Cannabis is currently classified along with drugs like heroin and LSD. The administration is expected to reschedule it into a category that includes Tylenol and steroids.
So you’re suggesting Trump then? I’m not sure if you’re aware of the state of the US election system, but there are two candidates that have a chance of being elected. One of them has a voter base that will vote regardless of criminal convictions for attempting to overturn an election, inciting an insurrection, and selling national secrets.
I answered it before you asked it. Trump’s base is loyal to Trump first, and America second. They won’t sway regardless of his convictions, let alone international relations with Israel. Encouraging voter disengagement, abstaining from voting, or voting uncommitted would only fall on the ears of the voters opposing Trump, thereby improving his chances of winning.
You can always vote however you want I’m not trying to change that I’m just trying to get you to understand that your actions may not have your desired end result and why.
We agree on what needs to happen just not the methods.
Can you explain how voting for Biden is “avoiding 2016 pt. 2?” It seems “2016 pt. 2” keeps happening anyway because people insist that we keep doing the same thing over and over again.
Unfortunately, if you view a vote as being complicit you’re complicit no matter what.
Because with the two party bias there are only two people capable of being in that office and not voting for either of them is still a vote in and of itself.
To be clear I don’t care who you vote for but you need to accept the reality that you are choosing one of the two whether you mean to or not.
That’s why Congress is the only realistic way we can pressure our political system to stop what’s currently going on. The government doesn’t stop at the president and plenty of our Congress supports it too which is what allows it to be the way it is.
Yeah you absolutely can but that will whether you intend to or not give power to the other party. Which if your goal is to assuage your moral complicitency then I think you need to rethink your end result.
No I am very affected by it, please do not assume. I have never chastised you. Every single time I have talked kindly and merely pointed out some moral fallacies in your argument.
Unfortunately not voting for them doesn’t teach them anything we learned that in 2016, the DNC still holds most of the same positions, abstaining just does not work with the current voting structure.
The only thing we got in return was 4 years of environmental deregulation, deregulation of employment protections, deregulation of election protections and so much more.
We are at a pivotal point in our planet’s history where if we don’t stop the excess carbon being put in the atmosphere there won’t be anyone left to save. I know Biden hasn’t taken as much action on this as everyone would like but he’s taking a heck of a lot more than Trump ever will.
So even if your long-term goal was achieved by putting pressure here and not voting which I’m can assure you given past circumstance it won’t, the irreparable damage to the planet and our country can’t simply be undone if your goal is achieved.
However Congress is not in such a lofty position and much easier to pressure so I urge you to pressure them instead. As they have the means to make an actual difference.
He needs to rethink his end result? What about your end result, the thing that we’re currently experiencing? You’re trying to twist people’s arm into keeping the machine going even though that machine has been failing us for the last 50 years, yet somehow you think this time it’s going to make a difference.
Could you please be a little more polite I’m still a human being. I understand it’s an emotional topic but I’ve remained cordial.
I think my prior responses outline pretty thoroughly why I think it will achieve a worse end result. I also understand that it may not be their intent however I don’t think that really matters.
there are only two people capable of being in that office
No, anyone eligible is capable of holding that office. The reason why it’s typically only a member of one of two parties is because of people like you to continue to give them your vote and pressure others to do the same.
I wish you all the luck in the world but I can tell you now that it is not me acknowledging the fact that our system has an inherent two party bias that assured the last 50 years of one of the two parties.
How can you argue that it’s impossible for anyone outside the Republican or Democratic party to hold office while also arguing that’s it’s imperative we vote for one of them? Both can’t be true and if you really believe that it’s impossible to affect things, I see no reason why you should feel the need to be arguing with us at all.
Believe it or not US presidents have had blood on their hands for years. Even seemingly peaceful actions like the withdrawl from Afghanistan get blood everywhere. If elections could stop the bloodshed they would have.
The reality is voting does affect some things but its going to take far more than a vote to stop the killing.
“bloodshed and genocide are a foregone conclusion”
-things nobody said
What part of “Its going to be harder than just voting” do you not understand?
Stopping violence means putting your life and wellbeing on the line. No amount of online virtue signaling will stop a genocide.
If elections could stop the bloodshed they would have.
The reality is voting does affect some things but its going to take far more than a vote to stop the killing.
You did say that.
Also, you’re arguing that we should put our life and wellbeing on the line to stop this, while simultaneously arguing that being anything but a party loyalist is inexcusable? That’s insanely absurd.
Trying to vote against genocide in the US is obviously not possible - the US was built on genocide, and is designed to be impossible to stop while its not creating inconvenience for people who can vote here. The entire system from the ground up is designed not to be influenced to enough of a degree where that’s an option. Its like trying to swim in a lead suit.
This is why social movements in the US need bodies. When you’re affecting people who can vote or people near them US politicians are easier to influence.
Again you argue that genocide and violence are foregone conclusions while somehow trying to claim that voting for one of the two parties perpetuating it is going to make a difference, or at the very least arguing thst not voting for one of these two parties is somehow wrong. This is completely nonsensical.
Nobody is forcing you to be a party loyalist and there’s no restriction mandating that a Democrat or Republican hold these offices outside of the self-imposed restrictions created by people like you. If you want to shackle yourself to the status quo then so be it, but don’t try to con others into doing the same.
No one is under the impression that voting for either candidate would lead to the end of support of Israel. It’s also not about party loyalty. As I pointed out to you here, it’s about everything else.
deleted by creator
Let me ask this- Who do you suggest people vote for in order to not be supporting Israel?
deleted by creator
So you’re suggesting Trump then? I’m not sure if you’re aware of the state of the US election system, but there are two candidates that have a chance of being elected. One of them has a voter base that will vote regardless of criminal convictions for attempting to overturn an election, inciting an insurrection, and selling national secrets.
deleted by creator
As I said above, they won’t.
deleted by creator
I answered it before you asked it. Trump’s base is loyal to Trump first, and America second. They won’t sway regardless of his convictions, let alone international relations with Israel. Encouraging voter disengagement, abstaining from voting, or voting uncommitted would only fall on the ears of the voters opposing Trump, thereby improving his chances of winning.
deleted by creator
Yes if a republican didn’t vote it would be support for Biden, that is essentially how it boils down
deleted by creator
Just trying to avoid 2016 pt. 2
You can always vote however you want I’m not trying to change that I’m just trying to get you to understand that your actions may not have your desired end result and why.
We agree on what needs to happen just not the methods.
Can you explain how voting for Biden is “avoiding 2016 pt. 2?” It seems “2016 pt. 2” keeps happening anyway because people insist that we keep doing the same thing over and over again.
You vote that way in the primary, not the general. All you’re doing is ensuring the worst possible outcome, rather than the one you claim you want.
deleted by creator
Unfortunately, if you view a vote as being complicit you’re complicit no matter what.
Because with the two party bias there are only two people capable of being in that office and not voting for either of them is still a vote in and of itself.
To be clear I don’t care who you vote for but you need to accept the reality that you are choosing one of the two whether you mean to or not.
That’s why Congress is the only realistic way we can pressure our political system to stop what’s currently going on. The government doesn’t stop at the president and plenty of our Congress supports it too which is what allows it to be the way it is.
deleted by creator
Then you’ve failed to grasp the implicit bias that is baked into our political system.
I’m not saying it’s right we should absolutely be trying to change that. However it’s the truth.
Until we get something like ranked choice voting we are stuck voting for the best of two or giving power to the worse.
deleted by creator
Yeah you absolutely can but that will whether you intend to or not give power to the other party. Which if your goal is to assuage your moral complicitency then I think you need to rethink your end result.
deleted by creator
No I am very affected by it, please do not assume. I have never chastised you. Every single time I have talked kindly and merely pointed out some moral fallacies in your argument.
Unfortunately not voting for them doesn’t teach them anything we learned that in 2016, the DNC still holds most of the same positions, abstaining just does not work with the current voting structure.
The only thing we got in return was 4 years of environmental deregulation, deregulation of employment protections, deregulation of election protections and so much more.
We are at a pivotal point in our planet’s history where if we don’t stop the excess carbon being put in the atmosphere there won’t be anyone left to save. I know Biden hasn’t taken as much action on this as everyone would like but he’s taking a heck of a lot more than Trump ever will.
So even if your long-term goal was achieved by putting pressure here and not voting which I’m can assure you given past circumstance it won’t, the irreparable damage to the planet and our country can’t simply be undone if your goal is achieved.
However Congress is not in such a lofty position and much easier to pressure so I urge you to pressure them instead. As they have the means to make an actual difference.
deleted by creator
He needs to rethink his end result? What about your end result, the thing that we’re currently experiencing? You’re trying to twist people’s arm into keeping the machine going even though that machine has been failing us for the last 50 years, yet somehow you think this time it’s going to make a difference.
Could you please be a little more polite I’m still a human being. I understand it’s an emotional topic but I’ve remained cordial.
I think my prior responses outline pretty thoroughly why I think it will achieve a worse end result. I also understand that it may not be their intent however I don’t think that really matters.
No, anyone eligible is capable of holding that office. The reason why it’s typically only a member of one of two parties is because of people like you to continue to give them your vote and pressure others to do the same.
I wish you all the luck in the world but I can tell you now that it is not me acknowledging the fact that our system has an inherent two party bias that assured the last 50 years of one of the two parties.
How can you argue that it’s impossible for anyone outside the Republican or Democratic party to hold office while also arguing that’s it’s imperative we vote for one of them? Both can’t be true and if you really believe that it’s impossible to affect things, I see no reason why you should feel the need to be arguing with us at all.
If you don’t make a choice one is made for you, even if the choice is a flawed one.
Believe it or not US presidents have had blood on their hands for years. Even seemingly peaceful actions like the withdrawl from Afghanistan get blood everywhere. If elections could stop the bloodshed they would have.
The reality is voting does affect some things but its going to take far more than a vote to stop the killing.
deleted by creator
“bloodshed and genocide are a foregone conclusion” -things nobody said
What part of “Its going to be harder than just voting” do you not understand? Stopping violence means putting your life and wellbeing on the line. No amount of online virtue signaling will stop a genocide.
You did say that.
Also, you’re arguing that we should put our life and wellbeing on the line to stop this, while simultaneously arguing that being anything but a party loyalist is inexcusable? That’s insanely absurd.
Trying to vote against genocide in the US is obviously not possible - the US was built on genocide, and is designed to be impossible to stop while its not creating inconvenience for people who can vote here. The entire system from the ground up is designed not to be influenced to enough of a degree where that’s an option. Its like trying to swim in a lead suit.
This is why social movements in the US need bodies. When you’re affecting people who can vote or people near them US politicians are easier to influence.
Again you argue that genocide and violence are foregone conclusions while somehow trying to claim that voting for one of the two parties perpetuating it is going to make a difference, or at the very least arguing thst not voting for one of these two parties is somehow wrong. This is completely nonsensical.
Nobody is forcing you to be a party loyalist and there’s no restriction mandating that a Democrat or Republican hold these offices outside of the self-imposed restrictions created by people like you. If you want to shackle yourself to the status quo then so be it, but don’t try to con others into doing the same.
No one is under the impression that voting for either candidate would lead to the end of support of Israel. It’s also not about party loyalty. As I pointed out to you here, it’s about everything else.