this post was submitted on 21 Jan 2024
830 points (96.6% liked)

politics

19159 readers
5938 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.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. 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.
  5. 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
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] kusuriya@infosec.pub 80 points 9 months ago (3 children)

If Biden ended the war on drugs it would nearly completely clench at least his party's re-election, probably swing the congress on over too.

[–] skozzii@lemmy.ca 111 points 9 months ago (2 children)

Not to mention it's absolutely the correct decision.

[–] WhatAmLemmy@lemmy.world 24 points 9 months ago

For politicians, the morality and ethics around policy are more of a consolation prize.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Ghostalmedia@lemmy.world 18 points 9 months ago (22 children)

Maybe for weed, but I don’t think that would be so clear cut for other substances. Even here San Francisco, the public is only willing to go so far with decriminalizing.

I would wager that weed, and maybe certain hallucinations would be bump in the polls, but for narcotics and opioids, ending the war on that stuff would hurt him. But maybe I’m wrong.

load more comments (22 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] recapitated@lemmy.world 53 points 9 months ago (2 children)

I wonder if marijuana news paper dot com has any bias slant towards marijuana

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] PhlubbaDubba@lemm.ee 45 points 9 months ago (2 children)

I'll bet good money that if he tries it it'll be closer to August

Because you fucking know it's gonna get challenged and that the Supreme Court is gonna be all brow furrowey trying to invent a reason why it's unconstitutional to not pursue a drug policy based in exactly zero medical science.

At least if it's near the election the topic will still be fresh by the time SCOTUS chooses that laws are for binding Democrats and protecting Republicans.

[–] fidodo@lemmy.world 11 points 9 months ago

It would be extremely hard to argue that, but given the three clowns trump appointed who knows.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] RampantParanoia2365@lemmy.world 45 points 9 months ago (32 children)

JUST STOP FUNDING THE ISRAEL CONFLICT.

[–] anarchy79@lemmy.world 12 points 9 months ago (1 children)

I would like for all of us to sit down, just for a short while, together, take a deep breath, and figure out where we're going.

[–] striderk@lemmy.ca 12 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Just imagine. We could be an interplanetary species by now. Instead of solving problems, we instead create them for short-term monetary gains.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (31 replies)
[–] 5in1k@lemm.ee 43 points 9 months ago (2 children)

Oh they’re going to put this carrot in front of us again?

[–] Wogi@lemmy.world 18 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

"Biden stands to gain approval if he does incredibly obvious thing that people approve of."

So he's not gonna do it then? Great.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] themeatbridge@lemmy.world 41 points 9 months ago (2 children)

"Breaking News: Polls show that if Biden were better, more people would like him."

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] giacomo@lemm.ee 37 points 9 months ago (8 children)

Ah yes, because it's not about doing what is right, it's about political gain. Fuck america so so much.

[–] Donkter@lemmy.world 17 points 9 months ago

In theory the two are supposed to be aligned. Political will is supposed to go up when the politicians do what's right and down when they do wrong. That's what is going on here but I agree that they aren't usually aligned.

[–] Rootiest@lemmy.world 15 points 9 months ago (7 children)

It's about doing what is right, but waiting until it's most politically beneficial before doing it

load more comments (7 replies)
[–] neptune@dmv.social 11 points 9 months ago

I mean, democracy is supposed to align those two needs.

[–] htrayl@lemmy.world 11 points 9 months ago (5 children)

Voters don't reward doing the right thing at the wrong time.

load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
[–] dangblingus@lemmy.dbzer0.com 30 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Could legal weed save America from becoming a fascist dystopia under Trump? Headline of the century.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] LopensLeftArm@sh.itjust.works 28 points 9 months ago (2 children)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] JustZ@lemmy.world 27 points 9 months ago (4 children)

People are funny.

Biden will probably get this done. He said he was going to, seems like the administrative steps to do so are happening.

But here's what will happen: the Supreme Court is getting ready to shred another longstanding precedent known as the Chevron Doctrine. Without Chevron, any federal court will be able to enjoin any action of any federal agency just by saying that the agency's interpretation of the statute, even though it's reasonable, isn't what Congress really intended. In other words, agencies will no longer be able to regulate much of anything because corporations will just file a lawsuit in some backwards ass federal court district and the judge's interpretation of the statute will carry more weight than the agency that administers the statute.

That's the Republican plan, here. They give half a shit about DEA administrative scheduling, they can't wait to destroy the FCC, SEC, IRS, EPA, FTC, FEC, etc. If the DEA reschedules cannabis, and the Republicans cannot lock up enough black and brown people, they will judge shop until they find one to say doing so isn't what Congress intended with cannabis prohibition statutes, and enjoin the rescheduling.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] Marleyinoc@lemmy.world 25 points 9 months ago (1 children)

I hope Republicans get behind it and reap benefits too. Rescheduling shouldn't end up another political victim like health care was.

[–] pugsly@lemmy.l0l.city 24 points 9 months ago (2 children)

Wouldn't it be great if we got more bipartisanship and improved our country for everyone? They call me a dreamer

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] aphlamingphoenix@lemm.ee 23 points 9 months ago (3 children)

Yeah, people like weed way more than they like Biden.

[–] burrito@sh.itjust.works 14 points 9 months ago (5 children)

I'd take weed over any politician any day of the week.

load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] DontRedditMyLemmy@lemmy.world 21 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Rescheduling is a far cry from legalizing. It really shouldn't matter that much to voters unless he legalizes.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Ozymati@lemmy.nz 20 points 9 months ago

They legalised cannibis in NY and now my 79 year old mother is getting high at parties. Thanks Obama.

[–] mydude@lemmy.world 19 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice shame on me; “dozens of young White House staffers” freshly hired were abruptly told to quit, were suspended from their jobs, or otherwise punished “due to past marijuana use.”

[–] circasurvivor@lemm.ee 13 points 9 months ago (4 children)

The phrase, which is from Texas, but also maybe Tennessee, is actually, "Fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again."

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] GhostEye@lemmy.l0l.city 18 points 9 months ago (12 children)

The presidential debate should be two candidates chilling and smoking a blunt

load more comments (12 replies)
[–] BeMoreCareful@lemmy.world 17 points 9 months ago (3 children)

Those likely voters will get stoned forget to vote /s

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] deweydecibel@lemmy.world 17 points 9 months ago (5 children)

How sad that of all the reasons to support the candidate who isn't a raging fascist, this is the one people care about the most?

Like...yeah, marijuana is great, but holy shit there's a lot more important things going on in the world.

[–] sar1n@infosec.pub 28 points 9 months ago (1 children)

It's not just about being able to smoke weed, it's more about the disproportionate amount of minorities who get unjust prison sentences over a fucking flower. I'd say to POC it's pretty important.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
[–] unreasonabro@lemmy.world 16 points 9 months ago (3 children)

I mean, i bet he'd be surprised how successful he could be if he actually started doing good things. Ending your ridiculous american war on everything would be a good start. So would actual health care implemented without republican consultation (otherwise known as nerfing), and really any other point on a civil democrat's agenda would be good. You know, all the things that have only been payed lip service since the 80s, like education. The debt forgiveness is a good move.

[–] thecrotch@sh.itjust.works 19 points 9 months ago (4 children)

i bet he'd be surprised how successful he could be if he actually started doing good things.

Especially if they're things he promised to do 5 years ago when he was campaigning

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] RoosterBoy@lemm.ee 11 points 9 months ago (2 children)

Every politician says they will legalize weed if it gets them votes. No politician will ever actually legalize it though because then they lose one of their biggest platforms to draw voters. The single-minded boomer vote also disappears if he does legalize it.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›