tvashtarkatena

Overstated and not entirely accurate. Yes, there are many problems with banking and paying taxes for an MJ business, and yes, MJ business owners have found banks/credit unions who will do business with them without lying. There are an estimated 2500 to 3000 dispensaries nationwide and not all of them are cash n carry or lying about the nature of their business. There may or may not be court battles. Law enforcement activists , including former FBI agents, federal attorneys, and city attorneys, have delivered a letter (and set up a conference call) to urge Holder to not interfere with state level weed laws. Congressional reps have also weighed in, as have the governors of CO and WA. So far, the DOJ has issued a statement that they will not bust operations in compliance with state law, and a later statement that they will not bust medical MJ patients. Speculation is rampant, of course. The informed opinion of I 502's leadership is that the fed is unlikely to sue WA. We'll see as events unfold and the DOJ figures out how its going to proceed. They've given no clear indication of that yet since the election.

The Maine and Rhode Island legislatures are considering legalization bills for next year. So far, 23 states have legalized medical MJ, decriminalized MJ, or legalized MJ - all in violation of the Controlled Substances Act of 1970. Most are blue or swing state, but not all - NE, AB, Not all are blue states, either - NE, AL, AZ, and MT (although the latter has been the first and only state to repeal most of its medical MJ law, although sheep shagging remains legal). 8 states have both medical and decriminalization laws, making them arguably the most likely to take that next step: They are CA, OR, NV, AK, ME, RI, MA, and CT. AR's med MJ initiative was narrowly defeated this year. OR's defeated legalization initiative, despite being poorly drafted and, as a result, poorly funded, garnished 47% of the vote. Let the games begin!

Focus on what can be, rather than what isn't.

You seem to be feeling Bonely, so... Mermaids!

75 years of slavery strongly suggested that it would continue beyond the 1860s. Past performance is no guarantee of future performance, particularly with regards to long term, fundamental cultural and demographic changes. Historical patterns happen until they don't anymore. Wildcard events can spice things up a bit, however. A particularly weak Dem against an R whose good at faking centrism could conceivably win the day next time, but the liberal public, unlike the conservative one (apparently), is getting aaaawwwwefully hard to bullshit these days.

"In fact, the rising American electorate represents a direct threat to the striking array of government benefits for the affluent that the conservative movement has won over the past 40 years. These include the reduction of the top income tax rate from 50 percent in 1986 to 35 percent; the 15 percent tax rate on dividend and capital gains income, which was 39.9 percent in 1977; the lowering of the top estate tax rate from 70 percent in 1981, with just $175,000 exempted from taxation, to a top rate of 35 percent this year with $5.1 million exempted from taxation." Link When you wage war, the other side eventually returns fire. Conservatives will likely continue to bullshit themselves that they 'work harder' than liberals. They don't. If recent history of innovation is any guide, they certainly don't work smarter, either.

When you excise the parts of the GOP platform that aren't based on myth (tax breaks for the rich create jobs), pure partisan interest (anti-vote by mail, pro voter suppression policy), religious bigotry (marriage, abortion), or just plain mean spirited (health care), there isn't much left. So, yeah, I'd say the GOP is probably in for some tough times for a long time. People said that after 08, however - then the Teatards mobilized. There isn't another massive group of untapped morons to organize this time around (the Thumpers shot their wad in record numbers and still failed), so it looks like the GOP will either have to (gulp) actually reform, not likely considering that group's 'data driven' nature, or continue to experience shrinkage. At the state level, the reddest states will likely continue to fall behind economically, educationally, and from a civil liberties standpoint, as they have been. FL and TX will become blue soon, and GOP administrations will become so many unhappy memories. The GOP decided to go to war with the middle class, minorities, gays (est. 7 to 10% of the pop), women, and science. Not the best long term strategy, really.

Auto-elected, dysfunctional dinosaurs like McCain feel threatened by young, smart, competent women like Rice. They should. She's the agent of their extinction.

OUCH

We should have never privatized the Strategic Custard Reserve.

I'm for blasting a Hostess sampler, and 'Hark', if you will, into outer solar system orbit so that we never lose what we once had. Perhaps we could stow some vaccines on board, in case they're banned by some future idiocracy.

Dayumn. Had d 'lection gone de uthuh way, we coulda put dem black peepo in prison.

Fluid dynamics, brought to you by the Rescue Rooter guy.

I'll miss thee! The media narrative is that the (one week long) strike from those evil, selfish bakers KILLED HOSTESS. That Hostess executives massively jacked their own compensation, even in the face of reduced demand for their products, while slashing baker's pay by 8% is conveniently omitted in many news stories. Fuck a company's financial health over years with asset stripping, calcified policies, bonehead marketing, no innovation, and beak dipping executive compensation, and don't forget to blame lowest paid employees when the shit comes down.

And have that bowl full of incompetent, pompous, clueless assholes decide everything? Fuuuuuuuck that. The States have always been a our best hope for progress and reform. They can solve problems that the fed can't, won't, or isn't even aware of. The latest election in WA comes to mind. A healthy dose of local control, tempered by civil rights guarantees for all, seems like a good formula to me.

Well, here's where it gets interesting. If there is no majority (50+%), and it's not a tie (the House chooses between the two), then the House chooses the prez from among the top 5 runner ups: "The Person having the greatest Number of Votes shall be the President, if such Number be a Majority of the whole Number of Electors appointed; and if there be more than one who have such Majority, and have an equal Number of Votes, then the House of Representatives shall immediately chuse [sic] by Ballot one of them for President; and if no Person have a Majority, then from the five highest on the List the said House shall in like Manner chuse [sic] the President. But in chusing [sic] the President, the Votes shall be taken by States, the Representation from each State having one Vote; A quorum for this Purpose shall consist of a Member or Members from two thirds of the States, and a Majority of all the States shall be necessary to a Choice." So, the Constitution does (imperfectly) allow for a competitive 3...or 4, or 5, party election that does not involve a majority win - but the voters are kind of ushered out the door at that point. You can imagine the fun and games that would follow if this little know clause is ever put into practice. Perhaps characteristically, the framers misused the term 'majority' to describe a tie - perhaps conflating it with 'plurality' just that once - but then, they also authored the retard's stream of consciousness cone that is the 2nd Amendment, as well.

50,000 BC - The Sick Cave "Dog, I feel like shit today" "Really? I was run through by a mastodon so my clan left me here to starve" ................................."That sucks"

Bipolar/BPD ovah heuh!

The absolute simplest option is to do what NE and ME have already done - shitcan the winner takes all approach entirely at the state level and apportion electoral votes by district. This is still an imperfect system given the significant population changes that can occur between each 10 year census as compared to a popular vote. It would rectify the inordinate political power currently enjoyed by a few swing states, however.

Federal constitutionality is certainly in question and it would be challenged...nevermind the state level clusterfuck. Gregoire signed it - as a former AG I assume it went through at least a preliminary constitutional review. An analysis: A Constitutional Law Professor Weighs In "The constitutional foundation of NPVIC is Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution, which provides that states shall appoint electors "in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct." Advocates of the compact point out that the plain language of this text appears to provide legislators with plenary authority over the method of selecting electors, an interpretation endorsed by the US Supreme Court more than a century ago in McPherson v. Blacker in 1892 and again in 1969, Williams v. Virginia Board of Elections. Like all provisions of the Constitution, however, this section must be read in context and in conjunction with other provisions of the Constitution. The principal constitutional impediment to NPVIC probably is the so-called "Compact Clause" in Article I, Section 10 of the Constitution, which provides that "No State shall, without the Consent of Congress ... enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State." Although the US Supreme Court has concluded that the Compact Clause does not require Congress to consent to compacts that affect only the internal affairs of the compacting states, it has indicated in US Steel Corporation v. Multistate Tax Commission that the Compact Clause requires Congress to consent to an agreement that "would enhance the political power of the member States in a way that encroaches upon the supremacy of the United States," or "impairs the sovereign rights of non-member states." There's more in the article.

The GOP opposes any change to the current electoral college system, presumably because: 1) The electoral college was created so conservative slave owners would garner more representation, their black charges equaling 1/3 of a person. The link between modern conservatism and the movement of that time remains unbroken, if somewhat altered, based on the striking similarity of both rhetoric and political maps. 2) The national popular vote difficult to game. The GOP has been involved in various forms of voter suppression from the very beginning. Such programs, whether illegal (poll watchers telling blacks they've got to pay their rent before voting - OH, 2000) or 'legal' - the new voter ID requirements that accept IDs from groups that typically vote conservative - concealed weapons licenses, but deny IDs from groups that do not - student IDs. 3) Registered Democrats have outnumbered Rs in recent times: there. Ltards, Rfucks, Loons since 1990 Interestingly, the growth in independents indicates that a 3rd party is possible, but building that infrastructure and herding those cats would be no small task.

Or eight tracks. Those were so fkn kewl.

No, diagnosis rates haven't gone up more than 10 fold. The increase is due to better diagnosis. States with vigorous programs have higher autism rates. "What we're looking at is mostly due to practices and infrastructure and culture rather than some underlying biological phenomenon," said Dr. Daniel Geschwind, an autism expert at UCLA, explaining the patterns." FYI: there aren't more extra solar planets than there were 20 years ago, either, so that rules that out as a cause for autism.

I suspected the GOP Platform might oppose vote by mail (because it prevents voter suppression - their favorite game and provides the greatest access to all voters - not good for a party that's chronically outnumbered) and lo, it does: "States or political subdivisions that use all-mail elections cannot ensure the integrity of the ballot."

One more reason to support it: "We oppose the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact or any other scheme to abolish or distort the procedures of the Electoral College. We recognize that an unconstitutional effort to impose “national popular vote” would be a mortal threat to our federal system and a guarantee of corruption as every ballot box in every state would become a chance to steal the presidency." 2012 GOP Platform Watch out for those evil ballot boxes! Voter suppression, anyone?