326
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] kreskin@lemmy.world 75 points 3 weeks ago

Good old "Nothing will fundamentally change" Joe.

[-] DancingBear@midwest.social 32 points 3 weeks ago

Hey now at least he helped start a genocide.

What a legacy.

[-] TheReturnOfPEB@reddthat.com 10 points 3 weeks ago

slavers gonna slave

that is our legacy

[-] GreenKnight23@lemmy.world 8 points 3 weeks ago

thank you for starting one in America too.

[-] alcoholicorn@lemmy.ml 13 points 3 weeks ago

Ah yes, the people calling out the democrats for facilitating genocide are responsible for the democrats loss. If nobody called them out, genocide would have been extremely popular.

Of course, if we had the power to sway the election, I wonder why the democrats didn't just listen to us and stop facilitating genocide.

[-] kreskin@lemmy.world 6 points 3 weeks ago

theres a lot of centrists who say they will never forgive those who didnt vote. I'm not sure I'll ever forgive centrists for not standing up to be counted in the uncommitted primary vote. Biden would have won anyway and it would have cost them nothing at all to do. Somehow they couldnt be bothered.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] GhiLA@sh.itjust.works 6 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

They say Biden, I hear complicit.

It's amazing how a being without a spine sat in the White House chair for four years without falling over.

[-] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 71 points 3 weeks ago

Crime Bill Biden ran out the clock on purpose. He never had any intention to reschedule cannabis.

NONE.

[-] takeda@lemmy.world 31 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

The only meaningful change for this would be via legislation, otherwise trump can just as easily undo it the same day.

Edit: looks like the process is much more complicated and actually Biden already started the process at the beginning of this year (April): https://www.reuters.com/legal/litigation/update-deas-efforts-reschedule-cannabis-what-you-need-know-2024-09-11/ , I don't understand this article

Edit 2: the letter is actually asking him to try to hurry the process up (the article from September that I linked says there supposed to be hearing scheduled this Monday (Dec 2nd)). It is very misleading (as you can see from the comments), because it implies Biden is just ignoring this issue completely.

https://lee.house.gov/imo/media/doc/letter_to_biden_admin_re_marijuana.pdf

[-] LifeInMultipleChoice@lemmy.world 22 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

He actually started the process to review what it was scheduled as to get it changed in 2022. It like everything else surrounding our government takes forever.

https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-submits-proposed-regulation-reschedule-marijuana

[-] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 16 points 3 weeks ago

It like everything else surrounding our government takes forever.

Unless of course it's something he wants to do, like sell weapons for an ongoing genocide. Then all bureaucracy evaporates into nothingness.

His hands are untied when he wants them to be.

[-] KairuByte@lemmy.dbzer0.com 11 points 3 weeks ago

Look, I get that you’re trying to make a point, but this is like complaining your parents were able to pay the mortgage every week but not buy you a new bike. One is planned, budgeted, agreed upon by all parties. The other is something you want, that takes time and planning which has yet to take place.

[-] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 5 points 3 weeks ago

The other is something you want, that takes time and planning which has yet to take place.

One is something Biden wanted, and the other is rescheduling cannabis.

[-] DancingBear@midwest.social 4 points 3 weeks ago

So the genocide was planned and agreed upon before hand?

[-] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 4 points 3 weeks ago

As far as centrists are concerned, genocide is as vital as shelter.

[-] capital@lemmy.world 3 points 3 weeks ago

This is the type of level-headed, honest discussion I came here from reddit for.

[-] Starbuck@lemmy.world 6 points 3 weeks ago

Everything with government doesn’t have to be slow, but congress wrote this bill so that two successive presidents would have to keep pursuing it.

[-] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 11 points 3 weeks ago

looks like the process is much more complicated and actually Biden already started the process at the beginning of this year

Right. He waited until it couldn't be completed until after the end of his term. On purpose. He ran out the clock. On purpose.

He never wanted to reschedule cannabis and dragged his feet until he didn't have to.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] capital@lemmy.world 9 points 3 weeks ago
[-] Glitterbomb@lemmy.world 13 points 3 weeks ago

You still haven't learned that US legal precedent is God king. New rules dropped, presidential acts are all the rage. Biden just has to say those two words and he can regulate how long your ball hair is allowed to be.

[-] capital@lemmy.world 4 points 3 weeks ago

All that needs to happen is for SCOTUS to agree.

Should be easy 👍

[-] Glitterbomb@lemmy.world 6 points 3 weeks ago

Doesn't fuckin matter. Let SCOTUS mull it over for years. Drag it out through court for 4 years to see if he was allowed to do what he did do. Someone tries to reverse what he did? Fire them, let SCOTUS figure out for 4 years if he was allowed to do that too. Convince 20 lawyers to fight it until they are literally disbarred. I'm sick of democrats fussing over decorum and tradition and just giving this country away because they're afraid of some vague rules. Make shit up. Not allowed to fire that person? Spin up some special cabinet packed with cronies and make that person report to them now. Literally anything. But biden won't do shit. He's taking a fucking nap, leave him alone.

[-] IzzyScissor@lemmy.world 1 points 3 weeks ago

Considering they already did, I'd say so.

[-] capital@lemmy.world 2 points 3 weeks ago

You miss the part where the court gets to decide what is or isn't an "official act"?

[-] IzzyScissor@lemmy.world 2 points 3 weeks ago

Sure, if the court case goes before them, on average of 4 years after the actual crime. But seeing as the Jan 6th case was thrown out, it won't matter what that determination would be if ignoring the Constitution and attempting to overthrow the government isn't past the line.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] A7thStone@lemmy.world 34 points 3 weeks ago

But then the democrats couldn't dangle it in front of us next election.

[-] Homescool@lemmy.world 3 points 2 weeks ago

We are still working on legalizing abortion with a simple law after 50 years. These things take time.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] SnotFlickerman 29 points 3 weeks ago

Biden, smiling as he puts on shades and eats ice cream: "No. Peace, I'm out."

[-] DragonTypeWyvern@midwest.social 9 points 3 weeks ago

I mean, everyone said he was too old to do the job.

[-] FuryMaker@lemmy.world 22 points 3 weeks ago

Guessing weed business would boom, and government gain a tonne of tax, which Trump would take credit for.

So no. Can't see him doing it.

[-] admin@maple.social 12 points 3 weeks ago

Big tax cash cow here in Canada, that's for sure.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Thebular@lemmy.world 4 points 2 weeks ago

They're not calling for hi m to legalize it, the letter they wrote is asking him to reschedule it from a schedule 1 drug to a schedule 3 drug. Still can't see him doing it.

[-] Lasherz12@lemmy.world 16 points 3 weeks ago

The time to do that really would have been before the election... He did reschedule it, but that can be undone day one. I honestly think the fascist voters would credit Trump. I've heard them say "already things are getting better" with no hint of irony.

[-] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 17 points 3 weeks ago

He did reschedule it

He did not. Cannabis is still Schedule I.

[-] Lasherz12@lemmy.world 6 points 3 weeks ago

Damn you're right, they did start the process, but the DEA pushed it back to 2025 after originally expecting it this year.

[-] alcoholicorn@lemmy.ml 5 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

The DEA whose head Biden appointed decided to wait until the next president could block it?

I wonder if Biden ran it by Joe Manchin or the senate parliamentarian first.

[-] Starbuck@lemmy.world 2 points 3 weeks ago

He started the multi-year process to do it.

[-] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 5 points 3 weeks ago

When he knew it was too late to finish it during his term. He ran out the clock.

[-] Starbuck@lemmy.world 2 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

So your options were re-elect the team who are following the process but started late and put and end to federal prosecutions while he was in office, or re-elect the guy whose last AG was 100% against any reform attempts and actively prosecuted offenders.

But no, go ahead and tell me how Trump was the better option here. This is why the republicans win. Everything on the left is a purity test where we endlessly belittle our politicians for not delivering everything all at once on day one, while the right makes plans that span decades to take power. Look at the Federalist Society. It took them decades to arrange for the moment where they would have decisive control over the judicial branch so they could crime with impunity. But tell me how Biden not completing a five year process in four years was too slow.

[-] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 6 points 3 weeks ago

So your options were re-elect the team who are following the process but started late and put and end to federal prosecutions while he was in office, or re-elect the guy whose last AG was 100% against any reform attempts and actively prosecuted offenders.

My options were Harris and Trump. I voted for Harris.

But no, go ahead and tell me how Trump was the better option here.

He wasn't.

Criticism of Biden isn't advocacy for Trump. NEITHER OF THEM IS EVEN RUNNING. THE ELECTION IS OVER. But since centrists can't defend their constant deliberate uselessness at anything other than arming a genocide, they have to pretend that any and all criticism of Drug War Biden is Trump support.

You don't have to carry water for him anymore. It's over.

[-] Semi_Hemi_Demigod@lemmy.world 4 points 3 weeks ago

Maybe Democrats should have their own Federalist Society then. They're the ones running the party and if they can't implement the sort of multi-decade program that it takes to produce real change then maybe they're shit at their jobs.

[-] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 4 points 3 weeks ago

Their jobs are to prevent real change, not implement it. They're fantastic at their jobs.

[-] 474D@lemmy.world 15 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

Isn't it already ruled he has presidential immunity? Why isn't he doing more? I understand he has some time but like... I hope there's at least a "welcome package" for trump. I have no faith in anything anymore

[-] _chris@lemmy.world 18 points 3 weeks ago

Yeah. All faith in democrats wanting to do the BAREST MINIMUM to make a difference is flat out gone. Both sides apparently want the poor dead or in prison. Republicans are just gonna make it happen faster.

[-] Today@lemmy.world 6 points 3 weeks ago

I worry that they'll just open a can of worms and fuck up our farm bill access.

[-] Donebrach@lemmy.world 6 points 3 weeks ago

Democrats, the reason we lost is that we didn’t singularly campaign to Republicans in Detroit. That is the only deciding vote. 20 Republicans in Detroit. In 2028 it is TANTAMOUNT that we knock on 1 Republican door in Pennsylvania and 15 doors in Detroit.

[-] MouldyCat@feddit.uk 2 points 2 weeks ago
[-] Donebrach@lemmy.world 6 points 2 weeks ago

Uh it’s pronounced “Paramount+”, thanks

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] RizzRustbolt@lemmy.world 2 points 2 weeks ago

Anything Biden could do, could easily be undone by Trump.

[-] Subverb@lemmy.world 2 points 2 weeks ago

Biden was 6 when Reefer Madness came out. I doubt he understands it in a modern context.

load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 27 Nov 2024
326 points (100.0% liked)

politics

19223 readers
2393 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS