Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 1, 2016 18:14:31 GMT
Funny you use that verbiage. Somebody linked to a clip where 16 different media hacks used that exact phrase over the weekend. "Baked in." Do you think that's a coincidence, or is a sizable part of our media promoting DNC talking points? I can't wait until they find kiddie porn on Weiner's CPU. The Clinton Presidency is going to be Dead On Arrival. Or Occam's razor: the numbers are the numbers. 30% of the electorate have already voted so we can have a certain amount of confidence as to where next week is headed. It may not be a landslide but the 270 EV's needed are pretty much solid for the Clinton campaign (aka "baked in") Funny, I didn't know Weiner was running for president. Besides, only one candidate is slated to go on trial for sex with a minor in December.....and it ain't Clinton. www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/oct/12/donald-trump-jeffrey-epstein-alleged-rape-lawsuitNot much of a spin there. Why did they all use the same phrase? "Baked in" isn't common parlance or a popular idiom. 16 media hacks, all with the same phrase. Interesting.
|
|
|
Post by walktheline on Nov 1, 2016 18:26:01 GMT
Oh, I think Hagatha the Horrible wins by a hair on electoral votes but loses the popular vote. There's a slim path for trumpet to gain the electoral votes needed but I think it's too late. Our next president is a piece of garbage who could be indicted and/or impeached within the first 2 years in office (regardless of who wins). And if the dems win they should hope so. Kaine would become prez and would have some shot at winning the election in 2020 otherwise the crook would lose to whomever the republicans trot out assuming it's not another bozo. Pence would win in a landslide.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 1, 2016 21:58:46 GMT
Oh, I think Hagatha the Horrible wins by a hair on electoral votes but loses the popular vote. There's a slim path for trumpet to gain the electoral votes needed but I think it's too late. Our next president is a piece of garbage who could be indicted and/or impeached within the first 2 years in office (regardless of who wins). And if the dems win they should hope so. Kaine would become prez and would have some shot at winning the election in 2020 otherwise the crook would lose to whomever the republicans trot out assuming it's not another bozo. Pence would win in a landslide. Yep. When you count in Forever Blue (Pacific Northwest/California-New England/New York-Upper Midwest) the Republicans have to win at least 8 of 10 swing states. Almost impossible with the best of candidates. I'm really disappointed to see NH turn blue. If there's a state that's been a bastion of fiscally conservative policies/limited government it's New Hampshire. Florida has the same problem. NYers/Jerseyites move here to avoid taxes like Massachusetts in NH, then the vote for the same candidates when they get here. Stupid.
|
|
|
Post by islamorada on Nov 1, 2016 22:10:49 GMT
The thread title should be now "Yes Americans can vote but for whom?" Meanwhile the Billionaries get richer, the Middle Class shrinks, and the National Debt gets worse.
|
|
|
Post by jmwalters on Nov 1, 2016 22:40:09 GMT
Or Occam's razor: the numbers are the numbers. 30% of the electorate have already voted so we can have a certain amount of confidence as to where next week is headed. It may not be a landslide but the 270 EV's needed are pretty much solid for the Clinton campaign (aka "baked in") Funny, I didn't know Weiner was running for president. Besides, only one candidate is slated to go on trial for sex with a minor in December.....and it ain't Clinton. www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/oct/12/donald-trump-jeffrey-epstein-alleged-rape-lawsuitNot much of a spin there. Why did they all use the same phrase? "Baked in" isn't common parlance or a popular idiom. 16 media hacks, all with the same phrase. Interesting. From my experience it is generally a colloquial term use by pol analytics when the numbers suggest an election result is locked in. I would presume since the media gets their info from such analytics they simply copy the terminology when reporting. That would be my guess.
|
|
|
Post by jmwalters on Nov 1, 2016 22:45:02 GMT
Oh, I think Hagatha the Horrible wins by a hair on electoral votes but loses the popular vote. I think you may want to brace yourself for a 52-43 (5% other) popular vote split in favour of Clinton next week....
|
|
|
Post by UtahGetMeTwo on Nov 1, 2016 23:01:21 GMT
Obamacare going up 22% next year if they win. Yeah!! Vote Hillary!!! I take it you don't remember pre-ACA where it was not unusual for coverage to double from year to year? And the coverage you had previously wasn't worth the paper it was written on. Especially when it came to emergency visits and cancer treatment. That's when you found out how bad it was. When Hillary gets in, the ACA will be changed to single payer anyway.
|
|
|
Post by UtahGetMeTwo on Nov 1, 2016 23:05:33 GMT
Oh, I think Hagatha the Horrible wins by a hair on electoral votes but loses the popular vote. There's a slim path for trumpet to gain the electoral votes needed but I think it's too late. Our next president is a piece of garbage who could be indicted and/or impeached within the first 2 years in office (regardless of who wins). And if the dems win they should hope so. Kaine would become prez and would have some shot at winning the election in 2020 otherwise the crook would lose to whomever the republicans trot out assuming it's not another bozo. Pence would win in a landslide. Pence would get crucified with his idiotic backwards policies and Governor record. If conservatives wanted a joker like him they would have voted for Cruz. conservatives still think the can win the WH with their Goldwater beliefs.
|
|
|
Post by jmwalters on Nov 1, 2016 23:06:58 GMT
I take it you don't remember pre-ACA where it was not unusual for coverage to double from year to year? And the coverage you had previously wasn't worth the paper it was written on. Especially when it came to emergency visits and cancer treatment. That's when you found out how bad it was. When Hillary gets in, the ACA will be changed to single payer anyway. Yep, to be fair every state is different so it depends where one is located. But the ACA is better than the nothing that was before. That isn't saying it is perfect because it isn't. Besides, blaming Clinton for the ACA is ridiculous and she herself says she wants to improve. But improvement does not include scrapping it and starting over because there is no starting over at this point. This is just reality.
|
|
|
Post by Fletcher on Nov 2, 2016 0:03:39 GMT
And the coverage you had previously wasn't worth the paper it was written on. Especially when it came to emergency visits and cancer treatment. That's when you found out how bad it was. When Hillary gets in, the ACA will be changed to single payer anyway. Yep, to be fair every state is different so it depends where one is located. But the ACA is better than the nothing that was before. That isn't saying it is perfect because it isn't. Besides, blaming Clinton for the ACA is ridiculous and she herself says she wants to improve. But improvement does not include scrapping it and starting over because there is no starting over at this point. This is just reality. Yeah, I thought the ACA was not a good policy for several reasons and it was one of my disappointments in Obama's presidency. But you can't look at this without acknowledging how bad and broken the healthcare system was before it. I'm not sure if ACA made things better (probably not), but I'm also sure if it made things any worse. What I find empty in all of the attacks from the Right on things like Healthcare and immigration is that they had President Bush in the White House for 8 years, and failed to really address either issue or present a new policy directive. Keep in mind, that of Bush's 8 years in the WH, he had Republican control of Congress from almost 6 years -- which was a largely unprecedented run of power for one party to have, in recent decades. The opportunity for Obama on healthcare was very much granted to him by the previous administration not addressing a major policy area that everyone agreed was broken. Same with immigration, although Obama did little but carry on the status quo there too. In a lot of ways, this is what gives birth to someone like Trump. Deep red Republican voters were sick of winning elections yet having so little done in terms of their objectives. I think Bush broke the trust with a lot of conservatives. The voters have rebelled against establishment Republicans, and when you're rebelling, why not go with the guy who will grab the establishment by the pussy, I guess.
|
|
|
Post by kelvana33 on Nov 2, 2016 4:40:15 GMT
I'm betting here in Mass they vote to legalize marijuana. I'm voting against it, we here have a pretty significant heroin/opioid problem so it only makes sense that these fucking idiots would go ahead and legalize it.
Some say it's a gateway drug,some argue it's not. I'd like to someone to show me one junkie, and I've dealt with plenty, who did not start out on marijuana.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 2, 2016 4:57:10 GMT
In a lot of ways, this is what gives birth to someone like Trump. Deep red Republican voters were sick of winning elections yet having so little done in terms of their objectives. I think Bush broke the trust with a lot of conservatives. The voters have rebelled against establishment Republicans, and when you're rebelling, why not go with the guy who will grab the establishment by the pussy, I guess. They had a mandate with the 2010 midterms to scrap Obamacare (720 seats won nationwide) and they decided to kick the football to the Supreme Court where another guy passed the buck. Real deal conservatism hasn't accomplished a thing in this country since Newt and the 1994 Congress. I don't agree it's too late...we can't just give up on these lousy government programs when they don't work.
|
|
|
Post by jmwalters on Nov 2, 2016 12:43:09 GMT
Yep, to be fair every state is different so it depends where one is located. But the ACA is better than the nothing that was before. That isn't saying it is perfect because it isn't. Besides, blaming Clinton for the ACA is ridiculous and she herself says she wants to improve. But improvement does not include scrapping it and starting over because there is no starting over at this point. This is just reality. In a lot of ways, this is what gives birth to someone like Trump. Deep red Republican voters were sick of winning elections yet having so little done in terms of their objectives. I think Bush broke the trust with a lot of conservatives. The voters have rebelled against establishment Republicans, and when you're rebelling, why not go with the guy who will grab the establishment by the pussy, I guess. There is a lot of truth to this. There is a core 25-30% of the electorate which are very pissed right wingers that are fed up with the republican establishment. And for good reason. Trump has tapped into that. The problem is those in that 25-30% include these people: www.dailykos.com/story/2016/11/1/1589543/-The-Ku-Klux-Klan-makes-it-official-endorses-Donald-Trump-saying-Make-America-Great-AgainAnd that is the major problem with the rest of the moderate republican voters. Who really wants to be associated with such a group? Who then do you vote for if you are them?
|
|
|
Post by Fletcher on Nov 2, 2016 13:13:06 GMT
I'm betting here in Mass they vote to legalize marijuana. I'm voting against it, we here have a pretty significant heroin/opioid problem so it only makes sense that these fucking idiots would go ahead and legalize it. Some say it's a gateway drug,some argue it's not. I'd like to someone to show me one junkie, and I've dealt with plenty, who did not start out on marijuana. That's such an interesting topic kel, and I really see all sides of it. Three years ago, I flew back to NE to attend a funeral for an otherwise beautiful person who became a heroin addict and eventually ODed. 31 years old. I also live at the epicenter of legal marijuana these days and have had a front row seat for the experiment. I work with the police a fair amount in my job, and am technically an officer (although my active duty consists of hitting the shooting range twice a year). While marijuana would clearly be a drug that every eventual heroin addict used at some point, I don't really buy into the 'gateway drug' thing. Or at least, I think marijuana falls way, way behind prescription drugs in that capacity these days. The addicts I talk to, laugh at marijuana, like you're talking about cigarettes. Yeah they've used it, but it is a distant thing from opioids. You don't show up to a NA meeting and talk about pot, or you'd be laughed out of the place. And nobody goes straight to the needle, of course. Every heroin addict has cigarettes, alcohol, pills, pot, etc. in their history (and all of that is legal, except pot). It's the pills that get them, though. Legal heroin. And when the doctor finally gets wise and they can't steal their parents pain pills anymore, they need opioids from someplace else. I'm sure you're familiar with this. Anyhow, I haven't seen legal marijuana have much of an impact on anything in Denver, except that I really think they need to regulate edibles more stringently. It has generated $130 million in tax revenue this year for the state, and taken a niche market away from illegal dealers. I bet I have two dozen pot shops within two miles of my house on the west side of the city. They replaced vacant shopfronts, pawn shops, porn shops, etc. There is one between a sushi joint and a Starbucks in my neighborhood. I don't love it or hate it. But, I think a much more honest and effective crackdown on the roots of heroin abuse would be to go after prescription pills and the doctors/pharmacies that push them on people. Further, I have never met anyone who wanted marijuana and couldn't easily get it, despite it being illegal. Trying to prohibit marijuana and regulate it as an illegal drug has been a spectacular failure in this country, and an expensive one to boot. With my sometimes libertarian leanings, I voted for it, despite some reservations. My wife voted against it. I can see both sides and really didn't feel strongly about it. I think most police officers here opposed it, but they have also said that the changes have not been all that great. Good luck.
|
|
|
Post by badhabitude on Nov 2, 2016 13:27:53 GMT
I'm betting here in Mass they vote to legalize marijuana. I'm voting against it, we here have a pretty significant heroin/opioid problem so it only makes sense that these fucking idiots would go ahead and legalize it. Some say it's a gateway drug,some argue it's not. I'd like to someone to show me one junkie, and I've dealt with plenty, who did not start out on marijuana. I'm voting against it for a multitude of reasons, one of many is that people should be tuning in, not tuning out. The other thing - how do you test for it? Do you guys have any sort of street test you can do?
|
|
|
Post by jmwalters on Nov 2, 2016 13:45:24 GMT
I'm betting here in Mass they vote to legalize marijuana. I'm voting against it, we here have a pretty significant heroin/opioid problem so it only makes sense that these fucking idiots would go ahead and legalize it. Some say it's a gateway drug,some argue it's not. I'd like to someone to show me one junkie, and I've dealt with plenty, who did not start out on marijuana. I'm voting against it for a multitude of reasons, one of many is that people should be tuning in, not tuning out. The other thing - how do you test for it? Do you guys have any sort of street test you can do? Glassy eyes and a case of the munchies?
|
|
|
Post by 50belowzero on Nov 2, 2016 14:21:22 GMT
Glassy eyes and a case of the munchies?
|
|
|
Post by UtahGetMeTwo on Nov 2, 2016 14:22:22 GMT
All of my surfer friends, whom all have their Mary Jane dispensary cards, could care less about other drugs. They barely even drink. Never believed weed is a gateway. It's the dealers who push their way into suburbia.
|
|
|
Post by walktheline on Nov 2, 2016 14:24:31 GMT
I'm betting here in Mass they vote to legalize marijuana. I'm voting against it, we here have a pretty significant heroin/opioid problem so it only makes sense that these fucking idiots would go ahead and legalize it. Some say it's a gateway drug,some argue it's not. I'd like to someone to show me one junkie, and I've dealt with plenty, who did not start out on marijuana. That's such an interesting topic kel, and I really see all sides of it. Three years ago, I flew back to NE to attend a funeral for an otherwise beautiful person who became a heroin addict and eventually ODed. 31 years old. I also live at the epicenter of legal marijuana these days and have had a front row seat for the experiment. I work with the police a fair amount in my job, and am technically an officer (although my active duty consists of hitting the shooting range twice a year). While marijuana would clearly be a drug that every eventual heroin addict used at some point, I don't really buy into the 'gateway drug' thing. Or at least, I think marijuana falls way, way behind prescription drugs in that capacity these days. The addicts I talk to, laugh at marijuana, like you're talking about cigarettes. Yeah they've used it, but it is a distant thing from opioids. You don't show up to a NA meeting and talk about pot, or you'd be laughed out of the place. And nobody goes straight to the needle, of course. Every heroin addict has cigarettes, alcohol, pills, pot, etc. in their history (and all of that is legal, except pot). It's the pills that get them, though. Legal heroin. And when the doctor finally gets wise and they can't steal their parents pain pills anymore, they need opioids from someplace else. I'm sure you're familiar with this. Anyhow, I haven't seen legal marijuana have much of an impact on anything in Denver, except that I really think they need to regulate edibles more stringently. It has generated $130 million in tax revenue this year for the state, and taken a niche market away from illegal dealers. I bet I have two dozen pot shops within two miles of my house on the west side of the city. They replaced vacant shopfronts, pawn shops, porn shops, etc. There is one between a sushi joint and a Starbucks in my neighborhood. I don't love it or hate it. But, I think a much more honest and effective crackdown on the roots of heroin abuse would be to go after prescription pills and the doctors/pharmacies that push them on people. Further, I have never met anyone who wanted marijuana and couldn't easily get it, despite it being illegal. Trying to prohibit marijuana and regulate it as an illegal drug has been a spectacular failure in this country, and an expensive one to boot. With my sometimes libertarian leanings, I voted for it, despite some reservations. My wife voted against it. I can see both sides and really didn't feel strongly about it. I think most police officers here opposed it, but they have also said that the changes have not been all that great. Good luck. I'm solidly no on the pot question. The tax revenue that will be derived form legal pot in MA will be a fraction of what it is in CO. The tax rate is 12.5 percent or thereabouts, about half of what it is in CO. Isn't it like 40-something percent in Washington? The ballot question is poorly constructed and is clearly written to benefit the Marijuana Industry. There is no current way to quickly test drivers for marijuana like there is for alcohol. The drugged driving fatalities in Washington have doubled since pot was made legal. Yeah, there are conflicting studies on drugged driving accidents and fatalities but I'll believe AAA before Norml on this one. My wife and I would be allowed to grow up to 12 marijuana plants at home. Now, nobody smokes that much weed. 12 plants would yield enough weed to supply the entire audience at a Grateful Dead concert for a weekend. Well, maybe not. Perhaps a DMB concert. The black market will thrive. So why would the Marijuana Industry write this Ballot Question and include something that would clearly keep some people out of the pot shops? They need the votes, is why. Plus they are banking on the edibles attracting even the home-growers. The edibles are scary because they are a magnet for kids. THC consumption in kids has a demonstrable effect on their brain development. Our kids are already dumb enough. The proponents keep harping on the cost of enforcing the marijuana laws. "We're spending million of dollars and putting otherwise innocent people in our jails and prisons" . No, we are not. In MA, people do not get arrested for pot unless they get caught with an open trunk load of bricks in a middle school parking lot next to the police station. The fact is only 4 people were incarcerated in 2015 for weed in MA. Law enforcement is not busting people for smoking weed on Boston Common. They have better things to do. The poor oppressed potheads and their social justice argument is 100% bullshit. We already have medical marijuana for those that claim they need it. Like my loser friend who suddenly suffers from depression or something and now has a medical marijuana card and buys his weed legally and it's better quality than the crap he used to buy. He's quite proud and amused by his deception. Medical marijuana is at least 50% scam IMO. I also have a rule on any of the ballot questions. It's usually not too difficult to figure out which side is lying the most. If I am on the fence on an issue I will side with the side that is lying the least. In the legal pot question that is clearly the NO side. Here's an example; Even though the pro-pot crowd is claiming it will be illegal to smoke it in public to assuage fears of non-smokers who might be amenable to legalized weed, that's not what the proposed law says. Basically, anywhere you are allowed to light up a cig you can spark up a blunt. I hate that smell and I don't want it in my face when I'm walking around my neighborhood or wherever. Just say NO
|
|
|
Post by walktheline on Nov 2, 2016 14:32:07 GMT
I'm voting against it for a multitude of reasons, one of many is that people should be tuning in, not tuning out. The other thing - how do you test for it? Do you guys have any sort of street test you can do? Glassy eyes and a case of the munchies? Haha! Hold up a $20-dollar bill in one hand a bag of Doritos in the other and tell the alleged stoner to choose wisely. If he/she reaches for the Doritos, they're busted
|
|
|
Post by badhabitude on Nov 2, 2016 14:33:42 GMT
All of my surfer friends, whom all have their Mary Jane dispensary cards, could care less about other drugs. They barely even drink. Never believed weed is a gateway. It's the dealers who push their way into suburbia. Believe me I know. It is a gateway drug. It is also NOT a gateway drug. Those that are predisposed to substance abuse, addictive personalities for one, will abuse whatever is immediately available and at least at one time day and age marijuana was more immediately available so that is what they will use first. Then again, you have people like Jim Carrol (read his book) who used heroin BEFORE they used pot - why? Because it was more immediately available. Pot smokers can be very 'militant' about it. I remember back when I was using everything I lit up a cigarette and one of them went nuts because I was jeopardizing his health. The heroin is more in the suburbs and rural areas more than ever. Horrible. I deeply regret that part of my life. I hate to see others waste their life doing it.
|
|
|
Post by badhabitude on Nov 2, 2016 14:37:00 GMT
The only benefit I can think of for legalized weed is that is will keep the money out of the hands of the hardcore criminals - the people involved in smuggling, the gang members and etc. Maybe there might be a little less money for one of them to buy an AK47 to blow Kels away.
|
|
|
Post by UtahGetMeTwo on Nov 2, 2016 14:44:26 GMT
You are so spot on about reading laws, WTL. California is a referendum and initiative state with tons of Props on the ballot. I had to spend a night just looking up who benefited from each new Prop. Tons of research.
Have heard of or read about any marijuana related accidents or fatalities as of yet in California. Living in all that rain and darkness in Washington state could send any good man or woman into addiction. Durimg the winter the damn street lights come on at 2pm for Pete's sake.
|
|
|
Post by jmwalters on Nov 2, 2016 14:56:02 GMT
Glassy eyes and a case of the munchies? Hey...where did you get that picture of me? ?
|
|
|
Post by jmwalters on Nov 2, 2016 14:56:38 GMT
Glassy eyes and a case of the munchies? Haha! Hold up a $20-dollar bill in one hand a bag of Doritos in the other and tell the alleged stoner to choose wisely. If he/she reaches for the Doritos, they're busted Exactly...how hard can it be?
|
|