Ok I truly understand that we don't want to get into this again
And I promise I will try to only post if I have a nice, substantive thing from here on
However comma
I desperately need to share the perfect headline
Her response there is just a series of non-sequiturs. It sounds less like she is defending herself from the (obviously true) claim, and more that she's just hella confused.
It actually made me feel slight pity for Feinstein, which is not something I thought I would ever feel. Schumer's take that he hopes she'll leave office on her own terms is ridiculous though. She is a Senator! In theory, that is an important job! Surely the necessity of having legislators with functioning brains outweighs whatever concern Chuck might have for her dignity. I mean she represents like 60 million people, do they not have a right to a legislator who is mentally capable of legislating?
At this point I can't even blame her for clinging to power, it's more the fault of everyone around her for not gently ushering her back into her mansion and assigning someone to keep her from coming back to the Capitol.
I was gonna say that I can't wait till 2025 when we start seeing articles like this about Biden, but we probably won't have to deal with that scenario at all, as he'll be irrelevant by then...
+5
Zonugal(He/Him) The Holiday ArmadilloI'm Santa's representative for all the southern states. And Mexico!Registered Userregular
Ok I truly understand that we don't want to get into this again
And I promise I will try to only post if I have a nice, substantive thing from here on
However comma
I desperately need to share the perfect headline
Her response there is just a series of non-sequiturs. It sounds less like she is defending herself from the (obviously true) claim, and more that she's just hella confused.
It actually made me feel slight pity for Feinstein, which is not something I thought I would ever feel. Schumer's take that he hopes she'll leave office on her own terms is ridiculous though. She is a Senator! In theory, that is an important job! Surely the necessity of having legislators with functioning brains outweighs whatever concern Chuck might have for her dignity. I mean she represents like 60 million people, do they not have a right to a legislator who is mentally capable of legislating?
At this point I can't even blame her for clinging to power, it's more the fault of everyone around her for not gently ushering her back into her mansion and assigning someone to keep her from coming back to the Capitol.
I was gonna say that I can't wait till 2025 when we start seeing articles like this about Biden, but we probably won't have to deal with that scenario at all, as he'll be irrelevant by then...
Nah I think the Senate’s a fancy club for Beltway Nobility
Ok I truly understand that we don't want to get into this again
And I promise I will try to only post if I have a nice, substantive thing from here on
However comma
I desperately need to share the perfect headline
Her response there is just a series of non-sequiturs. It sounds less like she is defending herself from the (obviously true) claim, and more that she's just hella confused.
It actually made me feel slight pity for Feinstein, which is not something I thought I would ever feel. Schumer's take that he hopes she'll leave office on her own terms is ridiculous though. She is a Senator! In theory, that is an important job! Surely the necessity of having legislators with functioning brains outweighs whatever concern Chuck might have for her dignity. I mean she represents like 60 million people, do they not have a right to a legislator who is mentally capable of legislating?
At this point I can't even blame her for clinging to power, it's more the fault of everyone around her for not gently ushering her back into her mansion and assigning someone to keep her from coming back to the Capitol.
I was gonna say that I can't wait till 2025 when we start seeing articles like this about Biden, but we probably won't have to deal with that scenario at all, as he'll be irrelevant by then...
Nah I think the Senate’s a fancy club for Beltway Nobility
Yeah, that's along the lines of what made me say "in theory." In practice healthy neurological function is significantly less necessary for Senators than for most occupations.
Do we have any idea if 'WaitingOnBiden' is an actual person? and not some bullshit twitter scam?
I am afraid to tell you, no, Biden and Harris did actually make that promise and this is not some bullshit twitter scam to make you doubt Biden for nefarious reasons:
Harris announced the position at an ABC virtual town hall Monday. "Under a Biden-Harris administration, we will decriminalize the use of marijuana and automatically expunge all marijuana-use convictions and end incarceration for drug use alone," Harris stated. "This is no time for half-steppin'. This is no time for incrementalism. We need to deal with the system and there needs to be significant change in the design of the system."
News Outlet the recount with video of Harris making the promise:
Sen. Kamala Harris (D-CA) says a Biden-Harris administration would decriminalize marijuana and expunge marijuana use convictions: “This is no time for incrementalism ... there needs to be significant change in the design of the system.”
Decriminalize the use of cannabis and automatically expunge all prior cannabis use convictions. Biden believes no one should be in jail because of cannabis use. As president, he will decriminalize cannabis use and automatically expunge prior convictions. And, he will support the legalization of cannabis for medical purposes, leave decisions regarding legalization for recreational use up to the states, and reschedule cannabis as a schedule II drug so researchers can study its positive and negative impacts.
Its a twitter account without a checkmark. Even with a checkmark its not a terribly good guarantee that an account is honest. If there was a link to the web page it may be easy to see but it was an image. Which... is easy to manipulate. All that was asked was whether or not the account was legitimate.
It would be interesting to see what their reasoning / excuse for not having fulfilled the pot promise yet is. It's one of those very very few things a bipartisan majority of Americans (slim on the Republican side, but you know crazy).
It would be interesting to see what their reasoning / excuse for not having fulfilled the pot promise yet is. It's one of those very very few things a bipartisan majority of Americans (slim on the Republican side, but you know crazy).
It would be interesting to see what their reasoning / excuse for not having fulfilled the pot promise yet is. It's one of those very very few things a bipartisan majority of Americans (slim on the Republican side, but you know crazy).
You cant just post satire and pretend its fact. Even if it is super truthy.
What is the satire? The “happy 4/20”?
Cause it is indeed “the weed number day,” and the critique about Biden failing to make effort, let alone progress, on his marijuana promises for one year and nearly four months is, indeed, accurate
It would be interesting to see what their reasoning / excuse for not having fulfilled the pot promise yet is. It's one of those very very few things a bipartisan majority of Americans (slim on the Republican side, but you know crazy).
It would be interesting to see what their reasoning / excuse for not having fulfilled the pot promise yet is. It's one of those very very few things a bipartisan majority of Americans (slim on the Republican side, but you know crazy).
I think a large part of it is institutional inertia and severe pushback from the DEA. The DEA clearly does not want anyone rescheduling marijuana. All the while a full blown epidemic of opioid abuse ravaged across the rural parts of the US right under their damn noses.
I figure it's much like Obama and gun regulation, they aren't interested in the fight. But with Biden's numbers in the tank and nothing positive on the horizon, hell, I can't see why it doesn't make sense to push for it now.
It would be interesting to see what their reasoning / excuse for not having fulfilled the pot promise yet is. It's one of those very very few things a bipartisan majority of Americans (slim on the Republican side, but you know crazy).
I think a large part of it is institutional inertia and severe pushback from the DEA. The DEA clearly does not want anyone rescheduling marijuana. All the while a full blown epidemic of opioid abuse ravaged across the rural parts of the US right under their damn noses.
I figure it's much like Obama and gun regulation, they aren't interested in the fight. But with Biden's numbers in the tank and nothing positive on the horizon, hell, I can't see why it doesn't make sense to push for it now.
If there was another law enforcement group as filthy as ICE, it would be the DEA.
Its a twitter account without a checkmark. Even with a checkmark its not a terribly good guarantee that an account is honest. If there was a link to the web page it may be easy to see but it was an image. Which... is easy to manipulate. All that was asked was whether or not the account was legitimate.
What do you mean "the account was legitimate?" What do you mean "an account is honest?"
If you mean that you doubt that the screenshot is real, it was a simple matter to consult Wikipedia which has direct links to Biden's website - not the exact page that is screenshotted in the tweet, but it does indeed contain statements that convey the exact same message therein. And putting a portion of the direct text into Google ("decriminalize the use of cannabis and automatically expunge all prior") similarly returns a large number of articles quoting directly from the campaign website either at the time that it was posted on the website to endorse him as a candidate, or to point out that his statements once President-elect now contradict what had been posted on the website.
Its a twitter account without a checkmark. Even with a checkmark its not a terribly good guarantee that an account is honest. If there was a link to the web page it may be easy to see but it was an image. Which... is easy to manipulate. All that was asked was whether or not the account was legitimate.
What do you mean "the account was legitimate?" What do you mean "an account is honest?"
If you mean that you doubt that the screenshot is real, it was a simple matter to consult Wikipedia which has direct links to Biden's website - not the exact page that is screenshotted in the tweet, but it does indeed contain statements that convey the exact same message therein. And putting a portion of the direct text into Google ("decriminalize the use of cannabis and automatically expunge all prior") similarly returns a large number of articles quoting directly from the campaign website either at the time that it was posted on the website to endorse him as a candidate, or to point out that his statements once President-elect now contradict what had been posted on the website.
I should note I found that one from its sister account for Harris, which used the same clip as the recount tweet embedded in my earlier post
Unless we now want to suggest they’re going around posting deep fakes because something something weird twitter hang ups among an ostensibly online literate user base who’ve been posting here for decades
Love to watch real estate continue to solidify into a investment portfolio for the wealthly from the suburbs to to the city truely brilliant rent seeking stuff
Its a twitter account without a checkmark. Even with a checkmark its not a terribly good guarantee that an account is honest. If there was a link to the web page it may be easy to see but it was an image. Which... is easy to manipulate. All that was asked was whether or not the account was legitimate.
What do you mean "the account was legitimate?" What do you mean "an account is honest?"
If you mean that you doubt that the screenshot is real, it was a simple matter to consult Wikipedia which has direct links to Biden's website - not the exact page that is screenshotted in the tweet, but it does indeed contain statements that convey the exact same message therein. And putting a portion of the direct text into Google ("decriminalize the use of cannabis and automatically expunge all prior") similarly returns a large number of articles quoting directly from the campaign website either at the time that it was posted on the website to endorse him as a candidate, or to point out that his statements once President-elect now contradict what had been posted on the website.
It means please source your fucking tweets. That is all that was asked. No one doubts that the info was legit anymore. That was clearly established before my post even. And established that I understood that in a post before you clicked quote.
Now in the above case it may be reasonable to remember that promise yourself and so not see the need to source a tweet. But if someone asks you to, because they don’t remember it and like… the tweet is not from an obvious news organization that is clearly reputable about basic facts it’s not the end of the world. Just source it. Because it’s not anyone’s job to verify the info you post. If it’s so easy to go to Wikipedia. And link to the website that still has it up do that instead of linking an unsourced account posting a picture on Twitter.
Its a twitter account without a checkmark. Even with a checkmark its not a terribly good guarantee that an account is honest. If there was a link to the web page it may be easy to see but it was an image. Which... is easy to manipulate. All that was asked was whether or not the account was legitimate.
What do you mean "the account was legitimate?" What do you mean "an account is honest?"
If you mean that you doubt that the screenshot is real, it was a simple matter to consult Wikipedia which has direct links to Biden's website - not the exact page that is screenshotted in the tweet, but it does indeed contain statements that convey the exact same message therein. And putting a portion of the direct text into Google ("decriminalize the use of cannabis and automatically expunge all prior") similarly returns a large number of articles quoting directly from the campaign website either at the time that it was posted on the website to endorse him as a candidate, or to point out that his statements once President-elect now contradict what had been posted on the website.
I should note I found that one from its sister account for Harris, which used the same clip as the recount tweet embedded in my earlier post
Unless we now want to suggest they’re going around posting deep fakes because something something weird twitter hang ups among an ostensibly online literate user base who’ve been posting here for decades
Nah your second post is good. The Twitter has a video which would be hard to fake and it’s coming from a check marked news organization. We were discussing the first post. Which its reasonable to ask questions about (that you reasonably answered in your second)
Also, while I'm at it, I wish people would stop trying to make Pete a face of the Democratic party
He sucks, he's unlikeable, he's a stock photo model who entered politics, someone in the media somewhere really likes the idea of him or some reason, but he's won two elections for mayor, please let him alone , stop trying to make President Pete happen
He’s white, male, non threatening gay, and a vet. If political consultants could grow a politician in a lab the result would be very close to real life Pete. He’s with us forever.
Sourcing your tweets is well established forum policy for political threads. People asking you to provide more information when the source isn't recognised is entirely reasonable and not some terrible burden. It's not everyone else's job to provide proof for a claim you make.
Anecdote time!
I have a very conservative co-worker that I get along with quite well. He's a good dude! I know, shocking. He says the same when he tells his friends that he has a filthy proggie co-worker that he likes.
Anyway!
One day I said something caustic about Biden, and he said "What, you're not a Brandon fan?" to which I replied "How could I be? Dude's not done a thing."
Okay, back to serious thread.
Anecdote time!
I have a very conservative co-worker that I get along with quite well. He's a good dude! I know, shocking. He says the same when he tells his friends that he has a filthy proggie co-worker that he likes.
Anyway!
One day I said something caustic about Biden, and he said "What, you're not a Brandon fan?" to which I replied "How could I be? Dude's not done a thing."
Okay, back to serious thread.
One of my favorite new games to play is get into political arguments with my dad (Republican never-Trumper (because Trump was secretly a Democrat, you see, and he's poisoning the party with Dem nonsense)) where I complain incessantly about Biden and he ends up spending the entire time defending Biden.
I recently asked him why he keeps falling into that trap and he told me it's because if Biden isn't good enough for me that scares him. I was like, okay then, be scared I guess.
Anecdote time!
I have a very conservative co-worker that I get along with quite well. He's a good dude! I know, shocking. He says the same when he tells his friends that he has a filthy proggie co-worker that he likes.
Anyway!
One day I said something caustic about Biden, and he said "What, you're not a Brandon fan?" to which I replied "How could I be? Dude's not done a thing."
Okay, back to serious thread.
One of my favorite new games to play is get into political arguments with my dad (Republican never-Trumper (because Trump was secretly a Democrat, you see, and he's poisoning the party with Dem nonsense)) where I complain incessantly about Biden and he ends up spending the entire time defending Biden.
I recently asked him why he keeps falling into that trap and he told me it's because if Biden isn't good enough for me that scares him. I was like, okay then, be scared I guess.
Sourcing your tweets is well established forum policy for political threads. People asking you to provide more information when the source isn't recognised is entirely reasonable and not some terrible burden. It's not everyone else's job to provide proof for a claim you make.
The Tweet states the source, and if any forumer can be trusted to vett their sources before linking them, it's Lanz.
Just because a Twitter account isn't verified doesn't mean it doesn't provide legitimate information. In point of fact, there are plenty of blue checkmarks on that site that do nothing but post lies.
Folks were being needlessly incredulous about a tweet that is the easiest thing in the world to verify the veracity of - as the Tweet says, it's still on their campaign website - because reflexively pushing back against truthful statements about the Biden administration is a natural result of internalizing the Vote Blue No Matter Who mentality.
Examining and questioning the policies of a Democrat runs counter to that because if you look too critically at a Democrats' policies... you might feel less inclined to vote for them. And we can't not vote for a Democrat! It's only through voting for Democrats that the policies I like will be implemented - ah, I am now being informed not enough of the elected Democrats actually support the policies I like despite them being stated campaign policies of the party and the President. (Ah, well nevertheless)
In this thread of all places, I feel that when someone says "Joe Biden sucks on this issue" while quoting from Joe Biden's own campaign website, the burden of proof lies on the person who steps in and says "No, I think that person was just saying that Joe Biden sucks on that issue ironically."
Motion to declare this thread title a disappointment to people thinking this thread would be a source of punch recipes
I thought it was going to be about LMFAO and now I'm mad I clicked it because I avoided the last welching about democrats thread for my own mental health but now the thread is going to taunt me with unread posts forevermore.
+3
ButtersA glass of some milksRegistered Userregular
It would be interesting to see what their reasoning / excuse for not having fulfilled the pot promise yet is. It's one of those very very few things a bipartisan majority of Americans (slim on the Republican side, but you know crazy).
It would be interesting to see what their reasoning / excuse for not having fulfilled the pot promise yet is. It's one of those very very few things a bipartisan majority of Americans (slim on the Republican side, but you know crazy).
Still at 55% in favor. My guess is Biden is afraid of the fallout on being "weak on crime" or "releasing dangerous criminals" more than "weed is bad."
I dont think he is afraid, my guess is that he agrees with keeping "criminals" in jail.
Yes, with a quick verbal "boom." You take a man's peko, you deny him his dab, all that is left is to rise up and tear down the walls of Jericho with a ".....not!" -TexiKen
It would be interesting to see what their reasoning / excuse for not having fulfilled the pot promise yet is. It's one of those very very few things a bipartisan majority of Americans (slim on the Republican side, but you know crazy).
Still at 55% in favor. My guess is Biden is afraid of the fallout on being "weak on crime" or "releasing dangerous criminals" more than "weed is bad."
Bad actors already started revving the engine on this with disingenuous articles all over the place about how major city's crime went up a billion percent in the last couple years.
Posts
It actually made me feel slight pity for Feinstein, which is not something I thought I would ever feel. Schumer's take that he hopes she'll leave office on her own terms is ridiculous though. She is a Senator! In theory, that is an important job! Surely the necessity of having legislators with functioning brains outweighs whatever concern Chuck might have for her dignity. I mean she represents like 60 million people, do they not have a right to a legislator who is mentally capable of legislating?
At this point I can't even blame her for clinging to power, it's more the fault of everyone around her for not gently ushering her back into her mansion and assigning someone to keep her from coming back to the Capitol.
I was gonna say that I can't wait till 2025 when we start seeing articles like this about Biden, but we probably won't have to deal with that scenario at all, as he'll be irrelevant by then...
They are being told by their consultants that doing anything "controversial" might hurt them in the mid-terms.
Oh, I wasn't aware that something only 24% of Americans were in opposition to would be considered "controversial."
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
Nah I think the Senate’s a fancy club for Beltway Nobility
I am afraid to tell you, no, Biden and Harris did actually make that promise and this is not some bullshit twitter scam to make you doubt Biden for nefarious reasons:
https://wjla.com/news/nation-world/cannabis-in-the-presidential-race-biden-harris-pledge-to-decriminalize-marijuana
News Outlet the recount with video of Harris making the promise:
And the page from their campaign site:
https://joebiden.com/justice/
What an incredible disappointment this administration has been.
I'm curious, what do you mean by "real"? Like, I can't for the life of me figure out the criteria to consider it real.
https://news.gallup.com/poll/356939/support-legal-marijuana-holds-record-high.aspx
Its substantially less popular among 65+
Also still helps to grease the wheels of a white supremacist carceral state
Even if they can’t fully legalize without congress, drug scheduling is within the purview of the Executive branch
What is the satire? The “happy 4/20”?
Cause it is indeed “the weed number day,” and the critique about Biden failing to make effort, let alone progress, on his marijuana promises for one year and nearly four months is, indeed, accurate
Republicans support it but republican politicians do not.
I think a large part of it is institutional inertia and severe pushback from the DEA. The DEA clearly does not want anyone rescheduling marijuana. All the while a full blown epidemic of opioid abuse ravaged across the rural parts of the US right under their damn noses.
I figure it's much like Obama and gun regulation, they aren't interested in the fight. But with Biden's numbers in the tank and nothing positive on the horizon, hell, I can't see why it doesn't make sense to push for it now.
Overruled
If there was another law enforcement group as filthy as ICE, it would be the DEA.
What do you mean "the account was legitimate?" What do you mean "an account is honest?"
If you mean that you doubt that the screenshot is real, it was a simple matter to consult Wikipedia which has direct links to Biden's website - not the exact page that is screenshotted in the tweet, but it does indeed contain statements that convey the exact same message therein. And putting a portion of the direct text into Google ("decriminalize the use of cannabis and automatically expunge all prior") similarly returns a large number of articles quoting directly from the campaign website either at the time that it was posted on the website to endorse him as a candidate, or to point out that his statements once President-elect now contradict what had been posted on the website.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
I should note I found that one from its sister account for Harris, which used the same clip as the recount tweet embedded in my earlier post
Unless we now want to suggest they’re going around posting deep fakes because something something weird twitter hang ups among an ostensibly online literate user base who’ve been posting here for decades
It means please source your fucking tweets. That is all that was asked. No one doubts that the info was legit anymore. That was clearly established before my post even. And established that I understood that in a post before you clicked quote.
Now in the above case it may be reasonable to remember that promise yourself and so not see the need to source a tweet. But if someone asks you to, because they don’t remember it and like… the tweet is not from an obvious news organization that is clearly reputable about basic facts it’s not the end of the world. Just source it. Because it’s not anyone’s job to verify the info you post. If it’s so easy to go to Wikipedia. And link to the website that still has it up do that instead of linking an unsourced account posting a picture on Twitter. Nah your second post is good. The Twitter has a video which would be hard to fake and it’s coming from a check marked news organization. We were discussing the first post. Which its reasonable to ask questions about (that you reasonably answered in your second)
He’s white, male, non threatening gay, and a vet. If political consultants could grow a politician in a lab the result would be very close to real life Pete. He’s with us forever.
Choose Your Own Chat 1 Choose Your Own Chat 2 Choose Your Own Chat 3
I have a very conservative co-worker that I get along with quite well. He's a good dude! I know, shocking. He says the same when he tells his friends that he has a filthy proggie co-worker that he likes.
Anyway!
One day I said something caustic about Biden, and he said "What, you're not a Brandon fan?" to which I replied "How could I be? Dude's not done a thing."
Okay, back to serious thread.
One of my favorite new games to play is get into political arguments with my dad (Republican never-Trumper (because Trump was secretly a Democrat, you see, and he's poisoning the party with Dem nonsense)) where I complain incessantly about Biden and he ends up spending the entire time defending Biden.
I recently asked him why he keeps falling into that trap and he told me it's because if Biden isn't good enough for me that scares him. I was like, okay then, be scared I guess.
Localized Overton window shifting
The Tweet states the source, and if any forumer can be trusted to vett their sources before linking them, it's Lanz.
Just because a Twitter account isn't verified doesn't mean it doesn't provide legitimate information. In point of fact, there are plenty of blue checkmarks on that site that do nothing but post lies.
Folks were being needlessly incredulous about a tweet that is the easiest thing in the world to verify the veracity of - as the Tweet says, it's still on their campaign website - because reflexively pushing back against truthful statements about the Biden administration is a natural result of internalizing the Vote Blue No Matter Who mentality.
Examining and questioning the policies of a Democrat runs counter to that because if you look too critically at a Democrats' policies... you might feel less inclined to vote for them. And we can't not vote for a Democrat! It's only through voting for Democrats that the policies I like will be implemented - ah, I am now being informed not enough of the elected Democrats actually support the policies I like despite them being stated campaign policies of the party and the President. (Ah, well nevertheless)
In this thread of all places, I feel that when someone says "Joe Biden sucks on this issue" while quoting from Joe Biden's own campaign website, the burden of proof lies on the person who steps in and says "No, I think that person was just saying that Joe Biden sucks on that issue ironically."
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
I thought it was going to be about LMFAO and now I'm mad I clicked it because I avoided the last welching about democrats thread for my own mental health but now the thread is going to taunt me with unread posts forevermore.
Still at 55% in favor. My guess is Biden is afraid of the fallout on being "weak on crime" or "releasing dangerous criminals" more than "weed is bad."
on the other hand, no one is shuffling
I dont think he is afraid, my guess is that he agrees with keeping "criminals" in jail.
Bad actors already started revving the engine on this with disingenuous articles all over the place about how major city's crime went up a billion percent in the last couple years.