politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- 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:
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
Ok. What's her plan?
So far all we know is she might do more than nothing
She might, yes. I'd still like to see a plan. Hopefully one will be forthcoming soon.
I’m guessing there will be no plan
Perhaps. I'm notoriously pessimistic about Democrats actually wanting to do things that don't involve capitulating to Republicans, but she just announced it. I'll give her some time to put out a plan before assuming it's just an empty campaign promise like Biden's was.
It’s getting to where if democrats keep milking this issue, they are going to snatch defeat from jaws of victory by pussyfooting around a highly popular issue.
I definitely would not become a republican just because of this issue, but there are many people who see politics as silly football teams. I can see Republicans winning and election because “bro, the republicans support weeeeeeeeed, man”
It’s baffling how uninformed so many large groups of people are when it comes to news and politics
Yes, that is familiar behavior from Democrats.
I think to say something broadly popular with the voting base and then forget about it after the election. Decent plan TBH.
Same is true with health care, minimum wage, sick leave for workers, there are numerous issues that large majority's on both sides support that nothing will be done about because billionaires and corporate donors. She is a neoliberal after all.
There's a couple of different ways she could do it. She could start the descheduling process (doable with existing law, but DEA slow it down like they are with Biden trying to move it to schedule 3). Or if there's a democratic trifecta, she could also push for legislation to legalize it
She did push for legislation like that in 2018 when she was a senator
I'm aware of the avenues by which it could be legalized. I asked what Harris' plan is. If she hasn't released one yet, fine. She only just announced it. But I would like some specifics from her campaign at some point, because Biden's efforts have been disappointing to everyone who considers Biden to be fallible.
Biden never said he supported full legalization as far as I am aware, so it's not surprising he didn't go as far as he could.
She just made the announcement for the first time in this campaign, so not stated that yet, but she has pushed for legalization via legislation in the past as a senator and called for faster action for the DEA on rescheduling as VP
In other areas, Walz and Harris have already given plans for passing legislation to make banking access easier for legal states and helping veterans get access to medical marijuana in the VA
He absolutely promised to fully decriminalize. Instead all we got was a committee to look into looking into considering reducing the scheduling of cannabis. It was an empty promise, like every democrat before him because if they actually did something they wouldn’t be able to keep dangling the carrot for votes. Source: https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/biden-promise-tracker/promise/1529/decriminalize-marijuana/
Decriminalization is not the same as legalization. In terms of legalization, he only supported legalization for medical marijuana which is the process he started. He actually pledged to move it to schedule 2 but has started the process to move it to schedule 3. That process is getting closer for what it's worth. The DEA has really dragged it out but it's nearly at the end with the public hearing in December
From the source that politico links to
[...]
So he promised to decriminalize, but did nothing to make good on that promise until most of his term in office had passed, and that's why we aren't done with the lengthy process to get there yet. Your answers throughout the discussion seem to keep glossing over the bolded part. (unless I have some misunderstanding, which is possible)
And that is the part that makes me doubtful Kamala will be any different.
He actually started the reschedule process in 2022, but before that there were attempts by dems to do legalization via legislation but in the senate that didn't end up getting enough votes.
Rescheduling via legislation is more direct and skips the lengthy process describe in the law for executive action. The president is not able to immediately snap their fingers and reschedule. People within the DEA / other agencies have showed it down since 2022. It's at the last stages now after the public comment hearing in December. For what it's worth, as VP Harris did try to call on the agencies to speed up said process but she has no direct power to do so
Ah, the article linked above seemed to say that he'd just begun the process this past May, but maybe I misread it. I will read it again.,
The part that happened in May was the actual rule being formally proposed.
https://www.politico.com/news/2024/05/16/biden-announces-marijuana-reclassification-00158408
In fairness, she pushed for that legislation in 2018 when Trump was president. I've seen Democrats introduce a lot of things when they know they stand no chance of passing. I hope a plan will be forthcoming. At the moment, we have a campaign promise.
This, however, is actually reassuring. Thank you.
Wait a second, when someone said Biden should do more you replied that Biden can’t do more,
But now you are saying Biden didn’t do more because he didn’t want to.
Something’s not adding up.
I think dems are using this issue the same as they did with abortion.
That’s why women are dying right now in many states, because politicians are dangling carrots with no intention of actually doing their jobs
Remember when Biden "signaled" he would be a one term president in his first campaign, then proceeded to put the entire country at risk by running again?
Those stories were his aides saying he was considering he might not run again. He never said it publicly.
Here Harris is directly stating publicly she wants it legal federally. It's not a new stance for her. As a senator in 2018 she co-sponsored legislation to make it legal federally
No. It was his words. His words he said. With his mouth.
He never explicitly said he would be a one term president or necessarily saw himself as one. I looked back to double check again, and he only made cagey statements about seeing himself as the transition between generations. A two term president could still qualify for that. The more explicit one term stuff was from his aides saying he was considering that
Should he have just been more direct, yes, but what he said was nothing as explicit as directly stating we need marijuana it to be legalized
What the fuck else do you think it means to "signal" something in politics?
However, unlike that Harris isn't making a cagey statement here. She's directly stating that marijuana should be federally legalized
Really the title of this article shouldn't be signals
Thats fair. This is more than a "signal". What people attributed to Biden (you can dig through the articles of the day; it was very clearly taken as a signal he would remain a 1 term president) was a "signal" though, in the pure sense of it. Its a kind of political maneuver that could be a head fake, could be real, you can figure it out later.
So you have a source for that then?
Assuming you have are asking in good faith and simply have the memory of a gold fish, or lack the ability to simply google things yourself:
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/474027-biden-indicates-he-will-only-serve-one-term-as-president-report/
You should really read your sources.
Holy shit you should be fucking so embarrassed. That link literally says, right in the first line, that it is just "reportedly" it's not him being quoted. It literally confirms what the other poster said and absolutely contradicts what you said.
It's okay to be wrong, but fuck man, you shouldn't of read at least the first line of your sources to make sure they support your claims when you submit them. That's just mind numbingly dumb.
Nowhere in this article Biden says he will Serve only one term. He basically said that it's an option - nothing more.
It's like some one is paying you not to get it.
Liar.
Nope. Just reality.
There's no quote from Biden (aka 'his words') in the article you linked saying he'll be a 1 term president. That's reality.
Uh huh. Well I read your source and I am unable to find this quote, or anything that supports your original claim. Maybe I am overlooking it? Could you please copy and paste the "words that he said with his mouth" so I can see for myself? Maybe I am too dumb to find them (probable).
I am asking in good faith since I don't want to ascribe blind loyalty to events that do not reflect reality.
Edit: video from an interview would work too.
Edit 2: