Since last year’s US House Elections?
Donald Trump has HAD to live with something he has almost never death with….
A smart woman…
It would seem that all thru his adult life he has looked at women as subservient to him…
THAT is N OT the situation he has been dealing with since the beginning of 2019….
The Democratic House Speaker seems to be outmanuvering the Republican President art almost every turn…
And by his recent tweets and comments out loud?
It’s eating him up….
A QUICK REALITY CHECK … PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP tweeted this — in part — on Christmas: “Why should Crazy Nancy Pelosi, just because she has a slight majority in the House, be allowed to Impeach the President of the United States?”
WELL, DEFINE “slight.” Speaker NANCY PELOSI started out this Congress with a 36-seat majority — which is the fifth-largest of all majorities since the 105th Congress, in 1997-1999. PELOSI had the largest majority in the last decade — 79 seats — which came just after BARACK OBAMA won the White House, between 2009 and 2011. The smallest majority was seven seats, between 2001 and 2003. Republicans held a 19-seat majority when they impeached BILL CLINTON.
IT’S POSSIBLE that Trump has never fundamentally understood the power shift in Washington brought about by the 2018 midterms. He went from dealing with an all-Republican Congress to having to fend off a ferocious Democratic majority in the House that has largely held together despite its geographic and ideological diversity. That is one reason, perhaps, that he finds himself impeached heading into 2020.
ALSO: This missive from TRUMP came after this presidential message: “Together, we must strive to foster a culture of deeper understanding and respect—traits that exemplify the teachings of Christ.”
IN CASE SAN FRANCISCO DEMS ARE LOOKING FOR TRUMP’S ADVICE, @realDonaldTrump this morning: “‘Nancy Pelosi has no leverage over the Senate. Mitch McConnell did not nose his way into the impeachment process in the House, and she has no standing in the Senate.’ Brad Blakeman. Crazy Nancy should clean up her filthy dirty District & help the homeless there. A primary for N?”
— FOR THE RECORD: California does not have traditional primaries. It has a “jungle primary,” in which both parties participate, and the top two vote-getters face off in the general election. In 2018, PELOSI got 68.5% in a seven-candidate jungle primary field — the next highest vote-getter got 9.1%. She won the general election with 86.8%….
image…Haaretz
New Open Thread is HERE….
Polling sidebar updated…
Real Clear Politics Numbers
BE ADVISED!
State polls for Iowa, NH, New, SC, Texas, Ca, and Mass are ALL almost a month OLD!…
Nancy Pelosi’s approval is now at the same level as Don and Trumps!
Of course he has, Nancy Pelosi knows her shit, and Donald is full of shit.
Morning All…
Morning People…
BrooklynDadDefiant
Ever see one of those movies where a bad guy is being chased by the cops, and they’re frantically throwing garbage and random objects behind them as obstacles to distract the cops?
That’s basically trump’s Twitter feed right now.
INSANE.
I’m disappointed that Joe Biden has said that he would refuse to testify if requested to do so during the impeachment trial.
This weakens the Democratic argument that Trump obstructed justice by having his cronies refuse to testify.
Biden’s actions were purely selfish.
Z?
The Republicans will turn a Biden appearance into a 3 Ring Circus like Hillary’s email story….
You seem to NOT understand how this works….
Trump and the Republican are AFRAID of Biden…
From the jump Trump has seemed to use the Hunter Biden story to distract and tag Biden….
Biden KNOWS the Hillary episode help cost her the election ….
Biden is correct in his taking this off the table…
James, I am aware the Biden would not look good in testifying. But his refusal to testify makes the Democrats look corrupt and it will hurt the eventual Democratic nominee – even if it is Biden.
My opinion of this Impeachment bid is well known.
However, I don’t understand under what “theory” Joe Biden’s testimony could possibly be relevant to the charges levied against Trump,Obstruction of Congress and Abuse of Presidential power.
Just as said….
A diversion….
If Guliani testifies, it will be about what he “found” on Biden.
The reality is that I don’t think it is likely that Democrats will get Guliani and others to testify without Republicans requiring Biden’s testimony – even more so now that he announced his refusal to testify.
At this point, this is all a game; every decision is political, and you know it.
I believe the rules says questions must written in advance…
But McConnell could surely change that
Anyways?
Jack can chime in this , but once under questioning?
ANYTHING or Topic can be put those be questioned ‘under oath’…. False answers could have Barr go after u ….
I agree with Jack, there isn’t any scenario where anything Biden has to say to an impeachment court that actually has anything to do with impeachment.
But that won’t stop the Republicans from asking, and that won’t stop our fellow Democrats from obsessing on an issue that has nothing to do with the law or the Articles of Impeachment.
Just as Hillary made a silly decision to install an email server that was never hacked or compromised, Biden’s son’s decision to leverage his family name to get a position with a foreign energy company has nothing to do with Trump’s crimes.
But it won’t stop and Biden should have said, “ask me anything, I have nothing to hide.”
I agree. I have absolutely no reason to believe that Hunter or Joe Biden committed anything that even comes close to a crime. So there is no reason not to testify.
Biden should have said something like this “Why are you asking about whether I should testify? Donald Trump needs to testify, as does Mulvaney, Pompeo, Guliani, and Bolton. They need to clarify things that the said on TV regarding their interactions with Trump on this case. They received subpoenas and ignored them. I believe in the rule of law. So if I received a subpoena, of course I would testify”.
It appears he is walking his statement back to actually take this position Zreebs.
His initial response was emotion speaking and he thought twice.
So why wasn’t Biden prepared for that question? Wasn’t it an obvious question? I have concerns that Biden keeps making these mistakes. The other major candidates (Pete, Bernie and Elizabeth) are more consistent.
Bloomberg needs to get better too with his responses to questions – I’ve been a little disappointed, but he started so late, so I am giving him some slack.
Up for some homework Zreebs, as a Bloomberg supporter?
Can you find one area of disagreement on Israel between Bloomberg and Netanyahu? (or Bloomberg and myself?)
You might be his most high profile UU backer.
In fact Joe Biden is NOT perfect…
He, like other humans makes mistakes…
It does NOT seem to hurt his approval with most Democrats…
And?
The ‘others’ wish they where were Biden is in the polls…
My point is that if this is a”trial” on the two charges against Trump, then what is the rationale for having Biden tesitify?
What can he possibly offer that would have probative value as to those charges?
A subpoena is issued for the purpose of having witnesses testify as to facts relevant to the charges.
Since he has nothing to contribute in that regard ?The only possible purpose of a subpoena would be for purely political reasons and to reduce this supposed “trial” to a political show.
The point about Roberts “intervening “ must be viewed in light of the fact that any of his rulings may be overruled by a majority of the Senate.
I reiterate my belief that the sooner this impeachment thing is out of the way the better it will be.
We all know what the result will be.We all know that public opinion is split roughly along the lines of Trumps approval/ disapproval rating as to his conviction.
Opinions are set in stone.Nothing said or done at this trial is going to change anything.
Instead of all this procedural Rigamarole, that ,in general ,turns off the average voter let’s just get this over with…quickly.
And move on to what matters,defeating Trump in the election.
Good Morning People…..
Biden is CORRECT…
There IS no reason for him to dragged infant of the Republican led Senate…
Even with Trump?
I SERIOUSLY doubt he’ll be called before them…
He has a LOT of friends there…
Morning People
Rep. John Lewis said on Sunday that he is suffering from Stage 4 pancreatic cancer and will undergo treatment, though he plans to keep serving his district…..
More…
Obviously once on the stand, Biden can’t lie – and if he needs to, then I hope you would agree he shouldn’t be the nominee.
But Republicans can’t ask him questions about anything unrelated, and if they do, I assume Justice Roberts would intervene.
Ha, ha, ha‼️😆
Roberts is gonna ride herd on HIS party people at this trial that McConnell and Graham say they are consulting Trump about ??????
That ALL the GOPer’s of the jury are advertising the verdict ALREADY?
Ok….
I’ve heard enough of this ….
I have bridge i’ll sell ya Z….
Is that bridge kind of like that college degree you claim to own. Because I suspect you don’t have one of those either. And if you do, I know it is from a school in which it is not difficult to obtain.
BA…..
Graduate cert….
More Graduate Work…
Life credits…
10 years graduate work in running a political blog….
I’ll sell ya the bridge cheap….
Update…
Joe Biden appeared to walk back a statement he made that he would refuse to testify at the impeachment trial of President Trump — even if he was subpoenaed, CBS News reports.
Said Biden: “I would honor whatever the Congress in fact legitimately asked me to do.”
Politicalwire…
What was your major in which you allegedly received a BA?
What is a “Graduate cert”? I got a graduation cert when I passed kindergarten. I still remember getting it too.
Also, what school would possibly give credits to running a political blog? Did the school bother to read what you actually wrote?
Don’t get too hung up on these credentials, either of you. (But also don’t assume authority, knowledge and expertise that you don’t have).
Although everyone else in my family earned graduate as well as undergraduate degrees, I was never able to complete a bachelor’s program (political science) that I started at Berkeley.
All I have in formal degrees after my prep school diploma are two Associate’s degrees from the Community College of Rhode Island: an A.A, in Liberal Arts (1999) and an A.S. in Criminal Justice & Paralegal Studies (2001).
Dave, It is obvious to me that you are very intelligent – and you strive to continue learning. It is possible that you might be the most intelligent person on this blog.
I’ll have a polling update tonight…
Joe Biden cruising in the lead…
Biden said today he would consider picking a Republican for Vice President and left-wing Twitter is freaking out.
There are certainly some GOP Governors he could consider that could help him expand his appeal in a general election. I tend to not believe him for a second though.
Post on this later…
He, he, he
Morning folks….
Adam P Levy
@adamplevy
Today is 12/31/2019
Days until:
IA: 34
NH: 42
NV (DEM): 53
SC (DEM): 60
Super Tuesday: 63
Election Day: 308
Inauguration: 386
Recreational marijuana becomes legal in Illinois in less than eight hours. Hopefully, the first innocent person to be killed in a car accident caused by a stoned driver will be as many hours as possible into the future.
I hope Mike Bloomberg doesn’t back down from his position that legalizing marijuana is “the stupidest thing ever.” He should stand by that principled position and let the Big Gulps go.
Well he is wrong about marijuana. As an insurance guy, there is no comparison to drunk driving and being stoned. Drunk driving is far worse, and cops would tell you the same thing. If someone chooses smoking pot over drinking, then the accident rate could actually decline. My company neither increases nor decreases auto rates when a state legalizes pot.
I actually laughed out loud when I read what Corey wrote. He’s stuck in the last Century on this and so many other issues.
Jack pointed out the obvious, people have been smoking marijuana illegally for years and doing all sorts of things, just like I once drank beer underage in college. This rigid moral code only inhibits fun, and everyone could use more fun.
We didn’t drink beer last night or smoke dope, we consumed a great meal and drank some of the neighboring winemakers best Cab. Responsibly of course. The winemaker graced our table with his presence, the good ones are very interesting characters.
Hopefully everyone will have a great New Year. One ultimately free of the plague of Donald Trump. I wonder what additional horrible act Trump could commit that would drive our friend to actually cast a meaningful vote against this piece of human excrement?
Pope Francis has apologized for losing his patience when he slapped a woman’s hand on New Year’s Eve.
The pontiff was visibly angered when the woman grabbed him as he greeted pilgrims in Saint Peter’s Square in a video widely shared on social media. The incident occurred shortly before he gave a speech denouncing violence against women…
More…
What an idiotic post.
To clarify, CG’s “reefer madness” post is the idiotic one. Not Zreebs reply.
His example is flawed anyway.
What does “legalizing” recreational marijuana have to do with the use thereof?
I presume he understands that people have been using marijuana and driving for years.
Morning Everyone….
Happy New Year….
The race for the prize gets down to the nitty gritty!….
I imagine it’s just his reflex to pine for the days of Nancy Reagan and “Just Say No”–to any drug that isn’t alcohol or prescription of course.
People are free to disagree with me over drug policy but that does not mean they can take leave of common sense.
Legalization means an action will increase due to availability and acceptance. This is not hard to understand. While people used marijuana frequently and sometimes also drove vehicles and took lives in the process, this is likely to increase as more people become marijuana users and more people will be using it frequently.
Of course there is also the aspect of THC products in edibles and other forms that will be legal and far more frequently available that people may have consumed without even knowing what they were (someone offers them something for example..) and then suffer very adverse effects or harms others in the process.
Of course drunk driving is also a problem, but people can drink in moderation without showing any signs of impair whatsover. Is there anybody who consumes recreational marijuana who is not intending to get high?
While people are free to disagree over public policy, I hope some compassion will be shown to the innocent people who will be harmed. I am sure if it happened to someone you know personally, it would be less of a laughing matter.
No one took leave of “common sense.”
Hyperbolic nonsense.
Do you disagree that the legality of something means it will increase in usage?
I don’t think you do, but you are too locked into your black and white mindset to admit I have a point.
Do you think we should outlaw the consumption of alcoholic beverages?
That’s the logical corollary of your reasoning.
See we all have uh “black and white” views.
Any other “epithets” to unload?
Now that you are adopting James vocabulary ,why not add “people can be more than one thing to the “routine.”
Alcohol should remain legal for people over 21 because as mentioned, adults can consume in moderation without any mental or physical impairment.
Those who recreationally consume marijuana or other drugs are deliberately trying to alter their minds, at least temporarily.
Whether you agree with my conclusion or not, clearly you can see that I have communicated a rationale with explains how I have contrasted the matters and why they are different.
People can be “more than one thing” politically, but I might have to one day discuss this further with Zreebs (so realize this is not about you jack) who thinks people can be Jewish and also attend the UU church. I do not think people can more more than one thing religiously.
There’s nothing wrong with attending a church of course. We should have tremendous religious freedom to worship (or not worship) any way a person chooses, but one cannot be Jewish and also attend a church (or a Messianic “synagogue.”) Those who might have grown up Jewish but not associate with the UU Church have left the Jewish religion for a reason and that should be kept in mind to those considering those matters.
Marijuana alters the mind, in a parallel way, to roughly the same extent as alcohol does (i.e. not that much); people take psychedelics or opioids to change their consciousness. I think that particularly strong hashish might possibly be mind-altering in the way that worries CG.
People might be taking uppers (amphetamines), downers (barbiturates), and stimulants such as cocaine for other reasons, although their long-range effect is often to change the user’s mind in ways that he or she did not seek.
But that’s just a lay opinion, based on some personal experience, a lot of conversation and some reading.
Correction and clarification welcome.
Thankfully DSD at least understands how to try to interact with people on an intellectual level and with basic respect, which others here find it hard to do, at least at times.
I believe it is pretty established that the potency of marijuana today is much stronger than it was in the ’60s and ’70s. I am by several years at least the youngest person to be a commenter on here (though not exactly young anymore myself) so I have definitely been around people who have used marijuana and I think for many it had quite negative effects.
With the more to legalization, which common sense dictates will lead to greater availability and social acceptance, there is also likely to be an increase in the dangerous black market, especially among those under 21 who cannot consume legally but who feel they have the right to take part.
As Mayor Bloomberg and Vice President Biden have both pointed out, we should have a lot more research into marijuana as a gateway drug. This is especially important with the crisis we are seeing in America in regards to opioid addiction.
Now, it could be that some people will start using marijuana, perhaps to deal with medical issues, and then avoid problems with opioids. That aspect would be a net positive, but that could go in the opposite direction in many more cases.
I found this on a UU website from NJ about the “Israeli-Palestinian conflict”(possibly the one that Zreebs is involved with, though I am not sure.)
“A disclaimer: These sources are not comprehensive nor are they meant to present a “balanced viewpoint”. In compiling this list, the assumption was made that most people are aware of the mainstream Israeli and US points of view. These sources are meant to supplement and complement the mainstream sources with which most people are familiar. The resources include US, Israeli and Palestinian organizations as well as UK, Israeli and Arab news sources.”
So, they are basically saying they are only interested in presenting one side of the story. At least they admit it. The “mainstream” stuff everyone already knows according to them.
Sounds like Kellyanne Conway and her “alternate facts.”
Very few if any people get arrested for smoking a joint these days…
You CAN get grass just about anywhere…
The difference is in the legalisation states?…. The state makes money.…
The fed’s aren’t in any hurry to take marijuana off the ‘dangerous’ drugs list…
Drinking and driving is an American fact of life…
It’s just accepted…
Bars/Restuarnts sports events etc. ALL serve alcohol …
You go after the issue hard and it’s actually gonna affect the American economy to a degree and have political ramifications for local cops and politicians…
Like Guns?
Somethings just ain’t gonna change no matter how much people want to complain about them and how many people end up getting hurt…
CG, Bloomberg is probably closer to your position on Israel than mine, but he supports a two-state solution. I do not believe Netanyahu does. I know he has praised Netanyahu, but if you think his values are similar to those of Netanyahu, then I will pay more attention to what Bloomberg says in the future about Israel.
With regard to UUs and Israel, your impression of my denomination is totally wrong. A rather large percent of the denomination are people who grew up Jewish – and some attend both Jewish and UU services. With your permission, I would like to send you a letter that my minister sent out following the recent Rockland County massacre. I am proud of her response to the violence.
Lastly, many of the songs in our church hymnal are Jewish songs and the congregation often celebrates some Jewish holidays – as we find wisdom and value in some customs or rituals borrowed from other religions.
Your opinions of UUs are full of ignorance- because you know we are a liberal religion – and you have trained yourself over many years to find fault in what we believe.
Can I send you the letter from my minister – or would I be wasting my time.?
If you want. It’s up to you.
I just know the UU’s voted in a majority to support the BDS movement, although it fell short of 2/3 so it did not pass.
Netanyahu supported the two state solution a long time ago, It’s tough though when the other party doesn’t want two states and just wants one.
Bloomberg is very pro-Israel. So is Biden, historically (pre-Obama), but even more so for Bloomberg. Hopefully, it can be understood that neither her nor I are “evil” or do not care about Palestinians as humans.
Happy New Year to all.
Well, based on your response, you won’t read it, and if you did, it won’t change your mind in the slightest anyway.
I have never heard a sermon about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in ANY UU Congregation since I joined the congregation in the early 90s. But almost all UUs I know believe in human rights. I don’t believe that Israel feels the same way.
I would not consider a person evil just because they shared your opinion on Israel. I would expect some good people to be closer to your side than my side.
With that said, I find it troubling that a person can be opposed to basic human rights on all other issues, but then support Israel on moral grounds.
CG’s views on recreational use of marijuana show he has obviously never worked in retail or the restaurant industry. He seems to be pretty disconnected from social life in general to be honest.
So, as he is known to do, Scott resorts to personal attacks instead of trying to engage in a serious discussion. I seriously doubt that I am the only person that Scott knows who happens to have an opinion like this. I guess he just has a little Trump in him where he wants to say nasty things behind a device.
What am I missing about recreational marijuana use? (I worked in retail part-time when I was a student) Should we stereotype those who work in retail or restaurants as stoners?
And I am glad there is more to social interaction, etc, than using drugs or drinking for that matter. Even most frat bros eventually grow up.
People use marijuana in much the same way they do as drinking. Sometimes to get “fucked up”–but often just to take off the stress of the day, to relax, etc.
Your view of recreational use of marijuana is comically villainous.
And it deserves to be mocked.
And if I were actually “Trump like” I would be admired by most of the politicians you have voted for in the past and will in all likelihood vote for in the future.
Name names. Which politicians? You ought to know by know which are the ones I admire and which I do not.
You brought your own family up not long ago. Otherwise I would not be doing so. You seem to have strong Trump supporters in your family and in another case, someone who will do what I plan to do and vote for neither Trump nor a Democrat for President.
If you are able to coexist with them, then I shouldn’t be an issue for you at all and there should not be a need to lash out against me by proxy for my voting choices.
Some people just have a drink as a part of a meal. We obviously have laws against drunken driving, public drunkeness, etc.
The difference is that there is no amount of marijuana used that does not “change” the person in the moment.
Another concern are those who will unknowingly injest marijuana either because of their own ignorance or because of the ill-intent of others. Yes, I suppose a punch bowl might still get “spiked” but more likely, someone would quickly recognize something tasted off with the punch as opposed to having no idea that the brownie or Gummy Bear was different.
What specifically is your solution for matters like that?
What exactly is your solution to people who will drive impaired under marijuana? You have to at least be willing to accept the sociological and economic reality that legalization will lead to more use than in places where it is illegal, including among children.
Again it’s comical how our of touch you are for someone chronologically young.
Yes some will abuse marijuana as some do alcohol. .
How often do you you hear of abusive stoner dads as opposed to abusive drunk ones?
Again it’s a fetisizhation of the “just say no” failed policies of Reagan that seem to guide your outdated thinking.
Why is it one over the other? Why can’t both abusive dads be bad people? Why are you unable to answer the specific questions I posed?
Drug use went down during the Reagan years. I think that was a good thing. Perhaps you disagree.
And even if something is legal, what is wrong with advocating for people not to do it? We certainly have many people devoted to fighting tobacco use and trying to prevent it. Are they “out of touch?” After all, people will smoke to take the edge off after a long day, right? People will eat the wrong foods for that reason to. Is there no societal interest in wanting people to eat healthy?
These are specific policy-based questions that I wish you would at least try to address instead of the Trump-insult routine.
Recreational drugs and drinking has ECONOMIC impacts….
THAT IS a BIG part of the picture…
American also has a culture of drinking from day one….
Marijuana is catching up in SOME places…
Also?
American’s do NOT like people or the government telling them how they choose to feel good …
Yes…
Having that feel good CAN hurt themselves or others…
It isn’t stopping the usage of the stuff …
I think it is pretty sad if the vice industry is looked to for economic hope. There ought to be better ways. I think this will especially have adverse effects on African-Americans and other minorities who will find themselves in situations where they are treated worse than other groups, as per history.
Whether something is legal or not is not even the major point of all of this. What is wrong with concerned citizens expressing a view about potential harms and ramifications of legal products and industries?
How are those who want to attack the legal right to own a gun going to be such hypocrites when it comes to things they think are important to “freedom?”
Nothing is “wrong” with a person expressing alternate views.
Indeed, you have.
Scott has expressed an alternate view.
Lately I’ve noticed a certain “victimhood” complex coming over you whereby you imply that someone is saying to you can’t express your “views”
Please let us know who that person is.Obviously, he has been massively unsuccessful as no one more freely expresses his views here than
You.
So African Americans who have been unfairly targeted for marijuana enforcement are going to be treated worse under legalization?
Please explain.
By the way the two most ardent. Illinois dwelling Trump supporters among my Facebook friends both expressed disappointment that pot is now legal in the Land of Lincoln.
I am by no means a “stoner” but I do occasionally toke a bit and have used edibles–which must of course be used in moderation. I am bearing the end of my small legal stash I legally purchased in Colorado in August so when the lines go down at the dispensary in Collinsville, IL–about 30 minutes away–I will gladly go there and purchase more small amounts of legal weed.
In NY u can be arrested for driving while ‘impaired’…
That would apply to someone high as a kite driving….
Probably not many though…
BTW?
If ya haven’t noticed?
There is NO big rush by states to pass recreational marijuana laws…
As we note here?
Grass is readily available just about anywhere….
Oh, and if get caught with hundreds of pounds of grass?
Ya gonna get arrested everyplace ….
Scott has admitted to committing a federal crime as well as possible plans to do so in the future, assuming he doesn’t exhaust his stash in IL as he said he still has some from CO where he lives, but don’t worry, I am not a narc.
If marijuana is purchases legally in Colorado, Illinois, or any other place where it is legal, it is still illegal to transport it across state lines into Missouri or any other place where it is remains illegal.
So be careful Scott!
If I ever decide to break a federal law, I trust the folks here will be ok with it too.
Honestly, Scott should just move to Illinois. I am sure he would like it here better than Missouri and the weed thing and transporting across state lines would never be a problem. He can also vote for the Democrat in 2020 to make sure the state doesn’t go to Trump because I won’t be voting for the Democrat. (We all agree Missouri is a lost cause.)
If he wants to remain living in Missouri though for some reason, I think the best legal advice would be that when he visits Illinois to legally buy cannabis, he use it all up while still in the state. Then, he can designate his Trump supporting sister and brother in law to drive him back home safely,
I hasten to add Illinois needs the tax revenue that Scott can help produce.
By moving to IL, he can figuratively stuff in the face of his state’s recent GOP Governor who thanked Illinois for having policies that caused so many people to move to places like Missouri in recent years.
Christ the ghost of Joe Friday isn’t as uptight as you are about a little weed.
If you get arrested and charged with a federal felony, james is going to have to find a new commenter.
I said I am not a Narc, You would have to realize though the risks you would take in doing something illegal federally.
Also while there are some communities in Illinois I wouldn’t mind living in, my commute would be much longer. I rather enjoy living in my rather progressive city in a conservative state. I don’t see Missouri as a “lost cause”. It was basically a tie in 2008 and in 2016 we almost had two Democratic Senators. I assume you are talking about the disgraced Eric Greitens when you mention a “recent GOP governor”. Yeah, I don’t put much stock in what that slimeball said.
I assume you knew better than to fly back from Colorado with your purchase.
You can get a job in Chicago I am sure. Zreebs has contacts.
Yeah I bet the US Attorney in Missouri is real eager to prosecute a Simple Possession case in Federal Court.
Too bad there aren’t any other lawyers on here to share my laugh.
I wouldn’t worry too much there Scott.In almost 45 years of practicing law?
I have Never seen ,nor heard ,of a Simple Possession case being prosecuted in a Federal Court.
The amount I purchased is so small no self respecting LEO I know of would bother with it. I get that this gives you some sort of thrill to imagine Reagan Era DEA agents busting the heads of people with an eight of an ounce. So let your imagination run wild.
Now you sound like a Republican House Member who laughed off what Trump did as “no big deal!”
“My Name is Rudy?”
Rudy is a hot mess ….
He better hope Trump keeps him ….
Remember
A grand jury is hearing about his escapades…
He don’t look like somebody who could stop from getting thrown under a bus politically and legally ….
CG?
The US ATTY isn’t gonna waste time on someone smoking a joint…
Get REAL…
Jack’s Roght…
Transporting across state lines is the federal offense. It is on the books. I made no comment on the likelihood of it happening. I simply pointed out the fact that Scott admitted to committing a federal crime and I also simply told him to be cautious.
james, you also have changed your tune on this. You were saying very much the opposite in the past, especially in regards to discussion of AG Sessions.
I also said I assumed he was smart enough not to try to bring it on an airplane. Is there no legal risk in doing that either, counselors?
Yeah you boys need to have a further discussion about that “black and white” stuff.
The law is “black and white.”
Human nature, politics, sociology, philosophy, even ethics, are not always black and white. Can you see the difference?
An Officer of the Court actually is supposed to have a professional responsibility to only speak to what is lawful.
If you were to have a client and give them advice like, “yeah you can get away with doing that. Nobody ever gets charged”, you would be at risk of sanctions.
Actually i have NOT changed anything…
I AIWAYS pointed out that the feds would NOT change the federal statues…
My comment’s are of the same view…
I have a very distinct memory james of you saying the Federal Government was going to go after states that were legalizing marijuana and you having lots of arguments with jack over this.
Yes….
Back a few years ago a AG started out saying he would NOT the marijuana business….
That same AG backed away from that statement and then lost his job because he reclused himself from his bosses legal case…
The federal government can at anytime come down on ANY place with large amounts of marijuana….
The feds can at anytime come down on any bank supporting the marijuana business
I believe that Congress passed a non-enforceable view that the feds should NOT interfere in state marijuana policy…
Donald Trump , of course, doesn’t always do what Congress says they want…
States have watered down marijuana possession penalties for recreational use…
Feds have enough stuff to handle …
CG?
There IS a law against EVERYTHING ….
Jack is trying to school u to the fact that government lawyers cannot and will not go after people for everything ….
The criminal justice system would collapse…
Gee really I didn’t know that.
Scott isn’t my client.He has not been charged with any crime.
I can say anything I want in my personal life when not functioning in a professional capacity.
I well know what I can and can’t do .
But thanks for your uh “expertise.”
Well there are all sorts of versions of “black and white.”
On this site?When you and James don’t like the way a discussion is going then?
“Hey everything ain’t black and white.”
Believe me, I Uh “get “ it.
However,its good you boys “consulted” about my “black and white.” Stuff!
Having a lawyer in the family I know that is a bit of a “gray area” in regards to if a lawyer is ever really “off the clock” and in what capacity they are considered giving formal advice.
But certainly you are willing to admit that I what I have stated about interstate transport/trafficking is factual. I did not say he would be prosecuted or express a desire for him to be, as long as he is not endangering others via intoxication. In that case, I know you would join me in wanting him held accountable.
No it is not any “gray “ area at all.
Plenty of lawyers believe and speak out in favor of legalizing marijuana.
My comment, however, was merely an observation as to my experiences with the US Attorneys and the prosecutions of Simple Possession cases.
Actually this whole topic has been worked over enough in my view.
You’re opposed to legalizing marijuana.
I think we all “get” that.
There is not a law against “everything” nor should there be.
My position on drug policy resembles what just about every mainstream Democrat was saying up through the Obama years. He certainly maintained that marijuana should not be legalized during his time as President, did he not?
I know the lure of populism is real for people on all sides of the ideological divide, but I actually am willing to stick by my own beliefs, whether popular or not.
jack, advocating for a change in law, which is a right every American has, is certainly far different than encouraging someone to violate a law, and you very well know that of course.
Yeah.
So?
So jack, as a citizen you have every right in the world to express a desire for marijuana to be legalized. Even if I disagree, I would vigorously stand by your free speech rights.
As an Officer of the Court though, you would have a problem telling someone that they can get away with violating an actual law or statute as long as it exists.
I’ve had thousands of clients admit to me they violated a law.
I defended them in Court. They were my clients.
In my private life I may make observations about matters of which I have knowledge.
That’s what I did.
I never once encouraged anyone to break any law.
I simply observed that the crime we were discussing is rarely, if ever, prosecuted in federal court.
That’s attorney client privilege. Far different. Everyone has the right to legal counsel.
That does not mean you are able to ethically counsel them that they are not in violation of the law.
Why are you trying to dissemble so hard or “change the goalposts”. Leave that to your guy james. My point is clear. No, I do not have a law degree (one per family is enough), but it’s not like I just fell off the turnip truck from Jersey.
Once again I repeat.
Show me where here today I encouraged anyone to break the law.
Show me where I said you did.
I simply said you couldn’t. Statistics about who might or might not get prosecuted under a statute are irrelevant to the topic. You agree with me, as painful as it might be to admit.
Haha!
Nah you didn’t.
We all know that.
Oh so you were just assisting me in living up to the high principles of my profession?
Gee, I don’t know what to say.
Like,well..
Thanks(gulp)
Now why won’t anyone man-up and tell us what they think about our policy towards cocaine or heroin should be?
Show some guts.
Your profession is held in low-esteem. There is a reason for that. Ideally, it would be more respected.
Only you really know if you have brought credit to the profession or not. I will be generous-minded and assume you have.
You miss my point. Dads who get stoned don’t beat their kids like drunk ones do.
They just bore them with pointless stories
Well, a Dad who gets stoned and gets behind the wheel and kill’s their kid or someone else’s kid causes just as much of a death as the drunk Dad.
We ought to deter both things from happening to every extent possible. What is your specific policy answer?
Should the Dad who wants to smoke up where it is legal be allowed to do so in the presence of their children or other children?
What is your specific remedy to that concern? Or maybe it does not concern you at all?
Do people have the right to want these things discussed in the public sphere?
What cannot be denied is that in places where this is legal, it is going to happen far more often than in places where it is or had been illegal.
You are on a tear on this and I’m not sure why. Best I can figure is you are like the typical Trump supporter in this regard–change scares you.
Well I hate to tell you but it’s inevitable, and we will deal with it. Impaired driving is illegal and should be dealt with.
The typical Trump supporter probably wants legalized marijuana.
Yes, some changes scare me. I assume there are things that scare you too. It’s what makes us human. It shouldn’t be used as a cudgel to mock people.
As a 2nd Amendment supporter, I am more than willing, especially after many recent events, to consider all sorts of reasonable policy solutions remedies to prevent innocent people from being shot.
You have the right to support drug legalization (and based on the arguments you make about marijuana, it would have to also extend to any drug that is currently illegal), but you seem to think it is wrong to give any consideration to any sort of concern or potential remedy to a problem or either to the concept that people should maybe not use marijuana.
What is clear is that you are unable to even attempt to answer the policy questions I have raised. So, you lash out personally. RealDonaldTrump is very much like RealScottP.
You have no basis for your theory that Trump supporters support legalization other than the fact that you oppose Trump personally and oppose legalization. The vast majority of Trump supporters are rote Republicans who in a all likelihood agree with you that stoners are evil.
If you can find evidence to back up your assertion, feel free.
The die-hard Trump people I have seen online seem to be in favor of legalization. I am sure other disagree.
Where did I call stoners “evil.” Are you just being rhetorically Trumpian again? The only people who gets called “evil” on here are Republicans and sometimes even me specifically by one person.
I also know that the only conservative running for President, whom I am supporting for that reason, Joe Walsh, has said he believes marijuana should be legal. That is an issue I disagree with him on. If I posed these questions to him though, I believe he would at least be willing to use his brain to consider a thoughtful response.
A Gallup poll from 2018 said that 53 percent of Republicans supported legalization. I wish that were not the case, but that is the result they got.
I assume that Trump’s Independent and Democrat supporters are even more in favor of it.
Since I don’t have any desire to do or transport drugs, someone help me think of a “victimless” federal crime that people do not get prosecuted for, so I can consider engaging in it with your support as a matter of political protest against the federal regime of Donald Trump….
Rip tags off mattresses?
What else is there?
CG, was Prohibition a good idea?
I can understand why people thought it as a “noble concept” and the fact is that alcohol consumption did greatly decrease during Prohibition years.
However, I think it was a violation of individual’s personal liberty, since most people consume alcohol in moderation and medical technology shows no impairment whatsoever. We have always laws on the books for those who drink too much at any given time and the problems associated with that.
Those who consume marijuana, especially as it grows in potency, are deliberately trying to get high. If everyone doing so had their own log cabin in Montana or whatever, I would really have no problem with that, but as a conservative I have to balance my principled desire for personal freedom with what is consistent for an orderly society in which others are not harmed.
Since I answered your question, do you think legalizing heroin would be a good idea?
Comparing marijuana to heroin is as idiotic as comparing alcohol to heroin.
As Jack said. You are wildly opposed to marijuana being legal. We all get that. Time to move on.
Tell me the reasons why you would oppose legalizing heroin again?
Shouldn’t you be able to articulate your worldview instead of just making silly Trump faces online and shrugging it off?
The arguments you made in favor of legalizing marijuana are the exact same arguments that people (principled people) make for legalizing all drugs. Why are you willing to trample on the freedom of others just to suit your own worldview?
I am willing to at least try to back up what I believe. I wish you would try to do the same.
CNN Breaking News
@cnnbrk
Democratic presidential candidate Marianne Williamson has laid off her campaign staff nationally, a former staffer says https://cnn.it/35hksSD
Damn!….
U guys are active today!
New Open Thread is coming….
I am active in answering questions and standing by my beliefs.
They are more active in dodging them and playing “whatboutism”
Since you’re currently so close, why don’t the two of you (CG & ScottP) argue this in person? One can bring the beer (perhaps Barack Obama’s special brew) and the other can bring the joint.
[But the Joliet Joint is where you’ll end up — and should — if you’re imprudent and selfish enough to drive under the influence of either.]
Because Corey appears to be afraid to meet face-to-face with anyone here Dave. Scott and Zreebs will tell you that.
This whole discussion is so yesterday. So “Reefer Madness!”
People have been using marijuana for years and also driving, just as people have been driving after drinking. In states that legalize weed there hasn’t been a spike in driving while high.
Legalizing marijuana not only regulates it, it brings in needed tax revenue. The movement to legalize also regulates a massive cottage industry that, when illegal, created thousands of dangerous illegal growing areas in agricultural areas. We had growers all over our valley planting grass in hard to access locations on our properties. They steal our water, camp out to protect their crops, and are dangerous if they think they’ve been detected.
Legalization has begun to eliminate these issues. Because those growers are losing money.
Folks have and will always smoke grass. And, just like prohibition, the movement to make marijuana illegal has been a massive failure.
We’ve been hearing these “just wait and you’ll see how dangerous this stuff is” arguments since they made Reefer Madness in the 1930s. They were laughable then and are now.
Dave, What the hell is a Joliet joint? A bar in Joliet Illinois?
Although St. Louis borders on Illinois, it is a really long (and rather boring) drive from the Chicago suburbs to St Louis. Actually, you and I are much closer – or at least will be when I return to NJ in about a week. Which reminds me – if you can get tickets to to Providence- Seton Hall game on Feb 15 (and enough advance notice), I would be willing to make the trek up to meet you. The timing would work for me this year – probably better than it will in the future. Let me know if you are interested.
Zreebs,
(1) Illinois’ main (or best-known) state prison is in Joliet;
(2) someone here (I think it was Sc0tt) said he (she?) was going to be staying near Chicago, a couple of towns over from CG’s domicile, until the middle of January and already offered to share a beer with him;
(3) while I may look into the PC-Seton Hall game, I’m not that huge a fan of basketball (to the disappointment of native son & PC grad Ed Cooley) . If you proposed a local or historic team of yours playing soccer (or what everyone outside the U.S., Canada, Ireland & Australia calls Real Football = Fútbol, Füssball & Calcio) against Brown (or another R.I. team), and if I could afford the ticket price, I might be more interested. ¶ Incidentally, PC’s hockey games are played within walking distance of my current home in the Dunkin’ Center (formerly Dunkin’ Donuts Center, which led me to ask “and what is in the middle of a doughnut?”)
Also by the way, Zreebs, a very old personal, political and journalistic friend of mine from Berkeley now teaches law at Rutgers’ Camden campus. I could, if you’re interested, look into introducing you at some time.
Thanks Dave,
It is me that is currently staying a couple of towns away from CG, but he too turned down my offer. With regard to your “he/(she?)” comment, although one can be anonymous on the Internet using whatever name they choose, I am pretty sure that none of the regulars self -identifies as a woman.
The last soccer game I saw live was the NY Cosmos playing many decades ago, although Newark now has a professional team (Red Bulls I think) with a brand new stadium, and at some point I would like to go to a game there. I’m not a big enough fan to travel to Providence for a soccer game, but if you could make the trek down here, I’ll pay for your ticket to the game and buy you a beer or two. Perhaps that is a possibility?
I’m not really interested in meeting your friend from Berkeley, but if you are with your friend in the NYC/northeastern NJ area (which does not include Camden) and you would like to get together, I’ll see what I can do.
Morning people….
Politico
Welcome to 2020, we’ve got only:
✔️ 32 days until the Iowa caucuses
✔️ 40 days until the New Hampshire primary
✔️ 306 days until the 2020 election
Speaking of New Hampshire, Sanders is experiencing some cold shoulders in the Granite State as he is trying to recharge his 2016 union support in the state. Seeing he is not the only game in town acceptable to the union fringe, he is suffering compared to 2016 when unions helped him win the state…
More...
I just read a couple of CG’s posts where he referenced me with some criticism about UUs and Jews.
First, while there there are people in the UU church that were formerly Jewish, there are others who are prominent members of the UU church who also regularly attend a synagogue. while I wouldn’t call it common, it is not that rare for UU congregants to also belong to another denomination. There is relatively little “God talk” at UU services as we neither claim there is a God nor claim that there is not one. So people who who strongly believe in God and have a good idea of what they believe God is like, might choose to belong to a different religion that shares their view of God. I find it interesting that CG who once admitted that he rarely attends Jewish services claims he is more Jewish than a person who does regularly attend Jewish services. Perhaps this is what he meant by saying Jack should be open to his complex ideas.
On a second article, CG read a disclaimer from a UU article – as if a disclaimer is a bad thing. First of all there are over 20 UU denominations in NJ, so I have no idea which congregation he is referencing. But I Wish more religions would offer disclaimers which admit that the full truth is more than what is stated in their sermon or an article. The UU Church does not claim to have all the answers to life’s most important questions. I view that as a strength although many religions would mock us for that. As everyone in this site knows – including him – CG has no problem frequently making exceedingly biased arguments in which he doesn’t pretend to offer a disclaimer. So this is yet another example of him requiring a standard that he doesn’t even attempt to adhere to.
Lastly, I don’t know what was written in the article that CG criticized for providing a disclaimer. He wouldn’t say. He only criticized the disclaimer. Perhaps it had to do with many Palestinians who were not included the late 1940’s ethnic cleansing in Israel – and who still live there would like to have rights that are equal to those of Jews. There are currently something like 50 laws in Israel that give preference to the Jews. There are many Palestinians who wish that Jews and Palestinians could live together in harmony in one state – in which each side is treated equally. But that means no laws that give preference to one group of people. It means that Israel should allow people who were expelled from Israel to return there – especially if they are going to promote that Jews who never had any ties whatsoever to Israel should be allowed to live there. Perhaps the article talked about how the Israeli blockade of Gaza is causing extreme poverty and unnecessary deaths there, or how Jewish settlements in the West Bank have made it much more difficult for Palestinans to travel. Yet It is me (and not himself) who he has called the “face of moral indifference”. Sounds like time for that extreme hypocrite to give us another lecture on how we need to be more tolerant.