Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 jmurph wrote:
But that's not how federalism works. Sure, some states may totally screw things up. But that's a problem for the state's voters; it doesn't give the feds automatic jurisdiction. There are certain cases where failure by the state government may trigger federal intervention, but the policy that was originally offered was one that preempts state action in the first place regardless of how well a state may be handling the lands. The feds don't have jurisdiction over these lands unless granted by federal statute. Keep in mind that this only affects a corner case where the previous admin had interpreted the law as giving the feds authority. This admin is taking a more restrictive reading.

You're right that federalism does give states the power to screw things up individually, the risk of that doesn't automatically justify federal involvement. But where this gets complicated is when one state's screw up has knock on effects for other states, or for the whole union.

I have next to no knowledge of US water resources and protections, I'm really seeing this through an Australian lens. But here state disfunction produced an absolute need for federal oversight. Not because state governments are evil or incompetent, but because they are only concerned with themselves. But rivers flow through many states, and wetlands can support ecologies that can be hundreds of miles away. A screw up in one state can be disastrous in another state or across a whole region. That means federal involvement is needed.

That doesn't mean the feds need to have active agents in every state, of course, work can be done with state environmental authorities. But an overall regulatory framework that sets a bare minimum level of protection needs to come from the feds. And that's what the Clean Water Act is, of course. The only question then is exactly what is included in the scope of the document.

And on that again you're right, Trump is taking a much more restrictive reading. If that's a problem for people, well probably they should have voted for the person who could have beaten Trump.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Vaktathi wrote:

State Department and US Agency for International Development (USAID).

He will set out to convince Congress of his proposal in his first address to a joint session on Tuesday night.

But Republican Senator Lindsey Graham said his plan was "dead on arrival".

"It's not going to happen. It would be a disaster. If you take soft power off the table then you're never going to win the war," Senator Graham said.

Topkek.

There's an inkling of a spine.

Lindsey Graham is becoming the sensible voice of the Republican party. Let's all let that sink in for a bit.

Obama campaigned on hope and change, plus he actually campaigned. He got people excited. He didn't deliver so Clinton campaigning on being Obama 2, not expecting too much on healthcare and simply deserving to win was ill advised.

That you double down on being vile towards the people the Democrats have failed instead of rethinking when your perspective couldn't even manage to defeat Donald Trump is not very sympathetic. If you think that things will remain the same you are going to be in for a rude awakening.

Rosebuddy wrote:
The Democrats are poorly positioned to take advantage of the outrage what with already rejecting politicians who speak to peoples' worries, having weakened local parties due to siphoning money through them for the presidential election and having lost a lot of faith by failing to defeat Donald Trump due to not campaigning properly.

This complaint comes after the DNC just elected a new chairman who explicitly campaigned on refocusing on more populist concerns, and rebuilding election efforts around local campaigns and local issues, and not just worrying about the presidency. You might have had a point that the DNC was coming late to the party, except you complained when that guy won.

You really are sounding like you have no consistency or interest in the facts. You think the DNC should be as left wing as you are, and you'll invent any fething argument you can think of to convince yourself that is why they don't always win every single election ever.

People don't fething forget that the Republicans hate them and want to destroy their lives, they despair at the inadequacy of the Democratic Party.

Except, as I've already pointed out to you, sometimes their 'despair at the inadequacy of the Democratic Party' causes them to stay home on election day, and sometimes their understanding that the Republican party 'wants to destroy their lives' causes them to turn up.

What needs to be recognised is that the inadequacies of the Democratic party, and the ugliness of the Republican party haven't charged much over the last dozen electoral cycles. So we ask why the DNC base turns up some times and not others. And the conclusion, to repeat it again, is that the sting of a Republican control in Washington fades from the memory, people get fat and happy and take the status quo for granted.

Obama managed to charm people and get them excited for the first black president despite his bad policy. After eight years of trash, it isn't possible to excite people for more trash or the choice of a nastier pile of trash.

This is in direct contrast to reality. Obama is tracking at 60% approval right now, and had similar approval scores while Clinton and Trump were in the presidential race.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Not the fault of the USA, but I woke up this morning and got wall to wall coverage in the British media about Trump's infrastructure projects.

At first I thought there was a new bridge going to be built between Washington and London, but turns out, some roads are going to be repaired in Nebraska or something...

It's not that clear. It could be a monorail from Washington to Beirut for all we know. All that is known is that Trump wants to base it around tax credits given to developers, which might spur new investment (or might just end up being tax giveaways to projects that were happening anyway). But it won't drive maintenance, because maintenance of existing government assets is all spend, with no revenue stream in, making it completely unattractive to private interests. Unless govt is planning to sell the asset, I guess.

So Sessions didn't disclose meetings with Russia, color me shocked.

Herzlos wrote:
I'd seen an article today that estimated that Trumps travel ban has cost the US about $185 million in lost tourism already, with flight bookings from the UK to parts of the US (like Florida) being down as much as 58% year-on-year, causing a drop in hotel rates of about 30%,

And tourism is a massive employer in the US, far bigger than things like coal that Trump keeps crapping on about. On a similar front, there is also a massive amount of uncertainty aruond health with the plans to cut ACA, which could threaten millions of jobs in that sector.

I actually wonder what the fixation is regarding coal, to be honest. Is it an emotional thing, a nostalgic call back to when men were men who dug gak out of tunnels deep under ground? Is it an appeal to a time when you could have decent pay in a job for life with nothing more than a highschool education?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
They can bounce back in 2020, but they must never allow another Clinton type candidate to hijack the party machinery again.

In this context, 'hijack the party machinery' means getting more votes than anyone else, by a comfortable margin.

For feth's sake.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 jasper76 wrote:
It's an interesting question to ponder whether Sanders would have fared better or worse than Clinton.

My guess is the country at large has no stomach for the level of socialism that Sanders was advocating, and that Trump would have given him a clever and effective nickname like Commie Sanders, and would likely have swept the floor with him. But I guess we'll never know.

The Democrats have run people like McGovern and Mondale in the past, and they got slaughtered. As in, I just listed the two most left wing candidates who've run for the Democrats, and I also just mentioned the two of the three biggest defeats the Democrats have ever suffered. So this idea that if only the Democrats had run the socialist they would have won is in direct contrast to US political history. And those guys weren't as far from the political center as Sanders is.

Times change of course, and going forward there's only going to be increasing appeal to a Democratic message of income equality. But that only goes so far, this is the US we're talking about here.

 d-usa wrote:
So Sessions didn't disclose meetings with Russia, color me shocked.

Aye...this is gonna get awkward...again.

Trump attorney general Jeff Sessions met Russian ambassador

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-39136118

Attorney General Jeff Sessions met Russia's ambassador twice during Donald Trump's presidential campaign last year, the US government has confirmed.

Mr Sessions, a senator at the time, did not disclose the contacts at his January confirmation hearing.

But he stressed on Wednesday he had "never met any Russian officials to discuss issues of the campaign".

I really really hope he is forced to resign.

Actually I hope we get our first taste of The Apprentice: White House and he gets fired.

 whembly wrote:
You're ignoring two things:
1) Clinton was trying for a 3rd Democrat term, where historical is extremely difficult to achieve (only happened 2 or 3 times in history).

I've missed that? That is the entire central point of my argument. Democrats don't string wins together because the base gets fat and happy, and forget what it is like with Republicans in charge.

2) The fact that she lost, while maintaining pretty much the mainstream Democrat/Obama polices should also highlight just how she's not a likable person. While not a deathblow... definitely an achilles heel.

Her lack of charisma didn't help, but as I already said Democrats won big in 2006 with Pelosi and Reid leading the charge. When those two can win big clearly charisma isn't that big of a deal.

No. Pelosi/Reid won in 2006 primarily because of anti-Bush sentiment. It was really hot around this time.

That's my fething point. Democrats win big when the electorate is presented with the reality of Republicans charge.

Iraq... yes. But everything else you listed? No. Those weren't on the radar at 2008. (seriously, how in the holy feth Kartina is the GOP's fault...).

We could debate for a week or two about Katrina. I know because we've done it before. I don't care to go through all that again. But whether Katrina was the fault of Bush or not, there's absolutely no debate that can be had that Democrats laid the blame on him and on the greater Republican party, and used it to define the Republicans as general screw ups.

And on the other issues, medicare vouchers, replacing SS with private savings accounts, tax cuts for the rich... none of them might have taken front and center in debates, but they all played their part in defining the narrative of the campaign.

You are obviously biased against the GOP. That's okay...

I think almost nothing of the modern GOP, that's true. Whether that's bias or an accurate assessment is up for debate

But, at least take a critical eye on the Democrats as well, with the same critical eye you used on the GOP. Or better yet, try to answer this question:

Hindsight 20/20, what should've the Democrats done differently?

That's a fair question. I'd say probably the first mistake the Democrats made was in letting Republicans off the hook for the years 2000 to 2008. All villification was focused on Bush, and Bush was gone so it was just time to move on. Republicans should have been made accountable for their support for his failures. You can't sustain that for 8 years, but you can use it to build a strong narrative about the other party, one that might last long enough that people don't forget it completely 8 years later.

Probably the other thing would be use more political theatrics to establish their appeal to base voters. There wasn't a person on earth who didn't know how much Republicans hated ACA, in large part because Republicans kept bringing it back in to the press by pushing through their repeal acts. Democrats should have done the same, putting up a constant string of minimum wage bills and tax reforms, they'd be shot down every time but everyone would know these were key issues for the Democrats.

 sebster wrote:


Except, as I've already pointed out to you, sometimes their 'despair at the inadequacy of the Democratic Party' causes them to stay home on election day, and sometimes their understanding that the Republican party 'wants to destroy their lives' causes them to turn up.

What needs to be recognised is that the inadequacies of the Democratic party, and the ugliness of the Republican party haven't charged much over the last dozen electoral cycles. So we ask why the DNC base turns up some times and not others. And the conclusion, to repeat it again, is that the sting of a Republican control in Washington fades from the memory, people get fat and happy and take the status quo for granted.

.

It´s a two part cycle, First they forget how awful the republicans are so they get in, but after 8 year of republican rule they forget how useless and inadequate the democrats are and the circle begins again

I actually wonder what the fixation is regarding coal, to be honest.

It's the only legitimate form of blackface left .

 Stevefamine wrote:
Clearly you didn't even give it a chance. Go watch it from a neutral perspective - or not and it's 8 years of never watching speeches.

I watched it from the view of someone who focuses on content, and doesn't worry too much about phrasing. Trump acted more presidential than at most other times, but the actual content of his speech was the same old list of half truths and absolute bs. He bullshitted when he talked about crime, looking only at the movement from 2014 to 2015, and ignoring that crime is at its lowest rates since the 1960s. His claims about wide open borders are close to delusional, with almost no net illegal immigration in the last decade. His return to talking about coal mining jobs showed a bizarre fixation and total ignorance of labour replacing efficiencies in many industries, particularly resource extraction. He continued with his string of impossible promises, claiming out of the blue that he will raise wages and reduce unemployment, without even suggesting a plan to actually do it. He continued to campaign for an increase to vetting, and has still ever established exactly what the current vetting process fails to do, or what his ban on seven countries that haven't exported any terrorists to the US is meant to achieve.

In terms of content this speech was exactly as terrible and exactly as stupid as everything Trump has been saying for 12 months. But the pundits fell in love with Trump suddenly acting all presidential, using more carefully crafted words to express the same horrible ideas.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 jasper76 wrote:
Well, he's our President now. The existential crisis crowd will gak on him no matter what he does. If he gives a good speech, I think he should be encouraged for it rather than gak on for it. This guy operates on public perception, so if we want him to be a good Trump, we should encourage him when he acts like one. That's the tact the Washington Post Editorial Board said they were going to operate from, and I think it's a good one to take.

Then we should demand he changes not just his tone, but his substance. The policies he sold in that speech are the same horrible gak he campaigned on.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
He's calling for 1$ Trillion... not billion in infrastructure spending. (egads!)

Obama called for $500 billion. Republicans shot that down as unaffordable and an unacceptable hit to the deficit.

Now they're slowly falling in line with Trump's $1 trillion in infrastructure. Wonder what the difference is.

sebster wrote:But the pundits fell in love with Trump suddenly acting all presidential, using more carefully crafted words to express the same horrible ideas.

My emphasis. My take on the speech having read the comments of the several BBC North American correspondents is that Trump showed he was capable of "acting" presidential, but he needs to prove he can walk the walk not just talk the talk.

The fact that a lot of his policies are lunatic defiance of base-line reality will make this difficult to achieve.

Rosebuddy wrote:
Obama campaigned on hope and change, plus he actually campaigned. He got people excited. He didn't deliver so Clinton campaigning on being Obama 2, not expecting too much on healthcare and simply deserving to win was ill advised.

Uh... 'hope and change' meant 'no more Republicans in charge'. What do you think he was promising to change from? Hope was about hope in a time of hopelessness, in a Republican government.

That you double down on being vile towards the people the Democrats have failed instead of rethinking when your perspective couldn't even manage to defeat Donald Trump is not very sympathetic.

'Oh that vile sebster with vile words and his vile political opinions. It's so vile how he posts things.'

Anyhow, my contempt is for people who think they can push for a cause by getting distracted every eight years or so. Who think you achieve lasting political reform by turning out to vote in one election here or there, if someone has an exciting slogan.

Here's a thing for you - Republicans are winning. They're steadily pushing down taxes and watching as deficit pressure slowly pushes down services as a result. And they do this because they turn up and vote, even when their candidate completely sucks. Hell, Republicans have probably had one good president since Eisenhower, but they still turn up and vote every damn time.

In the same period of time Democrats have had two or maybe three good presidents, but not once in that period have Democrats ever controlled the Whitehouse for more than two terms.

If you think that things will remain the same you are going to be in for a rude awakening.

Viva la revolu... yeah no feth it we're done here.

 d-usa wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Serious question: has Trump condemned anti-semitism on Twitter yet?

For me, nothing he says to reporters and nothing he says in a speech means jack unless he backs it up on Twitter. His alt-right followers live and breathe on Twitter and I don't think they will take anything he tells the media seriously. Unless he takes the message to them, on their platform, on the platform where he is the real Trump, it's meaningless to me.

So condemning antisemitism in the address to Congress is not enough?

Guys, Trump condemned antisemitism in front of Congress and to the nation, but he hasn't done it to my satisfaction on Twitter so it isn't enough.

Yes, that's what I said.

I don't understand how you can hold this opinion. I don't like Trump much either, but he condemned not only the anti-semitism, but the shooting that took place in Kansas as well. Him condemning in this speech is much more important than twitter.


As I mentioned, there are some things out of the speech I would like to see. I'd love to see 1-trillion in infrastructure, especially if we can start getting some of those bullet trains. Where are we going to get the money though.

I'd love to see a 54 billion increase in defense spending, but where are we going to get the money.

Family leave would also be great, and I am sure we can generate bi-partisan support for this. I have a lot of confidence in this being passed.

Repeal and Replace... We will see. I want to see a bi-partisan solution that is not a mess. I have very little confidence in there being a successful solution.

I do not mind tightening immigration laws, and the deportation of criminals. I do not think building a wall is a good solution. I'd much rather see pot legalized, taxed, and a good portion of the DEA de-funded since most of the "War on Drugs" would be neutralized. The added effect I am sure we would see a drop of crime. This wouldn't happen with either candidate though.

If you decriminalised wacky backy, of course you'd see a drop in crime - because nobody would be getting nicked for smoking a joint/possession.

Not sure it's a good idea though - sadly the majority of pot smokers I've encountered tend to be somewhat.....odd - and few have jobs worth a damn.

 Sasori wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Serious question: has Trump condemned anti-semitism on Twitter yet?

For me, nothing he says to reporters and nothing he says in a speech means jack unless he backs it up on Twitter. His alt-right followers live and breathe on Twitter and I don't think they will take anything he tells the media seriously. Unless he takes the message to them, on their platform, on the platform where he is the real Trump, it's meaningless to me.

So condemning antisemitism in the address to Congress is not enough?

Guys, Trump condemned antisemitism in front of Congress and to the nation, but he hasn't done it to my satisfaction on Twitter so it isn't enough.

Yes, that's what I said.

I don't understand how you can hold this opinion. I don't like Trump much either, but he condemned not only the anti-semitism, but the shooting that took place in Kansas as well. Him condemning in this speech is much more important than twitter.

The point, as D said in his first post, is that the people who do think this way will not take notice when Trump says it in his speech. That will just be the "mainstream media" making him say that. Twitter is where Trumps actual thoughts and opinions are, because he is mentally incapable of holding any opinion that exceeds 140 characters.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Not sure it's a good idea though - sadly the majority of pot smokers I've encountered tend to be somewhat.....odd - and few have jobs worth a damn.

And how is this any worse than alcoholics? There's absolutely no justification for alcohol being legal and pot being a serious crime.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Sasori wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Serious question: has Trump condemned anti-semitism on Twitter yet?

For me, nothing he says to reporters and nothing he says in a speech means jack unless he backs it up on Twitter. His alt-right followers live and breathe on Twitter and I don't think they will take anything he tells the media seriously. Unless he takes the message to them, on their platform, on the platform where he is the real Trump, it's meaningless to me.

So condemning antisemitism in the address to Congress is not enough?

Guys, Trump condemned antisemitism in front of Congress and to the nation, but he hasn't done it to my satisfaction on Twitter so it isn't enough.

Yes, that's what I said.

I don't understand how you can hold this opinion. I don't like Trump much either, but he condemned not only the anti-semitism, but the shooting that took place in Kansas as well. Him condemning in this speech is much more important than twitter.

The point, as D said in his first post, is that the people who do think this way will not take notice when Trump says it in his speech. That will just be the "mainstream media" making him say that. Twitter is where Trumps actual thoughts and opinions are, because he is mentally incapable of holding any opinion that exceeds 140 characters.

Do you think the people committing these crimes are going to suddenly turn over a new leaf if he condemns it on Twitter as well? If they didn't care about the speech, I don't see how they would care if it was from twitter. You could use the same logic that "THe MSM pressure forced him to put it on twitter" just as easy.

 Sasori wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Serious question: has Trump condemned anti-semitism on Twitter yet?

For me, nothing he says to reporters and nothing he says in a speech means jack unless he backs it up on Twitter. His alt-right followers live and breathe on Twitter and I don't think they will take anything he tells the media seriously. Unless he takes the message to them, on their platform, on the platform where he is the real Trump, it's meaningless to me.

So condemning antisemitism in the address to Congress is not enough?

Guys, Trump condemned antisemitism in front of Congress and to the nation, but he hasn't done it to my satisfaction on Twitter so it isn't enough.

Yes, that's what I said.

I don't understand how you can hold this opinion. I don't like Trump much either, but he condemned not only the anti-semitism, but the shooting that took place in Kansas as well. Him condemning in this speech is much more important than twitter.

...

To present an alternative view of things, Trump's stream of midnight Tweets are far more revealing of his true character and views than a single carefully scripted speech. Let's see how Trump holds to his new policy in the future.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
If you decriminalised wacky backy, of course you'd see a drop in crime - because nobody would be getting nicked for smoking a joint/possession.

Not sure it's a good idea though - sadly the majority of pot smokers I've encountered tend to be somewhat.....odd - and few have jobs worth a damn.

Luckily, we have several states, such as Colorado, have provided ample evidence to suggest that it should work.

It's more than simple possession. Most of the drug-trafficking is pot, and this would see a sharp drop in cartel violence I believe.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 Sasori wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Serious question: has Trump condemned anti-semitism on Twitter yet?

For me, nothing he says to reporters and nothing he says in a speech means jack unless he backs it up on Twitter. His alt-right followers live and breathe on Twitter and I don't think they will take anything he tells the media seriously. Unless he takes the message to them, on their platform, on the platform where he is the real Trump, it's meaningless to me.

So condemning antisemitism in the address to Congress is not enough?

Guys, Trump condemned antisemitism in front of Congress and to the nation, but he hasn't done it to my satisfaction on Twitter so it isn't enough.

Yes, that's what I said.

I don't understand how you can hold this opinion. I don't like Trump much either, but he condemned not only the anti-semitism, but the shooting that took place in Kansas as well. Him condemning in this speech is much more important than twitter.

...

To present an alternative view of things, Trump's stream of midnight Tweets are far more revealing of his true character and views than a single carefully scripted speech. Let's see how Trump holds to his new policy in the future.

I agree, we need to see how long this lasts. I would hope that he sees the general positive response from this speech, and starts to move more in this direction, instead of his more impulsive style of governance that is terrible.

$60 million dollars for Obama's memoirs as President.

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2017/mar/01/barack-michelle-obama-book-deals-penguin-random-house

I'll wait a few months and get it for 50p in my local charity shop

Wonder if Frazz and whembly will be ordering a copy?

 Peregrine wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Not sure it's a good idea though - sadly the majority of pot smokers I've encountered tend to be somewhat.....odd - and few have jobs worth a damn.

And how is this any worse than alcoholics? There's absolutely no justification for alcohol being legal and pot being a serious crime.

I'm a drinker, but not an alcoholic. I know a couple of alcoholics, and indeed they can be problematic.

But those I know who use cannabis? Dunderheads the lot of them. Now I don't for a second pretend I've seen anything like a wide enough demographic to say they're at all representative - but they remind me of Vegans - always going on about how much they enjoy a joint, and how it cures cancer, and how The Man is just keeping it down, because despite opiates and barbituates etc being in frequent medical use, reasons.

And they are crushing bores on a night out. The drinkers? We have a drink, we have a laugh. We wake up with hangovers the next day directly proportionate to how much we drank (unless I didn't go to Cassidys, in which case I never get a hangover). The stoners? Light up, mong out. Keep trying to say profound stuff which comes out as absolute drivel. They're just no more fun than someone on the Bolivian Marching Powder.

The worst bit is? The stoners I know, despite some being well into their 30's, continuously act like getting backed is somehow the very height of 'sticking it to the man'. Drugs are passé. And they have been for some time. They don't make you cool. They don't make you interesting. They just make you boring/

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Not sure it's a good idea though - sadly the majority of pot smokers I've encountered tend to be somewhat.....odd - and few have jobs worth a damn.

And how is this any worse than alcoholics? There's absolutely no justification for alcohol being legal and pot being a serious crime.

I'm a drinker, but not an alcoholic. I know a couple of alcoholics, and indeed they can be problematic.

But those I know who use cannabis? Dunderheads the lot of them. Now I don't for a second pretend I've seen anything like a wide enough demographic to say they're at all representative - but they remind me of Vegans - always going on about how much they enjoy a joint, and how it cures cancer, and how The Man is just keeping it down, because despite opiates and barbituates etc being in frequent medical use, reasons.

And they are crushing bores on a night out. The drinkers? We have a drink, we have a laugh. We wake up with hangovers the next day directly proportionate to how much we drank (unless I didn't go to Cassidys, in which case I never get a hangover). The stoners? Light up, mong out. Keep trying to say profound stuff which comes out as absolute drivel. They're just no more fun than someone on the Bolivian Marching Powder.

The worst bit is? The stoners I know, despite some being well into their 30's, continuously act like getting backed is somehow the very height of 'sticking it to the man'. Drugs are passé. And they have been for some time. They don't make you cool. They don't make you interesting. They just make you boring/

While this is great and all, I don't see how people doing an activity, that harms no one, on their own should be an federal issue. If potheads want to waste their life doing pot, that is fine. I just want to see it legalized and taxed. The pros of legalized Marijuana by far outweigh the negatives. It would have such a positive ripple effect from lowering crime, to increasing tax revenue.

 Sasori wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Serious question: has Trump condemned anti-semitism on Twitter yet?

For me, nothing he says to reporters and nothing he says in a speech means jack unless he backs it up on Twitter. His alt-right followers live and breathe on Twitter and I don't think they will take anything he tells the media seriously. Unless he takes the message to them, on their platform, on the platform where he is the real Trump, it's meaningless to me.

So condemning antisemitism in the address to Congress is not enough?

Guys, Trump condemned antisemitism in front of Congress and to the nation, but he hasn't done it to my satisfaction on Twitter so it isn't enough.

Yes, that's what I said.

I don't understand how you can hold this opinion. I don't like Trump much either, but he condemned not only the anti-semitism, but the shooting that took place in Kansas as well. Him condemning in this speech is much more important than twitter.

Because constantly shifting the goalposts and raising your expectations makes you look reasonable and willing to change, all while knowing you have no intention of being reasonable. I'd much rather people be honest and say "He sucks and I'll never be happy with him"

 d-usa wrote:
So Sessions didn't disclose meetings with Russia, color me shocked.

Maybe he was hoping for more flexibility after the elections too

No need for legal action.

Avoid pot-heads, start a "fin de siecle" style salon and fill it with sparkling wits such as Stephen Fry.

 sebster wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:
Well, he's our President now. The existential crisis crowd will gak on him no matter what he does. If he gives a good speech, I think he should be encouraged for it rather than gak on for it. This guy operates on public perception, so if we want him to be a good Trump, we should encourage him when he acts like one. That's the tact the Washington Post Editorial Board said they were going to operate from, and I think it's a good one to take.

Then we should demand he changes not just his tone, but his substance. The policies he sold in that speech are the same horrible gak he campaigned on.

They're not just the policies he ran on. They're the policies he got elected on, and opponents of Trump's policies are not currently in any kind of strong position to make demands. There was a moment for that in the ballot box, and it has come and gone.

But I should really watch the speech before commenting further.

 Sasori wrote:
Do you think the people committing these crimes are going to suddenly turn over a new leaf if he condemns it on Twitter as well? If they didn't care about the speech, I don't see how they would care if it was from twitter. You could use the same logic that "THe MSM pressure forced him to put it on twitter" just as easy.

Correct. Now the goalposts shift to "He wasn't sincere because he only reacted to public pressure. He didn't pre-empt my magical standard".


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 reds8n wrote:

I actually wonder what the fixation is regarding coal, to be honest.

It's the only legitimate form of blackface left .

What if you're trans-black?

Old-style American democracy did not aspire to work by ignoring the legitimate concerns of large sections of the population thanks to a victory at one election granting one or other party a brief opportunity to impose the tyranny of the majority.

Even if we ignore the fact that Trump actually does not have the majority of the population behind him, he himself called for rapprochement and unity and he won't get it by simply shouting down anyone who doesn't follow the party line.

It's not a goalpost change. I've asked "has he condemned these acts on Twitter" a while ago as well.

I also don't think his anti-semetic alt-right supporters will hug their Jewish neighbors if Trump tells them to stop being mean to Jews on Twitter. But I'll believe that Trump is willing to stop pandering to that group if he takes the 10 seconds to go "bad nazis" on their platform.

It's almost as if I explained all that, weird.

Looks like Jeff Sessions lied under oath about meeting Russian officials.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/mar/02/jeff-sessions-russian-ambassador-trump-campaign

Is that not grounds for impeachment?