SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
The Center for American Progress reports
On [February 27], days after White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer told reporters to expect stricter enforcement of federal pot law, Attorney General Jeff Sessions recycled discredited drug war talking points in remarks of his own.
"I believe it's an unhealthy practice, and current levels of THC in marijuana are very high compared to what they were a few years ago, and we're seeing real violence around that", Sessions said. "Experts are telling me there's more violence around marijuana than one would think and there's big money involved."
In reality, violent crime rates tend to decrease where marijuana is legalized.
Denver saw a 2.2 percent drop in violent crime rates in the year after the first legal recreational cannabis sales in Colorado. Overall property crime dropped by 8.9 percent [PDF] in the same period there, according to figures from the Drug Policy Alliance. In Washington, violent crime rates dropped by 10 percent [PDF] from 2011 to 2014. Voters legalized recreational marijuana there in 2012.
Medical marijuana laws, which have a longer track record for academics than recreational pot legalization, are also associated with stable or falling violent crime rates. In one 2014 study of the 11 states that legalized medical pot from 1990 to 2006, there was no increase in the seven major categories of violent crime and "some evidence of decreasing rates of some types of violent crime, namely homicide and assault."
[...] Elsewhere in his remarks, Sessions unwittingly made the case against treating pot activity like serious crime. "You can't sue somebody for drug debt". he said. "The only way to get your money is through strong-arm tactics, and violence tends to follow that."
Legalizing, regulating, and taxing the sale of marijuana is the surest way to remedying that exact tendency for pot commerce to trigger violent score-settling. Legalization invites pot business into the light, granting cannabusinesses at least partial access to official modes of recourse when they are defrauded.
8 states and the District of Columbia have legalised marijuana for recreational use.
Ever see anyone use cannabis and become more aggressive rather than more mellow?
Note: ThinkProgress redirects all accesses of their pages and will attach tracking numbers. I have made sure that those are not in the URLs.
(Score: 5, Informative) by TheRaven on Thursday March 02 2017, @05:56PM (8 children)
Experts are telling me there's more violence around marijuana than one would think and there's big money involved.
and
In reality, violent crime rates tend to decrease where marijuana is legalized
and then implies that these are in contradiction. This isn't the case: when something is both in demand and illegal, it will invariably be available on a black market, from people who are, by definition, criminals. It is entirely possible that in places where it is illegal a significant proportion of the distribution network is run by (and financing) organised crime. This happened during alcohol prohibition and it's not a big stretch to believe that it would happen during other kinds of prohibition. When you remove the illegality, then there's a strong incentive to buy from a legal source: you won't be arrested, the quality is likely to be regulated, and if it is bad then you have legal channels for compensation.
sudo mod me up
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 02 2017, @06:02PM
If you think Sessions was making an argument in favor of legalization then you haven't been paying attention.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by bob_super on Thursday March 02 2017, @07:36PM (4 children)
The problem, as I discussed with a local sheriff deputy recently, is cash.
Local legalization drops prices, reduces incentives for violence and turf wars on the distribution side.
But Federal prohibition means the business remains cash-based, as banks can't accept "Drug Money". That causes more non-gang robberies.
The answer is to legalize at all levels, and the violence level will be lower than liquor stores.
But that's probably not the kind of logical process going on in Sessions's head when he spews FUD.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Thursday March 02 2017, @08:17PM
Shhhhh..... you're exposing the secret agenda, as long as there are increasing crime stats (of any kind) to point to, they have a reason to label "the experiment" as a "failure."
If it goes on this way long enough, local banks will pop up that can accept drug money, they'll run armored car services and set up their own electronic funds processing network. They probably won't be called banks, because that would get them into regulatory trouble. They won't be nearly as efficient as normal banks, but they'll be better than drop-safes and armed guards on-site while they are open.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2) by edIII on Thursday March 02 2017, @08:37PM (2 children)
That's an incredibly stupid fucking argument though (on the part of the sheriff), that cash will increase crime and is the problem. Duh. Yeah, it will do so, and NOT just with dispensaries. What about insurance? Check cashing places? Grocery stores? Movie theaters?
Most people probably wouldn't realize it, but an insurance agency on the street is a target for robberies. People do come in and pay with cash or money orders. Rarely checks. I've seen more than a few in Las Vegas stop accepting cash all together, which coincidentally, occurred after this Great Depression II started. Of all the times I've had to search DVRs for video to give to detectives, it wasn't from cash based drug businesses.
Taking cash is a problem for *all* businesses. It is a BIG problem demonizing cash, which is about the only thing we have that is anonymous and private. Since it is dangerous, it's becoming a trend to not accept cash with businesses that have a lot of it on hand.
Complete agreement on that.
I can tell you from direct experience that a Vitamin store will have more cash on hand than a dispensary. The prices are low. I spent $6 for a pot cookie last weekend. Looking at the prices listed in the shop, I can't see them bursting with cash at the end of the day. I've spent more on supplements for working out at the gym. That dispensary was a fraction of the size, in a tiny shop.
Incidentally, this is why there is still plenty of crime going on moving product from California eastward to states that are still plagued with this anti-intellectual authoritarian bullshit. Legalizing it will severely decrease interstate crime, which is really money flowing from one state to another untaxed :) Same reason why California will NEVER build a train between Los Angeles and Las Vegas. Never.
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 02 2017, @08:45PM
What you are missing is that banks won't accept deposits from weed stores.
So whatever cash they have at the end of the day has to go somewhere more vulnerable than a bank.
(Score: 2) by Hawkwind on Friday March 03 2017, @01:03AM
Maybe you missed the third sentence?
Anyways, here's the first story I found: http://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/blogs/stateline/2016/03/22/why-marijuana-businesses-still-cant-get-bank-accounts [pewtrusts.org].
(Score: 4, Insightful) by JoeMerchant on Thursday March 02 2017, @08:12PM
Applying logic against an emotional argument is futile.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 3, Interesting) by LoRdTAW on Thursday March 02 2017, @10:53PM
The kid I buy my weed from is a regular joe hustling to make money on the side. Trump supporter too. Organized crime handles the logistics and bulk distribution (e.g. Mexican cartels or local gangs). They move hundreds of pounds to tons from across the border, divy it up to regions and then sell to dealers. Also, some is grown in the US on illegal farms, parks, and some is stolen from states who have legalized it. Yes, the dealers can sometimes be tied to the organized crime rings (gang members who's gang may have ties to cartels). But for the most part, the dealers on the street are an ad-hoc bunch. Far easier to manage the bulk distribution channels than possibly tens to hundreds of thousands of little dealers.
So my guy buys a few pounds from someone and has a small group of clientele. He also prefers to deal with people around 30 or older as younger kids tend to cause trouble and bring heat. I also had a friend who dealt, buying from his cousin who had a connection. He made about $30k over two years. Not bad pocket money.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 02 2017, @06:04PM (16 children)
Schumer calls for Sessions to resign [thehill.com]
(Score: 5, Insightful) by DeathMonkey on Thursday March 02 2017, @06:14PM (6 children)
Sessions lied, under oath, to Congress AKA perjury. Weren't Republicans all about perjury? Up until yesterday, at least...
Not really off topic...
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 02 2017, @06:37PM (2 children)
> Weren't Republicans all about perjury? Up until yesterday, at least...
He wasn't the first of Trump's cabinet to lie under oath during confirmation.
If anything, it seems to be something they all did.
Trump Education Nominee Betsy DeVos Lied to the Senate [theintercept.com]
Mnuchin Lied About His Bank’s History of Robo-Signing Foreclosure Documents [theintercept.com]
Trump EPA pick Scott Pruitt may have made a false statement under oath to the Senate [businessinsider.com]
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Thursday March 02 2017, @06:42PM (1 child)
Hypocritical Perjurer Jeff Sessions said this about Bill Clinton:
It has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt and to a moral certainty that President William Jefferson Clinton perjured himself before a federal grand jury and has persisted in a continuous pattern of lying and obstructing justice. The chief law enforcement officer of the land, whose oath of office calls on him to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution, crossed the line and failed to defend and protect the law and, in fact, attacked the law and the rights of a fellow citizen. Under our Constitution, equal justice requires that he forfeit his office. For these reasons, I felt compelled to vote to convict and remove the President from office. ...
It is crucial to our system of justice that we demand the truth. I fear that an acquittal of this president will weaken the legal system by providing an option for those who consider being less than truthful in court. Whereas the handling of the case against President Nixon clearly strengthened the nation's respect for law, justice and truth, the Clinton impeachment may unfortunately have the opposite result.
(Score: 2) by Zz9zZ on Thursday March 02 2017, @07:09PM
Well he called it! "The perjury isn't my fault, someone gave me that idea! They gave it to me, I didn't know it was the illegal type of perjury."
~Tilting at windmills~
(Score: 2) by NewNic on Thursday March 02 2017, @08:33PM (2 children)
Perhaps you have a short memory, or are just too young to remember.
When Bill Clinton was under threat of impeachment, there was possibly a valid reason: perjury. However, the Republicans could only talk about Clinton having sex in the Oval Office, which was entirely legal.
I lost any respect that I had for the Republicans when I realized that all they cared about was someone else having sex.
lib·er·tar·i·an·ism ˌlibərˈterēənizəm/ noun: Magical thinking that useful idiots mistake for serious political theory
(Score: 3, Insightful) by TheGratefulNet on Thursday March 02 2017, @09:43PM (1 child)
they have shown that because they aligned with 'the good book' about 30 yrs ago and that their READ of the so-called good book means that any pleasure is a sin, they rally against all things that are not already on the 'white list' (see what I did there?) and that let people enjoy themselves.
this is a huge problem with the R's. they seem to be stuck in the period about 400 yrs ago, when the US had more religious crazies than all of europe put together. in fact, the puritans and pilgrams were the local crazies in europe and europe was glad to let them leave!
remove the influence and mind control that big religion has and, all of a sudden, more liberty ensues. imagine that!
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 03 2017, @12:53AM
> remove the influence and mind control that big religion has and, all of a sudden, more liberty ensues. imagine that!
If the US was populated by the crazies who migrated out of europe, then why did the US become all about freedom when places like france fucked up their revolution?
My point is, your history of the US and liberty is not internally self-consistent. Better work on it some more.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 02 2017, @06:41PM (1 child)
Other than that, it was relevant.
"There cannot be even a scintilla of doubt about the impartiality and fairness of the attorney general, the top law enforcement official of the land", Schumer told reporters
There was a recent dust-up in the senate when Elizabeth Warren attempted to read a letter written by Coretta Scott King, widow of Martin Luther King, Jr.
The presiding officer of the Senate claimed that the historic document violated a senate rule which prohibits one member from speaking ill of another member and that reading it was out of order.
At the time, the senate was discussing the qualification (or not) of Sessions to be Attorney General.
The letter had been written to the senate in 1986, regarding the nomination of Sessions to be a federal judge.
It documented his bigotry and lack of impartiality.
That nomination in 1986 was subsequently rejected.
OBTW, several male senators read portions of the document later on the senate floor and none of them were censured.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 02 2017, @06:44PM
n/t
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Zz9zZ on Thursday March 02 2017, @06:45PM (6 children)
Come on you hypocrites, you jump all over some inflammatory post calling out the Trump administration, but here you have some sourced commentary showing they are liars and cheats. So what do you say? Why should Trump NOT be impeached? Why should we not drain the swamp starting with him and his crony staff?
~Tilting at windmills~
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Azuma Hazuki on Thursday March 02 2017, @11:53PM
This place has a serious RWNJ infestation, that's why. I don't know what the fuck it is about male-dominated tech spaces but they seem to attract every amoral, overprivileged sociopath (and all the pathetic "me too if I kiss the boot that stomps on me long enough!") type on the 'net. I am beginning to understand the value of the humanities...
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by Bobs on Friday March 03 2017, @02:51AM (3 children)
I am not a Trump fan.
Why should Trump NOT be impeached?
Trump has not done anything qualifying him for Impeachment. Yet. That we know of.
An investigation is mandatory and some are underway.
But calling for impeachment before any evidence of a crime is counter-productive. He is innocent until proven guilty, and as of yet there is not even any evidence he committed an impeachable offense.
What are the legal grounds for impeaching him?
Be patient - I am confident evidence will be found. Then call for his impeachment and I will jump on that bandwagon.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 03 2017, @03:12AM (2 children)
Trump has not done anything qualifying him for Impeachment. Yet. That we know of.
He is 100% in violation of the foreign emoluments clause.
There is literally no question about it.
An "emolument" means any form of remuneration. Not just bribes, ANY payment.
See this well-documented analysis by Georgetown Law prof John Mikhail [georgetown.edu]
https://balkin.blogspot.com/2017/01/a-note-on-original-meaning-of-emolument.html [blogspot.com]
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Friday March 03 2017, @03:34PM (1 child)
Unfortunately nobody seems to be a strict constructionist anymore :P
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 04 2017, @06:23AM
> Unfortunately nobody seems to be a strict constructionist anymore
Strict constuctionism, or originalism, was always a myth. [vox.com] Just a way for judges to cherry-pick history for examples that confirmed their predetermined biases.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 03 2017, @05:07AM
You seem awfully eager to have a President Pence.
(Score: 2) by jdavidb on Thursday March 02 2017, @06:43PM (8 children)
Experts are telling me there's more violence around marijuana than one would think
This is why we all need to be as scared as hell when people start talking about being governed by "experts."
ⓋⒶ☮✝🕊 Secession is the right of all sentient beings
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 02 2017, @06:58PM
...and be very wary of Lamestream Media's coverage of the regime (current, former, and future).
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 02 2017, @06:58PM (6 children)
Yes, when an asshole makes up fake experts to justify his assholery, that proves we don't need actual experts.
#MAGA!!!
(Score: 3, Insightful) by jdavidb on Thursday March 02 2017, @07:27PM (5 children)
Yes, when an asshole makes up fake experts to justify his assholery, that proves we don't need actual experts.
It's a good thing that there exist people in this world who can be trusted to objectively identify who is and is not an expert without ever abusing that authority.
ⓋⒶ☮✝🕊 Secession is the right of all sentient beings
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 02 2017, @07:55PM (4 children)
Your argument is nothing more than "its not perfect, so its shit."
Fuck you and your lazy nihilism.
(Score: 2) by jdavidb on Thursday March 02 2017, @09:03PM (3 children)
ⓋⒶ☮✝🕊 Secession is the right of all sentient beings
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 02 2017, @10:19PM (2 children)
Oh please.
If your problem is with the "appointed" part rather than the "expert" part why aren't you arguing for better ways of choosing experts?
Instead all you argue for is to ignore experts and instead rely on ignorant loud-mouths.
(Score: 2) by jdavidb on Friday March 03 2017, @04:24AM (1 child)
If your problem is with the "appointed" part rather than the "expert" part why aren't you arguing for better ways of choosing experts? Instead all you argue for is to ignore experts and instead rely on ignorant loud-mouths.
No, I'm arguing that people ought to be free to choose their own experts, even if they are making a mistake.
ⓋⒶ☮✝🕊 Secession is the right of all sentient beings
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 04 2017, @06:27AM
That's an argument against government in general because if everybody is free to "choose" their own experts then that's meaningless unless they are also free to chose to follow the recommendations of their own experts.
And I'm sure you are now proudly thinking YES! That's exactly my point.
Which just means you've been participating in a circle-jerk of one.
(Score: 2) by butthurt on Thursday March 02 2017, @06:51PM
One famous quote was that he thought that members of the Ku Klux Klan "were OK until I found out they smoked pot." Sessions said the comment was not said in seriousness, but he apologized.
-- http://www.npr.org/sections/politicaljunkie/2009/05/specter_helped_defeat_sessions.html [npr.org]
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Zz9zZ on Thursday March 02 2017, @07:05PM (24 children)
Why do the liberals sound so angry? I'll give you a hint, it is not because Hillary lost. It is because there is a very obvious fascist sitting in the top seat of our government and we're not too distracted by #winning #maga to see this reality. All of you supporters, all of you apologists are the worst. You are literally advocating for a fascist police state, all because your sense of self-righteousness is out of control and you don't care how it is satiated. Y'know, all the things you like to hate on liberals for?
Facts don't matter, truth doesn't matter, only your desire to punish those who disagree with you matters #irony #hypocrisy.
~Tilting at windmills~
(Score: 2) by TheGratefulNet on Thursday March 02 2017, @07:24PM (5 children)
tl;dr:
STIGGINIT!
this will be the end of us. petty little 'us vs them' wars will reduce us all to a 3rd world hellhole.
but hey, the conservatives are 'sticking it to us'. their little revenge war; the war that is literally destroying our common culture and freedoms.
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Thursday March 02 2017, @07:35PM (1 child)
If we're going to have a theocratic authoritarian government, like the conservatives want so much for us, then we might as well have a 3rd-world hellhole to go with it.
(Score: 2) by TheGratefulNet on Thursday March 02 2017, @09:45PM
drapes should match the carpet, I guess.
(lol?)
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
(Score: 2) by edIII on Thursday March 02 2017, @08:53PM (1 child)
All of this is literally why I know there is no future in America for me. I'm too old to fight robots for employment to serve fast food, and I'm incapable of working in a corporate environment without throttling the MBAs till their eyes pop from their sockets. I'm literally shaking with anger when I realize that the workers have less than a living wage, and those hell bound fuckers, somehow justify multiples of a living wage for their corporate contributions that have ruined society, our culture, and our country.
I've come to decide that life in the middle of Central America's jungles is a better retirement plan for me. In all seriousness, America IS becoming that third world hell hole we snobbishly ridiculed for 100+ years. So why shouldn't I just move to a "third world hell hole" now? A place where I have water, can grow my own *superior* quality food, and crime is non-existent. Not to mention beautiful, not polluted, and you can see the stars? Compare that to a shitty apartment on the bad side of town in a county where the average wage is a fraction of the average rent. I'm confused. Which one is the hell hole? Which one has income inequality? Which one has 8 people owning over 90% of the wealth again?
There's another article around here about how 7 people apply for every 1 job with a living wage. Do you know what that is? That's the dead canary in the cage warning you that the mine, in a very immediate sense, is no longer capable of supporting life.
Pretty much like America is no longer capable of supporting its citizens with a land of equal opportunity, freedom, and impartial justice.
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 2) by TheGratefulNet on Thursday March 02 2017, @09:52PM
we have more than 7 applying for each job. its more like 10-100 and often can be more.
but of course, THERE IS A LABOR SHORTAGE. bring in more desis!
(damn. we all know this is wrong at every level, but those in control put their fingers in their ears and ignore all reason)
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
(Score: 2) by LoRdTAW on Thursday March 02 2017, @11:00PM
At first glance I read SIGINT and pictured Trump pressing ctrl-c on the terminal running /bin/America
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 02 2017, @07:26PM (1 child)
That's the defining the characteristic of the alt-right movement.
They aren't for anything. They are just against everybody they don't like.
They don't succeed by accomplishing anything, they can only succeed when they fuck up somebody else.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 02 2017, @08:48PM
cartoon illustration of the hollowness of the alt-right: https://thenib.com/high-steaks [thenib.com]
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Grishnakh on Thursday March 02 2017, @07:34PM (12 children)
Some of us liberals are angry at Hillary and the rest of the DNC for getting us into this mess in the first place. Hillary should have gracefully dropped out of the primary race when it became clear how unpopular she was with the both her party and all the swing voters, for the good of the nation, and the DNC should never have pushed her and knifed Bernie in the back.
This whole situation is all the fault of Hillary, DWS, Podesta, and the rest of the establishment Dems.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 02 2017, @08:01PM (11 children)
> Hillary should have gracefully dropped out of the primary race when it became clear how unpopular she was with the both her party and all the swing voters
She won the primary by 4 million votes.
Its easy to think Sanders would have won the general because its an untestable hypothesis.
None of his weaknesses were ever exposed to attack by the republicans.
And its pretty rare for a party to maintain the presidency for 3 terms.
Besides, the democratic party's problems are more than just the presidency, they are structural. They've lost enormous ground at the state and local level as the republicans relentlessly focused on that through gerrymandering and voter suppression.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Grishnakh on Thursday March 02 2017, @08:51PM (10 children)
More Hillary apologism.
Hillary winning the primary is irrelevant. The primaries don't win you the general election. To win that, you have to get more votes out of all the voters. Only a small fraction of voters vote in the primaries; it's especially bad in states with closed primaries, which actively prevent non-party-faithful from voting. Bernie was a relative outsider, so it's not that surprising that he didn't get quite as many votes, plus with the backstabbing going on by the DNC, they guaranteed it (like scheduling debates at times no one was watching, not having very many debates, etc.). To win the general election, you have to appeal to the majority of voters of all stripes, and that really means winning over the "swing voters". There was ample evidence through polling that Hillary was not well liked, and what's more, there was ample polling evidence that Sanders was significantly more popular among the general electorate than Hillary.
Bernie's been in politics for decades. Far longer than Hillary in fact. He didn't have all her political baggage, even despite this fact. The only thing they could do is call him "socialist", and make some noises about him buying a middle-class house.
The Dems lost enormous ground in the last election because people didn't bother to vote, largely because Hillary was so unpopular. Despite the voting population being larger in 2016 than in 2008, there were many millions *fewer* votes cast in the 2016 election than in 2008. That can be squarely blamed on Hillary and the DNC. Obama in 2008 was famous for having high voter turnout and getting younger voters out to vote for him. Hillary was infamous for being extremely unpopular among Millennial voters. So they didn't show up at the polls to vote for her, and then the down-ticket Dems didn't get enough votes either. It's hard to say whether it was apathy, or outright hostility to the Democratic Party due to their anger at how Sanders was treated and their disillusion with the DNC and its perceived corruption.
Considering that Hillary and Trump were the most unpopular candidates ever to run for President, to claim that Sanders wouldn't have won against Trump, despite clear polling numbers showing Sanders as being far more popular than Hillary among regular voters, is either lunacy or lying apologism.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 02 2017, @09:25PM (3 children)
> Hillary winning the primary is irrelevant.
Dude you literally brought up the primary yourself.
> to claim that Sanders wouldn't have won against Trump, despite clear polling numbers showing Sanders as being far more popular than Hillary among regular voters, is either lunacy or lying apologism.
At that same time polling numbers said a whole bunch of republicans didn't like trump. But by the time the election came around they all jumped on the trump train. You keep doing this thing where you assume the starting conditions define the end conditions as if absolutely nothing would or even could happen in the intervening months. Its simple-minded at best and looks a lot like confirmation bias.
I would have voted for Sanders myself. I'm just not so foolish as to believe everybody else thinks like me. Its part of growing up.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 03 2017, @01:09PM
Dude you literally brought up the primary yourself.
...to claim that she should've dropped out so they could be more likely to win in the general election. Don't be disingenuous. Who knows whether it's true or not, but Sanders was definitely a better candidate, so I wish she had dropped out.
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Friday March 03 2017, @04:34PM (1 child)
At that same time polling numbers said a whole bunch of republicans didn't like trump. But by the time the election came around they all jumped on the trump train.
They jumped on the Trump train because the alternative was Hillary, and there was no way in hell they were voting for her. Hitler himself could have run against her and they would have voted for him. Do you seriously not understand this?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 04 2017, @06:38AM
Jesus could have run as a democrat against trump and they still would have voted for trump.
IF they didn't like Trump they could have abstained. Instead he got like 2 million more than romney did.
The majority simply don't care about policy all that much, they care about tribe.
If you haven't figured that out yet, then you are the one who doesn't understand how politics and group dynamics in general works.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Thursday March 02 2017, @09:39PM (1 child)
Yes, what you're saying rings true to me. I ripped up my Democratic party registration after it came out they rigged the primary for Hillary. I mean, I knew they had before it came out, because I know how the Clintons play, but the leaked emails confirmed it. I then proceeded to vote for Trump, because he said he was opposed to the Trans-Pacific Partnership and I believed him (a promise subsequently kept), whereas Hillary is a lying sack of shit who can't even tell the truth about having a cold. I also voted anything but Democrat in every other race on the ballot.
Bernie would have won easily over Trump, because he was speaking to the same economic issues Trump was, was as anti-establishment as Trump was, but was far less scary than Trump for a lot of people.
But really it's a moot point. Even had Bernie gotten the nomination and beaten Trump, the DNC is so shot through with corrupt failure that it would not have helped him realize his policy agenda. In fact it is so broken, as proven by whom they selected as their new chairman, that it cannot be salvaged.
Progressives can rally, but they have to do a few things first. First, they have to jettison the DNC. Second, they have to step outside their echo chamber and psycho-linguistic bubble and listen, really listen, to what Trump's supporters and many others are really talking about. They'd quickly realize that materially they're pretty much on the same page as progressives, but they choose different language and metaphors to talk about it. Third, they have to be willing to let go of their own forms of cognitive dissonance (such as, braying about Trump's horrible, stupid, racist wall between Mexico and the US while saying nothing about Israel's wall that has turned Palestinian territory into an open-air prison) and their own linguistic forms and try to actually communicate with others who speak differently. In other words, stop behaving like the people in the Tea Party they spent the last 8 years deriding.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Thursday March 02 2017, @11:57PM
Agreed. The DNC needs a 45-year enema. They need to get back the spirit they had in 1972 when they ran McGovern. Since that loss, to Dick fucking Nixon of all people (and I use the term lightly), the Democrat party has decided they'd rather sell their soul and win than be correct. And we're all paying for it, all of us. No one speaks for the poor in the major parties now, and no one has since Mr. "it's not illegal if the president does it" Nixon won. ...and when he was given a blanket pardon by Ford, that was the mortal wound. Reagan was Trump before Trump, if you think about it.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 02 2017, @11:14PM (1 child)
To win [...] the general election [...], you have to get more votes
Actually, the Blues did that.[1]
They still lost the presidency.
The efforts they made in key Rust Belt states were inadequate.
You're right that Hillary was absolutely the wrong candidate.
She (and the Neoliberal class) don't give a shit about the wellbeing of Blue Collar types.
If you don't have a white collar and multiple college degrees, you simply don't matter to them.[2]
DNC Chairman Debbie Wasserman Schultz (who was reelected in her Florida congressional district, BTW) put personal loyalties above what the Blues needed to win.
The same with other Blue elites.
The Blues have been moving ever more toward Plantation Capitalism and a police state (the top right of the political palate) since they lost the presidency in 1972.
They just refuse to leave Clintonism behind and they will continue to lose.
When it came time to elect leadership in the 2017 Congress, the Blues there chose Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi.
The Establishment Blues just can't bring themselves to break with Neoliberalism.
[1] The Electoral College is an anachronism (assuming that it was ever justified).
USA is unique in the world having one of those.
(All other places on the globe chose winners by a popular vote tally.)
If the Big 2 parties won't kill off that remnant of Classism and a slave-owning past (and it is clear that they believe it is NOT in their best interest to do that), then the players have to adopt a strategy that at least acknowledges its existence.
Hillary was claimed to be "experienced", yet she muffed the Electoral College vote.
[2] Hillary changed her -rhetoric- on TPP, minimum wage, etc., but everyone knew her proclivities.
A significant number of Trump voters were mostly voting -against- Hillary.
Like you, I'm pretty sure if it wasn't for the Blues' back-shooting in the primaries, Bernie--especially with a bit of specifics--would have stomped Trump.
...and it's a real shame more folks didn't make an effort to discover Jill Stein and her Green New Deal notion.
polling numbers showing Sanders as being far more popular
In the future, you will need to chose your polls very carefully.
Most were an abysmal failure in 2016.
...and, hey, you can still abandon the Neoliberals and find candidates who are Worker-friendly.
Pretty sure you're going to have to leave the Blues behind to do that.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 03 2017, @01:57AM
The Electoral College wouldn't be a bad idea if it weren't for the "winner takes all" system that most states have in place. The Electoral College is analogous to how Congress is made to reflect individual states equally, but give an edge to the ones with more people.
Democrats succeeded in the same strategies that they always pull against liberal third party candidates. I still can't believe they've gotten away with the illegal shit they've done to suppress votes in the past (especially involving Nader).
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Friday March 03 2017, @01:49AM (1 child)
The primaries don't win you the general election. To win that, you have to get more votes out of all the voters.
Uhh.....she did both.
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Friday March 03 2017, @04:26PM
Not in states that mattered. No matter how much you whine about it, the system we have in this country is the Electoral College system, which gives disproportionate power to smaller states. If you don't run your campaign with a strategy to deal with that fact, you'll lose, just like Hillary did recently, and just like Al Gore did in 2000.
(Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Friday March 03 2017, @01:34AM
Protip: "liberal" and "Democrat" are antonyms, not synonyms. Same is true with progressive or lefty -- these mean the opposite of "Democrat".
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Friday March 03 2017, @01:06PM (1 child)
You are literally advocating for a fascist police state
And people who helped set up the NSA's mass surveillance, the TSA, the Unpatriot Act, and other forms of unconstitutional tyranny helped aid and abet the police state.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 03 2017, @05:32PM
Oh true, its not like Trump invented fascism. He didn't even start the ball rolling here in the US. However, he is the first president that seems likely to be the first fascist dictator. All others have been constrained by the illusion of our democracy.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by NotSanguine on Thursday March 02 2017, @07:42PM (4 children)
Granted, this is anecdotal but in my experience about 1/2 of those who get drunk are belligerent to a certain extent and a significant fraction of those want to beat someone.
The vast majority of potheads, on the other hand, aren't belligerent at all. They just want to eat Doritos and watch TV.
Apparently, Jeff Sessions doesn't like Doritos or TV. Just sayin'.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 2) by mechanicjay on Thursday March 02 2017, @08:01PM
Apparently, Jeff Sessions doesn't like Doritos or TV. Just sayin'.
Or:
Why does Jeff Sessions hate America?
Which, I think I might just start asking around to see what kind of responses I get.
My VMS box beat up your Windows box.
(Score: 2) by number6x on Thursday March 02 2017, @11:14PM
No, he really likes eating Doritos and watching TV, but the pot heads keep eating all the Doritos and they lost the remote and can't remember where it is.
(Score: 2) by dyingtolive on Friday March 03 2017, @04:22PM (1 child)
To a certain extent, I'd agree with you. That people get drunk and fight and break stuff and all that is commonly enough observed behavior. I've seen it myself at bars. Nothing out of hand, but people start shit and it escalates until someone removes them.
Strangely, I haven't understood that to be the case with myself. I usually seem to get nicer. One would be inclined to dismiss that, and I would as well, were it not for sober people telling me they wished as was as happy sober as I was drunk. I might just be in the other 50% who's all "I love you man" about it though.
Don't blame me, I voted for moose wang!
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Saturday March 04 2017, @01:17AM
Strangely, I haven't understood that to be the case with myself. I usually seem to get nicer. One would be inclined to dismiss that, and I would as well, were it not for sober people telling me they wished as was as happy sober as I was drunk. I might just be in the other 50% who's all "I love you man" about it though.
I'm generally a happy drunk too, except on those rare occasions when I get maudlin.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 2) by captain normal on Thursday March 02 2017, @09:05PM (3 children)
Wonder how this is looking to all the tea party Repubs who just a few years ago were all about "States Rights" and the 10th amendment? Rep. Ryan, I'm looking at you.
The Musk/Trump interview appears to have been hacked, but not a DDOS hack...more like A Distributed Denial of Reality.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by Phoenix666 on Thursday March 02 2017, @09:42PM
Probably about as many as those on the Left who were perfectly fine with a police state run by Obama, but who will cry the end of civilization now that Trump's operating the levers.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2) by meustrus on Thursday March 02 2017, @09:47PM (1 child)
Very few people actually believe in states' rights. Most people who use that phrase really mean "my state's right to do this specific thing I want and the rest of the country doesn't". Nobody has done more to erode the actual rights of the states than these people, who have forced the federal government to resolve such interstate conflicts.
If there isn't at least one reference or primary source, it's not +1 Informative. Maybe the underused +1 Interesting?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 02 2017, @10:16PM
> Most people who use that phrase really mean "my state's right to do this specific thing I want and the rest of the country doesn't"
Where "this specific thing" has historically been "repress minorities."
(Score: 1) by charon on Friday March 03 2017, @02:15AM
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 03 2017, @04:55PM (1 child)
what a stupid old bastard. STFU with your drug war propaganda you fucking authoritarian! You are not there to tell us what to do you dumb fuck. the government's job is to provide for the common defense, protect the people from fraud and protect the individual rights of the citizenry! not to rule the lives of the serfs. All authoritarians: keep trying to tell us what to do and we're going to exterminate all you fucking dumb asses. That includes all the little dictators at the local offices of government. you, the stupid fucks who can't make money without stealing by cop.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 03 2017, @05:41PM
Agreed. I think the "good guys" decided to fight fire with fire, so they became the "bad guys". They get off on taking down people they perceive as "bad" which includes anyone driving anywhere with thousands of dollars in cash. Thankfully people are fighting back against civil forfeiture. Jesus christ, they even used a name that sounds like people are voluntarily giving the police their ill-gotten gains.
How many innocent lives is it OK to destroy just so some arbitrary moral imperatives can be satisfied? I know what my answer is: zero. But hey, they're rebooting 24 so expect to be sold some new updated plot lines about how cops need complete access to anyone's private info, and how being a sociopath who tortures is OK as long as you're "the good guy". It really scared me when I found out these people do exist, and they will bring violence and pain down upon anyone they merely suspect of being a criminal.
Fucking religious nutjobs.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 03 2017, @08:41PM
Just Say No To Drugs. Quit being a drain on society.