How miserable are you that you live your life with a political chip on your shoulder and let politicians dictate your reality?
He only did it to help the ole miss dope research department*
Bless your heart. I guess you’re on coke, not weed.
Fact:
I’m glad I’m not the only one who sees how asinine a comment that is coming from him. I cannot fathom an adult having such a lack of self-awareness. Absolutely incredible!
Not my cup of tea, but comforting to know that there are other ( less punitive) options to help cope with my 406 ypg medical condition.
That 30 something percent approval rate will get a man to reach deep in the playbook. Nonetheless, way overdue. Good job and I hope it sticks.
Pot, meet kettle….
Absolutely crazy that nobody blinks an eye that the President can just make law at will. If Congress were actually forced to legislate rather than just handing it off to the executive branch, the federal government wouldn't have time to 17 so much **** up. They'd have to stick to things the federal government should actually be involved with because there wouldn't be enough time for anything else.
I think a whole lot of people have been blinking their eyes a ton in 2025.
Sorry, I meant the voting populace and punditry as a whole. Policy nerds of a libertarian/conservative bent have been complaining since at least Bush II and I assume earlier, but mostly people only complain about it when it's a president doing things they don't agree with.
It's been stunning to me to, even outside of whatever shiitforbrains is doing at a given time. We all like to talk about "what the framers intended", it's very clear they never considered the entirety of the legislative branch would just... give up.
I mean, the capitulation happened along time ago, it's just been getting more an dmore obvious. Limiting Chevron deference it least limits the executive to stuff more likely to be contemplated by the people originally enacting the law and forces the legislative branch to actually legislate if they want to make major changes to the law.
The problem is that the legislative branch can’t get out of its own way when both sides of the aisle are trying to play gotcha games with each other. There’s a reason why Congress has a putrid approval rating and it’s all of their faults.
It's not that the legislative branch can't get out of its own way. It's operating exactly the way a large majority of them want it to operate. For most of them, staying elected and collecting money is not tied to how the county is doing or even how their constituents are doing. Only a small minority are in swing districts or states where it is evenly split enough that "vibe" voters will determine the election. That's the real negative from gerrymandering. You end up with a lot of representatives like Bennie Thompson who don't need to do anything for their constituents to keep getting elected. There are racial dynamics there but there are plenty of similarly situated representatives without that.
Literally liberalizing weed laws and rules is now conservative? Nixon and Goldwater are rolling!!
Does alcohol have a health benefit? Sugar? People like it. There are going to be some bad things from people using it. There are going to be bad things from using the criminal justice system to try and stop people from using it. Marijuana is worse than alcohol because it's easier for people to use it without being caught and we don't have a good intoxication proxy like we do with alcohol, but I don't think that's a good enough reason to treat it significantly different than alcohol.
Count me among those who respect the founders and the Constitution they created as a guiding document for us but who doesn't give a flying 17 about what they intended. They haven't been around for 200 years. We are here now. Just like they were there then and did what they thought was best no matter what kings and legislatures in the 15th century intended.
Well, for most things, liberalizing is conservative. Conservative was historically closely related to classically liberal, or at least more closely related than the left. In american politics, "liberal" pretty much means "illiberal, wiht the probable exception of drugs and possible exception of sex related issues".
Disagree. The only way modern conservative is associated with classically liberal is in the promotion of the business class. Which was a liberal position at the time as opposed to the conservative aristocracy. As time goes on and the business class becomes the new aristocracy, they become the conservatives. Liberal is illiberal is just wrong, but to be honest, you are right. We don't have a true liberal/left party in this country. We have two right wing parties that both give lip service to liberal ideas. Notice that they both couch their conservative BS in liberal terms like freedom and democracy when nearly everything they do is anathema to those ideals.
We don't have two right wing parties; that's nomenclature and doesn't work like that. But we do largely have two statist parties.
So if you're describing Congress actually doing the 17ing up, who is this mysterious "federal government" that's also 17ing things up?
