2024 ELECTION THREAD
The next presidential race will be here soon! Please see current Bovada odds. Thoughts?
Kamala/Biden copied the Chinese tariffs.
as for cannabis can you please tell me what the actual **** do you mean with "moving to reschedule", they always had full power to reschedule and it could have happened a while ago.
for absurd and fully unconstitutional reasons rescheduling is a purely executive act and Biden controls the executive.
Here bud, you can read all about the act of congress that empowers the federal agency created by congress to act on drug scheduling. Since you seem to think that executive agencies are just something you wave your magic wand and make act as a president.
I don’t know why you refuse to understand that these agencies have some degree of statutory duty under law.
I fear that you’re not understanding at all that I never said that the Revolutionary War was legal. I said they had no legal channel to contravene Britain’s policies and were explicitly not given representation at all in parliament. The South was in a completely different situation factually that makes their situation disanalogous.
I don't agree, and any cursory reading of the history of the Antebellum period proves this wrong immediately. Slavery and secession was a hot topic almost from the Constitutional period, which was exacerbated over time. Solutions to the crisis were attempted by both northern and southern politicians dozens of times in the 50 years leading up to the actual Civil War. There was even a constitutional amendment ratified by Congress a month before Fort Sumter, but at that point it was too late. There were small rebellions in Kansas in the 1830s and 1840s, lynchings, duels, and even fistfights and canings in Congress over these matters for many years leading up to South Carolina's secession in 1861.
Maybe I should clarify, are you saying it’s hypocritical to support the Revolution but not support Secession? Or are you saying it’s hypocritical to say that the Revolution was legal but Southern secession wasn’t? Because the latter I don’t say.
No, I don't think you are hypocritical for supporting one and not the other, at least on a moral basis. I am in the same category. Your contention that the South had not exhausted its legal and political recourse is wrong though, and clearly based in your moral opposition to its cause.
I don’t see what moral subjectivism has to do with this except that all moral disagreement is just disagreement about individual preferences. This has much more to do with a categorical imperative that I am setting out and then violating. By calling me a hypocrite you must be saying there is a moral axiom that a prescribe in others that I don’t hold myself to.
Moral subjectivism has everything to do with conflict, that's the whole point. At any time in history of any war, both sides so strongly believe they are right in their cause, and negotiations have broken down so far, that they resort to force to resolve the dispute. Whoever is judged morally right by history is largely a function of who wins. The Revolutionaries won, so they are considered freedom fighters. The Mujahideen of Afghanistan were freedom fighters against the Soviets, until their leader flew some planes into our buildings, and then they were terrorists.
And again I never said there was some legality to the Revolution, I just identified a moral right to the Revolution due to having no possible legal recourse. The South did have a legal recourse, they just didn’t want to lose their political battle.
I don’t believe that if I think marijuana should be legal federally but I don’t get my way, that this gives me a right to advocate for secession for the states that have it legal. You don’t get to just dissolve the Union because you are unsatisfied with some of the laws or who is president. If you believe you should have the legal right to secede in the US, you can always amend the constitution. That’s the beauty about our system, it doesn’t just break under pressure, but it is malleable. These people were tyrants who were unhappy they weren’t politically popular despite having every head start including the insane 3/5ths compromise. To say they had no possible legal avenue is just pro-Confederacy revisionism. They just weren’t satisfied with not being able to be tyrants.
This is an opinion in the vast minority among Western countries. Canada's provinces are free to leave the Confederation whenever they vote >50% for it (Quebec has attempted it twice) and as other posters have mentioned any country can leave the EU whenever it decides. Britain voted to do something akin to this just a few short years ago, and Scotland voted for independence from the UK a short time ago as well.
I believe your opinion is common in the United States precisely because the North won the Civil War. It was pretty commonly believed at the time that secession was morally justified in the same way the Revolution was morally justified. Yet Fort Sumter got resupplied and bombarded by the South, Lincoln refused to meet with the Confederate government (so as not to recognize them), the South lost, the Pledge of Allegiance came around 1885, and now people in 2024 believe the United States is an eternal and indivisible state.
Here bud, you can read all about the act of congress that empowers the federal agency created by congress to act on drug scheduling. Since you seem to think that executive agencies are just something you wave your magic wand and make act as a president.
I don’t know why you refuse to understand that these agencies have some degree of statutory duty under law.
Congress can't delegate legislative power to any entity though. What is legal and not legal to consume, produce and sell is a core legislative power and it can't be delegated.
And yes the executive agencies involved in drugs act at the pleasure of the president.
Then there is the question of whether the federal government has the power to decide if something can be banned nationwide within the border and the answer is clearly no, the commerce clause doesn't apply in the negative (at most it could be used to force states that refuse cannabis which is legal in other states to accept it)
Congress can't delegate legislative power to any entity though. What is legal and not legal to consume, produce and sell is a core legislative power and it can't be delegated.
Not really. Look at the FDA. Pretty much this is settled law that congress can delegate some of their responsibilities to the executive.
Although with the overturning of Chevron this may be challenged, which you will probably like. As of yet it hasn’t been though and any implications won’t take effect until it actually comes up to the court.
And yes the executive agencies involved in drugs act at the pleasure of the president.
Debatable. Also debatable whether that should be the case. Probably if a certain president wanted to he could just fire anyone who ever tells him anything he doesn’t want to hear. But he’s just one man and can’t exactly be everything everywhere to everybody. I’ve never run a company, but I imagine that micromanaging such a complex organization is difficult.
As you know, sometimes there are projects that can come up that just won’t need the president to be there at every step of the way. Let’s say the president is advised to order the investigation of a certain criminal organization in the US. Is he going to give them an order every step of the way or is he just going to tell them to conduct the investigation and let them do their thing?
In the same vein, if he orders an investigation into rescheduling to schedule 3, which involves proving medical applications, he has to give the requisite agencies the time to prepare reports.
But probably the biggest problem is that there are so many individual problems that the executive takes on that they could never really be handled by one man. Since he already ordered a blanket pardoning of federal offenses, and states are already being given legally questionable leeway to enact marijuana legislation, it’s probably not that urgent to reclassify it given the steps already taken.
Then there is the question of whether the federal government has the power to decide if something can be banned nationwide within the border and the answer is clearly no, the commerce clause doesn't apply in the negative (at most it could be used to force states that refuse cannabis which is legal in other states to accept it)
Supremacy clause would like a word.
Supremacy clause only applies to enumerated powers and the federal congress simply doesn't have any power to regulate the production, sale and consumption of anything except the commerce clause, which has been warped beyond recognition and used to justify a long list of complete illegal power grabs by the federal government.
Commerce clause is to let trade flow, which means it can only act to deregulate, in the expansive sense.
The commerce clause as written can only be used to force a state to accept goods and services produced in other states, never to make something a states wants legal within it's borders illegal, that's the idea.
It's to harmonize rules toward the minimum not to add additional rules ever.
As for the rest we say president we know it means "and all his men" as well, ofc I am not asking Biden personally to do anything other that to put people in charge which would expedite the process by all means necessary, if he actually wanted that to be accomplished.
If a vaccine can be approved in a small fraction of the time previously required and all it takes is for the federal agency tasked to that to modify it's own procedures the same is true for the totality of the choices which are up to federal agencies.
Supremacy clause only applies to enumerated powers and the federal congress simply doesn't have any power to regulate the production, sale and consumption of anything except the commerce clause, which has been warped beyond recognition and used to justify a long list of complete illegal power grabs by the federal government.
Commerce clause is to let trade flow, which means it can only act to deregulate, in the expansive sense.
The commerce clause as written can only be used to force a state to ac
Are we saying that this is how it should be interpreted, how it is currently interpreter, how it should be and is currently interpreted, or how it should be but isn’t interpreted?
As for the rest we say president we know it means "and all his men" as well, ofc I am not asking Biden personally to do anything other that to put people in charge which would expedite the process by all means necessary, if he actually wanted that to be accomplished.
If a vaccine can be approved in a small fraction of the time previously required and all it takes is for the federal agency tasked to that to modify it's own procedures the same is true for the totality of the choices which are up to federal agencies.
I mean I imagine the DEA probably has a lot of Trump guys in there who are doing what you want and messing up executive action.
That’s a joke by the way. I think what it is was that rescheduling a drug has to go through a certain process. Operation warpspeed was partially facilitated by the emergency powers of the president, so it wasn’t some normal process tbh. Great accomplishment though.
Because it has nothing whatsoever to do with the point I was making. I don't answer random, unsolicited, theoretical questions. In the words of Jon Stewart, I'm not going to be your monkey.
exactly, you'll ridicule and attack others from the safety of not having any position that can be attacked itself
you're just a coward
exactly, you'll ridicule and attack others from the safety of not having any position that can be attacked itself
you're just a coward
What are you even going on about? You asked me a question about a subject I have no interest in. I tangentially responded to a post about Japanese internment camps, in making a completely different point. For some reason you started a new topic about whether Chinese people would be put in camps. Who am I ridiculing and attacking about Chinese interment camps? Do you have me confused with another poster?
What are you even going on about? You asked me a question about a subject I have no interest in. I tangentially responded to a post about Japanese internment camps, in making a completely different point. For some reason you started a new topic about whether Chinese people would be put in camps. Who am I ridiculing and attacking about Chinese interment camps? Do you have me confused with another poster?
this is another lie
you clearly have an interest in it, hence why you jumped in to attack the poster for sharing his viewpoint - so you obviously do have thoughts on wwii internment camps and your posting deeply implies it's a nothing burger in your mind - so i'm asking you to clarify your position
but you won't because you're an absolute coward who will happily strike down thoughts and comments of others without ever putting any of your own forward to be held under the same scrutiny
nothing but cheap attacks and empty calorie posting - congrats, i'm sure mom is proud of her boy
it takes a special kind of stupid to get behind those two...
Are we saying that this is how it should be interpreted, how it is currently interpreter, how it should be and is currently interpreted, or how it should be but isn’t interpreted?
I mean I imagine the DEA probably has a lot of Trump guys in there who are doing what you want and messing up executive action.
That’s a joke by the way. I think what it is was that rescheduling a drug has to go through a certain process. Operation warpspeed was partially facilitated by the emergency powers of the presi
Do you think the process to classify substances was decided by congress explicitly, or by the agencies themselves?
Congress other than giving the initial list (subject to change according to agencies decisions) and the medical/abuse/international criteria, did nothing.
All the detailed current procedure have been decided by agencies and can be rescinded by a simple order of the person in charge of the agency, with no emergency required to do so.
Why do you use the cover of bureaucracy to justify an explicit political will to delay action?
Yeah its just baffles me how you could vote for a president that
had no Russia/Ukraine war
peace in the middle east
cheap gas
cheap groceries
some type of border policy
Yup that man is deranged and not fit for president but anyone vying for the job of President should be able to do a interview with Fox News . Its why many do not trust that she can lead because the only way she speaks is with a tele prompter .
Reality is she will win as the other guy is just an idiot in his campaign
lol peace in the Middle East. Trump assassinated a top Iranian general snd Hamas and Hezbollah prepared for the current war as a direct result of the Abraham accords. Which Trump used to claim fundamentally changed the Middle East until it failed as many predicted it would.
And Bush got gas prices down too by crashing the economy. Most people don’t like that strategy though it seems good with a lot of trumps rural welfare culture supporters who don’t work anyway.
There have been some stupid ****ing things said ITT but declaring there has been peace in the Middle East under anyone’s presidency is BY FAR the stupidest and most deranged
Do you think the process to classify substances was decided by congress explicitly, or by the agencies themselves?
Congress other than giving the initial list (subject to change according to agencies decisions) and the medical/abuse/international criteria, did nothing.
All the detailed current procedure have been decided by agencies and can be rescinded by a simple order of the person in charge of the agency, with no emergency required to do so.
Why do you use the cover of bureaucracy to justify an
U believe everything should be decided solely by congress ?
Which they have no expertise at all in medicine and many other field most of the time ?
Ps: leaving out they mostly vote for their own interest and not necessarily for the benefit of what they vote for …
lol peace in the Middle East. Trump assassinated a top Iranian general snd Hamas and Hezbollah prepared for the current war as a direct result of the Abraham accords. Which Trump used to claim fundamentally changed the Middle East until it failed as many predicted it would.
And Bush got gas prices down too by crashing the economy. Most people don’t like that strategy though it seems good with a lot of trumps rural welfare culture supporters who don’t work anyway.
I mean I used to like you because even if we deeply disagreed on values (or at least, I disagree with most of the values you decide to express here, which I don't think you believe in most of the times) I treated you as a sharp value-enemy with a modicum of integrity.
Now you are blasting at the Abraham accords because the Shiites are at war for the nth time vs Israel, while those accords just helped normalize relationships between Israel and a specific slice of sunni Arab states, officially only the UAE and Barhain (but we know the big Saudi brother was ok with it as well).
The Arab world is composed of some forces which hate Iran a lot more than they hate Israel, others who want to decide what to do about it all, and others yet which consider fighting Israel and eradicating it from the map is the most important goal ever (and those side with non Arab Iran).
Whatever Iran and it's allies/satellites end up doing has 0 to do with the Abraham accords.
If Trump exaggerated the relevance of those accords, attack him on that.
But how the ****ing **** can you even start claiming that Iran being at war vs Israel is a failure of accorda that helped Israel get in touch with the UAE, an ally of an enemy of Iran?
