NBC News reports.
"I support Senator Gardner. I know exactly what he's doing," Trump told reporters when asked about the legislation. "We're looking at it. But I probably will end up supporting that, yes."
His backing could be seen as yet another rebuke of Attorney General Jeff Sessions, who in January gave U.S. attorneys free rein to enforce federal laws against marijuana even in states where pot is legal. The bill would expressly overturn that policy.
I don't see it as a rebuke. Sessions is talking about enforcing the law on the books. Trump is talking about changing the law so there's nothing to speak of enforcing or failing to enforce. I hate the middle position that has prevailed for years, with something going on openly that is in violation of strict and onerous federal criminal law and just a policy of doing nothing about it. Either it's a legitimate business and ordinary law-abiding people like me can in good conscience patronize that business or it is not. It's moronic to leave this sector of the economy in limbo. Don't make Sessions the scapegoat. Change the damned law!
Attorney Aaron Herzberg of the cannabis-focused Puzzle Group Law Firm in Los Angeles said the president's remarks will "knock the socks off the industry" and provide some security for investors interested in the sector. The lawyer noted that long-desired legal banking for pot businesses seems to be an aim of the bill.
Indeed, [the bill's co-sponsor, Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth] Warren said during a news conference introducing the bill earlier this week, current federal policy "forces a multibillion-dollar industry to operate all in cash. That's bad for business," she said, "and bad for safety.
Posts
103 comments:
As someone said, "Donald Trump is the first punk rock President"
It pains me to say it, but Elizabeth Warren is right. The delightful item in the story, though, is the Puzzle Group Law Firm. Leave it to stoner lawyers to come up with a name like that.
I’d go one step more. Were I president, I’d sign legislation to change the drinking age to 18, or more precisely to be 18 but no sooner than the July 1 after your 18th birthday. (I remember high school in New Jersey when the drinking age was 18 and the HS senior class incrementally got drunker and drunker as the school year progressed. )
If Trump signs a bill on this, he wins in a landslide.
Will the Dems in Congress oppose him on this?
Good God is Trump savvy or what?
“...but Elizabeth Warren is right.”
Since when did Elizabeth Warren ever care about commerce and capitalism?
We’ll now she does.
Her spoken lines on this topic could be come useful, my precious.
Quayle:
Agree but that is mostly a state law issue. If one can join the military and get married, one should be able to legally drink. Right now college kids flout the law and that just leads to disrespect for the law. Bad.
It sounds like the federal law against marijuana will still stand. How will that work? Why don't they decriminalize pot at the federal level but allow states to keep it illegal if they choose, the way they did with alcohol when prohibition ended?
Cynthia Nixon, Gov. Cuomo’s primary opponent in NY, has boxed in Cuomo over legalization by claiming that pot enforcement is racist and afflicts blacks “disproportionately.” Cuomo flipped to favor legalization.
I favor pot legalization, but I predict the left will be disappointed when its belief that the demographics of the prison population will change with legalization doesn’t manifest.
This demonstrates how not ‘for the people’ our representatives really are. They are more concerned with retaining their power [position and salary] than doing something.
Of course, for this specific law, rather the removal of it, makes a few other problems for recreational users who work in an environment where drug use is prohibited (for very good reasons, not because they are illegal).
Begley, isn’t it the federal highway funding rules that is keeping states from changing? I believe a state would loose all federal highway grants if it lowers it to less than 21.
Well, there goes the Libertarian Party.
I wonder that the multi-billion dollar pot industry does with all the cash, if banks won't touch it ? There must be some heavy-duty money-laundering going on.
Gets the Kardashian followers by respecting Kim
Gets some black votes with pardons/commutations
Gets more young voters and steals thunder from Warren who figured to use Republican resistance to legalization as a talking point.
All stuff that has little actual consequences other than making him look better to people who have been conditioned by the media to hate him.
Now he is apparently asking, or challenging Kapernick to talk about (whatever)
Legalize it for adults, death penalty for adults who supply kids with the stuff.
The politics of spite.
In this case, spite for Jeff Sessions.
This should make the heads of some of my friends in Seattle explode.
Possible Hot Takes:
This means Mueller has the goods on Trump, and Trump is trying to distract from his imminent impeachment.
This means Stormy Daniels has the goods on Trump, and Trump is trying to distract from his imminent impeachment.
Trump's nefarious corporate connections want to take over the marijuana industry.
Trump's nefarious Russian gangster connections want to take over the marijuana industry.
Trump is cynically exploiting young voters by giving them something they want, even though he is a fascist.
Trump wants all of the Democrats to be too stoned to vote.
Hitler was a proponent of marijuana, too. I think I read that on Snopes.
This is just like that scene in 'The Handmaid's Tale'*.
(*I have no idea what that scene would be, since I don't watch the show. But I assume a scene could be found, because everything Trump is doing is bringing us closer to that dystopian future, people).
-LWL
I don't understand what the proposed bill does or its rationale. Why not just a very short and simple bill saying MJ is permanently removed from the list of scheduled drugs?
Things are popping in DC.
Pochahontas becomes Toke-a-hontas
Additional Hot Take:
Bernie Sanders wouldn't have waited so long into his Presidency to do this.
Bernie Sanders would have legalized marijuana AND have made it a national single-buyer system.
-LWL
Sessions is talking about enforcing the law on the books. Trump is talking about changing the law so there's nothing to speak of enforcing or failing to enforce
Kudos for mentioning that. As with the DACA situation, for another example, Trump has seemingly made it a priority that he only take executive action on those matters that fall within the Constitutional powers of the executive. Sessions the same. Both have indicated that if the People and their Congress want a different outcome, then they need to change the law.
I find it amusing to see Trump's critics describing him as imperial and assuming kingly powers: it's just the opposite. How many times has he asked Congress to "do its job"?
A justice system that has as it’s foundation prosecutorial discretion does not seem just.
Althouse is right, of course. It's not Sessions' fault that he wants to enforce the law as it is written. How Trumpian to use a common sense approach to nonsensical legislation.
Dave Begley said: "If Trump signs a bill on this, he wins in a landslide."
My first thought when I read Trump's position.
The Cole Memo was wrong and likely unconstitutional. I support legalization, but I was very happy when Sessions rescinded the Cole Memo. The way marijuana liberalization working now, through Congress, is exactly how it’s supposed to happen. The executive branch shouldn’t be deciding which laws to enforce and which can be ignored.
In the last few weeks, Trump has signed "Right to try", gave veterans the right to go to a doctor of their choice, and now is considering giving back the right to states to regulate marijuana.
Wait until the commie-pinko lefties get wind of Trump asking for a list of potential "pardonees" from the protesting NFL players. Trump is disarming these people.
It is interesting to note that, in federal campgrounds in WA and CO, where I was recently, there are signs warning that, though MJ use is legal in the state, it is a federal crime and not allowed in a federal facility.
I would much rather be camped next to stoners than next to drunks. Any time.
And every day, in every way, Trump becomes more and more of a tyrant!
I'll take the drunks. I've camped next to a bunch of stoners before. I swear they were using marijuana to build their campfire. When we got home, all of our gear reeked.
Agree with Althouse. Either enforce the law or change the law.
As for prisons being filled with non violent drug offenders, get real. It’s a proxy crime. Tough to prosecute gang members because people are afraid to testify against them. They’ve been known to kill a witness or two ( or two hundred).
Mickey Cohen and Al Capone went to federal prison for tax evasion. Only an idiot progressive would say Cohen and Capone were non-violent offenders.
And after prohibition, the Mafia didn’t go away. Just found other shit to make money on and kept killing. Same with the gangs. Car jacking and armed robbery will probably go up. The people making money on dispensaries are the politically connected. Nothings going to change.
Did Trump do something particularly stupid that I missed? Althouse starts the day with three Clinton posts and an Obama post. That usually means Code Red in TrumpWorld.
I haven't seen the details on this. What happens when MJ is transported from Colorado (legal) to Kansas (illegal)? Will the feds be in involved, or will transportation across state lines be left to the states to enforce?
"It is interesting to note that, in federal campgrounds in WA and CO, where I was recently, there are signs warning that, though MJ use is legal in the state, it is a federal crime and not allowed in a federal facility."
I wonder if there's a noticeable change in the look of the crowds at the Colorado National Park. It would be annoying to travel through the state and feel as though you couldn't have what you bought even in your car as you drove through, say, Rocky Mountain National Park. Got to deplete your supply before entering. That could result in overconsumption of the product and people who are, ironically, MORE stoned inside the park.
Does the marijuana contained on the inside of your body count against you under federal law? I mean, I know it would count if you just stowed your supply in your birth canal, but what if you were carrying it all around in your bloodstream? Can they bust you for that? Asking for all my friends.
Car insurance rates are going to go up. Minorities hardest hit. Of course many of them, especially illegals, don’t buy car insurance even if it’s requires to drive. Car insurance is for whites and Asians. Rule of Law applies to them only. We expect them to follow the rules so the minorities don’t have to. Would be chaos if whites acted like illegals when it came to car insurance.
I liked Trump when he first stepped up and declared his wish to be POTUS. I never hesitated to back him since that first day. He has more than exceeded my expectations, and continues to look better and better as the days go by. Who doesn't like a winner? He has also made your regular politicians look like incompetent idiots. Bigly.
I swear they were using marijuana to build their campfire.
Maybe there was just a skunk nearby.
Althouse, the regulation reads like this and is posted in all WA & CO federal campgrounds:
"Possession or use inside the national park is prohibited. While Colorado provides for regulated possession and use of marijuana it remains an illegal drug under federal law, enforced within the park."
No one is going to go through your stuff looking for weed but if you are smoking it and your neighbors can smell it and report you, you could be arrested. I suppose.
The Democrats' issues are fading away.
November will be interesting.
AllenS observes, re Trump: He has also made your regular politicians look like incompetent idiots. Bigly.
Indeed he has, Allen. Indeed he has.
If I were in Colorado and were going into a National Park, and wanted to be stoned, I would bring edibles. It would attract less attention, since there isn't the odor of the smoke.
Ah, yes, "legalization."
After which, the pot business will be legal, like, follow rules and pay taxes and stuff and stay out of trouble.
All based on careful research showing no long-term harm to potheads and their offspring, and proving the beneficial effects of "medical" pot.
And so what if the crop is environmentally destructive?
I should also note regarding smoking weed in campgrounds this summer, ALL smoking is prohibited outside of vehicles in many, if not most, parks now due to the fire danger. Obviously, no campfires, either. And throwing your cigarette out of the window of your vehicle is a BIG no-no, of course. I can't even conceive of that kind of stupidity but it does exist.
The lack of cynicism is disheartening. All the rent seekers and fascists (and their brothers in law) are drooling to get their grubby little paws into this industry. The prices will be jacked up with taxes and fees on producers, packagers, brokers, sellers etc.. Only rich people will be buying legal weed, the same people who didn't get busted for it in the past. The other poor schlubs will still get it on the black market at half price and end up busted just like they have been in the past. This isn't about law or fairness or progress. This is about getting all that money into the hands of people with political power.
ARM: "Did Trump do something particularly stupid that I missed? Althouse starts the day with three Clinton posts and an Obama post. That usually means Code Red in TrumpWorld."
LOL
Whenever ARM posts something this nebulous and stupid and "projective" it always means the dems are panicked.
I am going to guess its being driven by about 20 factors ARM and LLR Chuck see as hurting the dems, including Pelosi's continuing meltdowns, Clintons hilariously destructive book tour interviews, the collapse of the LLR Chuck desperately desired Collusion hoax/setup, the tremendous economic numbers, Trump going all in the G7 defending the US manufacturing and farming sectors, the absolute crushing of ISIS (when was the last time anyone even heard that discussed?), the poll numbers (particularly right track wrong track and Trump getting 75% credit for the economy)...etc etc.
With an Anthony Kennedy retirement looking imminent a Trump nomination of another solid conservative would lock down the most conservative 2 years of governance in our lifetimes.
No wonder LLR Chuck is crying like a little girl who just lost her favorite doll! Not even watching Maddow re-runs can pull him out of his funk!
Quayle:
The S.Ct. case was South Dakota v. Dole (1987) and if states did not raise their drinking age to 21 they would lose 10% of their roads money. 10% was seen as an inducement and did not butt up against the anti-Commandeering doctrine.
ObamaInsurance ran up against the anti-Commandeering clause by threatening 100% of MediCaid money. That was unconstitutional.
"No one is going to go through your stuff looking for weed but if you are smoking it and your neighbors can smell it and report you, you could be arrested. I suppose."
What guarantees that the authorities won't look through my stuff? I assume that the usual search and seizure rules will be followed, but what stops the government from bringing in drug sniffing dogs.
Also, as for my blood stream question, it depends on the meaning of possession.
You quote the sign: ""Possession or use inside the national park is prohibited. While Colorado provides for regulated possession and use of marijuana it remains an illegal drug under federal law, enforced within the park."
But the sign refers to federal law. It doesn't give the full text of all the applicable law.
As a former prosecutor I think there are reasons to prohibit marijuana. As a “constitutionalist,” I think that decision is for the states. The Obama solution, directing DOJ to ignore yet another federal law, typifies the denigration of federal law enforcement during his reign.
Trump and Sessions are both right as this is being presented. Existing federal laws should be enforced. If there is good cause, like state’s rights, not to enforce them, they should be repealed or changed, not ignored. There is no reason for the mediaswine to cast this as a conflict between the two men.
As for Fauxcahontas, “multi-billion industry doing business in cash” says it all. A good sumptuary tax on the industry is needed to finance Democrat vote buying. Can’t do that on a cash business.
hombre,
Respectfully I submit that the reason you think that was, as a former prosecutor, is inertia. It's the way you've always done it.
But weed funds criminal gangs because it is illegal. Prohibition has that effect. You want less crime? Make much of what is illegal into a competitive market.
The Bootleggers and the Baptists make things worse.
Whenever ARM posts something this nebulous and stupid and "projective" it always means the dems are panicked.
Yes, he is a pretty good bellweather.
The marijuana thing and the NFL player meeting idea are cancelling two big Dem issues for the fall.
What are they going to run on ? Impeachment ?
Bill Clinton is warning them about that.
This is getting to look like Isolationism with Pearl Harbor coming up.
What guarantees that the authorities won't look through my stuff? I assume that the usual search and seizure rules will be followed, but what stops the government from bringing in drug sniffing dogs.
There is no guarantee, Ann. It's just like state campgrounds [and there are many, especially in the South] where alcohol is outlawed on the premises. No one is going to go rifling through anyone's RV in search of a hidden bottle of wine. But if a party of obnoxious drunks causes problems, the officers have the rule to fall back on.
Contrary to what some may think, common sense of sometimes employed in the administration of justice. Not always but sometimes.
Is, not of.
Bernie Sanders would have legalized marijuana AND have made it a national single-buyer system.
Canada tried something like this. It promptly got a reputation as the worst marijuana EVAH!
Marijuana, puff 'em if you got 'em. Observe and regulate the effects.
The insurance industry is regulated, effectively creating a single-payer system. The issue of affordability and availability lies elsewhere. We don't need a monopoly to obfuscate costs and force misalignments. Oh, and stop borrowing from "granny" to create unsustainable solutions.
That said, the normalization of abortion rites (capital punishment, torture around one month - sentience, denial of life deemed unworthy) for the wholly innocent is a final, a wicked solution.
Blogger Birkel said...
“hombre,
Respectfully I submit that the reason you think that was, as a former prosecutor, is inertia. It's the way you've always done it.”
“Respectfully,” while assuming that despite, or because of, my experience I either know less about the pros and cons than you do or am (was) unwilling or incapable of analyzing them as you have.
Interesting.
hombre,
Interesting that you don't think about the substance of the post. You are the Baptist. The drug dealers are the Bootleggers. It's game theory. Or behavioral economics. That is the argument to confront.
I am willing to entertain the idea of your superior knowledge. I am also suggesting that your frame of reference, neither more nor less than anybody else's, can be a hindrance to understanding. That's a truism and surely no attack on you, individually.
An addiction is when you need something so much that it is a detriment to your life and your own values. Hating Trump is getting more and more like that. I suppose that's true to a lesser extent for some Trumpers as well, but Trump is forcing all to re-examine their values and I think a lot of values are going on the trash heap. Some of that is good and some is disasterous. Decriminalizing pot is better than criminalizing it. We have the evidence and history now. The anti-Trumpers have given up nearly all their values in pursuit of hating him, and it's not over yet.
Quayle: Since when did Elizabeth Warren ever care about commerce and capitalism?
We’ll now she does.
Her spoken lines on this topic could be come useful, my precious.
Elizabeth Warren, bankster moll.
“The politics of spite.
In this case, spite for Jeff Sessions.”
Indeed! We see that spite in so many things he says and does. His followers wallow in spite. How many times have we heard on these threads that if it bothers liberals, they love it? I believe he became President because of a spiteful voting block.
“Elizabeth Warren, bankster moll.”
Donald Trump, Putin puppet. G-8 because it’s so unfair to Putin. Very transparent.
"I would much rather be camped next to stoners than next to drunks. Any time."
Drunks ultimately pass out. The stoned can discourse all night long. And don't get me started on their penchant for plucking stringed instruments to no apparent musical purpose.
Shouter got it exactly right. Lefties and libs are going to call anything Trump does racist anyway, so he may as well just do whatever he wants.
As usual, Laslo is also right.
Also, it's no rebuke. Sessions has his job, and he has his opinions, and Trump has his. NPR actually called it a "departure" from Sessions' stance, as if the president is subordinate to the AG, or they think they can hold Trump Session's word.
Q: If Jeff Sessions is going to oversee quite a number of prosecutions (SSCI leaker guy and loads more) that will help drain the swamp, then what does Jeff Sessions most need?
A: Independence.
Many cannot see the quality of the play. Why educate those people?
"As a former prosecutor I think there are reasons to prohibit marijuana."
Do tell! It's been awhile since I've seen Reefer Madness, so maybe you could rehash that for us.
"As a “constitutionalist,” I think that decision is for the states."
It already is, but you may have noticed that ALL 50 states are INSIDE the United States of America, and thus every person in every state is subject to federal law, and the whims of a president or AG who decides whether or not to enforce the law.
mcoullough sez:
As for prisons being filled with non violent drug offenders, get real. It’s a proxy crime. Tough to prosecute gang members because people are afraid to testify against them. They’ve been known to kill a witness or two ( or two hundred).
Why bother with the pretense? Put people who LEOs and prosecutors think are bad people in jail.
Or, if you need the pretense, make so many crimes everyone at some point violates them.
"NPR actually called it a "departure" from Sessions' stance, as if the president is subordinate to the AG
'
This is the current unstated goal of the MSM and the left, to lock into peoples's minds the idea that the Justice Department and the FBI are independent of the Chief Executive and thus free to do as they please, they have already neutered the Congress with the use of files and campaign money.
@Char Char Binks re your 12:04 post:
“... maybe you could rehash [the reasons for prohibiting marijuana] for us....”
“For us?” I doubt that is necessary. It is unlikely that anyone posting here, except maybe you, is unfamiliar with both sides of the debate.
“It already is, but you may have noticed that all 50 states are inside the United States of America, and thus every person and every state is subject to federal law....”
Despite your penchant for condescension, I’m afraid that you missed the point of my comment, the discussion and the legislative proposal in favor of begging the question.
How many times have we heard on these threads that if it bothers liberals, they love it? - Inga
Not quite.
If it's a good policy with good politics? I support it.
The fact it pisses off people like you is a bonus.
“The fact it pisses off people like you is a bonus.”
Jimmy boy, as a matter of fact, you’re one of the dummies I was referring to. I’ve heard you and other Trumpists here gleefully proclaiming that they love it (whatever Trump does) despite the fact it might actually hurt them too, only because it pisses off liberals. How smart is it to cut your nose off to spite your own face? Not very, but then it’s you.
Royal ass Inga,
Can you identify the policies Trump is pursuing that will hurt me, given:
1) projected 4.5% Q2 GDP growth, and
2) U2 3.8% unemployment, and
3) U6 7.7% unemployment, and
4) lowered taxes, and
5) judicial nominees who wish to follow the Constitution.
Go ahead and tell me.
Maybe the Libertarian Party can become a contender.
I don't recall seeing anyone here liking something president Trump does JUST because it pisses off the right people. Like you.
No, pissing you and other progfas off is the whipped cream and the cherry on top of a delicious slice of blueberry cobbler.
You could look it up in Snopes.
John Henry
I don't smoke the devil weed anymore, but the chance to spend a couple of hours with a well-buzzed Donald Trump could bring me back into the fold.
On the other hand, how could you tell whether or not The Donald was high?
if you just stowed your supply in your birth canal
Visit your mother more often. She'll be pleased enough to put up with the discomfort.
Inga: "I’ve heard you and other Trumpists here gleefully proclaiming that they love it (whatever Trump does) despite the fact it might actually hurt them too, only because it pisses off liberals."
Link or it didn't happen.
Etienne: "It boosted the Canadian and Mexican economies, and pulled down ours."
Nonsense.
Joseph Kennedy made out very, very nicely.
Legalize it, and legalize mushrooms also. What the hell is the point of prohibiting substances that are not lethally dangerous? It just shows how strong the conservative remnants of psychological big brother-ism remain. I used to think the stoners with their talk of conspiracies and mind control were loopy. But there's no doubt the prohibitive impulse that remains strong has to do with this fear that people will open their minds, change their perspectives, and withdraw from socially compelled wastes of time. What else explains it? And regardless of what Jefferson Davis Jimmy Jo Beauregard can or cannot do, the fact is that Trump is a legal ignoramus who relies on him. All the insults... and yet the final straw, the final break with Segregation Jeff would be getting him to lay off the weed raids that he finds so endearing. Can you imagine it? Jeff would probably find it as great a betrayal as if Trump stopped hating immigrants. Jeff would be sad that one more pillar of the beloved authoritarianism that he sought so earnestly in Trump would fall. Awww
Doing the right thing is rarely good politics.
Jimmy boy, as a matter of fact, you’re one of the dummies I was referring to. I’ve heard you and other Trumpists here gleefully proclaiming that they love it (whatever Trump does) despite the fact it might actually hurt them too, only because it pisses off liberals. How smart is it to cut your nose off to spite your own face? Not very, but then it’s you.
They're conservatives without a cause. Or a clue. Not even knowing what to stand for - apart from annoyance. Their political priority is to be annoying. I'm sure the history books will equate this position of theirs - to stand for nothing other than to be annoying - to greatness.
What small people. The midgets of monarchy.
Pochahontas becomes Toke-a-hontas
Wittiest comment so far.
As usual, Laslo is also right.
I miss Laslo. Is he still commenting?
"I don't see it as a rebuke. Sessions is talking about enforcing the law on the books."
---
Baloney! Sessions is not some mere proceduralist -- he's everywhere on the record talking about enforcing the law on the books _that he likes_, and he has even worked to keep the law on the books and to undermine other law that gets in his way.
This is some serious Trump Derangement Syndrome Derangement Syndrome.
"Change the damned law!"
Your lips to God's ears.
I agree with Althouse's take on both Sessions and the non-enforcement of federal marijuana laws. Sessions strikes me inherently as a law and order type of person. He wants to prosecute federal marijuana laws because they exist and hit his job as AG to prosecute those laws that exist. It is very dangerous to our Republic if we get in the habit of whichever executive is in charge can just routinely decide which laws he or she feels are just and should be enforced and which are unjust and shouldn't be enforced. Obama started this mess with Federal Marijuana laws. (What he did with DACA is far far worse.) By actually changing the laws Trump can fix it.
I'm not a particular fan of marijuana, but I don't think the Federal government should be involved in policing it. One of the bigger problems this can solve is letting these businesses have access to banks. A lot of these shops have been cash only, or predominantly cash only which leads to large accumulations of cash which leads to armed robbers targeting theses businesses.
"I agree with Althouse's take on both Sessions and the non-enforcement of federal marijuana laws. Sessions strikes me inherently as a law and order type of person. He wants to prosecute federal marijuana laws because they exist and hit his job as AG to prosecute those laws that exist. It is very dangerous to our Republic if we get in the habit of whichever executive is in charge can just routinely decide which laws he or she feels are just and should be enforced and which are unjust and shouldn't be enforced. Obama started this mess with Federal Marijuana laws. (What he did with DACA is far far worse.) By actually changing the laws Trump can fix it."
This is just ridiculous. Are you guys using politics as fantasy material? "He wants to prosecute federal marijuana laws because they exist and hit his job as AG to prosecute those laws that exist." This is comically false, unless you have a very bizarre fetishization of overdetermination cases.
(Still curious how much $$$ Professor Althouse makes off of encouraging this crowd.)
Yeah because what could go wrong, with legalized marijuana? It has worked out so well, with prescription opiates...
Chuck, did you miss the memo? This would simply remove federal criminal marijuana offenses and would only affect states where pot is legal. Most states will probably continue not to legalize. As a LLR, you would favor states' rights, yes?
RNB said...
Well, there goes the Libertarian Party.
Indeed, although that one never really arrived. The big ones are done too. GOP, Dems. As far as the highest offices are concerned it's very difficult to see how the slow moving big parties recover. They might be out altogether of selecting our senior most leaders. Why would Americans ever vote for a political hack again in a media saturated race? They're terrible to watch besides sucking in office. The bigger the race, the sooner the big parties get cut out. It's fun to watch. The fish rots from the head down. Does it heal that way too?
What are they going to run on ? Impeachment ?
Bill Clinton is warning them about that.
If Democrats listened to what Bill Clinton says then his wife would be President right now. And he’d have an office in the White House against a new generation of interns.
@Grackle - yeah, Laslo lives as Loren St. Laurent just now. You know the lion by his paw.
Birkel,
We want Trump impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors, and troglodytes like you won't stop us from our earnest quest. You ignorantly and arrogantly spew misinformation to bolster a terrible person, and president. You should hang your head in shame. You obviously have no children nor care about children's future. You only care about yourself. You need to help the needy, not pimp for an unhinged, pro-rich, ignoramus of a president.
From the Article:
Indeed, [the bill's co-sponsor, Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth] Warren said during a news conference introducing the bill earlier this week, current federal policy "forces a multibillion-dollar industry to operate all in cash. That's bad for business," she said, "and bad for safety.
BS. Warren is pissed that the transactions can't be taxed.
"BS. Warren is pissed that the transactions can't be taxed."
You're suddenly a mind-reader. What kind of tax are you worried about? Sales, income, or what? I hate mind-readers and I'm pissed at your comment.
Oh my, you are pissed. I despair.
troglodytes like you won't stop us from our earnest quest.
If I could get you a billboard to let everyone see your insane comments, I would do so.
This is why we have Trump and why we will have a second term.
The only question is how these insanities will affect the elections for Congress. We will know in November.
I don't think you will like the results but I don't think you like anything. You need help.
Unless, of course you are a parody account but I do think you are sick.
Post a Comment