this post was submitted on 30 Apr 2024
566 points (98.5% liked)

politics

18883 readers
3605 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. 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.
  6. 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
 

Bout damn time

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (2 children)

Agreed, Trump almost managed a coup, loaded the Supreme Court, and would fire random officials every other week... Then the democrats pretend the position of the president is powerless.

The establishment left are a joke.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 4 months ago (3 children)

Yeah, I'm really angry that the president didn't "violate the law" to push through marijuana changes faster.

What were you hoping to see them do that they didn't?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

What, you mean experience and institutional knowledge are more important than undying loyalty and complacency with unilateral action?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

The heritage Foundation's 2025 plan doesn't just go away if Trump loses the election. The Republican party just sit on it, and sit on it, and sit on it, until they are elected again... And they will be elected again.

So the establishment left needs to show some level of radical action to even "return" to centrist popularity.

The President pulling rank on The DEA isn't illegal, and would ensure a full term where the electoral process could be reviewed and further secured, and an a number of Supreme Court justices could be impeached under a stronger set of anti-corruption laws instituted by a democratic effort.

Because sometimes corrective radicalism is called for and warranted... Like when someone almost does a coup.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 4 months ago

The "pulling rank" the president is allowed to do, legally, is to order them to do a review of the scheduling. Which is what was done. Which finished, and now it's being rescheduled.

The president doesn't actually have the authority to order the DEA to change the scheduling.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Why are you acting like "appointing a DEA administrator that is pro-legalization" and "make public statements encouraging them to deschedule cannabis" are somehow unthinkable and totalitarian?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 4 months ago (1 children)

.... Because that's what they did? The question was what would you like them to do that they didn't do.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

Please give me 1 example of Biden encouraging his DEA to deschedule cannabis because I can't find one and doubt it exists.

*downvoting me won't make that statement exist. 2022 Biden statement on marijuana reform Notable absence: "marijuana should not be on the CSA list of scheduled drugs". Interesting inclusion: 'LSD is a good example of what should be a schedule 1 drug'

[–] [email protected] 5 points 4 months ago (1 children)

It doesn't make you sound more credible when you skip over the part of the order where he directs HHS to review classification, which is all the president can legally order, to instead focus on the other part that isn't actually a federal order.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

Ok so where's the example of him calling for descheduling marijuana which you said he did. Or the example that his DEA admin was pro-legalization.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

You literally posted it.

Third, I am asking the Secretary of Health and Human Services and the Attorney General to initiate the administrative process to review expeditiously how marijuana is scheduled under federal law.

That's the extent of what the president can do.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

The president can make a public statement saying "I believe that marijuana should not be a scheduled drug".

The president can appoint a DEA administrator who is on record saying that they believe cannabis should not be a scheduled drug.

He did neither of those things, and you claimed that he did. Maybe scroll up if you forgot. Either back the claim or stop replying.

*Jesus christ he cannot read.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 4 months ago

Ah, I see. You're determined to be upset, so you won't accept "gave the only legal order towards what you want", and instead want a public statement of "legalize it", and "decriminalize it" isn't enough. Same for the DEA administrator.