this post was submitted on 10 Sep 2024

45 points (78.5% liked)

politics

19096 readers

3070 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

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:

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.
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.
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.
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.
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 1 year ago

MODERATORS

outrageousmatter@lemmy.world

aidan@lemmy.world

jordanlund@lemmy.world

HLMenckenFan@lemmy.world

little_cow@lemmy.world

Trump signals support for reclassifying pot as a less dangerous drug, in line with Harris' position. (www.voanews.com)

submitted 2 months ago by 101@feddit.org to c/politics@lemmy.world

35 comments fedilink hide all child comments

top 35 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] TransplantedSconie@lemm.ee 37 points 2 months ago (2 children)

Anything to win. Once in office, the christofascists will plop an order on his desk reclassifying the AG stance of weed, making it illegal regardless of what states say, and the arrests will begin.

It's mostly blue states that have it legal and after ~~shooting~~ deporting all the undesirables, someone will have to work the fields.

[+] antmzo220@lemmy.ml -6 points 2 months ago (3 children)

What makes you say this?

Trump's record on weed doesn't seem to be radical prohibitionist or point to a desire for mass arrests of weed users.

[–] paf0@lemmy.world 21 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Nor did his personal record on abortion

[–] TransplantedSconie@lemm.ee 17 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Because of these pages in Project 2025:

Page 553:

Use applicable federal laws to bring federal charges against criminals when local jurisdictions wrongfully allow them to evade responsibility for their conduct.41 The department should also increase the federal law enforcement presence in such jurisdictions and explore innovative solutions to bring meaningful charges against criminals and criminal organizations in such jurisdictions. l Where warranted and proper under federal law, initiate legal action against local officials—including District Attorneys—who deny American citizens the “equal protection of the laws” by refusing to prosecute criminal offenses in their jurisdictions. This holds true particularly for jurisdictions that refuse to enforce the law against criminals based on the Left’s favored defining characteristics of the would-be offender (race, so-called gender identity, sexual orientation, etc.) or other political considerations (e.g., immigration status)

Page 555:

Rigorously prosecute as much interstate drug activity as possible, including simple possession of distributable quantities.46 Recent efforts to create the impression that drug possession crimes are not serious offenses has contributed to the explosion of criminal organization activities in the United States.

Weed is still federally illegal, and they intend to prosecute everyone currently enjoying smoking it in their home on their own time.

[–] antmzo220@lemmy.ml -5 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Trump is not the project 2025 list.

Project 2025 is a list of basically every conservative policy that they will present to the next president for them to choose from. It's basically a standard right wing political transition plan and has only blown up because of the marketing. Trump has also made it clear he disagrees with certain parts.

This leads me to believe he will do the parts he agrees with (cement Republicans power, target immigrants, militarize police etc), but not do the parts he disagrees with.

A 2nd Trump term will probably be the same politics as the first, just a different more efficient/powerful execution (from build the wall and some are fine people [2016], to round them up and it will be bloody [2024] for example). But I don't think he will shift his targets to be anyone who smokes weed, that would be a terrible move and probably bring ruin to the party as most Americans (including Republicans) are for the legalization of marijuana.

[–] TransplantedSconie@lemm.ee 3 points 2 months ago (1 children)

"Because our country is going to hell. The critical job of institutions such as Heritage is to lay the groundwork. And Heritage does such an incredible job at that. And I'm telling you, with Kevin and the staff, and I met so many of them now, I took pictures with among the most handsome, beautiful people I've ever seen. I didn't like that picture. If you could lose that picture, please would you Kevin? But this is a great… No, he says I won't do that. But this is a great group. And they're going to lay the groundwork and detail plans for exactly what our movement will do and what your movement will do when the American people give us a colossal mandate to save America and that's coming. That's coming. Because nobody can stand what's happening right now. Only a fool, only a fool or somebody that hates our country can like what's happening right now. Never been in this position before and already we know a very big part of our agenda." Donald J Trump to a Heritage Foundation meeting April 21st 2022.

Here is the video: https://rumble.com/v11w4eo-donald-j.-trump-at-the-heritage-foundation-annual-leadership-conference-421.html

Here is the transcript: https://www.rev.com/blog/transcripts/donald-trump-delivers-keynote-speech-in-florida-4-21-22-transcript

[–] antmzo220@lemmy.ml -1 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

This doesn't change or oppose anything I said.

Project 2025 is a list of basically every conservative policy that they will present to the next president for them to choose from. It's basically a standard right wing political transition plan and has only blown up because of the marketing. (Me)

The critical job of institutions such as Heritage is to lay the groundwork. And Heritage does such an incredible job at that.

And a bunch of rambling...

The heritage foundation isn't new and they didn't just recently start proposing policies with project 2025. They were around in 2016 as well.

Mandate for Leadership is a series of books published by The Heritage Foundation, an American conservative think-tank based in Washington, D.C. They offer specific conservative policy recommendations designed to be implemented by the federal government.

The books have traditionally been released to coincide with an incoming U.S. presidential administration. The first edition was released in 1981, following the election of Ronald Reagan, to serve as policy guidance for the incoming Reagan administration. The latest edition, published in April 2023, is a major component of Project 2025.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandate_for_Leadership

[–] ThePowerOfGeek@lemmy.world 8 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

His point is that Trump's stance on an issue doesn't matter. He will say whatever he needs to say to get into office. And then if he gets in, he will defer to whatever the hard right wants. So (pretty much) whatever they present to him he will just sign it. As long as they praise him and he can continue to bilge everyone and everything for money, he won't care.

[+] Riccosuave@lemmy.world -10 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (3 children)

You clearly don't know shit about legal cannabis. This will never happen in a million fucking years regardless of who is in office.

There is too much economic infrastructure built out around the industry now, and the states & federal government make a fortune in tax revenue. There is literally a zero percent chance cannabis legalization is rolled back further than where it is today.

Source: worked in the cannabis industry for almost 15 years.

[–] TransplantedSconie@lemm.ee 8 points 2 months ago (2 children)

Read pages 553 through 555 of project 2025. They absolutely will prosecute weed because it's still illegal at the federal level. You are dealing with fascists, homes. They are going to use the military against us right out of the gate.

[–] antmzo220@lemmy.ml 0 points 2 months ago (1 children)

You are dealing with fascists, homes. They are going to use the military against us right out of the gate.

Yeah, the famous saying "first they came for everybody all at once and everyone knew they had to stand up against them"...

The vast, vast majority in both parties support the legalization of weed. Republicans are good at politics, they wouldn't die on that hill.

[–] tigeruppercut@lemmy.zip 2 points 2 months ago

I hope you're right but they never wanted to actually overturn roe either-- they needed it as a wedge issue and now it might cost them the election. At this point the gop is the dog who caught the car. They're out of control.

[–] Riccosuave@lemmy.world -2 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

You fail to take into account that basically 90% of the cannabis industry is owned by white people, many of whom are alt-right counterculturists, and more of them than you'd think are pro-Trump.

It turns out that an industry built around people with a tenuous appreciation for the law are often easily coopted by a demagogue who constantly threatens to overthrow the government.

They serve the same masters, and are on the same team. It doesn't matter what all of the 2025'ers think they are going to get. Trump is going to do what is good for him to remain in power, and removing other white people from positions of ownership in a sin-taxed industry that is coopted by the government isn't one of those things.

What you believe is irrelevant. I have seen the beast from the inside, and I can tell you for a fact that cannabis is staying legal as long as it is profitable for the white robber barons.

[–] joshthewaster@lemmy.world 7 points 2 months ago (2 children)

We did prohibition once already. The result was that all the little guys went out of business and the big guys ended up in positions to be the only guys. I wouldn't discount that as being a possibility for weed.

[–] Riccosuave@lemmy.world 0 points 2 months ago

That is already happening. They don't need to make cannabis illegal again in order to monopolize the industry. All that takes is time, money, and effective lobbyists.

[–] antmzo220@lemmy.ml -1 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

We did prohibition once already.

I wouldn't discount that as being a possibility for weed.

We aren't in the prohibition era though, things are different. That's the point of legalizing weed now.

We already have tons of small businesses/ individual entrepreneurs selling weed (dealers).

The point of the "legalization and regulation" process is to make it prohibitive to sell legally and transfer the market into the hands of big businesses who can afford it.

[–] AlphaOmega@lemmy.world 2 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I'm with Rico suave on this one. Where I live, there's a dispensary every other block. 10s of thousands of jobs revolve around the industry. The states are making millions on taxes. Zero chance that would fly.

[–] Riccosuave@lemmy.world -1 points 2 months ago

It is billions in taxes per year.

[–] LEDZeppelin@lemmy.world 31 points 2 months ago (1 children)

You must be high as fuck to trust this guy for whatever he says

[–] SarcasticMan@lemmy.world 15 points 2 months ago (2 children)

I am high as fuck and I don't believe him.

Speaking of not believing, I can't believe how awesome French bread pizza is.

[–] harrys_balzac@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 2 months ago

I'm not high and I can't believe it either. Now I want some.

[–] Empricorn@feddit.nl 2 points 2 months ago

There is no way that's true. French bread pizza is just mildly awesome, right?

[–] b3an@lemmy.world 20 points 2 months ago

Signaling from Trump can be interpreted as: “I’ll flip flop on issues and then do what I want when I’m in office anyway, depending on my mood, and if I ate McDonald’s yet or not.”

[–] barsquid@lemmy.world 16 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Might mean something if he wasn't constantly lying about even the most trivial shit.

[–] OlinOfTheHillPeople@lemmy.world 3 points 2 months ago (1 children)

He was already president once, and did everything in his power to stop legalization. He's getting desperate, but don't believe a single word he says.

[–] barsquid@lemmy.world 2 points 2 months ago

I'd have to have dementia as potent as Donald's to believe a word he says. If I ever indicate I do please guide me to some sort of humane end of life in a European country with human dignity.

[–] Omgboom@lemmy.zip 11 points 2 months ago

He will absolutely change his stance the second he's in office, the evangelicals will make him

[–] Ghostalmedia@lemmy.world 7 points 2 months ago

I don’t believe you .gif

[–] HubertManne@moist.catsweat.com 2 points 2 months ago

oh yeah. just like in the lead up to 2016 so he implied. did not seem to happen.

[–] ATDA@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

I have my doubts either will do (or be able to do) anything substantial but even if both got to an actual plan I'm guessing I'd still prefer Harris'.

But let's be real Trump will do nothing to ensure your rights expand in any regard and there's no reason to take him at face value for any reason.

[–] chemicalprophet@lemm.ee 1 points 2 months ago

I love when a government tells me how when what and why I can enjoy personal freedoms

[–] Semi_Hemi_Demigod@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Somebody go back in time and tell Nixon that both major parties support relaxing drug laws. It might kill him.

[–] WoodScientist@lemmy.world 3 points 2 months ago

Oh don't worry, I'm sure they get Fox News in Hell.

[–] MediaBiasFactChecker@lemmy.world -5 points 2 months ago

Voice of America - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)

Information for Voice of America:

MBFC: Least Biased - Credibility: High - Factual Reporting: High - United States of America
Wikipedia about this source

Search topics on Ground.News

https://www.voanews.com/a/7777728.html

Media Bias Fact Check | bot support