot as a Schedule I drug affirmed the federal government's belief that there is insufficient evidence to show that any "specific benefits" the drug might offer would outweigh any of the "known risks."

Clinton, however, seems to disagree and the campaign contended that if elected, she would reclassify the drug to a Schedule II substance, which would mean acceptance that marijuana has a medical use for treatment.“ As president, Hillary will build on the important steps announced today by rescheduling marijuana from a Schedule I to a Schedule II substance. She will also ensure Colorado, and other states that have enacted marijuana laws, can continue to serve as laboratories of democracy," Harris continued.

With all her problems, Hillary would have been a better president. She failed to connect with people, and it cost her the election.

Obama is Indonesian, not black

Even according to the (((narrative))), he's half white, therefore not a black man

His father was from Kenya right? Kenyans in this country, be it with the slave trade, or as modern immigrants would be black.

And wait, you think there's a jewish narrative or something? I don't understand. And remember, it's not an argument of genetics, whether he's black or not, it's how society perceived him.

This was Obama in the 90s: https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/bf/39/1e/bf391e99cf49ed27f33a348c6316d179.jpg

Would you come across such a fella and call him black or not?

No, his father (and mother) are Indonesian

??? This is some brand new conspiracy stuff I've not heard of. He doesn't look Indonesian, for one. Secondly, you didn't answer my question; look at that photo, what would you tell the ethnicity/race of such a person is?

I'd say he's Indeonesian, because he looks like an Indonesian, and both of his parents ars Indonesian, and he was born in Indonesia

Got a source or is this purely speculation?

http://www.thenationalpatriot.com/2014/01/the-real-obama-an-indonesian-muslim-socialist-puppet/

Totally legit lmao.

It's about as trustworthy as any other "source"

That's absurd.

Not at all

Just because CNN sucks does not mean that this website is equally as credible.

"I only believe what REAL media says!"

I disagree and think your logic and lack of evidence is asinine. I guess we just have to agree to disagree.

It's not a matter of opinion

You say he looks Indonesian. That's just an opinion!

That is not an opinion at all. His physical features are those of an Indonesian man

https://www.google.com/search?q=wiki+indonesian+man&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj2zpv6ou7TAhVC6GMKHZYLA_kQ_AUICigB&biw=1029&bih=803#tbm=isch&q=indonesian+man

Obama: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama#/media/File:President_Barack_Obama.jpg

Those Indonesian men look just like Obama

OK, I'm done. Have a good day.

It's a fact that those men look like Obama

There's no way that someone is that stupid. They have to be trolling you. I have to believe that no one is that stupid for my sanity's sake.

His father is an American, Frank Marshall Davis.

You think his mom had an affair?

Well she was a known honeypot in the cia

This is news to me. Source ...

If you are half white and anything else you are not considered white. Source am half white.

Well you're not the other thing either

No I only get called black.

That doesn't change the facts

It is a fact that he gets called black.

And calling him black is inaccurate

Add that to countless other beliefs that don't stand up to scientific scrutiny but which nevertheless impact people's lives.

Hey if you want to live a life based on fiction, I couldn't stop you even if I tried. Have at it buddy

You don't think there are lots of beliefs which are common currency but which are actually false? WTF are you doing in this sub?

No, I think calling a 50% black person, a "black person", when they don't meet the criteria for being a black person, is a fiction based reality

What is the criteria for being black? I really want to know thus one cause almost all black americans are mixed with something.

Well I would say if you are 60% or more BLACK, then you are black. The closer you get to 100%, the more you will have fully black features, culminating with 100% itself, being a full blooded black. You could draw the line for BLACK as far back as 51% if you really wanted to, though I think that is disingenuous

50-59% I would say is "mixed". There are words for it; but for some reason they are all considered "offensive", so I won't be posting them here. Again, you could draw the line for BLACK at 51% if want, but I think that is disingenuous

Less than 50% is not black, for obvious reasons. Someone with a decent % of black blood under 50% would be a mixed, but majority non black

So what? That doesn't prevent other people from making such judgments. Objective scientific criteria don't oil the gears of social interactions. Ask anyone who 'looks a bit Muslim' or has a 'Muslim-sounding name', but isn't actually Muslim, if they're able to board a plane etc with the same ease as other white Christians.

That doesn't make them a Muslim

So you abide by the one drop rule? Silly social separation mechanics. You are full human.

I dont give 2 shits about race it doesnt matter everyone is an asshole.

Oh but you clearly do. Probably just when convenient though.

Please tell me more about me.

'One Drop Rule'

You do know Black is a race and Indonesian is an ethnicity, like Kenyan for example. Race is a concept used to divide people by class, not color. It has nothing to do with color, more to do with who gets rich, who stays rich and who stays poor.

Indonesian isn't really even an ethnicity. Javan, Sundanese, Balinese, Malay, etm. are ethnicities.

You have a very serious misunderstanding of what race is

Obama hates natenyahoo.

Didn't stop him from doing Israel's wars for 8 years

I think you have a serious misunderstanding of what race is. Race didn't exist until the 1700's to distinguish between who could have rights and who could not. Having rights directly affects the ability to own or have ownership. having ownership allows one to increase class status. Its a direct correlation.

Then why do different races have different IQ?

Alfred Binet created the IQ test in the 1900's. Before then everyone was stupid regardless of this "race" you speak of.

Why does 13% of the population commit over 50% of the violent crime in America, then? There is an inverse relation between IQ and likeliehood of being a violent criminal

"The average serial killer has an IQ 94.7. Although various tests measure IQ, a score of 90 to 110 is usually considered "average" intelligence. ... Serial killers who have used bombs show, on average, higher IQs, while those who used poison exhibited the lowest." -business insider

IQ is in no way relative to violent crime. Societies that have lower income typical (blacks, latinos) have higher crime regardless of intelligence. Race and class, once again, are directly correlated. Your argument is simply misinformed nonsense.

Serial killers are a cherry picked satistic

Most violent crime is not committed by a serial killer. Obviously serial killers have higher IQ than common criminals, because it requires time, planning, and dedication to get away with a series of murders like that

IQ still has nothing to do with violent crime. That's a cherry picked argument altogether. Your argument sounds more like you're claiming people of a certain race have a certain IQ and commit most violent crime. You're neglecting the connection between race and class to support your intelligence argument, when anyone of any race could have low IQ and commit violent crime.

Why do East Asian migrants start poor, and become middle or upper class within a generations, at a higher rate than other races?

Shouldn't there be an equal percentage of black doctors and scientists?

Maybe you should research why instead of asking me. There's alot more to that question than you think. History shows migrants haven't always had it easier than blacks, and slavery didn't help blacks. Neither did Jim Crow. Blacks didn't have many rights until the 1950's and even then still were denied alot of opportunities. Also, modern migrants may have access to foreign scholarships like CAMP (college assistance migrant program).

But just to end this argument, I'll just let you have your point. Blacks are stupid monkeys who can't read and commit crime and white are super awesome high IQ tax paying perfect people. There. Happy?

Well clearly you think that blacks are very different than white people. Do you believe that blacks would be better off among their own race in Africa?

I think blacks would have been better off never coming to America at all. White would have had to farm their own land and resources, build their own railroads and roads. This country would have taken twice as long to be what is is today without free slave labor.

If whites and blacks are the same, then how were whites able to enslave the blacks on such a large scale?

Through research, which is what you will need to do to answer that question.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_slavery

Research tells us that IQ matters

Research tells us that IQ matters

Not before 18th century. Unless you think life started in the 18th century. But I imagine from your uninformed responses you probably have no clue what happened before 1990.

You sure spend a lot of time promoting killary and obama.

TO ALL FOLKS ARGUING BACK AND FORTH ABOUT SHILLARY RESCHEDULING MARIJUANA :

The DEA answers only to the fda, and themselves....in order for smoke to be a schedule 2, the dea and fda would both have to agree. They are the fucking Gestapo.

SHILLARY

Is this necessary?

Wait a second, is the part about the DEA and FDA true?

It absolutely fucking is.

Yeha, I looked it up. It really does mainly come down to the DEA, who has the final say in rejecting or accepting a petition to reschedule.

I couldn't really understand why /u/kaminsky_ decided to ignore that.

What's the bully pulpit, Alex?

Well, you certainly have the agenda thing down pat

Elaborate.

Elaborate on why you chose to respond to the use of "shillary" rather than the fact that Hillary has no power to reschedule marijuana?

I found it terribly juvenile. Now your turn.

Why did you choose to ignore the information that showed your claims to not be credible?

No, your turn to elaborate on what I asked you before.

I already did.

To use the issue as the bully pulpit from which to push a pro-Hillary agenda? That is what is sounds and looks like, especially with your last comment.

You gonna answer the question or keep playing games

Free speech?

Bully pulpit

It is, because it's fact. Get all bent out of shape because of a single comment....what I said is fact.

It is, because it's fact. Get all bent out of shape because of a single comment....what I said is fact.

It is, because it's fact. Get all bent out of shape because of a single comment....what I said is fact.

Edit: Have my upvote, /u/Kaminski_

Is marijuana really a "black" drug?

Here's a question because I need help to think of a more articulate argument: all a lefty would say to OP is "well the Republicans blocked it from happening!"

What is an appropriate response?

I admit I was much less educated about this until you asked, there have been a few bills presented - 2011, 2012, and 2015. Only the 2012 bill made it to congress, but clearly died. It was reintroduced twice apparently, dying quickly each time. I'd love to see the votes on that, while I'm sure Republicans voted against more often, I'm sure plenty of Democrats voted against it too.

Anyways my basic opinion is that both parties are heavily lobbied by big pharma, who have good financial incentive to keep marijuana illegal. The DEA is essentially non-partisan, and they recently reviewed the scheduling of marijuana and concluded it belongs as Schedule I. They said there was no evidence of any medicinal benefit... what the fuck! There are literally mountains of evidence! More than they can provide for many prescription drugs /rant

Quick google search turned up this wikipedia page which included these notes (add '#2016' to the end of the main wikipedia page url to go to this section):

2016[edit] In August 2016, the DEA rejected calls to reschedule marijuana, but indicated an increase in availability for research.[68] The 2016 platform of the Democratic Party called for removal of marijuana from Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act, "providing a reasoned pathway for future legalization" of marijuana.[69] This language was approved in a close vote (81-80 vote) in the platform committee.[70]

Followed by:

2017 bill[edit] In April 2017, Matt Gaetz, a Florida Republican, cosponsored House Resolution 2020 to move cannabis to Schedule III.[71][72]

Washington Times article on House Bill 2020 and the Denver Post article.

So there is growing bipartisan support, but I seriously doubt it'll go anywhere. It's important to remember these decisions aren't up to the president, he gets to sign or veto after the fact. So while sure, Democrats seem more open to legalization, they aren't 100%. I seriously doubt Hillary would have legalized it, Bernie would have but then again he wasn't really a democrat.

they said there was no evidence of any medicinal benefit...

Ya, that's cause there isn't any. Well, at least in their studies, which are all obfuscated to look that way.

They create dozens if not hundreds of tests to get the results they want, then throw out the rest and only use the ones that show the desired results. So ya, according to them there is no benefits.

It's BS and I'm sick of big pharma and government and lobbiests.

You don't think the Democrats and the Republicans would do different things on the subject of marijuana?

Different, how?

For a start, not reversing Obama's policy of lenient punishment for nonviolent drug offenders? Beyond that, IIRC Hillary said she'd reclassify marijuana as a schedule 2 drug and Sanders said it should be completely decriminalized. Instead we got a "God wants me to put drug users in jail". There's a difference.

Instead we got a "God wants me to put drug users in jail". There's a difference.

Where are you getting this sentiment from the right? Do you have an example?

AG Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III

You're right. I got that from a headline in /r/conspiracy main page, and haven't verified it's not made up. Watching the video, God is not involved. I'll edit accordingly.

My point still stands. Sessions' new policy is put as many people in jail as possible, and he's very much against Marijuana decriminalization.

Congress makes the laws. Justice Dept. just enforces them.

Write your congresspeople

The Justice Department has discretion on how to enforce them and what priority they have. Their role shouldn't be ignored or discounted.

I'm not saying I agree with Sessions. I'm just saying he is operating within the playbook provided to him by congress.

Well Hillary got the push for legalization put onto the Democratic platform last July at the convention, for the first time ever. While Trump reaffirmed the push for total prohibition in the GOP platform during their convention. So their party platforms are one thing on the subject that's different.

Sure, but not as different as you think. source source

And they'll both use it to be a talking point so everyone can avoid discussing why we've been involved in (at least one) war for the last 15 years.

The other thing to remember is most representatives are basically voting the way their constituents want them to, as far as Presidents have acted there's been little difference.

As I just mentioned in another post, I love my weed. But there are more important things to worry about, it's just a distraction over a minor issue, like the whole bathroom saga lately.

So which party has supported and passed every state legalization effort be it medicinal or recreational? Which party opposed it? This bill is sponsored bipartisan but it will fail partisan.

They haven't yet so why would anyone expect them to?

Why do you have to be so hard on Democrats and Republicans. They spend a lot of time putting in really good performances & tons of $$$ to give us the illusion of choice.

The people on this sub do see throught it, which makes it extremely easu to recognize the accounts coming from /all and ...cough... other places.

These others are basically gaslighting this subreddit by making claims that conspiracy has turned into "the Donald" or claiming that we don't criticize Hillary and Trump equally.

In the end its all the same scream: "Hey r/conspiracy should be blinded by party politics" when it is the absolute furthest thing from the truth and we all know it.

These others are basically gaslighting this subreddit by making claims that conspiracy has turned into "the Donald" or claiming that we don't criticize Hillary and Trump equally.

Remind me again which /r/conspiracy post had 'unverified' tagged on it?

First one ever wasn't it?

That not strike you as odd?

Which was it? I honestly dont know.

Here you go.

While not required, you are requested to use the NP (No Participation) domain of reddit when crossposting. This helps to protect both your account, and the accounts of other users, from administrative shadowbans. The NP domain can be accessed by replacing the "www" in your reddit link with "np".

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

Good. "Unverified" is a valid tag. Anyone willing to step aside from the alarmism and the confirmation bias to find Trump guilty of something just because you don't like him, can clearly see that the "Trump is in bed with da Russians" reddit/mainstream-media circlejerk is a load of unverified sensationalist horseshit.

I get it, you want to believe it. So you blindly accept headlines and don't even fact-check the articles riddled with anonymous claims and exaggerated half-truths.

No matter how badly you and millions of other people want "Trump is Putin's puppet" to be a verified fact, those of us who aren't brainwashed by party politics and who can still hold onto our critical thinking skills despite a worldwide media circus, are still waiting on ACTUAL evidence.

That's the spirit!

Now be intellectually honest with yourself for a moment and apply that same methodology to every other post here.

Now explain why you don't demand such evidence for other posts but feel the need to justify the censored Trump one.

They don't even pretend to be different most of the time. Americsns only think in terms of social issues - that's the problem

Honestly in my experience it's almost become a team sport, the parties aren't even trying anymore. Any democrat who wasn't completed disgusted by the primaries needs to take a serious look at what they believe in.

Bullshit. Republicans are the ones denying global warming from marching orders from the oil companies. Republicans are the ones trying to gut Obamacare to give tax breaks to the rich. Republicans are the ones trying to destroy net neutrality.

This both sides are the same bullshit is people trying to make themselves look smart and above the fray when in reality they aren't paying attention.

Bullshit. Republicans are the ones saying climate change is not as catastrophic as some scientists are claiming (as proved by climategate in 2009 where they were found to be cooking the numbers). And that we shouldn't gut American industry and pass laws that barely make sense in even the most dire of climate change projections.

Republicans are the ones that don't want the government to enforce a life tax on healthy Americans to subsidize unhealthy Americans who can't even take care of themselves (see massive rise in diabetes, heart attacks, and other weight related treatments).

And I hate to break it to you but, people on both sides of the aisle are fighting for and against net neutrality, that one's a mixed bag.

I'm not willing to listen to the legitimate concerns of my fellow Americans because I'd rather spout hyperbole and feel superior while I look down on them, when in reality I'm just another sheep molded by the conglomerates to regurgitate whatever point of view they want me to have.

Obama fought for net neutrality. Trump is undoing everything Obama did. If "both sides are fighting for net neutrality" they sure did fuck up with Trump.

Republicans are the ones that don't want the government to enforce a life tax on healthy Americans to subsidize unhealthy Americans who can't even take care of themselves

But they are also the party of JC and his whole "heal the sick and help the needy" shtick... I'm too confused about what they actually believe to ever vote for one.

That's the beauty of secularism, religion doesn't make laws. And the GOP is not a homogeneous religon, they are however (supposedly) all united in their desire for smaller government. To argue against political policy because of someone's religion isn't very progressive.

Pro-life because babies are innocent. Pro-death because adults are supposed to know the consequences of their actions and take responsibility for them. If you rape and murder you've given up your right to exist.

I'm not a Republican, registered Dem, and not religious by any stretch of the imagination. But the two party system blinds people from the legitimate concerns of their fellow Americans. Why are your views more important than theirs?

I'm not saying my views are right (I actually have a problem where I don't form opinions about things because I know how little I know) I just can't do the hypocrisy. I understand that small government is the (R) calling card but too many rightwing law makers want their sky fairies rules to govern all of us.

I thought babies are born with original sin... but still innocent? More hypocrisy. Also, all means all, not who we think is precious.

I would argue vegans put less value on human life than animals and there is no hypocrisy there. Women fighting for the hijab seems like brainwashing to me... they don't know any other existence.

Right-wing law makers do what they do to pander to religious groups, no one in Washington is actually religious. And those old GOPers are dying off, giving way to more pragmatic conservatives.

You're asking me to defend religious notions after I told you I'm not religious and don't believe in them.

Vegans putting more value on animal lives is the hypocrisy. All living creatures are supposed to be precious aren't they, including human lives?

American women are fighting for the hijab, they know better.

Republicans are garbage.

I'm not willing to listen to the legitimate concerns of my fellow Americans because I'd rather spout hyperbole and feel superior while I look down on them, when in reality I'm just another sheep molded by the conglomerates to regurgitate whatever point of view they want me to have.

lol "a life tax"? you mean having humanity and not wanting people in my nation to die needlessly?

No, I mean forcing healthy Americans to pay for unhealthy Americans. Why should a jogger who eats right who only does yearly checkups have to pay for a lazy slob who eats garbage and has diabetes and heart problems?

Why do you allow emotions to control you instead of thinking logically? Do you not understand that Obama allowed the health insurance companies to write the ACA, and the lead said they only got it past because of the stupidity of the American people? He was talking about you.

You have it backwards. It's people who live long like your jogger buddy that use the most healthcare.

Healthcare is one important issue where they do have significant differences, that is fair.

It's not just Healthcare that they're different on.

• The first thing the new Republican controlled congress did was to end ethics oversight on themselves.
• They have already legalized polluting our rivers and streams with coal waste
• They have already approved a Pesticide Known to Damage Kids' Brains
• They are taking away our privacy rights
• They want to reverse net neutrality

This is a perfect example of the kind of posts I love to see on reddit. Personally I enjoy having my opinions challenged. I can't say I love either party but I've always leaned Democrat (never voted Rep). I guess the primaries left a bad taste in my mouth, and I expected Obama to do more to end the endless war we're in.

There are good Republicans, truly fiscally conservative and socially liberal like Bill Weld. I have no problem voting for them, but they don't run the party now.

And Democrats have their issues. Corporate democrats are a plague to the party. And the only cure is a constitutional amendment to get money out of politics. This would to cut their their strings to their corporate overlords.

Amen. They stole our nation from us. I voted Hillary but I wanted Bernie. They stole this countries chance at becoming truely amazing to live in for at least a decade before things might get back on track.

If you really believe both parties are the same, you're not paying attention. Example: minimum wage. While Bernie and Hillary were arguing over a $12 vs $15 an hour minimum wage, Trump was campaigning on LOWERING it.

Okay but just because hillary says something does not mean that she will actually do it.

I, personally, don't think Hillary is the devil, and think she would've at least tried to make good on her campaign promises.

Well at the very least she would have worked with her own party against the GOP. She ran on raising the minimum wage from before Bernie even entered the race, and it is part of the official Democratic platform.

Wow, cool, that's amazing. They all three SAID something

I don't care what they SAY, I care what they DO

Do you not see a substantial difference between red and blue States, or is that all talk and they're actually the same?

When people say Republicans and Democrats are the same, they're completely ignoring local politics.

That's because we live in a nation of 50 states...

Then why is cannabis legal in tons of blue states, but not red ones? Why are there higher minimum wages in blue areas?

Because play acting over social issues convinces people like you that we live in a democracy

What do you mean? I live in a blue state and it's amazing here.

You are fighting 8 wars in 7 countries

Not because of the blue states. Democrats don't support war. The GOP is the party that starts wars.

Why did Barack Hussein Obama start multiple wars then? Why did Hillary suppprt war with Syria? Why did Hillary want tomoverthrow Gaddafi? Why did Hillary vote for the Iraq war?

You are being disingenuous if you are saying the Democrats are more warlike than the GOP. It's not even close.

I never said they are more warlike - I said they are equally warlike

I'm saying that's a load of hogwash.

Then why did Barack Hussein Obama bomb more countries than Bush II did? Why did Hillary support intervention in Libya amd Syria? Why did Hillary vote for the Iraq war? Why was Barack Hussein Obama, a democrat, the first Presidemt to spend his entire 8 years in office, at war? Why does Bernie Sanders support the military occupation of Palestine?

How this isn't upvoted more is beyond me.

Two sides of the same coin.

Overestimate the audience, you have

Except they both have large differences in what they vote for and promote. Just because neither pushes your pet issue doesn't make them the same.

They're both pro-war, pro-big business, pro-1%. We've been at war for 15 years. I don't consider that a pet issue

You should try actually comparing their positions on Wall St and money in politics.

I have, haven't found anything worth mentioning. They supported the bailout, and they receive a ton of lobbying money / campaign finance money from Wall St.

Give me one example of Dems being tough on Wall St. I'm open to my opinion being challenged and/or changed.

Dodd-Frank

The Dems are never particularly harsh with Wall St, but the difference is still pronounced. You can't just take a hammer to it without tanking the economy. If the Republicans didn't keep going the other way, the small steps would actually add up to something.

All of the Democrat candidates supported more regulation

Here's a very recent vote to deregulate from the Repoublicans which went down party lines

And at least the Democrats support better restrictions on political financing, so that it can start to be cleaned up.

Thanks for the honest reply, I'll dig into that later today - Mother's Day and all that

No worries. Have a good day.

Do you think that Obama was tough on wall street?

Take the comment above and replace Democrats with Obama. He stated that he wanted more restrictions, but that legislation never made it to his desk.

He stated that, then put the Fed and the SEC in charge of regulation, appointed a guy like Scott O'Malia and signed off on JOBS act

Would you like to talk about Obama's relationship with wall street in more depth?

Read your links, thank you. You have affected my opinion. I can't say I'm 100% on board with either party, but maybe I'm being too much of an idealist. I've never voted Republican in my life, but I've found myself more and more disenfranchised from the Democrats lately, especially after the primaries. Again, thank you for the information. I hope you're having a good day as well

If I could give you a bit of advice; Don't form your opinion using media, especially bullshit (news) that you find in this sub. Find certain topics that are important to you and be mindful of bias while doing so. It's going to take a couple of sources, but you'll end up finding places where you can reliably trust their judgement and reasoning in the future.

So once you've identified topics that are important to you, start researching how the parties vote. Using their actions, you can come to a reasonably informed opinion on the differences between the parties. They are quite pronounced on some issues and while the prevailing thought on this sub is that they're equally bad... that can only by said by those ignorant of party line votes.

I say all of this as a Libertarian who is leaning a bit to the Left. I specify that I'm leaning Left due to inadequacies in the Libertarian's fiscal platform when it comes to automation and their views on future fiscal policy.

Great. I think that's the first time this has ever happened for me.

Obviously the Democrats are still pretty bad, they're just significantly less bad on this issue.

On the contrary, they promote a few wedge issues for people to fight over while they are actually unified on 90% of topics. Wedge issues typically have no major affect on the balance of power (transgender bathrooms for example) but then they file tax cuts for wealthy and global trade deals, etc.

You may want to read some chomsky, he lays out this point very eloquently.

Literally the only stance that divides the two parties, at least among voter registration, is abortion. I've petitioned for signatures before for getting 3rd party candidates ballot access in the general election, and that's the only issue anyone cared about. They're both pro-war, they're both against self-ownership, they're both fiscally insolvent, ...

It really bugged me that people only cared about abortion, especially since a wrong answer equaled no signature, meaning they don't even want to give you a chance on the ballot. Doesn't matter if you agree on 90% of other issues, even more so than either major party's candidate. They just care about abortion.

The single issue voter like pro-choice / anti-abortion are part of the reason why it's so hard to break out of the 2 party system. But it doesn't mean they are the same. Democrats would not be trying to take away health care from 24 Million americans now. Democrats would not be trying to cut taxes for the top 1%. Democrats would not be trying to kill the EPA, pollute our rivers and streams to make corporations just a little richer.

Yes, the 2 party system sucks and it's a false choice, but they are not the same.

State sponsored murder is a pretty big deal tho.

I am not religious and pro abortion. However, if they truly believe people are murdering babies, I can completely understand why they would be so ardent about that issue.

They are clearly different. Clearly something's they seemed to be controlled by a shadow government or something, but democrats and republicans are very different

But the thing is, they play off of each other to give the electorate an illusion of choice. This time 'round they've even convinced people that not voting is a vote for "the other side".

They're pretty damn different dude.

Only on issues that don't matter to their mutual donors.

I don't think there are any issues that don't matter to their mutual donors.

Damn dude great argument I'm convinced

Well, you know, that's just your opinion, man.

I hate seeing partisan shit, especially on this sub.

You must not come here often

America has been called a one party state, the business party with two factions called Democrats and Republicans. But something has changed...

The equal evil bull shit died with the recent ISP Bill and new healthcare bill in the house. Both went straight down party lines.

Obama massively relaxed federal drug prosecutions, Trump massively strengthening them: same thing!

Obama imposed tough sanctions against Russia for aggression in Ukraine, Trump fills his staff with Russian operatives (and may be compromised by the Russians himself): Same thing!

It's like, if you find a single gray hair on someone's head, all of a sudden blonde is the same as black, because you found some gray in both. The future of America, and the future of a lot of people's lives, is going to be vastly different because of this escalation in the war on drugs.

Obama massively relaxed federal drug prosecutions, Trump massively strengthening them: same thing!

That's not even remotely close to what I said, but go ahead and argue with yourself if you want.

Not sure if you're joking or not, because this sub has been full of partisan shit flinging for a while now.
As of late it's gotten a bit better since a lot of the Trump koolaid drinkers have scuttled back to their sub.

Well said.

• Democrats - make cannabis legal
• Republicans - make cannabis illegal

Except they are because one party is rolling back policy implemented by the other, hence a difference if there wasn't a difference, no need to repeal, roll back, or replace shit.

This partisan bull shit has exploded all over reddit. Anytime an important topic comes up there are people posting political BS. It's a distraction tactic.

It's basically a giant reality TV show on steroids. People actually think this shit is real... meanwhile the wealthy and corporations have free reign to maintain the status quo and further their agendas.

And that's exactly how Trump one. Leftists fall for that "same devil" shit while conservatives stay voting, and now we have this dickhead in office.

Quit dwelling on the past. Obama isn't the president anymore.

So, we don't look at history on r/conspiracy? How does that work?

what's your opinion on george w bush?

He didn't legalize marijuana

He ( his admin) locked Tommy Chong up for selling bongs but that is over and done with. We are now dealing with sessions and a possible nation wide crack down on a new industry. A move I must add goes against the Republicans beliefs. It is anti-states rights, anti business and anti-American economic progress.

Yes, let's ignore everything every other president has ever done, that won't possibly annoy people trying to have rational conversations at all.

Those who forget history are damned to repeat it.

What's the conspiracy?

I love it when some smartass asks that question and the OP gives a crystal clear, pointed answer. Nice work.

In VERY VERY different ways.

DEMs lets get welfare, education, and environmental issues worked out while also not killing corporations.

GOP lets get corporations as much power as we can and how about tax breaks for the rich while we are at it.

Dems are Center-Right and GOP is far right.

TIL not doing something is considered an act against the American people.

Oh look. A requisite post to deflect onto Obama because Trump and Trumpets can't handle criticism.

Cool. Doesn't change my post at all. But thanks for the deflection attempt.

Nope. Definitely doesn't change my post about trumpets and whining about Obama when Trump does something shitty

Nobody even mentioned trump, except you. Is a requisite of pointing out Obamas flaws being a Trump fan? Jesus what a fucking stupid argument.

OP alludes to Trump in his post by mentioning the earlier post about Sessions, who Trump appointed.

Ok, then what was the point of this post?

That in general both sides of the country are shit.

Username checks out

Why?

Your statement is obvious

But I'm oblivious to the obvious.

He is too

Says the guy who admitted to voting for Trump and has over 3K karma on t_D. You're full of shit brah!

While not required, you are requested to use the NP (No Participation) domain of reddit when crossposting. This helps to protect both your account, and the accounts of other users, from administrative shadowbans. The NP domain can be accessed by replacing the "www" in your reddit link with "np".

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

rekt

gg

This is /r/quityourbullshit material

lol I think you need to learn what astroturfing is because i don't know how you got that from my post.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astroturfing

Familiarize yourself then. What you're saying is more witch hunting, which yeah to an extent that's what's happening.

Non-Mobile link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astroturfing

^{HelperBot v1.1 /r/HelperBot_ I am a bot. Please message /u/swim1929 with any feedback and/or hate. Counter: 68329}

How many of Bernie supporters begrudgingly voted for fucking Hillary? Oh right that doesn't support your narrative of vote=fan

I'm not trying to make the case that he's a fan, but he definitely is on Trump's side.

He's definitely a right leaning Bernie supporter, I have him tagged from the primaries and multiple Pro-Bernie subs. I've also had countless people try and accuse me of being a Trump supporter when I'm on the complete other end of the spectrum.

These kind of attacks and accusations only serve to poison politics, it's the same nonsense that Republicans did with Obama calling him the worst President ever before he even took office.

I just had a brief exchange with him. Whatever you think it does to politics in general I have to be honest, I definitely don't think he is what he says he is. He's super upset with Obama for not pardoning all the people in jail, but he doesn't care at all about Trump/Sessions bringing back mandatory minimums. He blames Obama for them bringing back those harsh sentences. It's just unreal. My suspension of disbelief only goes so far.

I just don't go in for the lesser of evils stuff. If you vote for someone, you support them in my eyes. When you vote for someone you're saying, "this person represents my values".

Now that I have you here, a word on rescheduling. Obamas executive actions did more to legalize than rescheduling ever would. In fact the only reason the dispensaries stayed open is because of those executive actions. Rescheduling does nothing whatsoever for dispensaries and less than nothing for recreational businesses. They would still be illegal under the Controlled Substances Act. The only thing that would change if it was moved to Schedule 2 is that the FDA would be able to approve medicines, most likely THC pills, to be approved by the FDA for sale by big pharma. It would also allow for government research, but that's it. Obamas executive actions were far more effective for medical dispensaries and the only thing that affected recreational businesses.

Explain to me exactly how rescheduling changes the law for those prisoners.

Those are your values?

No, I didn't vote for Hillary.

How do you expect to influence politics without Democracy might I ask?

If you think democracy dies with the DNC, you need a bit more civics education.

So what about all those people that Trump is now going to be putting in jail now that Sessions is ramping up the drug war and bringing back mandatory minimums for nonviolent offenders. Why aren't you passionately defending them against Trump who has indicated he is going to be cracking down on recreational businesses in legal states? I mean you do share responsibility for him being in office and Trump did lie that he would leave it up to the states before the election.

Yeah, now I definitely don't believe you are what you say you are. Either that or t_D has warped your thought process. Obama via Holder had just as much ability to prioritize enforcement of substances banned by the CSA as Trump via Sessions. It's called enforcement discretion. Obama used it to help users and Trump is using it to hurt them. Democrats and Republicans made mandatory minimum sentencing worse on drugs. There's literally no difference there. The only difference is Democrats have been working to relax those laws as of late and Republicans are bringing them back. I would trust them to do something better because they have been doing something better. Wow have they got you turned around.

I really don't think there's much point to your reading my post. Wow. They really did a number on you over at t_D. Absolutely insane man.

For misleading reddit. Holy shit man. You're bonkers.

lol

https://www.reddit.com/r/Trumpgret/

Lol okay buddy, don't let the cognitive dissonance tear you up too much.

Well you clearly are already since multiple people have posted your shenanigans over at r/t_d. What the democrats did was pretty selfish trying to shove Clinton down your throat, but I think that it's pretty naive to assume that you weren't played by the republicans in the process who now seem to be in the process of transforming your country into some sort of Authoritarian dictatorship. So have fun with that.

Lol, as opposed to all the drama that Trump has been stirring up over the past 100 days? He literally just had Comey fired because he was getting worried about that investigation concerning Russia. So you said something about the "lesser of two evils", but I think you might have picked the wrong horse in this race ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Well I gotta head off to bed, but I'll end by saying that once again, I do agree that what the DNC did with Clinton was complete bullshit ("But it was her turn!" as they kept saying, lol) and as a result they ostracised a large number of their supporters such as yourself who are now so bitter about what they did that you're literally willing to watch an overgrown manchild slowly tear your country apart from the inside.

That's not a shot at you by the way, it's fair enough if you're upset, but it's kinda messed up that there is still almost 4 years of Trump to go in the Whitehouse.

Why do you guys say shit that's so easily disproven?

Taking a page out of Trump's book. They also imitate his very stupid speech pattern. Sad!

Disprove you're not a trump fan even though your post history is full of pro trump stuff? That kind of shit is just childish dude.

You voted for Trump. Do you want me to quote you exactly?

Your post history is just full of anti democrat, anti Bernie. And when news comes out about how Trumps AG is going to crack down on weed, you make a post that essentially becomes "but but what about Obama and his drug policies" to deflect.

You're either a trump troll or a true idiot. My guess is both.

"I'm not giving up at all, but I'm definitely not wasting my time or money with the Democratic Party."

For a guy you don't support you do a lot of deflecting and attacking his opponents.

Yes you are. You voted for trump. Your lies are just an admission of guilt now.

https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/comments/5bnlda/ive_been_a_bernie_supporter_since_before_he/

While not required, you are requested to use the NP (No Participation) domain of reddit when crossposting. This helps to protect both your account, and the accounts of other users, from administrative shadowbans. The NP domain can be accessed by replacing the "www" in your reddit link with "np".

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

Removed. Rule 6.

Why lie? Oh right cause you have an agenda.

You post on te Donald and admitted for trump.

Dude you already got called on it. Don't try and gas light further chump.

https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/comments/5bnlda/ive_been_a_bernie_supporter_since_before_he/?utm_content=title&utm_medium=user&utm_source=reddit&utm_name=frontpage

You voted for Trump and posted a "rare pepe" to thank The Donald for their work.... There you go, wanna fuck off yourself then, or edit to reflect the fact that you were being super disingenuous?

For how high and mighty and triggered you became, this sure was easy.

While not required, you are requested to use the NP (No Participation) domain of reddit when crossposting. This helps to protect both your account, and the accounts of other users, from administrative shadowbans. The NP domain can be accessed by replacing the "www" in your reddit link with "np".

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

If voting for Trump and posting Rare pepe's doesn't translate as supporting him to you.... jesus christ not even worth it.

You're so disingenuous I don't need to continue this discussion. It took all of ten seconds to find your post about supporting the Donald with a vote and a rare Pepe. Pretend all you want (I see how triggered you are) but you clearly have a pro trump agenda.

Oh look, a requisite comment to deflect away from relevant information because it doesn't fit my biased narrative

Oh look, someone who doesn't want to believe Bobama and the left could do any wrong so they deflect from relevant facts.

Obama isn't the president but I appreciate that when he was he took focus off of marijuana even if he didn't re-schedule it.

Trump is doing something worse and he is the current president.

Pointing to Obama to deflect from what President Trump is doing is ridiculous.

Do you know how many federal raids there were under Obama on facilities in total compliance with local laws? Just because the news didn't tell he upped the war on drugs doesn't mean he didn't.

It's not deflection, it's reminding people in this time of hysteria that the last guy wasn't so great either, maybe take things in context.

People know what Sessions is doing and we don't like it. But it is important to remember that we needn't be in this situation in the first place.

No, but you seem to know but, not surprisingly, you provide no evidence.

Appreciate your "whataboutisms" though.

[removed]

dont bother he's one a (them), just look at his history.

Battle them wherever they pop up and make them go away.

sometimes. sometimes all they want is to waste your time as long as possible with nothing of substance to add.

Oh no you misunderstand. All they want to do is waste peoples time without ever adding anything. So instead, you force them to waste their time trying defend indefensible nonsense, countering each of their points.

That way they're tied up with only one person and usually go away after a few comments. They all have alts they use to brigade but it's usually pretty obvious who's who.

aw fighting fire with fire. You make a solid point. I hope there are many more like you here.

"I don't know how to google" - you

When did the onus shift from having the one making the claims provide sources, to having anyone questioning spurious/unsourced claims told to 'google it for themselves'?

That's a ridiculous stance. You make a claim, support it, or STFU.

Sorry that people can't bother to source their claims and I don't want to waste time on their unsourced claim.

Was that too much evidence for you to formulate a nonsensical response that fails to address the point?

Pointing to Obama to deflect from what President Trump is doing is ridiculous.

What is a "frame of reference" anyways? Do you compare everything Trump does to Hulk Hogan or Hitler or Superman, rather than other US presidents? Who else are you supposed to compare him to?

What's the need to compare him to anyone but himself and his own actions.

For some perspective. Isn't that a normal thing to do? Analyze things by comparing them to something similar?

If I kill someone in cold blood I can't get on the stand and say "Well someone else killed two people, why aren't we talking about that?!?!"

And yet that's exactly what people are trying to do here.

Have you ever heard of case law? Because that's exactly what you're describing. That's literally what you do in court, point to precedence for comparison.

You really have to try to be this obtuse, I have a hard time believing it comes to you naturally.

Someone killing two people 8 years ago in a completely unrelated incident is not justification for me killing someone today.

Like comparing blackpples and oranges...

Compare: "to examine (two or more objects, ideas, people, etc.) in order to note similarities and differences: to compare two pieces of cloth; to compare the governments of two nations."

So do you normally compare everything to itself? You must live a confusing life

Exactly. There's no point to compare Trump to Obama because what Trumo is doing is shitty in its own right and doesn't need to be compared to Obama.

You know, personally I compare US presidents to other US presidents, but good luck with your approach.

Cool. Good luck.

Guys holy fuck...

He started out against gay marriage and look where we are now. He conceded that MJ should be decriminalized when he left office, I think that was actually pretty huge. He's the first black pres man, and one who was very conscious of this image, I honestly never saw him legalizing weed, but he did change course with enforcement in his second term and finally conceded the point. Look at how much progress legalization had made in the last eight years - you can knock him for not being hpbehind it but you've also got to give him credit for letting the states do their own thing and taking a step back. Sessions is going full bore the other way.

He pardoned many nonviolent drug offenders during his last year in office. Are you familiar with the organized legalization movement? This has been their approach, to applaud gradual progress and not demand everything all at once. Patience has paid off. There is still a long way to go.

It's hopeful.

Obama: gonna trick them into still having hope

Most if them are locked up in state charges. The president can't do anything about that.

Obama was pardoning his cartel friends trafficking heroin and cocaine, not just weed offenders. Hell, there were thousands of people arrested for weed who complained they didn't receive any sort of sympathy. Sounds like he was letting off Cartel members, not people arrested for a joint in their pocket.

The article in your first link doesn't have the word cartel in it once.

People say the first black President like it means. If anything he ruined the image of any other black President that comes after him.

The first black president is/was a Globalist puppet that was nothing more than an identity politics mouthpiece.

*half-black

Not even full. He's a fucking mutt.

If anything he ruined the image of any other black President that comes after him.

Let's just have that quote sit on its own. It speaks for itself

Though I guess on the upside. Just about any Black President can do better.

There were more federal pot raids on state legal facilities under the Obama Administration than under Bush Jr and Sr combined.

Seriously. And all the dispensaries in my town only deal with cash for fear of their bank accounts being seized.

just be grateful you have access

What did the dispensaries do before the Obama administration? What's that? There were none? Interesting.

What in the world do Colorado dispensaries have to do with Obama? You can't possibly credit him with that.

He's saying that there were more raids on dispensaries under Obama than under Bush because there weren't any dispensaries under Bush.

Im not sure about CO, but in CA the credit unions wont touch pot shops, even though they're privately insured. Until it's not federally illegal, any FDIC bank can't touch them.

I do not believe that was still the case during his second term. You also have to consider how many more dispensaries were in existence compared to the Bush years. I don't believe there were any during Bush Sr.?

I too was disappointed with the failure to reclassify this last time around, it seemed like a no brainer.

Are you SERIOUSLY giving credit to Obama for the fact that there were more pot dispensaries in the United States in 2016 that there were in 1993? 19,ninety-FUCKING-three?!?! I dont understand why some people try so hard to defend Obama on this topic. Any advances made were made in spite of him. Stop your fucking shit.

It's blatant partisanship, people, don't fucking forget, neither party is on your side.

Are you SERIOUSLY giving credit to Obama for the fact that there were more pot dispensaries in the United States in 2016 that there were in 1993?

No he is not. He is stating that there were much more pot dispensaries during Obama's term. Which mathematically would lead to more dispensaries being raided.

Reread numbnuts. He is saying more raids probably happened because there were more dispensaries to raid.

Even though you completely misunderstood what was said you're still wrong. Obama did more for contributing to eventual legalization than any of his predecessors just by lowering penalties on low level drug offenses. The Trump administration has undone that progress entirely.

Reading comprehension, man.

There were also pretty much zilch legal facilities under Bush. This is a loaded statement.

Obama probably had more federal pot raids on state legal facilities than Lincoln too!

I'm not trying to defend the guy but the same can be said for drone strikes. There just weren't as many drones in service under Bush. Just more of the same partisan BS this sub has become

There were more legal facilities under the Obama Administration as well.

There were also WAY MORE states supporting legalized weed because obama didnt bring the hammer down on them.

Illegally operating based on state law operation were raided. On top of that During the Bush years there were only a handful of medical states. Under Obama just about half the country went medical and a good number legal. On top of the on top the President does not micro mange everything the Federal government does.

Don't be naive.

Oh my goodness, please stop. Please. There are so many quarters in which Obama is revered; cant you go peddle this bullshit narrative there? Why would you come here to spew such nonsense?

Marijuana industry also thrived. Colorado is making a shit ton of money

But no thanks to Obama. What did he have to do with it?

Mostly just replying to this

Look at how much progress legalization has made in the last eight years - you can knock him for not being behind it but you've also got to give him credit for letting the states do their own thing and taking a step back.

Not bringing the hammer of federal law enforcement down on CO to stop it?

But no thanks to Obama. What did he have to do with it?

He allowed it, told the DEA to stand down on raids and only allowed raids on facilities that were breaking the specific states laws on Marijuana.

$132 million in March 2017 with $22.9 million going to taxes!

Yeah right the first black president has to defeat the reefer madness. THe white rights woulda been up in arms against Obama.

The right white is/was up in arms either way. We got President Trump.

Every time they are in control they clearly let the left know they don't give a damn what the left thinks. When will the left learn to not care about the right's feelings?

We take the high road.

Guarenteed. His "soft stance" on weed was savaged on talk radio, he was going to ruin the nation with legalized dope and freed addicts. It was vintage reefer madness.

Lets assume all POTUS are innocent hard working men who are for the people and not the system.

Still no way in hell the first black man president was going to touch weed. No way.

Half white, Half black.

No one cares about the white half

I know, shows how dumb people really are.

Sort of like your comments

One Drop Rule, unfortunately.

Tell that to all the racist uncles in Texas.

Goes both ways. In many black circles he would be considered an uncle tom. He was raised by white people.

Just recently there was a beauty pageant winner who was mixed and won "black whatever" and black people were pissed because shes half white.

Can you imagine Obama rolling through a black neighborhood with his tight ass highwater pants, tucked in polo and dorky ass helmet? C'mon son.

He had the chance to bring everyone black and white together. Instead he made relations worse IMO.

He was used to divide.

This is his greatest failure and the reason he has lost a lot of his support.

No it isn't. Come on.

Obama was tied up with war and profiteering.

But not too tied up to lower penalties on low level drug offenses.

"The Trump administration is going to put people in jail for as long as possible. This is terrible!"

"Oh yeah, well Obama didn't legalize marijuana."

No shit. But what the Trump administration is doing is reversing an Obama-era action to lower penalties on drug offenses. So it turns out that Obama took a positive action and Trump is reversing it. Obama was moving in a good direction, Trump is moving in a bad direction. And you're talking about how bad Obama was. Well let me tell you what your god emperor is doing.

What, exactly, is he doing?

WASHINGTON — Attorney General Jeff Sessions has ordered federal prosecutors to pursue the toughest possible charges and sentences against crime suspects, he announced Friday, reversing Obama administration efforts to ease penalties for some nonviolent drug violations.

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/05/12/us/politics/attorney-general-jeff-sessions-drug-offenses-penalties.html

Where did the WH mention marijuana?

Spicer:

The Department of Justice, Spicer said, will be “further looking into” the marijuana enforcement question, he said, punting questions about the specifics to the department. “I do believe that you'll see greater enforcement of it,” he said.

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/02/federal-marijuana-enforcement-sean-spicer-235318

Easy thing to say considering his job is no longer making laws. Maybe strong enforcement will force legislatures to fix the problem properly instead of giving law enforcement another subjective tool/hammer to use at their whim.

Maybe strong enforcement will force legislatures to fix the problem properly

Hahahahahaha

The change has to come from the population - why should we expect arbitrary enforcement of the law. That's basically fascism in disguise.

You're right, it's not only marijuana, it's all drugs. This is a 2013 directive, telling prosecutors to avoid charging offenses that would trigger minimum sentences in case the defendant is not violent or a criminal:

http://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/HolderMandatoryMinimumsMemo.pdf

This is one of the two directives mentioned explicitly in Sessions' new "put as many people in jail as possible" policy, in a footnote in the second page:

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/05/12/us/document-Sessions-Charging-Memo.html?_r=0

It means that if you're a marijuana user, you will get harsher sentences now than before.

He didnt say it out right but its implied since most of the changes Obama and Holder did we for non-violent drug offenders.

I can't tell if they going after MJ or is this a response to the opioid heroin epidemic that is killing white suburban folks.

Prescription drugs, It's where people are getting hooked on these opioids.

The part about the drugs

"Please do research for me because I'm lazy and unaware." FTFY

Jesus dude. I'm sure someone would love to post the article for some karma so it's not like he's doing anybody a disservice by asking.

Why rely on depending on the will of the justice department to either enforce or relax enforcement of certain laws? Just get rid of the law, right? I know I, for one, applaud the Sessions' justice department for stepping up enforcement of our immigration laws. The only diffeerence here is this is a law we all don't like or agree with. So we should be encouraging changing the laws fundamentally, not wishing for our leaders to just ignore laws we don't like.

Someone gets it.

Yeah, I am sure that a Republican controlled Congress would face this issue with maturity and zero demagoguery.

/s... just in case...

This so much. The new "sessions memo" opened my eyes to what Obama actually did. That said, he did raid a Cali dispensaries for seemingly no reason (they were in compliance with state law)

Sessions is forcing the Legislative Branch to actually own up to their laws. If they don't want people going to jail for nonviolent and drug crimes, they need to write laws that say so. It shouldn't be up to the cop and judge to decide how they feel about your case.

The judicial branch should always be charging equal punishments for equal crimes. This is a push to prevent judges from acting as law makers from the bench. And for all crimes, not just drug crimes.

Did he? Or did a bureau he may have oversight of, but doesn't directly control every action, do that thinking it was part of their mandate?

He did.

Actually he didn't prohibit federal agencies from upholding federal law against large scale producers. In 2014, however, he was also the one who got legislation passed to put spending laws on federal agents trying to raid dispensaries in states it was legal. Right around the time CO and WA showed success in making recreational use legal.

You may be right in that he didn't give the order. Anyone who is in a position of power knows though that they are responsible for what goes on under them. Some ppl may blame those under them, but those are not leaders imo.

Obama's actions leaves the door open for Republican abuse, which in turn inspires voters to vote democrat. It's literally a strategical move at the expense of the voters. If Obama descheduled Marijuana, Trump rescheduling it would be a disaster and he couldn't do it. But instead using the dangerous policy of selective enforcement, Trump can come in and selectively enforce and piss just enough people off to vote democrat in 2020 or 2024.

So yes, I am going to blame Obama for not getting it right. Both parties suck and trying to compare them is like trying to decide your lunch is going to be a douchebag or a turd sandwich.

Bingo

Trump is moving in a bad direction. And you're talking about how bad Obama was.

This is all a clear distraction from pizzagate.

They aren't going after pot I guarantee it. They are going after Mexican cocain, meth, and opium dealers. This is why they did what they did.

Obama sucks

Every President, including the current one, ever has had the opportunity to reclassify marijuana.

Best comment here

Apologist. A majority of the public wanted it and he used to do it. There are also many studies to state that it is non-harmful. He could have endorsed it and allowed it's legalization. That way, as I understand from a book that I have read, it could be kept in the hands of small business (not sure how that works, but if anyone can explain the excerpt from How to Smoke Pot (Properly): A Highbrow Guide to Getting High - by David Bienenstock please do).

His first campaign also heavily implied he would. And when the petitions started rolling in the White House told everyone to fuck off.

Ha, I love how my previous post is getting downvoted by blind loyalists who can't question or even defend what they believe. Fucking sheep.

I MEAN, COME ON SHEEPLE!!!!!!!111!!!!1!!!1

Lol I've never seen a conspiracy theorist on this sub use the term sheeple in a derogatory term before.

Are you a provocateur trying to make us look bad?

it was sarcasm obviously

obvious Reddit sarcasm because it was upvoted

He's the type of person to listen to a song, you ask him if he likes it and he says "I don't know, I've got to ask me mates first".

The three day old T_D account said without a hint of irony.

Pure deflection.

I voted Obama 2 terms, guy. Voted Johnson because he thought differently and was pro pot. I have friends who need their medicine. Was going to voter Bernie but he ended up being a sellout bitch, just like the rest. Deflect this.

Absolutely. My comment does not, and is in no way intended to, address anything the guy said or says about Obama.

It was purely me noting an instance of flagrant hypocrisy, as anon_479 is also a blind loyalist who can't question or even defend what they believe.

And hell, you're an even better example, EuropaTerra! Nothing says "fucking sheep, allergic to discussion and fact" quite like spamming "Fuck off and die, leftist bitch" and "Kill yourself, shit skin" like you do, eh? You sure showed me who the superior race is!

When? Serious question. I don't remember that. I remember a lot of people saying and believing that, but I don't remember him implying it.

I implore you to search YouTube. He was definitely running on a pot friendly platform and he certainly mentioned his approval of medical marijuana because of his experience with his mother and cancer.

And I remember signing petitions and the white house blowing off the question.

Yeah there was an interview where he said he didn't see the point of the FDA raiding pot in states where it's legal. Meanwhile, the FDA...which he controlled...was raiding pot I states where it was legal.

I believe the waste of time and money that is three letters you were looking for in this instance is "DEA"

Yikes, my bad. That's what I get for redditing in a rush.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/jan/31/obama-decriminalize-pot/

It was within his power.

The president doesn't have the power to reclassify drugs. There are only two ways to do that. Either through congress, or through the AG.

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgov/2015/02/13/how-to-reschedule-marijuana-and-why-its-unlikely-anytime-soon/

There were several petitions during Obama's terms send to the AG and all of them ended up in front of a court. The last one in 2013. The court ruled that marijuana has no accepted medical use and therefore will remain under Schedule 1. As long as this ruling stands, and this is not something the president can change, there will be no reclassification (unless you bring the congress together to write a pro-marijuana law).

This is also a catch-22. Marijuana is a Schedule 1 drug and therefore you can't really do research on it. Without research you can't show possible medical treatments. And without that it will be hard to give evidence to a court to overrule the standing.

About the same time he changed a lot of his platform.

Petitions you say? As validated by whom? The United States public knows damn well that pot is (almost) harmless, at my bracketed word is there only to signify that sometimes individuals on the brink of mental illness might be worse off from taking in some weed. I don't even touch the stuff. I do cocaine...

As validated by whom?

The website set up by the Obama administration for petitioning the government.

His first campaign was also adamantly against Obamacare, yet as soon as he was elected he began to get Obamacare passed. The man lied his ass off to get elected.

As is tradition

His first campaign more than implied closing of gitmo, and an immediate end to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan....

Indeed, Obama promised quite a bit and delivered practically none of it.

Lol

Habit forming yes, addictive no.

It's also harmful. You can't breathe in smoke and say it's not harmful.

More importantly it's not up to the government to tell me what I can and cannot do in my own home when I'm not hurting anyone else.

Yes, yes it can.

Not so much. They can set guidelines and wishes.

You don't have to smoke it.

You don't, but that's still probably the most common way of getting it into your system. That would probably change once legalization hits nationwide.

This is flatly untrue, especially for cannabis, which is a brachiodilatotor. Swimmers often smoke for precisely that reason. There are several herbs that can alleviate coughing and such by being smoked.

People smoke lavender for fuck's sake.

Smoking itself is not harmful. Thats like saying contrails are harmful... it depends how often your actually smoking. The ocasional toker will see no ill effects at all. Hell the daily user who smokes at night will probably never get any harm done from it.

Yeah not sure that I agree with this. You're still putting carbon into your lungs. You put carbon in your lungs every day passively to differing levels, but by smoking you're putting it in intentionally.

You overestimate carbon and underestimate your lungs. The fact that you added "everyday" shows you are aware of this too.

Drink enough water and you'll have a splitting headache, feel the need to lie down, and never wake up. Everything is toxic. Dosage is what matters. A daily joint won't give you toxicity of anything, and your lungs will be just fine, if not in better condition assuming you live an otherwise healthy lifestyle.

Vaping should still be advocated for though. Smoking is bad for you in other ways, like fucking your skin up. While cannabis contains properties beneficial for skin, smoking cancels them out.

Yeah look, I'm happy to be proven wrong, but I've seen the lungs of someone who was a non smoker who lived in a city (allegedly) and there was a fair bit of carbon in them to the point that its hard to imagine it not affecting lung function. By inhaling smoke you're adding to it, and if you look at it over years I'm pretty sure you'd see damage.

Edit: and its hard to know what quantities people are smoking, too. Maybe one cigarette a day isn't too bad, but 15? Dunno.

I mean... yeah, that's the whole point. Dosage is everything.

i dont smoke it.... i make a tea with it. from what i can see its not harmful. all studies i have read suggest its not actually harmful and may actually be very beneficial. to be clear i have also read studies that suggest it could be harmful but so far only if smoked. I agree that anything "smoked" must be harmful in one way or another.

the one thing that winds me up is why its illegal though. are they trying to protect my health? why do they care? i can buy bleach and down the bottle... i can buy a pen ad shove it in my eye.... wheres the line? why do they care??? they dont! the only thing i can see is that more studies prove its beneficial factors and it being a free plant is not good for some powerful businesses. it seems more of a power move than a health move in the legalization factor.

since the internet and free speech is increasing i imagine it will be impossible to stop the legalization eventually.

i am of the view that all drugs should be legalized... educate people of the harm and benefits of all drugs and let the adult make their own mind up of whether they want it or not. who am i or u, to tell another human being they cant put "that" in their body!?!?!

I agree with all of this.

It was illegalised as part of the "War on Crime" that emerged after the Civil Rights movement as the new method of subjugating minorities once the colour of their skin wasn't legally inferior. It has been used to fuel the system of mass incarceration in America that makes billions of dollars for private corporations at the expense of the taxpayer. It's absolutely nothing to do with health

🙌🏾🙌🏾🙌🏾🙌🏾

While I agree with your sentiment this is slightly untrue. Marjiuana became illegal in the 1930's, not in 1965 when LBJ began his "war on crime." The timing was connected to two things: the end of prohibition of alcohol (1933), and the influx of Mexican citizens following the Mexican Revolution (early 1900's, 1910-1920ish).

Harry S. Anslinger was the man in charge of the bureau of prohibition when it came time for prohibition to end, and he quickly realized his job was about to not exist anymore. So he started investigating. My memory is slightly failing me on exact numbers but I believe he had 31 scientists research marijuana to find if it was harmful. About of those ~31, only 2 came to the conclusion it was harmful. Harry S. Anslinger used the opinion of those two scientists to convince congress that marijuana needed to be illegal.

There was a huge racist element to it. This is actually when "marjiuana" 'became a common term for cannabis, this was done intentionally so people would associate it with the Mexican citizens who already had a negative stigma in the eyes of many Americans. Look up some quotes from Harry S. Anslinger, there would be large scale public outcry today if a politican/public servant said even as close to the openly racist shit that came out of his mouth. One of the most shocking things being he claimed that black men used marijuana to give to white women so they can sleep with them.

Sorry for the novel but this is important to talk about because we are still enforcing a law created by an openly racist and vile man, I don't understand how people can claim that marijuana is illegal because it's dangerous. No, marijuana prohibition is rooted in racism, straight from the mouth of the man who created it. Of course LBJ and Nixon are both guilty of using marijuana prohibition to lock up civil rights activists, hippies and protest leaders but the true roots of its illegalization is a different kind of sinister. I would encourage everyone to read more into this time period and how the government managed to manipulate and change the population's view of marijuana so quickly. It's very interesting.

Stay high my friends!

Thank you for the extra information. I guess I got confused with Nixon's use of the illegality of the drug to target minorities, thinking that he was the one who made it illegal, when he was just giving it a bigger platform.

I'll look more in to Anslinger. Thanks for the heads up, I've been really looking closer at this sort of thing and each time you think you've discovered the extent of the evil, you open another can of worms and see how much deeper the rot goes.

No it wasn't. It was made illegal to block industrial hemp usage in order to protect Hearst and DuPont's paper and chemical interests. Racism was used as their method of manipulating the populace.

It was illegalised for many reasons. I've since learnt I was wrong about what I said (see the other reply to my comment). I suppose what I should have said is that the War on Drugs was used to drive the system of mass incarceration and oppress minorities (especially black Americans).

I still believe that racism was a big factor in it's prohibition, but I'm sure you're certainly right about the rest of it. I think the main thing is at the end of the day, it was all about corporate interests, and money. I'm sure they would have done it to white people too if they could have gotten away with it

i would like you tea recipe bro if you don't mind sharing. PM's welcome.

Happy to share my method of weed tea making dude:

1) get some butter (anything fatty will do as thc is not soluble in water). i like to use around two tea spoons worth and stick it in a pan 2) grind some bud (i do between 0.25 and 0.5 grams at a time and mix it with the butter. If feeling lazy can just heat up the butter in the pan and pour in your ground weed 3) put in water, a couple of cups worth as it will evaporate. bring to boil then turn down heat to simmer 4) simmer for 45m to 1hr and top up water every 15m.

done! add tea bags for flavor if you like or drink as is Can filter the bits out with a strainer if you want (i dont bother). the juice now contains all the dissolved thc :)

How do you make tea with it?

Well to answer the "Why do they care what I do with my body" argument people always throw out. Because we live in a country with increasing social benefits and governmental assistance; legalizing drugs will only increase the amount of people utilizing these services. So the tax payer is paying for their kids, food and medical bills meanwhile they're spending what little they have on drugs.

*I'm for legalization but this is the argument of the opposition.

The past election and current alt right situation shows that the general population wouldnt be able to handle all drugs being legal.

Hell, they cant handle opiods being illegal

Saying it's harmful because inhaling smoke is bad doesn't mean it is bad itself. It just means the way people are using it isn't good. You can get all the positive from it by eating it without the negative side effects of smoking.

It's disingenuous to suggest it's harmless when the way the vast majority of people use it is harmful. I'm all for complete legalization, but I've seen a lot of disinformation from both sides.

I never said it was harmless.

How are people so incapable of following a conversation?

I'm explaining my post that you disagreed with.

You are saying it's harmful because inhaling smoke is bad, I'm saying you don't have to smoke it. Point out something that is actually bad about using it that doesn't involve smoke in your lungs is bad.

There are a lot of things that are bad for you when you misuse them. That doesn't make them inherently bad.

From my personal experience edibles are getting HUGE traction in pot friendly states

You don't have to use it, or any drugs, at all.

Saying it's harmful because smoking is bad is a little misleading though. There are many benefits and no real negative effects when eaten.

That's just not true. There have been multiple long-term studies that confirmed that regular use of marijuana that began before the brain fully matured impacted intellectual development, resulting in adults with lowered cognitive capacity, slower thought processes, and lowered overall IQ.

Honestly, how hard is it to just not do drugs? Seriously. People seem to want to die with this syringe in their bicep pretty strongly. What is it about life that makes you people want to poison you minds and bodies with this shit?

I say this as someone who does not do any drugs. No alcohol, no tobacco, no downers, no retardants, nothing.

No retardants tho??

Perhaps not the best term, but I'm not actually sure if there is a medical term for what I'm thinking of.

I refer to the narcotics that make you stupid and slow. Weed, opioids, etc.

How about if I want to ingest something that in no way harms anyone else, I can. Also, weed doesn't make you "stupid and slow."

Your ingesting of something that impairs mental function makes you a danger to yourself and others. If you secluded yourself to a desert island, then sure, heroin it up. But while you live in a society where your actions affect more then yourself, you have a certain responsibility to notake poor decisions.

There is no excuse for someone on a bender to take up a hospital bed that could be better used to care for someone who fell ill, or suffered an accident, or some such.

And yes, weed does make you stupid and slow. It lowers your cognitive capacity significantly while the drug is in your system. Don't believe me, fine. It's easy to test. Grab a fifth grade math workbook, and try solving the problems whole sober. Then get high and try again. You'll notice the difference eventually, once enough of the drug has left your system for your brain to recover enough function to notice.

Here's the thing Mr. Smartypants, I'm an engineering student who does far beyond the average 5th grade math problem on a fairly consistent basis. To take things further, you openly admitted to never ingesting drugs yet go on to describe what it will concretely do to someone who has. It would seem as if you have no idea what you're talking about seeing as how you already predicated your entire statement with the fact that you have no first hand experience with the effects of drugs. You can sit here and tell me that someone in your family is why you are so against drugs. Sorry, it wasn't the drugs that made uncle Billy a failure, its Billy.

"Your ingesting of something that impairs mental function makes you a danger to yourself and others...while you live in a society where your actions affect more then yourself, you have a certain responsibility to notake poor decisions."

That is the most vague and generalized excuse for an argument I have ever read. Hyperbole. Woah. Digression. Anyways, if you are going to provide such a broad idea, you better back it up with more than people taking up hospital beds. This implies you believe all people who ingest things you don't think they should are in the hospital and that there is some shortage-of-hospital-beds pandemic sweeping the world. This is comical and most undoubtedly false.

I'll let you in on a little secret here, video games, tv screens, and frequenting r/conspiracy are all bad for your health and affects people beyond you.

Before you go telling others how bad things are for them, ask yourself, "Do I even eat that healthy or live an active lifestyle?"

Stop telling people what they can put in their bodies, thanks!

Weed does not make you stupid or slow. You also just stated you don't use it so how can you make such a broad generalization like that? My friend is a aquatic engineer who designs underwater pipelines for major corporations and he's been smoking weed since he was a teenager, and there are plenty of people in other fields of occupation just like him. Just because some people who smoke weed aren't as intelligent as others doesn't mean weed is the reason. Soda and fried food makes people fat too right? I drink soda often and I love fried chicken and I don't have diabetes nor am I even close to being overweight. Marijuana can be harmful and can impair early brain development but to say it makes people slow and stupid is downright incorrect. You seem to think you're intelligent, so, maybe you should try it and see if it makes you stupid, before you outright bash it by regurgitating something you read or heard elsewhere.

So you're sober and still a retardant?

Sorry, I thought we were under the assumption of the users being adults.

I say this as someone who does not do any drugs. No alcohol, no tobacco, no downers, no retardants, nothing.

Ah, and there it is. Someone with no experience telling everyone else how it works. Lmfao get out of here.

If you have no experience with it maybe it's best to keep your mouth shut!

True, but some of us enjoy how it feels, and it should be our right to put it into our bodies, regardless of what method we use to consume it.

Dad is that you? When are you coming home? I miss you!

Fuck you

Ur an idiot. You can say its not natural or some other shit but you cant say irs harmful with any actual facts??

The findings of this early study suggest that regular marijuana smoking results in symptoms similar to that of tobacco smoking with an increased incidence of chronic cough, sputum production, wheeze and episodes of acute bronchitis. These results have been replicated in subsequent longitudinal studies involving random or selected samples of populations in the USA.[4,15] Importantly, significant symptoms were reported with less than one marijuana cigarette smoked per day on average.[15] This suggests that respiratory symptoms can occur with fewer marijuana cigarettes than with tobacco cigarettes. This again may be related to the way marijuana is rolled and smoked.

http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/738255_3

This is but one of a shit ton of studies showing smoking marijuana has a harmful effect.

Vaping it isn't harmful. Eating it isn't harmful. Drinking it isn't harmful. Smoking anything is harmful, but cannabis can be consumed in many ways which are virtually, if not quite literally, harmless. Cannabis isn't harmless, only the smoking method of consumption.

Yeah, but gen pop isnt vaping and baking. Legalization is definitely gonna have an affect on COPD rates America, due to the increase paper and tobacco smoking with Cannabis.

Smoke much or hang around people who do? The Gen pop I know in fact does vape and eat it and many people prefer concentrate because of how much easier it is on the lungs. Most stoners I know care about their health.

Fellow vaper here. I agree. All of my friends vape.

Actually, in legal states, edibles are the most common way to consume weed

Raising health care concerns in a country where nobody cares if their neighbor has health care isn't an argument your going to win especially when everything from what you eat to where you live can cause cancer. People should be able to smoke if they can go destroy other organs legally.

Lmao increased tobacco consumption? That sounds like copd rates would be affected by an increase in stupidity.

Vaping is harmful. Especially if you have pre-existing lung conditions like COPD.

Source: I'm in school for RN.

If you have COPD you have bigger problems than breathing in hot air.

Source- Also not a doctor.

Like the collection and retention of CO² and water vapor?

water vapor

Errr, you don't inhale water vapor when you vape

Jesus Christ. You should know that PG and VG are the two fundamental components of water. Duuuhhh!

Source: took a semester of chemistry at a community college.

I got this notification, first thought: "When the FUCK did I post in /r/conspiracy???"

Oh. Heh, yeah. Du'oh.

Cannabis vaporizers don't use PG or VG though, they vaporize the dry herb directly.

Since she was taking about water vapor, I assumed she meant non dry herb

He's probably talking about a weed vaporizer, not an e-liquid vaporizer. A weed vaporizer just heats up the air enough to turn the THC into a gas. You're literally just inhaling warm air and cannabinoids. It's not harmful.

I was referring to dry herb vaporizers specifically. I should've specified that. I do agree that e-liquid vapes are likely harmful, and as such I steer clear of them, but dry herb vapes such as the Pax simply heat up the herb until the THC is released.

I'm in medical school. They told us the same thing but gave me no evidence to support the assertion, even when asked. Did they give you any actual evidence or did they just tell you and expect you to regurgitate it to patients?

vape

Vaping is not smoking.

Every seizure victim, who seizes in public, is considered to be a ''SCUMBAG JUNKY ASSHOLE FUCK IN ###MY TOWN'' to all cops, without exception. The dazed seizure victim, cannot immediately comply with lightning speed to the conflicting demands of the three cops who are code red called to the scene to deal with the ''druggie heroinning out on the sidewalk''. At once the three yell ''Dont you fucking move [all caps]'' and ''Hands out to your side'' and ''hands behind your back''. And then the violence begins. 100 questions per minute are barked from all three mouths , fingers poking in the chest, cuffs as tight as lug nuts on a tractor trailer.
Hey, what were you saying about harmful?
Science says that 80% or so people with seizure issues, find relief from cannabis. Regular weed has worked well for me for 20 years, without being particular about seeking out cbd. Thc works fine for me too. Huh.
Anyway, I haven't been roughed up by the cops in over 20 years. I feel less harmed. Purely anecdotal.

Thanks, that's what I meant to say.

Highly addictive no, possibility of addiction (addictive) yes.

Here come all the stoners who drank the mericle plant koolaid. Marijuana is 100% mentally addictive.

It's habit forming, not addictive. There's a difference.

2nd time you've replied to me stating your claim with zero reason as to why..

I can and did. Much easier than when I quit drinking. I've actually quit smoking weed a few times for a couple years at a time with absolutely no fanfare. It's absolutely not like alcohol or cigarettes or anything that is actually addicting. And this is coming from someone who smoked through the day for multiple years the first time I quit. It's not hard. There's no withdrawal. Maybe a little but of boredom for a couple days but that's it.

Lol no withdrawal, you've clearly never smoked weed. There is a withdrawl process.

After quitting you start to get your REM sleep stage back, which allows you to have dreams again. As your body rids its self of the THC metabolites in your blood you can have headaches and have even fuzzier memory than when you smoked. The insomnia starts going away after a week, along with the night sweats from your body detoxing.

After two weeks, your appetite begins to normalize, and lung function improves significantly. After three weeks, the full effects of lethargy, which is often mistaken as depression by pot smokers is almost gone, along with anxiety of not smoking.

So please, tell me more about there being no side effects of smoking weed.

Lol whatever you say buddy. I went from smoking through the day for years and quit cold. There's no withdrawal. Especially not like what you said. I have nothing to prove to you though so enjoy the rest of your day.

Maybe before you go spouting shit from your gabber, you should know what you're talking about! :)

Lmfao

At the risk of me regressing to a middle schooler, let me actually make the correction:

Here come all the posers

Because tbh with you, there's not a person I know (including myself a few years ago) who was a daily smoker who would argue that marijuana is addictive. It's like cigarettes except that most people who smoke weed don't smoke it as people who smoke tobacco smoke tobacco.

You smoke weed on the daily: you get addicted. Not mentally, physically. You may not realize it at first but if you stop smoking, you'll have physical withdrawals. You'll get sick; you'll get headaches, you'll get nausea, you'll get body chills, you'll get insomnia, you'll get irritable. Anyone who's a real stoner (as opposed to a social smoker) will know this.

I'm actually a huge advocate of marijuana. But I'm a bigger advocate of the truth.

It's like alcohol. Most people who drink alcohol will never end alcoholics. But that doesn't mean alcohol addiction isn't real.

Amen.

Am i missing the joke, or are you that far out there? Habit forming = addiction, and marijuana is 100% mentally addictive.

Habit forming and addictive are absolutely not the same thing.

Its a euphemism lol

I'm sure your going to tell me after having a habit of smoking weed every night for a year, you can just stop, right?

You know you replied twice with slightly different comments right? I think you might be retarded.

Proving a point there bud!

Apologist... No, not at all.

No politician is perfect. No politician ever gives the public everything they want, even when they may have said, or implied, they're generally supportive of something.

Name a President and we can all point to compromises made, promises broken and positions changed.

There are also many studies to state that it is not harmful

i think we can all agree, that, on the harmful scale, reefer is pretty low, but inhaling burning plant matter of any kind isn't exactly the healthiest of choices.

but it is wonderful.

or habit forming.

lol

I hate when people say its not addictive because it clearly is! Just cause an outside chemical doesn't get yo addicted doesn't mean you won't develop a dependency

Not really a dependency, as such with opioids, but more of a habit

It's chemicals that affect your brain and how it functions, and over time will change the chemistry of your brain and how it functions to where you can become dependent on it.

Sure it's not on the same level as opioids, but let's not pretend THC is the same as a WoW addiction or something.

Not physically dependent is what they are saying. Cannabis can be habit forming (psychological addiction).

Obama did more to normalize MJ use than any other president. I know that most of us wanted more from him, but the implication that he could have done more simply because the public wanted him to is very naive. I have to say, the OP does look like a deflection from the Jeff Sessions announcement today.

He sure went all out into making gay marriage federally legal, probably because he was gay "at one time". After all, he "almost" got into a permanent gay relationship before meeting his wife, which he revealed in his latest memior.

That was more of a stretch than to endorse state approval of a misclassified medicinal plant. It is possible that he was helping his interests and donors in the pharma field, as he also had notably helped the insurance companies further dwindle the middle class with Obamacare and governmental fines forcing them into a system that is now so corrupt, that even basic healthcare is simply unaffordable for the middle class.

There is probably more to him not endorsing pot. I can see why he wouldn't make it legal or endorse, as EVERYONE would be smoking it because "Mr. President said it was okay", queue little Timmy in 3rd grade lighting up. Plus Pot allows people to think about how bad the government/corporate married establishment has been screwing us and it's quite possible that the system might have to restructure in one way or another, which is bad because they have most people right where they want them, angry, in debt and working in a rut with no hope. Imagine if little Timmy realized the inherent repressiveness of the system at a young age. He probably wouldn't be busting his ass and worrying about never ending debt. He would probably just do something else to be happy and not live the "American Dream" which mostly leads to trying to obtain what you can't afford. This would obviously be bad for the government because a larger number of people may choose to live within their means and that's bad for the greed based economy... Just some ramblings of a non-conformist.

Tell me, which large commercial sector with deep investments in our political system opposed gay marriage?

I don't know of any, but how detrimental was gay marriage to big business? Perhaps therein lies the answer. Is that what you were getting at? (Crashing for the night)

It wasn't detrimental to any business—that's my point. Obama was perfectly happy to help legalize gay marriage because doing so had no negative repercussions for the Democratic Party. That's not the case for MJ legalization.

This line of thought leads us to the possibility that he was complicit in serving Big Pharma and/or the Health Industry as a whole, over the needs of the people. It is a medicine after all, one that provides varying amounts of relief and could prevent a considerable amount of doctor calls and medicine.

Congress was overwhelmingly complicit in serving Big Pharma. It seems clear that Obama tried to move things forward, but quickly discovered that any serious progress at the federal level was a non-starter politically.

You act like he wouldnt have been stonewalled even if he did.

He paved the way. In a way. Also ffs gwb used to do blow. It's not still legal. What's your point.

How is he meant to reclassify it when Congress were dicks and blocked every single thing he tried to do? The president isn't all powerful, and Congress is more powerful than the executive office. People think the president can do what they want. Trump being blocked at every turn is proof against that idea

Stop being an apologist.

"The president's [Obama] response, and that of his attorney general, is that it's a job for Congress. But that's not true, says Brookings Institution Senior Fellow John Hudak. According to a report authored by Hudak and Grace Wallack, the federal Controlled Substances Act clearly details a process by which the administration can take marijuana out of the drug schedules or, at the least, lower its schedule so that medical research can proceed."

The evidence that would require it to be schedule 1 was NEVER proven. Every president is responsible for this, including Obummer.

It isn't habit forming. If anything, it's addictive, but only for compulsive types who become addicted to any old thing from which they derive pleasure. It's not chemically addictive, i.e. it is not habit forming, at least it's never been proven to be empirically, any way.

A majority of the public wanted it and he used to do it.

I wouldn't say that. I'm all for legalization but there's plenty of people I dare a majority even if 60/40 that are against legal marijuana. There's still tons of conservative religious people in the US.

Can you back that up with a source?

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/10/12/support-for-marijuana-legalization-continues-to-rise/

Only 57% of people are for legalization and that's a recent turn of events up from 32%.

57% is a majority. Why would I ask him for a source when he was right and you were wrong?

I said in my OP So I was wrong

My point in saying that to you is I felt you were only asking me for a source is because it didn't line up with your beliefs. So I felt attacked.

I thought you were wrong, hence my request for a source.

It still comes across as hypocritical. You could have provided the source.

No matter what you're talking about it's a grandiose claim to say "I think majority of the people want it." So not asking the person who says "Most everyone wants it" for a source but asking me who said "I think it could be as low as 60/40" (a far more reasonable statement IMO) for a source seems hypocritical.

Either way 57% is just over a majority so OP claims of "most everyone wants it" is wrong. It's in reality "a bit more than half want it." Now if it was 75% or higher I'd agree with y'all.

Dude you're just talking out of your ass because you were wrong. Just admit it and move on. It's not a big deal.

You seriously can't comprehend.

I said in my OP when I provided a source. So I was wrong. I admitted long ago I was wrong. You're just avoiding the truth that you were attacking someone that you think didn't share your beliefs.

But it's not opinion. You presented statistics which is a fact not an opinion. Your fact was wrong. The other guy did not provide numbers so he has much more leeway.

You presented statistics which is a fact not an opinion.

I presented numbers because you asked me because like I said you were trying to be a dick. In both of our OPs neither of us provided numbers. Only you asked me for numbers... Do you really not see how you're the genesis of this?

Your fact was wrong.

Ugh fourth time in four hours I've had to repeat this for you. I said in my post I was wrong.

The other guy did not provide numbers so he has much more leeway.

Because you didn't ask him for numbers because you agree with him. Thus you were only out to be a dick and closed minded with people you don't agree with.

Ok buddy, have a good night.

Ok buddy, have a good night.

AKA "Yeah you're right I was trying to be a dick to people that don't believe the same way I do but I won't admit it because I'm a bitch boy."

First time I've ever seen somebody actually get triggered over asking for a source.

It is grown from the earth and has high medicinal value. It is the right of the inhabitants of this earth to utilize it to heal themselves. One could say that God himself created it, same as Kratom, to ease suffering. So some people use it to get blotto. There is no way to directly die from its consumption. Fucking let them. Life is hard. Propaganda for selfish greed, allowing needless suffering, is intolerable.

I'm all for legalization I really am but it doesn't change the fact that only 57% of people are for it's legalization.

I also hate the "it's grown from the earth" so is tobacco, uranium and venomous snakes. However, if people want to smoke it more power to them. My point here is don't let your own ideals or objectives overlook the facts that there's still a lot of conservative Americans.

57% is enough for me. Donno what gay marriage was but guessing less than that.

Really? Tobacco is legal and uranium isn't organic. xD

Mj legalization should be determined state by state, most importantly, BY THE PEOPLE. Not to be tampered with by state government as in some southern states, by the regressive conservatives in power.

57% is enough for me. Donno what gay marriage was but guessing less than that.

Believe it or not it's the same at 57%

Really? Tobacco is legal and uranium isn't organic. xD

You didn't say anything about organic you said "from the earth"

Mj legalization should be determined state by state, most importantly, BY THE PEOPLE. Not to be tampered with by state government as in some southern states, by the regressive conservatives in power who are probably taking pharma money.

I agree it should be determined by the people but the fact of the matter is that it's a huge revenue stream so the states and fed are going to get involved in hopes of getting profit from it. Either be from legalization taxes or from the courts and prison system from enforcing it. In my state Ohio there was talks of legalizing it but the people found out it was a scheme to make the same rich people that started the legalization campaign even richer as they used the law to buy all the farms that would be allowed to grow that weed.

You have no idea how politics works do you?

I am of the strong opinion that he and Michelle the CFR director are puffing it up big time as we speak. Obama is cooking up a special infused dinner for her with the girls.

This is not true. It is addictive. That's why it's in the DSM-V and listed as such. Much more research to show it's addictive than not. I think it should be legalized. But don't delude yourself. There are an enormous amount of people treated every year for cannabis addiction. Mental health counselor here.

This is not true. It is addictive. That's why it's in the DSM-V and listed as such. Much more research to show it's addictive than not. I think it should be legalized. But don't delude yourself. There are an enormous amount of people treated every year for cannabis addiction. Mental health counselor here.

OP voted for Trump. Pretty sure he's another fake Berner.

While not required, you are requested to use the NP (No Participation) domain of reddit when crossposting. This helps to protect both your account, and the accounts of other users, from administrative shadowbans. The NP domain can be accessed by replacing the "www" in your reddit link with "np".

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

Why would I care whom he voted for?

It lays bare his motives for distracting from the Trump administration ramping up the drug war.

I don't judge people who voted for Clinton or trump, seems like there is more at stake that petty politics.

I don't think it's petty. In these days of fake news and rampant social media shilling considering the source's motives has never been more important.

Funny thing is both sides are thinking the exact same thing (regarding shilling and astroturfing) about the other side, both sides engage in it, and neither will admit to it.

Well I didn't vote for either candidate and I supported Sanders in the primaries so I don't know what side that puts me on, but I'll say that both sides are astroturfing and shilling harder than ever before.

Why didn't you vote for clinton?

She's more dishonest than your typical politician. She was a part of the "tough on crime" effort in the 90's. She voted to authorize the Iraq war. She voted for the Patriot Act. She advocated allowing gun manufacturers to be sued for crimes committed with their guns. She's a Corporatist. She damaged the credibility of the DNC as an independent forum. I didn't find her conversion on gay marriage sincere or believable. She wouldn't support states legalizing recreational mj and hinted at clamping down on them.

More than anything, I just don't find her trustworthy. I think she would have continued to get us involved in conflicts we have no business being in.

Do you think trump is worse?

In some ways far worse, but neither of the candidates met my standards.

What did you think about stein?

She wasn't ready for the presidency. Neither was Johnson.

Wait a second motherfucker.

You didn't vote in the primary but you're trying to invalidate OP's very worthy thread because he voted for trump?

FUCK YOU. you don't deserve an opinion and the fact that you're trying to cockock an anti-prohibition thread.... you're just here to stir the pot asshole

Jesus. Someone needs to dial back the coffee intake. I am an anti-prohibitionist. I suspect OP is trying to distract from more relevant antiprohibitionist news or forward the specious notion that Obama and Trump are the same regarding prohibition.

That doesn't change the fact that you, a vocal nonvoter, is trying to invalidate a thread via calling out OP's voting choices in the election.

That ain't rite and if this is the first time you've mulled over that concept, then know that I am the one to shove it down your throat

Well respectfully, I disagree.

That ain't rite

Why exactly do you think it ain't right?

The concept is simple: if you didn't think you had a responsibility to vote in the GE (I understand and this isn't what you are trial for, see below),

Then you sure as hell aren't in a position to EVER call out anybody for their voting choice.

Uh huh, you said that. Now give me a logical throught process as to why you think that.

Shilling harder than Obama, the most blatant elite-owned puppet in American history

LOL na

Not to mention other groups inside and outside our nation working to destabilize.

literally what happens every thread

Well said.

How do we know you're not a Clinton or a ShareBlue shill?

How do we know you're not?

Exactly. Now you see my point. Stop coming in here making baseless accusations. Who cares who he voted for.

Who cares who he voted for.

168 updooters.

It lays bare his motives for distracting from the Trump administration ramping up the drug war.

As opposed to you distracting from the claim made in this post?

Quid pro quo my bro.

?

I'm reallllllllly not a fan of the Trump administration apparently doubling down on the drug war. I think it's an unforgivable and backwards approach to take.

I don't think referencing the lack of action by the Obama administration is a 'distraction' - I think it shows that regardless of how different two administrations may seem, they both follow the same set of rules.

Doubling down on the drug war is only possible due to the Obama administration's inaction.

Doubling down on the drug war is only possible due to the Obama administration's inaction.

How do you figure? The Trump admin could immediately reverse any changes the Obama admin made to drug scheduling. Any lasting change would have had to go through a Congress which wasn't friendly to relaxing the war. I agree that the Obama admin is remiss in not changing the scheduling, but that shouldn't overshadow the progress made on relaxing federal sentencing for nonviolent crime and the allowance of states to make their own laws regarding recreational use, something that almost certainly wouldn't have been allowed under a Republican administration and certainly wouldn't have happened if Trump were president when Obama was.

allowance of states to make their own laws regarding recreational use

That's a misunderstanding. The states that made their own laws regarding recreational use are still in violation of federal law - the lack of enforcement by the Obama administration doesn't change the law.

My whole point is that there really isn't much of a difference between the two parties when it comes to drug policy. Democrats play slightly more 'good cop' while Republicans play slightly more 'bad cop.'

Obama could have reclassified it but didn't. He CHOSE not to. He also could have used the bully pulpit to push for the issue, but seeing as he didn't even attempt to reclassify it, Congress' inaction isn't really much of a story.

My whole point is that there really isn't much of a difference between the two parties when it comes to drug policy.

Obama did nothing but relax the WoD and speak against it. Trump claimed to be for states rights on recreational then did a complete 180 after being elected and is ramping up the drug war. Sorry, but your opinion has no basis in reality.

Sorry, but your opinion has no basis in reality.

I love how people like you feel the need to jump to this kind of shit when your point falls apart. Obama CHOSE NOT TO reschedule. That's reality. He CHOSE NOT TO push congress to change the laws.

I understand that that's inconvenient for your propaganda, but that's not my problem.

What kind of shit? Just stating a fact. You have to ignore everything but drug scheduling to make your point. Weak sauce my man.

You have to ignore everything but drug scheduling

Drug scheduling is the number one issue about the...say it with me now...war on drugs!

You may be unaware that federal law supersedes state law. Weak sauce, you should have paid more attention in middle school civics class.

Damn, you're getting salty. You'd think I kicked your puppy or something.

Drug scheduling is the number one issue

And yet it's not the only issue. Something which you seem desperate to ignore.

federal law supersedes state law

Oh, no I realize that, but I also realize that you're desperately trying to distract from the point of our disagreement, which is you equating both sides.

Damn, you're getting salty. You'd think I kicked your puppy or something.

Something which you seem desperate to ignore.

I also realize that you're desperately trying to distract from the point of our disagreement, which is you equating both sides.

I like that your entire comment is an attempt to frame my motivations and try your hand at some really weak armchair psychology.

So I'll just say again - the Obama administration CHOSE not to attempt to end the drug war. The only action they took was the standard action that goes back and forth between Democrats and Republicans when they're in charge of the executive.

I don't know why you're taking this to such a weird, personal place. I'm just pointing out the obvious.

Obama not ending the drug war is not equal to Trump escalating it no matter how many times you repeat yourself you know.

No shit, I never said it was equal. I said that Trump wouldn't be able to escalate it in this manner if Obama had put actual effort into ending it.

Since Obama didn't put any effort into ending it, Trump gets to just claim to be enforcing existing laws (which is correct, as shitty as those laws are).

"My whole point is that there really isn't much of a difference between the two parties when it comes to drug policy. "

Well yes, as long as they both keep these drugs scheduled the same way under federal law, we're just going to go back and forth. Which is the same point I've been making over and over while you keep trying to...I'm not really sure what you're doing.

I'm not really sure what you're doing.

Trying to explain to you that back is not the same direction as forth.

Strange, it seems to me that you're just attempting to blindly defend the Obama administration and obfuscate any disccusion of the lack of progress in the drug war.

And I mean lack of progress regardless of which political party is in charge. Which is pretty innocuous (and very clearly true) claim.

Not sure why you have such a problem with it.

Oh I have a big problem with Obama not rescheduling. I just have an equally big problem with people who try distract from the difference that exists between mainstream Democrats and Republicans when it comes to this issue.

As I said, I think the Obama administration's decision to relax sentencing for nonviolent offenders is significant, especially to those who would be rotting in prison now. I think that and his deprioritization of enforcement allowed recreational use to become mainstream and come out of the shadows. Could he have done a lot more? Fuck yeah. Should he? Fuck yeah. But that doesn't mean I have to ignore what he did which was more than any president before him or after.

I just have an equally big problem with people who try distract

I'm sorry but it's like talking to a wall with you over this. People having a different opinion than you is not the same thing as people attempting to distract from something.

People having a different opinion than you is not the same thing as people attempting to distract from something.

It's not necessarily the same thing, but it is suspect.

it's like talking to a wall with you over this.

Well no offense but likewise.

Tbh, shouldnt cocaine and heroin have tougher sentences?? I dont think theybjust ramped up marijuana laws... its all drugs. Marijuana continues to be voted for and now the latest state went theough legislature and that really ought to send a message to the trump administration.

and that really ought to send a message to the trump administration.

Fully agree with you here - I think Session's words (and thus also Trump's words as it's his administration) are absolutely fucking absurd here.

As for the other drugs, I would definitely agree that they're a more serious problem that should be dealt with in a more serious way than marijuana (just as an example).

However, I'm not convinced that incarceration of users or low-level dealers really provides the benefits that proponents claim. But a solution involving treatment seems to be beyond what we're currently capable of as a country.

If you get distracted its your own fault.

Just trying to help others who are easily distracted.

You clearly have a motive.

Doesn't everyone?

Theres a lot of bare lays around here

That's just silly. One vote doesn't dictate your whole thought process.

Not the whole thought process, but it is somewhat indicative.

So if someone makes a post in relation to the hottest topic on Reddit, they will always have an ulterior motive?

Does that only work with Trump supporters?

they will always have an ulterior motive

I'm gonna say, usually.

Does that only work with Trump supporters?

lol, of course not.

By that logic, what is your purpose here?

To keep people's attention on current threats and forgo irrelevant past ones. To remove the "both parties are just as bad" distraction that OP is likely orchestrating.

Neither party has your best interests in mind, only their own best interest. They want to stay in the position they have or better. Risk doesn't pay.

Why do you think the President has so much power? Congress has given away their responsibilities so they don't have to take a stand for anything and have to defend it on the campaign trail. That's how you become a career politician.

Their best interests are still somewhat constrained to what is generally publically acceptable. Our interests aren't principle, their funders interests are, but that doesn't mean we have no way of influencing them. There's likely nothing they love to hear people say as much as "both sides are the same". All they hear is "do you need me to bend over further for you?".

Sure. But I'm more inclined to believe they are the same, rather then the Democrats are Angels and Republicans want to murder you line I hear every day.

Those career democrats love hearing that too. And vice versa.

He's being misleading about it elsewhere in this thread. Seems disingenuous.

Because trump supporters are trying very hard to make sure this sub stays pro-trump so OP is deflecting from trump's ramping up of the drug war by saying Obama never legalised weed (even though he faced unprecedented obstruction throughout his presidency).

Why does that matter?

You should be banned for trying to downplay someone's opinion because you don't agree with their vote.

OP's own actions downplay their opinion. I'm just providing context with proof. The funny thing is my comment has more to do with conspiracy than the OP.

YOU voted for Hillary. That makes YOU a trump Hillary.

You voted for thousands of deaths via HIV positive blood in haiti.

You voted for Benghazi.

YOU voted for 911.

Just to give you some context, this is how you sund.

Except I didn't vote for Hillary. I supporter Bernie in the primaries but I abstained from the general. Fuck Hillary and Trump.

You abstained instead of voting an alternative? You can't have a say if you don't vote imo. A vote could of helped a side party (they need so many votes to get funding for the next election).

But anyway; the "especially the former" comment proves your bias comment.

Could have

You can't have a say if you don't vote imo.

This is the dumbest bullshit ever.

A seriously deep level of mind control. Poor bastards.

Abstaining from a vote is also a vote to be fair.

I supported Bernie

Hahaha... wow. You supported a sellout who supported Hillary. I think we can glean all the information we need about you from this.

And I think we can all glean the information about you from your comment.

Don't attack someone based on their vote. proceeds to attack someone based on their vote.

What?

Huh? It's a different person?

but I abstained from voting in the general.

Oh goddam it. I'll never understand how not voting is an option when clearly, so much is at stake. To each their own.

I don't go in for the rationale that you can vote someone without supporting/endorsing them. I only vote for someone if I feel comfortable defending them. Until I see someone on the national that's morally defensible I'll stick to local elections.

I love how the only option for someone with integrity isn't even an actual option on the ballot. They should add a vote of no confidence to the ballot in all 50 states.

It would be a nice feature to be able to vote against a candidate, essentially nullifying one vote for them.

Huh. Never even thought of that. Sadly I don't think we'll see any "viable option" other than the same two parties for the foreseeable future. It's almost like the game is too rigged to break the mold.

When your vote goes third party and the people in the running aren't who you would vote for.. That's how.

Because I could not knowingly vote for either of those candidates. I cannot knowingly get behind a two party "this or that" voting system. I voted for Obama in 2012, but that was because I actually believed in him, even though the republican majority basically blocked everything the left tried to do.

THAT is why I can't get behind parties, just a bunch of stalling and people blindly following their party. Example: spineless Paul Ryan who blatantly talked against Trump in the campaign, but once he became the top candidate he fell into place and voted for and supported the guy.

I didn't vote for president this year because I couldn't get behind billionaires becoming president, sorry.

Fuck hillary clinton

Did you really just blame Hillary Clintom for 9/11, even though she's never been president and it happened during Bush's presidency?

The warmonger scum that pulled Bush's strings allowed it to happen, then blamed people who weren't responsible, and then used that as a pretext to take away pretty much all of the remainimg freedoms people in the US had.

As scum as Clinton is, this partisan bullshit is disgusting, and you have spit on the graves of American terror victims by pushing it. It was Bush jr. who allowed 911 to happen and it was his father who created and empowered the groups responsible, and Republicans need to acknowledge that they are the ones who caused and allowed the worst terror attack ever committed by non-state actors.

Hillary Clinton is partly responsible for our bad blooded relations with the middle east whether you want to admit it or not.

Hillary Clinton is partly responsible for our bad blooded relations with the middle east whether you want to admit it or not.

I honestly need to know where you get this from.

The USA has been dropping mercenaries and bombs in the Middle East since Clinton was in high school, but it was the CIA and their overwhelmingly Republican party puppets that variously armed, funded, provoked, maimed and slaughtered people in the Middle East.

Why the fuck are people still talking about Hillary Clinton? She lost the fucking election, she's fucking irrelevant. How did Republican election propaganda infect so deeply that there are people that now believe Hillary Clinton is responsible for the Republican party's terrorism fuck-ups?

Because to ignore what the people in power once did is just as foolish as ignoring anything bad Trump would do.

We're still fucking talking about her because she was the secretary of state for 4 years, her husband was the fucking president of the United States, and she has, and still has her hands in plenty of bad business..

Frankly, if you think Hillary is a harmless old lady just because the election is over you're delusional. Just because she lost doesn't mean she gets automatically pardoned from every bad thing she or her cabinet have done. Powerful family with an incredibly fucked up sense of right and wrong.

You just implied Hillary Clinton is responsible for 9/11, and you have to gall to call him delusional?

I stated that she was in part responsible for it and I stand by that.

Are you going to keep using that as your scapegoat out of the argument? No.

I know this is conspiracy but do you have any proof for the foundation allegations?

No he was overdramatic to prove a point. FUck the dems and there tactics of trying to trick one into thinking the way they do. They wall want to be in their ivory tower telling people how to act but acting how they want. FUck them all. Fuck repubs too. But people are hip to the Dems horrible strategies and what we are seeing is a bunch of dems who don't know anything else. All they can do is reeeeeeeeee now and make up outlandish claims that never have evidence or are true, ever. Since Trumps inauguration and before that Politics has had a new HE WILL BE IMPEACHED TODAY BECAUSE OF THIS!!!!!!!! And it hasn't happened. Go back into the smelly dank holes you crawled out of. You aren't better than someone who doesn't like muslims because you don't like the people that dont like them. You are just ignorant.

Because it's more obvious than Obama that Trump is a Zionist globalist puppet. Not that it undoes his post here - but it does say you don't really have room to claim awakeness or high and mightyness if you voted for Trump.

We ban for opinions now? You're reading way into this. Make r/conspiracy a Trump echo chamber again.

OP VOTED FOR TRUMP

We ban for opinions now?

So you can ridicule downvote and silence someone for not voting for the candidate you like, but banning is off limits?

What's the difference?

Um. I didn't do that?

This isnt the Donald, you dont get banned for having an opinion you cock burgler

We'll see about that buddy.

You just wait and see buddy.

Hey buddy,

I got a temp ban for criticizing Jared Kushner and half-jokingly claiming that Kushner and Mossad were behind the rise of t_d.

Banned? The real conspiracy here is people like you and your agenda.

You know you're r- Actually no, that's fucking retarded.

It was a tongue in cheek comment, not to be taken seriously. I've never banned anyone in my life, and I don't really support that unless someone is really going off the hinges with hatred/racism/spam.

If you're going to ridicule someone on their political leanings right off the bat, I automatically disrespect whatever you have to say. Right or left.

Lol, just satire right? Satire as an excuse and banning for going against the narrative, sounds like some the_Donald safe space logic to me.

Yes, everything you disagree with is either satire or a bannable offense.

.... You were the one calling for banning people not me. Don't try and act otherwise. You can disagree with him but when you start banning people for disagreeing with you, well you become the Donald. Sorry if I dont want to see that here.

It was a tongue in cheek comment, not to be taken seriously.

Also, I'M NOT A FUCKING MOD. The amount of people that comment riled up is hilarious.

No, he is pointing out ops clear bias. Something op also lied about. Sorry you want to ban people for disagreeing with you snowflake.

Oh you caught him I guess that makes his factual statement untrue. Obama damn well said he would make progress and did nothing!

It's not the truth of OP's post in question. It's the timing.

Why are you creeping through people's past comment history just because they feel inclined to express a point? Do we all need to use alt accounts just to have validity and avoid personal scrutiny on this sub? Or, could we all be dynamically-changing and adjusting individuals who might not hold the same viewpoint we did a few months ago?

You can usually discount alt accounts by the lack of post history, dedication to a specific topic, and their being recently created.

Why are you creeping through people's past comment history

I find it fascinating. I don't think I'm the only one.

If you can't see anything alarming about combing through people's past minutiae to determine exactly who they are today and how justified you are in pillorying them in public...maybe you should look at all the comments you've made over the past 5 years and agree that the worst things you said define you the most.

I have no problem owning up to the things I've said. I think everyone should.

It doesn't matter who someone voted for, as long as they vote on there best interest and what they feel will is best for the future of the Country. Calling someone out for who they voted for is petty and cheap, that person is not in your shoes and you are not in there's so who are you to say he voted for Trump so he has no voice in this. You are the problem with the domocrat party, you just gave someone that extra little push to the right when you might have had a chance to pull the person to the left.

All this crap coming out of Democrats is hurting your party and Trump will be in office for 8 years I will put a guarantee on that. If people are held back form saying something for fear of people like you, that's how a person like Trump gets elected because it's that big "fuck you" to the people holding them back.

who are you to say he voted for Trump so he has no voice in this.

I'm not saying he has no voice in this, I'm just questioning the validity of his voice. His vote combined with the timing of this post is highly suspect IMO.

All this crap coming out of Democrats is hurting your party

Respectfully that's a bunch of reverse psychology bs. There's no shortage of Republicans who will call you out for voting for Hillary so I doubt this type of behavior drives people in either direction.

I think he has done so because it is useful for pointing out a common partisan tactic that is intellectually lazy. Obama does something disagreeable and the reply is "But Bush...!". Trump does something disagreeable and the reply is "But Obama...!". It is called deflection.

I am not sure what you mean about viewpoints changing in this scenario. OP is a Trump supporter that is criticizing Obama in this thread. That seems pretty consistent. What viewpoint are you suggesting has changed?

Man, this is Reddit. Sometimes I come on this website drunk and get into meaningless arguments with someone over a typo. Sometimes I comment just to make dumb jokes and engage in meme silliness. And then other times I come to subreddits like this and seek to actually speak my mind and engage in some sort of meaningful conversation. The point I'm trying to make is that if you like combing through people's past minutiae to try to paint a current picture of them, you better be willing to stand by every comment you've ever made as being fully representative of who you are as a person in the same vein. Or else recognize the constantly-changing dynamism of personal perspective and don't engage in witch-hunting.

The point I'm trying to make is that if you like combing through people's past minutiae to try to paint a current picture of them, you better be willing to stand by every comment you've ever made as being fully representative of who you are as a person in the same vein.

You're not wrong. If you're gonna dig up dirt on someone, be prepared to have your own garden dug up too.

The difference is that OP is digging up someone's garden, and yet noone has tried to dig up his. He's the only one finding a connection there.

It comes down to how willing you are to do research on someone's record, which in my opinion is intrinsic to the content of this sub. Conspiracy is the willful act of digging so deep into something that sometimes you forget to come back.

The guy you're talking to is doing way more, be it good or bad, than the normal redditor to make sure posters aren't just using the sub as yet another soapbox for their campaign.

Are you honestly trying to shame someone for pointing out a hidden agenda in a conspiracy subreddit?

So discontinuing the use of federal authorities/resources to go after pot wasn't progress? No threat of their intervention is precisely what fast tracked legalization in CO, which helped snowball to all these other states.

It doesn't matter who OP voted for. Both main party candidates are anti-recreational cannabis in spite of the evidence

That's why we were supposed to vote for the socialist.

These stupid fuckers who didn't vote for Bernie amaze me

it doesnt matter who did and who didnt vote for bernie. he was never going to get the nomination.

"Those Bernie types" didn't stand a chance against the DNC because the DNC was going to choose whoever it wanted in spite of the primary elections. Who the fuck insists on a super-delegate system in a real democracy?

These Bernie type characters have been trotted out in so many elections over the last hundred years it is laughable. It can be hard to research the nobodies of elections through the years, when the mass media ignored them back then as well. Where would you look? News archives are full of nothing about the person ignored at the time.
Not too many people know who this stage actor was; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Smith
He played an awesome fiction role, just like Bernie.
Neither matter at all. Just a little tiny false hope spark to keep you hoping. LOL
No matter how much your deep felt heartstring tugging , lump in the throat desire of unbridled dreams of a John Lennon fantasy leader freeing us of the bonds of industry soars, it is not happening bro.
It's all a stage play. It's the easiest role to fill in any production, by a mile.
The Richard Dreyfuss, Judd Hirsch, Alan Alda type.
Bernie vs Military/Pharma Industrial Monsanto Walmart Hollywood Complex
Come on man.

Except I didn't vote for Hillary. I supported Bernie in the primaries but I abstained from the general. Fuck Hillary and Trump; especially the former.

you did not even vote and your necroing someones histroy to discredit them as a person instead of talking about what they came here to talk about. GTFO non-voters are why we get shit candidates every 4 years.

and so by your own logic you are dammed for making poor voting choices all of your opinions are worthless.

No, lesser evil voters are the reason why we get the same shit candidates every 4 years. I chose to focus on local elections as it is the only real means to change this course. I won't lend legitimacy to national elections I know are corrupt. I won't sign my name behind candidates who do things I can't abide. You on the other hand, lend legitimacy to corruption.

Thank you for pointing this out. It's getting to be pretty damn obvious that anytime the Trump administration needs some distracting posts like this, about irrelevant politicians that are not currently the president and in charge of our country, seem to pop up.

Yeah, fuck that guy. Just like every damn trump supporter they can't get past Obama or Hillary. Living in the past for any excuse they can.

You don't have to agree with every single issue to vote for a candidate. The fact you point that out is pretty juvenile and navie

IMO the vast majority of either candidate's platform was either unconscionable or not believable based on their past statements and voting history.

Then why bring up that op voted for Trump? You're either unaware of your contradiction or you have a huge superiority complex.

As a Trump supporter, OPs motives for bringing up Obama days after Trump's admin escalated the drug war are suspect. There is a ton of political brigading in this sub and I find point it out relevant and interesting. Simple as that. And considering the popularity of my comment, I'm not the only one who thinks it's relevant. If you don't think the behavior of the source is relevant then that's your business.

If anything this draws more attention.

Doesn't stop him from being correct.

He's correct but he's definitely on a campaign to distract from the recent orders from the Justice Department. His heart bleeds for all the people Obama didn't pardon, but he has no concern at all for all the people who will be put in jail by bringing back mandatory minimums. Dude actually blames Obama for what Sessions just did. Unreal.

Everything after 'he's correct' is unnecessary. The fact stands on its own, stop trying to politicize it even more because you don't like the messenger.

Sorry, but I'm a little more curious than you. I'm just as concerned with what's right as I am with what's relevant.

You're just looking for a way to whatabout around the facts. Nobody here is reading this topic to find out about the messenger, you're just deflecting.

Considering this post is a whatabout, quid pro quo.

Besides rescheduling does less for the legalization effort than Obama's executive discretion on enforcement. Even rescheduling to 5 wouldn't do anything to legalize. This is clearly a distraction from Sessions rolling back Obama's executive discretion on enforcement.

OK now you're just being a fullblown apologist. Keep trying, stud.

Can't argue against the facts filly? Very well then.

Obama specifically campaigned on decriminalizing marijuana.

I don't think that's right. I recall he said he would allow it to be studied and then see if it should be reclassified. I could be wrong though.

Isn't schedule 1 the category where you can't research bc it's already "proven" to have no benefits whatsoever? So in order for proper research to be done on it, it had to be rescheduled first?

The government can give permission to conduct testing on schedule 1 drugs.

I think a lot of this stems from hemp being able to cover like 110% of building materials

No, no, no, if marihuana is legal all the blacks will run around raping our white women!!

/s

I remember he had Harold and Kumar (Stoner film characters) endorse him in character and loads were certain he'd legalise weed lol, ngl I fell for it too

He made everyone believe in change when he was a nominee.

Wasn't just him. Every media outlet made him into a rockstar. He had the cover of fucking Rolling Stone before the primaries if I remember correctly. TPTB pulled out all stops to put him in office.

They didn't have to try very hard, Bush was wildly unpopular and Obama was facing an opponent that was quickly going back on everything that made him a 'maverick', including picking dumb-as-a-rock Sarah Palin as a running mate. That election was going to be a cakewalk for any Democrat that could ties his shoes.

Kal Penn worked on his campaign. Think he did an AMA here and answered some mmj questions and rightfully received pretty harsh criticism for kinda dodging the questions​. He answered like a true politician.

And they all pass it up it from bribes from pharmacies...

But Obama was president during a time when a wave of medical mj and general decriminalization took root; past presidents did not have that environment, not even close. Not that any Republican would come to their senses, but other than Obama, it was Bill Clinton, and the 90s were a very different time. Very little to no decriminalization or medical mj.

Yep, and he chose the path of not being involved so the conservatives couldn't rally against it more strongly.

Tbh, if he had legalized it they would have rallied harder against it. Anything he did they have to destroy, since the states did it they don't know what to do.

Yep. If things are moving along nicely at the pace states are comfortable with, why bring a lightning rod into the room?

Real leaders make the right decisions in spite of how some of their adversaries might feel about it. Obama was no leader.

Well, to protect against what's happening now. If there had been some willingness on the part of our democratic politicians to take a risk and take a stand, then we wouldn't be worrying about Sessions setting us back.

He consciously avoided being the President that went in on decriminalizing MJ because he was the first black president. I don't agree with his logic but I do understand it. The GOP would had a field day.

....source?

You don't need a source for that it's common sense

Just a common sense observation. We know that Obama isn't strongly anti-marijuana in any way. He used to smoke himself back in his younger days. He has also publicly stated that marijuana should be treated like 'cigarettes or alcohol' and pardoned more non-violent drug offenders than any other president but he said this on his way out of the door. So not too impressive from Obama but still a billion times better than Jeff Sessions that wants to ramp up the drug war even more and is actively reversing Obama's positions on non-violent drug offenders. He believes if you went down for smoking pot in the 70's and are still in prison it's a moral imperative that we keep you there.

As the first black president the scrutiny on him was immense. The narrative being spun by the right wing was that he was a radical leftist marxist secret member of the black panthers which given what we know now is absolutely hilarious but I digress.

If Obama came in and spent his political capital which was under so much aforementioned scrutiny on a massive campaign to legalize weed (which could have easily failed) then the attack ads write themselves. "Black President only cares about weed! Of course he does! "Whether you agree with his positions or not it's very obvious he chose to use his political capital elsewhere and his constant skirting away from the idea of totally legalizing weed is telling.

Do I agree with that? Not really but it does make a lot of sense.

I think this sub has been compromised by a lot of extreme right wing bullshit so I'm expecting downvotes but that's how I see it since I've been paying attention the entire time.

He wasted his political capital on that useless stimulus package. You're just race baiting, see GITMO as to why Obama wasn't the 2n coming of Christ.

That's not race baiting, he laid out his point expertly.

He has also publicly stated that marijuana should be treated like 'cigarettes or alcohol' and pardoned more non-violent drug offenders than any other president

He also spent during his first term $100 million more than GWB did during his eight years cracking down on legal medical marijuana dispensaries, about $300 million. Additionally, half of the raids between 1996 and 2013 were during the four years of his first term. (His second term was about the same, but I'm using these numbers because I conveniently have access to them.)

The counter-argument here is that medical marijuana was more common during his term than in 1996 so of course there would be more. That's true, but we're still talking about spending hundreds of millions of dollars to actively do this, and considering it flies in the face of his campaign promises, I think the criticism still stands.

Source: https://american-safe-access.s3.amazonaws.com/documents/WhatsTheCost.pdf

A great article in The Nation about it: https://www.thenation.com/article/obamas-war-pot/

That's also true and well worth noting as well. I'm no apologist for Obama. I don't think he's a demon from hell but I also don't think that everything he did was right by a long shot.

I wonder how much of that policy was there to prop up the private prison industry that Obama has spoken out against but also facilitated in scenarios like these.

Legal marijuana I believe is an inevitability but there is going to be a lot of kicking and screaming to get there.

Not OP but i would say source is watching news for 8 years when Obama was president. The GOP would definitely had a field day

I don't think the GOP itself would want to go anywhere near it. They're always trying to hard to convince everyone that they're not racist, I think if it came anywhere near them they would have backed away faster than a garter toss at a wedding.

On the other hand, I think with a lot of the GOP base it wouldn't have to be said.

The black card? Really?

Yes. The black card. It clearly factored in to his thinking. Would you like to refute that?

Of course it factors. Unfortunately, he had to bite a big bullet just to keep the option of having another black president possible. That's almost always the case when you're the first black person to do something traditionally reserved for white people in this country. No way does Jim Brown or Colin Kaep get the first NFL contract.

Careful you don't straw man, you had a strong position before. The argument isn't the binary "does it factor into his thinking", it's how strongly does it factor. Among aaaaaaaaaallll of the factors weighing on a president's mind, and all of the actors, influences, parties involved, interests, agendas, lobby groups and policies.

There is reason to believe it factored early but not so much later. Given the wide array of much stronger influences and factors, the thing stopping him from doing it wasn't "oh shit well I'm black, or I would've definitely done it" is not chief among them.

If you want to argue that this is the reason that he didn't do it, don't bother responding, just downvote or something. I don't think anyone in their right mind would believe that this is the literal cornerstone factor that trumps all other factors combined, though it's rational to believe that it's one small factor among many.

I mean, what single piece of legislation would help black folk more than ending marijuana prohibition? It's the gateway drug for police to control someones life, that's about it.

So sad the amount of truth that statement holds. What's more ridiculous is that it transcends race. Legalizing marijuana is an absolute good. It helps those who use it medicinally. It supports those who use it recreationally. And more importantly it keeps A LOT of poor people out of jail regardless of their race.

Bill Clinton was responsible for putting more black men in prison than any other person in the history of this country. Maybe Obama wanted to continue the trend.

http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/news/a36476/bill-clinton-apologizes-sentencing-laws/

Maybe Obama wanted to continue the trend. | Rescheduling would do nothing to affect that. That kind of legalization would require Congress to change the law. Rescheduling just allows the FDA to approve pharmaceuticals and the government to research. All those businesses in legal states would still be violating federal law. Obama's executive actions on enforcement discretion did far more than rescheduling even if it was moved down to schedule 5.

Democrats prefer to keep black people in prisons or ghettos. Obama wasn't going to shake any of that up.

Obama did a lot for them by reducing sentencing for nonviolent crimes. Sessions/Trump is going to change that though.

Show me where Obama reduced sentences for non-violent crimes.

Once you realize that you are wrong and that Obama didn't have the ability to reduce sentences for crimes, you'll realize that he reduced sentences for criminals and not crimes.

Holder's "Smart on Crime" initiative (the one Sessions is doing away with) sent non-violent, low level drug offenders to treatment instead of jail, and made it so those offenders weren't charged with crimes that carry mandatory minimum sentences.

Obama signed the Fair Sentencing Act into law which reduced the disparity in sentences between crack and powder cocaine.

Also, Obama signed the Fair Sentencing Act into law which reduced the disparity in sentences between crack and powder cocaine.

Oh, are you talking about the legislation that Jeff Sessions introduced as legislation? Surely you do know that that was Jeff Sessions that did that, right?

Yeah I'll give him some credit for that, but you should also give Obama credit for signing it. You just going to ignore the rest of my comment which clearly proves you're wrong.

I ignored the rest of your comment because it's simply false and a complete crock of shit. Obama did absolutely nothing to reduce crime sentences. Obama didn't grow up or live life as an African American. He has nothing in common with them so he didn't understand what they needed.

Just remember, if it wasn't for Jeff Sessions, Obama would still be allowing Clinton policy to enslave more black people that any time in American history. Democrats treat blacks like complete shit.

You have no idea what you're talking about. But considering you get more karma from t_D than anywhere else, that's not surprising.

No idea? You're the one giving Obama credit for something Session did! LMFAO

I mean, incarceration went down for the first time in 30 years under Obama. Lets see how that goes under Trump after mandatory minimums come back.

If this is your issue that really upsets you then you must hate Trump even more then, right? Let me guess....

Trump selected a man for Attorney General that introduced the bill to reduce crack cocaine sentencing because it unfairly affected black people. But you knew that already, didn't you?

LMAO. Please, please tell me you want to defend Jeff Sessions record when it comes to the war on drugs. I mean, please... I'm so ready.

Are we going to talk about facts? Because I just stated one while you just bring the typical bullshit.

Great. So Sessions made a statement that wound back his own previously legislated mandates against crack users because it was unfair.

Good for him. Big slap on the back.

What is your point, though? He did one conscionable thing? A position he had to reverse himself on? What a fucking hero.

But Obama boooo!

It's actually pathetic to argue this point. Look at actionable work on the ground and what Sessions has actually done. Do you know who Sheldon Adelson is and the 100's of millions he has invested in keeping MJ illegal and the money he has donated to Sessions and co?

Sessions made one conciliatory remark and he's great? Classic.

On the drug being a danger:

"We need grown-ups in charge in Washington to say marijuana is not the kind of thing that ought to be legalized, it ought not to be minimized, that it's in fact a very real danger."

On Obama's more lax approach to pot enforcement and his admiration for "Just Say No"

"I think one of Obama's great failures, it's obvious to me, is his lax treatment in comments on marijuana... It reverses 20 years almost of hostility to drugs that began really when Nancy Reagan started 'Just Say No.'"

More on Obama and pot

"You can't have the President of the United States of America talking about marijuana like it is no different than taking a drink… It is different… It is already causing a disturbance in the states that have made it legal."

On the kinds of folks who smoke weed

"Good people don't smoke marijuana."

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2017/01/23/gop-group-steps-up-boost-jeff-sessions/96948594/

So, I can tell that you're not very informed about how the government works so read this part slowly.

The Attorney General doesn't create the law. He upholds the law that Congress creates. Did you catch that? Read that part again because I can already tell that it's going to go over your head. If you don't want the AG to uphold certain laws, change the law.

This is all very basic shit.

That's not the discussion at hand you absolute hack. Stop deflecting. This is the discussion:

Is the Trump administration ramping the drug war up more than the Obama administration?

And..

Are marijuana users under more danger of incarceration and persecution under Trumps administration and with Sessions being the attorney general and advocating for tougher laws against recreational marijuana users?

The discussion was never about the AG creating the law and the fact you just arbitrarily applied that position to me shows how weak not only your argument is but even your basic understanding of the discussion at hand.

That's why it never happened. As racist a backlash Obama received as it was, the backlash would have been heavier if he was helping "criminals" (read as "black people") stay out of prison. At that point, trump probably would have won not just the electoral college, but also the popular election. Not to mention obama's own racist ass party was very much in favor of locking up minor drug offenders until just recently. Let's not forget it was slick Willy who invented the current prison apparatus.

P.s. I don't care for Obama or trump. Or any president really since Kennedy, when looking back. All have been awful to all Americans.

Nobody seems to consider that one person's cost is another man's profit. Illegal drugs are a $150 billion dollar a year industry in the US alone and that's not counting prison labor or the pharmaceutical industry's interest. And it's not all evil overlords, everyday decent men and women support their families working in the field.

From a politician's viewpoint why would you slash a profitable industry and put decent people out of work so Timmy can get high and play video games all day? Legal weed makes a lot of money, but it doesn't make as much money as illegal weed.

When you look at it like that it's not much of a conspiracy.

what single piece of legislation would help black folk

I would say public schools but I see your point

This is an extraordinarily weak argument. Being the first black / female president does not mean you should avoid doing things that are desperately needed to fix a social issue with that demographic. He had an enormous mandate to reduce incarceration of young black men and an absolute imperative to do so as the first black president. It would have been very hard to have undermined him on this issue. The GOP would have looked racist and backward. This is a linchpin issue for me. I can see that so many things are actually beyond the power of presidents including banking cartels, the war machine and the intelligence services. However is neglect of black men, in particular cannabis incarceration, shows he was just another for show president.

"The GOP would have looked racist and backward."

This is the problem the left has. They're always trying to find ways to make the right look "racist and backwards" when reality tells you that it was Bill Clinton that paved the way to put all the black people in prison to begin with. Then Obama did zero to change anything.

Fix your own shit before you start pointing fingers.

You totally missed the point. I'm not making any partisan comment. Indeed my whole point is Obama was pretty much just another suit. I'm saying the argument that he couldn't of run with legalisation because the GOP would have somehow demeaned him for it did not hold water. If they had chosen to make it a race issue they would have looked backward and racist. That's simply a fact. Drug decriminalisation is a win win for the democrats. It's a wedge issue that the republicans are on the wrong side of. Unfortunately there is no appetite in the democratic party to do anything radical so it's going no where.

"I'm not making any partisan comment"

Then where was your part about making the Left look racist and backwards? You certainly took the time to pick a side.

Remember, left, gotta bring those "super predators" to heel.

Take your time to read again. I'm responding to the commenter above me.

Yea because the GOP has a race card that they can play. This was the one damn thing I thought he might actually do. Obummer

LOL. So he was more concerned with what the GOP thought of him than saving the lives of hundreds of thousands of blacks.

so brave

Yeah I'm sure it was because of identity politics and not the fact that he was a piece of shit, elite-owned puppet that would not disobey the orders of his masters in big pharm.

Attributing a political decision like this to optics misses the practical reasons behind it. Legalization puts big pharma out billions of dollars. Pharma put 150m into an ad campaign lobbying for Obamacare to get passed. Obamacare has brought big pharm billions in profit. There was no way Obama was going to subvert such a close economic partner.

It's shit logic, just lile the logic that pot is as bad as heroin or meth.

This.

Omg can you imagine the first black president doing hardly anything controversial? Shit he was controversial just existing. Just being (HALF!) black.

But still yes I wish on his last few weeks just said fuck it

Anyone who would make a political decision based on the skin color of the president is already lost to Obama's voting base. It was not a political move not to deschedule pot - anyone who would be offended for it were people who would never have voted for a black man anyway.

The GOP did have a field day. Did you notice the current power structure in DC?

at the end of the day that just means Obama was a giant pussy. oh well maybe Democrats one day will decide to let their balls drop

So when is Trump legalizing weed?

When was Hillary going to stand up to the pharmaceutical lobby? Oh, never? Okay then it doesn't fucking matter, does it?

Hillary isn't the President. Answer the question.

I did answer your question, the Trump administration has been very disruptive. Again I'm sorry that you "feel" that Hillary would have descheduled pot

You are making massive assumptions. I'm not a Hillary supporter so this dead end line of inquiry is ridiculous. Trump is the President. You are critical of Obama for not decriminalizing pot so, given your user name my question persists:

When is Trump legalizing weed or is he just too obsessed with optics?

But Trump isn't going to legalize or deschedule.

fix your reading comprehension.

So your criticism of Obama on this issue is what then? The guy you voted for is objectively worse on the marijuana issue. His attorney General is actively trying to put more pot smokers in prison or keep them there. What is your actual point?

My point is that Obama once promised to put on a comfortable pair of shoes and stand in picket lines, but now instead he's taking $400,000 from big banks to give inspirational speeches to the elite.

Classic. You can't help yourself. Obama! But Hillary!

You voted for Trump. He is objectively worse on the marijuana issue. That's the discussion at hand.

Your criticisms of Obama didn't stop you from voting for Trump who is objectively worse on those issues?

I mean, when it comes to cognative dissonance I guess someone who used to support Sanders and then switches to Trump you have that really down pat. You seem very confused.

And Obama taking money for speeches like every president has is the sticking point for you?

It's probably best Trumps tax returns don't ever get released after all, huh?

Maybe get a pair of Ivanka's new summer line shoes on QVC whilst you're at it?

The US currently houses 22 percent of the world's prison population. If that number went up under Hillary, neither Democrats nor Republicans would complain. If it goes up under Trump, at least the Democrats will bitch about it. I don't why you choose to ignore the meaning of accelerationism, maybe you are confused about how spineless the Democrats have been the past few decades?

Keep in mind he also pardoned thousands of non violent drug offenders, which I for one think was an important gesture.

You really think the black guy was gonna legalize weed. That's not a stereotype or anything.....

not every president was in the choom gang

Only if the house votes a bill through to reclassify it, then he gets the opportunity to sign that bill or veto it. No President has the power to simply reclassify it unilaterally.

including the current one

um how dare you

Look who makes all the profit off of opiates and then you know who he answers to.

exept those 1- 30(?) when marihuana was another plant in the bushes

Obama did not enforce the law. Trump and Session want increase pot enforcement. They not the same.

I'm so sick of this false narrative. Did the Dems try to take away healthcare from 24 Million Americans? Or did they help 10-20 Million uninsured Americans get healthcare? To be clear, I hate establishment Democrats just as much as I hate corporatist Republicans. But that doesn't mean I think all Democrats are Hillary clones. And there are differences between the two parties. Democrats favor legalization Democrats favor environmental protection Democrats favor programs that protect our socal safe nets like Social Security, Medicare, and Obamacare Democrats have a much better track record protected civil liberties (not a singe D voted for the anti-privacy bill) A Democratic president had a bullet placed in osama's head Let's work together to throw the establishment scum out from both sides of the aisle. Instead of trying to demoralize people with this false equivalency that both parties are the exact same.

Yes, but did any come out right AFTER their term was done to say it should be decriminalized? Fuck him.

In grade school I learned that the executive branch does not write laws. The legislative branch has the authority to create law.

Almost like Obama is just as bad as the rest of them.

Oh yeah, I'm sure the GOP wouldn't have obstructed that, not at all! /s

Give me a break -- rescheduling marijuana was never a goal during Obama's two terms. And what do you think AG Sessions would do about it now? At least AG Eric Holder under Obama gave judges latitude in federal drug sentencing. Sessions' former aides in the Senate are now lobbyists for one of the largest private prison corporations*. Back in February, private prison stocks soared when Sessions issued a memo rescinding the DOJ's commitment to reducing the use of such prisons. Gee, I wonder how Sessions' portfolio was looking after his announcement about sentencing guidelines this week?

The war on drugs is a war on Americans, and politicians are directly profiting from it.

You might what to make your link a little bigger. I almost did not even see it.

*

This needs to be the top comment. OP's comment history shows that he is a partisan hack who has it out for Democrats. I'm not trying to defend them in any way, don't get me wrong. Fuck them. But this is completely pathetic deflection from the current administrations position, even when they are the ones who could currently actually work to reschedule it without obstruction due to their control over all branches of the federal government, if they actually gave a shit about the issue, which any sane minded person would have known they didn't far before the election.

It isn't that you're either or, that's not what I was getting at. I understand why you despise the Democratic party, im on the same boat with you there for many of the same reasons. But namely in this sub, that can have a tendency to upvote things like this soon after the current administrations position is unsurprisingly made clearly public, they're not always upvoting it out of complete objectivity, instead because "Obama!", so it is in this context, it is interpreted in a very partisan way to those who it is mainly reaching. We don't need another reason to try and rationalize AG Sessions' actions when this administration could have easily came back and reverted a rescheduling anyways. And like BigSphinx said, aside from the INSANE opposition you know that Republicans would have put up for rescheduling, AG Eric Holder and the Obama administration were if nothing else, lax on "enforcing" federal law, and some federal judges were less harsh in their sentencing for low lever offenses. It wasn't perfect in any sense of the word, but "incrementalism", as shitty as that is for so many issues and is much like Hillary would have gone for, we now instead have AG Sessions coming in wanting to destroy any progress we have made on this issue over the past 8+ years.

Yes, because they're both beholden to their pharmesutical donors and don't actually give a fuck about their constituents. I get it. Sessions is definitely a piece of shit. I'm sure you've heard the "I knew some good people in the KKK until I figured out that they smoked weed" quote. At least under Obama, he realized that going hardball on this wasn't going to be popular, and he backed off in ways that weren't simply rescheduling, which on its own wouldn't have fixed all of the problems, it would again just be another incrementalist step. (Now cannabis would be on the same level as meth instead of heroin! Yay?)

Don't strawman me with fucking slavery man, that has nothing to do with this. How about the well over a thousand people who Obama excommunicated for low level offenses? He can only do so much when he was facing the party of "NO" for 8 years. Imagine how they would have spun total legalization if that's what Obama pushed for. Again, not defending him, because if he and the Democrats actually gave a fuck they could have worked through it when they had their supermajority, just like they could have gotten us single payer or a public option, but they didn't. I'm not here making excuses for them. But you cannot deny that what they did was worlds ahead of the Trump administration making "progress" like a monkey with a sledgehammer smashing the delicate foundations that we had to continue moving forward on this issue.

Obama would have had a much better chance at maintaining the 2 year majority if he had legalized it. Even with the majority he failed.

He didn't fail to legalize it because it was never even on the Obama administration's radar. This is like saying "Obama failed to put a manned spacecraft on Mars".

It was clearly important enough for him to lament the fact it was still illegal on his way out.

Fuck off, retard.

Fuck off, retard.

Removed. Rule 4. First warning.

Thank you for saying this. Maybe there's still some hope for this sub.

The irony being that marijuana arrests are predominantly made on blacks. He couldn't see fit to prioritize reclassification of marijuana... to save the lives of his fellow african americans that are being disproportionately destroyed by stupid senseless marijuana arrests. Nope.

He did nothing for the USA. Fucking nothing.

He allowed every single criminal banker get away. He rewarded them for their fuckery with the bailout and then made 100 percent sure that not a single charge was ever brought.

He dropped more bombs, in more different countries than any previous president. He didn't close Gitmo... it's still fucking open.

He gave the US a piece meal piece of shit Healthcare system that was hand written by lobbyists and coporate whores. Single payer is the only solution but Obama had zero interest in that. His financiers were the insurance companies that would lose everything if single payer ever comes to pass.

So many other countries provide a single payer system. The USA could have it tomorrow. Fuck Obama. He has proved once and for all that he is an absolute piece of shit with his recent 400k speech.

Fuck you Barry. You should be ashamed of yourself.

Also didn't close gitmo. Clint Eastwood was right about everything.

People who live in countries with single payer systems die waiting for treatment. They come to America for treatment when they can afford it. Says a lot about single payer systems. This is America. We don't need to follow everyone else. That is what makes us great.

"They come to America for treatment when they can afford it."

and the people who can't afford it in US? What happens to them?

I live in a single payer country and I assure you people are not dying from wait times. That's just a bullshit reason to lag behind the rest of the civilized world... the same way you are with education. You guys are aren't even on the first page anymore right?

Why do you think this is? Is this also what makes American great?

Sorry @Lankumentary but this seems to be how alot of my fellow americans think. It's sad but it is what it is. Just hope people know not EVERYONE is fucking like that.

People in single payer countries have longer life expectancy than we have here in the US.

You are so misguided and ill informed its astonishing, ever thought about what would have happened if they didn't give out those bailouts? Oh and btw even if he wanted to give us single payer or legalize weed the republicans would have stopped him anyway.

Dude - you are the one who has no clue here... not me.

What does TARP mean to you? They weren't just bailed out... they were given even more money through the TARP plan but guess what... that money didn't go to paying for "toxic assets". It went straight into their fucking pockets.

You believed the hype. The disaster scenario that was fed to you. What would have happened if the banks that fucked up went tits up?

I think some lessons might have been learned. That's what.

But as it is right now... parrots and sheep like yourself just keep regurgitating your programming.

Please enlighten us what would have happened if we didn't give them fucking trillions of dollars... do you think they would have still received their multi million dollar bonuses?

You are blind.

When Obama was elected the democrats had a super majority. It was filibuster proof. They could have passed anything they wanted without a single vote from a republican. Obama CHOSE to not give us single payer. He CHOSE to not give us free college or invest in US infrastructure or allow us to import drugs from Canada to bring down prescription medication prices. Obama could have done ANYTHING when he took office. He was the most popular president at the time and the democrats had control of all 3 branches of government. Stop lying to yourself. You made a good choice voting for him. McCain and Romney sucked but that doesn't fix everything Obama did wrong.

I completely agree. I'm so sick of these neoliberal politicians. I voted for change. Obama was a black republican. He was still a better choice than McCain or Romney but we can't ignore the fact that he let many of us down.

Question: Do all presidents become CIA? I would imagine they do to be able to work so closely with them. (Trump not so much)

Yeah this POTUS is different for sure. Def not like the others. I can't wait for all the change and swamp draining.

I was only 16 when Obama got elected the first time, so maybe I a, remembering wrong, but I think I remember him saying he would legalize marijuana

He never said that. He said he thought it should be decriminalized.

Ok, drug war bad. Everyone agrees. Obama at least relaxed on the prosecution of marijuana users, sounds like Sessions wants to go back to enforcing mandatory minimums. Obama only had two years with a democratic majority, not that they would have overturned classification if they had all 8. But this tit for tat thing is a bit much,. I hardly think that what you are saying is an excuse for digging deeper into the war on drugs, do you?

not that they would have overturned classification if they had all 8.

Classification is at the executive branch's discretion at the DEA. The legislature can also alter it, but the POTUS doesn't need them to reschedule drugs. Obama should have appointed a DEA head who would reschedule or directed the head to do so. He is remiss there, but that shouldn't discount the immense progress he made in relaxing sentencing and respecting state's rights.

The Democrats had two years of super majority. They squandered that shit.

When are people gonna learn the president or sessions doesn't control this shit. Its all for show. The elites control was legal and what's not. And if Trump or sessions really do have control, they're probably following orders. People need to be compliant for them, which psychedelics or weed give people a more open mind. Money is very influential but this shit runs even deeper then that.

Oh boy, this post is hilarious. Trumps people are going after the weed and all you got is "but Obamaaaaaaaaaa"

Sure Obama did not legalize it. He had maybe a two year window were he could have. He never claimed he would legalize it either. He did however order the DEA to stand down and let states that legalized to do their own thing. Which if you are right leaning you should of praised because of states rights and all. Now he have the so called party of states rights wanting to crack down on.......states rights.

It is okay to criticize your party and call them out on this move. No one is going to think less of you and in fact you would win over a bit of trust from the other side if you did.

defrauded Bernie donors out of over $200 million.

Gave money to democrats. Angry when democrats use money.

Democrats are slavers, republicans are the same. At the end of the day the socialist left and the Zionist left are all part of the same problem. I too voted for Trump to fix it. But the fact that a person votes for another person doesn't make him a partisan hack. We all agree on the existence of a problem and it's perpetrators.

Don't listen to these people, they're just d&c shills trying to divide everyone so they don't see the real issues at play.

You post on the_donald and dissenters are not allowed on that sub.

If your not a fan of trump how and why do you post on t_d?

And he didn't.. that's because all of these guys find out they work for the same people.. people that have been in charge for decades.

No president has the political clout to pull that off

Yeah Obama would have squandered literally all of his political capital if he tried to reclassify marijuana. I'm a huge proponent of drug legalization but I can understand why he would have focused his energies elsewhere given things like the worst recession in 70 years, multiple wars, etc. He didn't even have a Dem congress after 2010.

Not to make it a race thing but having the first black president be super gung-ho on legalizing drugs would have driven the racists even crazier than they already were.

Like he cares. So long as he and his family can toke up or make "Brownies' without oversight....

Government always wants to take minorities down a peg.

This was always the thing that pissed me off the post, especially when he was going around saying it shouldn't be schedule 1 in the last couple years.

Trump probably won't get it done neither. I reckon all 50 states will legalize before the government does.

Why on earth would he get it done? He's seems to be going in the total opposite direction.

Where I'm from they are more worried about legalizing silencers.

What reddit admin fuckery did this post have? Barely any posts get above 1k votes in this sub since they nerfed the algorithm, yet this post reaches 22k? Tin foil hats up

This is exactly what I thought whenever I saw that whole thread of nonsense.

Why do people love pot so much????

At this point I'd imagine it's less that everyone loves it and more it's a dumb insignificant thing to have your life ruined over.

Still don't get it. All I see is a generation of kids riddled with drugs, pot, smoke, alcohol, prescribed meds..

Every generation has had its failings but pot is hardly a new one and its hardly the worst one.

People relaxing with their friends and toking up don't deserve to go to prison anymore than someone who has a couple beers after work.

You don't have to love it to see that putting people in rapey work camps for possessing it is fucking inhuman. I don't use it personally, but I'm tired of paying to cage people who are no threat to society. On the contrary, they benefit society by boosting the economy and increasing tax revenue.