Topic: Obama La Douce

President Obama’s political team is fanning out across the country in pursuit of an ambitious goal: raising $50 million to convert his re-election campaign into a powerhouse national advocacy network, a sum that would rank the new group as one of Washington’s biggest lobbying operations.
Enlarge This Image

Doug Mills/The New York Times
President Obama has said that his public campaign against Republicans is not producing results.
Enlarge This Image

Suzanne DeChillo/The New York Times
Advocates of efforts to curb violence, a priority of President Obama, in Manhattan on Friday.
Readers’ Comments
Readers shared their thoughts on this article.
Read All Comments (383) »
But the rebooted campaign, known as Organizing for Action, has plunged the president and his aides into a campaign finance limbo with few clear rules, ample potential for influence-peddling, and no real precedent in national politics.

In private meetings and phone calls, Mr. Obama’s aides have made clear that the new organization will rely heavily on a small number of deep-pocketed donors, not unlike the “super PACs” whose influence on political campaigns Mr. Obama once deplored.

At least half of the group’s budget will come from a select group of donors who will each contribute or raise $500,000 or more, according to donors and strategists involved in the effort.

Unlike a presidential campaign, Organizing for Action has been set up as a tax-exempt “social welfare group.” That means it is not bound by federal contribution limits, laws that bar White House officials from soliciting contributions, or the stringent reporting requirements for campaigns. In their place, the new group will self-regulate.

Officials said it would voluntarily disclose the names of large donors every few months and would not ask administration personnel to solicit money, though Obama aides will probably appear at some events.

The money will pay for salaries, rent and advertising, and will also be used to maintain the expensive voter database and technological infrastructure that knits together Mr. Obama’s 2 million volunteers, 17 million e-mail subscribers and 22 million Twitter followers.

The goal is to harness those resources in support of Mr. Obama’s second-term policy priorities, including efforts to curb gun violence and climate change and overhaul immigration procedures. Those efforts began Friday, when thousands of Obama supporters were deployed through more than 80 Congressional districts around the country to rally outside lawmakers’ offices, hold vigils and bombard Congress with e-mails and phone calls urging members to support stricter background checks for gun buyers.

“There are wins we can have on guns and immigration,” Jon Carson, the group’s new executive director, told prospective donors on a conference call on Wednesday, according to people who participated. “We have to change the conventional wisdom on those issues.”

But those contributions will also translate into access, according to donors courted by the president’s aides. Next month, Organizing for Action will hold a “founders summit” at a hotel near the White House, where donors paying $50,000 each will mingle with Mr. Obama’s former campaign manager, Jim Messina, and Mr. Carson, who previously led the White House Office of Public Engagement.

Giving or raising $500,000 or more puts donors on a national advisory board for Mr. Obama’s group and the privilege of attending quarterly meetings with the president, along with other meetings at the White House. Moreover, the new cash demands on Mr. Obama’s top donors and bundlers come as many of them are angling for appointments to administration jobs or ambassadorships.

“It just smells,” said Bob Edgar, the president of Common Cause, which advocates tighter regulation of campaign money. “The president is setting a very bad model setting up this organization.”

Mr. Obama’s new organization has drawn rebukes in recent days from watchdog groups, which view it as another step away from the tighter campaign regulation Mr. Obama once championed. Over the past two years, he has reversed course on several campaign finance issues, by blessing a super PAC created by former aides and accepting large corporate contributions for his second inauguration.

Many traditional advocacy organizations, including the Sierra Club and the National Rifle Association, are set up as social welfare groups, or 501(c)(4)’s in tax parlance. But unlike those groups, Organizing for Action appears to be an extension of the administration, stocked with alumni of Mr. Obama’s White House and campaign teams and devoted solely to the president’s second-term agenda.

Robert K. Kelner, a Republican election lawyer who works with other outside groups, said the arrangement “presents a rather simple loophole in the otherwise incredibly complex web of government ethics regulations that are intended to insulate government officials from outside influence.”

The closest precedents for Organizing for Action exist at the state level. In New Jersey, a 501(c)(4) called the Committee for Our Children’s Future, set up by friends of Gov. Chris Christie, has run hundreds of thousands of dollars’ worth of advertising praising Mr. Christie’s proposals.
Readers’ Comments
Readers shared their thoughts on this article.
Read All Comments (383) »
In New York, Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo encouraged the formation of a nonprofit group, the Committee to Save New York, that is run by business leaders allied with him, and it has raised millions of dollars from corporations, private sector unions, and individuals. The group supported Mr. Cuomo’s agenda — but it also thrust him into controversy when The New York Times revealed that gambling interests poured $2 million into the group as Mr. Cuomo was developing a proposal to expand casino gambling.

Organizing for Action said it would accept unlimited personal and corporate contributions, but no money from political action committees, lobbyists or foreign citizens. Officials said they would focus — for now — on grass-roots organizing, amplified by Internet advertising. Friday’s “day of action” involved half a million dollars’ worth of targeted Internet ads and events in Florida, Maine, Pennsylvania and California, among other states.

“O.F.A.’s first day of action was about bringing the issue of closing background-check loopholes into communities across the country that feel very strongly about supporting the president’s plan to reduce gun violence,” said Katie Hogan, a spokeswoman for the group.

Organizing for Action has also promised to steer clear of electoral politics, unlike the politically active nonprofit groups like the right-leaning Crossroads Grassroots Policy Strategies and Americans for Prosperity. Such groups spent hundreds of millions of dollars on advertising during the recent election campaign season, ostensibly for issue advocacy, spurring a wave of lawsuits, ethics complaints from campaign watchdogs and criticism from Mr. Obama himself.

But the distinction between campaigning and issue advocacy may be hard for Organizing for Action to maintain in the prelude to the 2014 elections, especially if it continues its emphasis on pressing lawmakers on delicate issues like immigration and guns.

In Wednesday’s conference call, Mr. Carson said the group hoped to form partnerships with other 501(c)(4) groups on the left, including America Votes, which was at the center of Democratic efforts to defeat President George W. Bush in 2004 and now serves as a coordinator for progressive advocacy organizations. He also said Organizing for Action wanted to be a counterweight to grass-roots organizations on the right, like the N.R.A., according to people who took part in the call.

There should be “as much of a price to pay if you tick off the gun violence people” as there is for angering the N.R.A., Mr. Carson said, according to those people. “Let’s build an organization that means that Republicans are embarrassed to have climate change deniers running for office.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/23/us/politics/obamas-backers-seek-deep-pockets-to-press-agenda.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1

The core joke of Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy is that of course no civilization would develop personal computers with instant remote database recovery, and then waste this technology to find good drinks.
Steve Jobs has ruined this joke.

Re: Obama La Douce

I approve.  It's a positive development.

Mainly because Barack Obama doesn't hold scheduled meetings.  His full Cabinet hasn't sat for over a year.  He didn't meet with the Jobs Council for nearly that long.

Here he is, offering the unique consideration of a direct meet with buyers, and setting a monetary value on that meeting.

That's enough so that, when he doesn't meet with them every 90 days, he's in breach of contract.

Yeah its a can of worms.  But I can either bitch and moan, or make it a us/them political issue, or let him get sued by Mr. I.M. Chicom for performance in federal court, and let everybody figure out that ain't where we want to be as a country.

Cause that is more likely than any kind of impeachment.

The core joke of Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy is that of course no civilization would develop personal computers with instant remote database recovery, and then waste this technology to find good drinks.
Steve Jobs has ruined this joke.

Re: Obama La Douce

Social welfare group, ie group dedicated to electing authoritarian overlords who claim to be communist and try to sell communism to suckers who have no ambitions to ever be productive, make anything of themselves, or give back anything to the society which supports them through social welfare! That's cute.

I hope the Libertarian party doesn't get co-opted by globalists. Then I'll have no one to support and voice support for. Our country is already doomed to collapse; I'd like to at least have an opposition to idiocy to support.

[I wish I could obey forum rules]

Re: Obama La Douce

Howabout you guys quit co-opting successful Conservative movements so we can end this shit?

Everything bad in the economy is now Obama's fault. Every job lost, all the debt, all the lost retirement funds. All Obama. Are you happy now? We all get to blame Obama!
Kemp currently not being responded to until he makes CONCISE posts.
Avogardo and Noir ignored by me for life so people know why I do not respond to them. (Informational)

Re: Obama La Douce

> Einstein wrote:

> Howabout you guys quit co-opting successful Conservative movements so we can end this shit?

Wish I had a thumbs up button on this forum smile
I feel this forum is becoming a free propaganda instrument.

Re: Obama La Douce

Vague and meaningless as always. Ohnoes, "you guys" co-opted unspecified "Conservative" movements!

[I wish I could obey forum rules]

Re: Obama La Douce

Hot Air closed to new posters due to an attempted co-opt by Libertarians
Michelle Malkin the same
Red State had to declare moderator war on Libertarians to get their website safe from an attempt.
The Tea Party was not a Libertarian movement but boy do the Libertarians try to take it over.
Three of my meetup groups, started by Conservatives, killed quickly by Libertarians
Ross Perot and his effort crushed by Libertarians seizing it for their own.


There can be no successful 3rd party Conservative movement because Libertarians will choke it during its birth and try to take its place and find no one will vote for them. They think if they can take over anything successful of ours that they will be successful. Sad truth is only 1% are Libertarians, 40% are Conservatives. If Libertarians wanted a huge shift to the right they would stfu, leave C8nservatives to do our thing, and quit stealing our movements.

Everything bad in the economy is now Obama's fault. Every job lost, all the debt, all the lost retirement funds. All Obama. Are you happy now? We all get to blame Obama!
Kemp currently not being responded to until he makes CONCISE posts.
Avogardo and Noir ignored by me for life so people know why I do not respond to them. (Informational)

Re: Obama La Douce

Hot Air was always closed except for sporadic bursts of perestroika.  It's because they're control freaks who autoedit words like "revolution".

Things to stop your group from becoming Libertarian:

Open each meeting with a prayer
Sell "clean" brownies outside medical marijuana clinics
Have a big photo op where you give the sales money in the form of a six-foot check to the DEA

The core joke of Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy is that of course no civilization would develop personal computers with instant remote database recovery, and then waste this technology to find good drinks.
Steve Jobs has ruined this joke.

Re: Obama La Douce

You seem confused, Einstein.

If groups like the Tea Party are more Conservative than Libertarian, shouldn't it be evident from their ideals?

The Tea Party stands for limited government and less taxation. Why wouldn't they welcome Libertarian supporters? Libertarians agree with them 100% on the ideals that define them. It's "Conservatives" who've been co-opted and don't stand for what they claim to.

Nobody is rushing to support bedroom police fear-mongering Conservatives who think marijuana is a plant with DNA coded by the devil. Those Conservatives you claim 40% support for don't win anywhere but the most homogeneously Republican areas of the country.

You're just whining that a majority don't support your Conservative candidates. And you're whining that Libertarians get less votes than Conservatives, so they're clearly inferior intellectually.

You cannot grasp that number of votes from ignorant sheep doesn't equate with superior values--something which really irks you because Democrats are getting more votes than "Conservatives". You want to claim that Conservatism is clearly superior to Libertarianism because it gets more votes, while at the same time ignoring the fact that Socialists are getting more votes than either right now.

You cannot grasp that there's more to politics than "left" and "right." It's beyond you that most people's views on abortion aren't inherently tied to their positions on redistribution of wealth, a failed drug war, homosexuals' rights, etc.

[I wish I could obey forum rules]

Re: Obama La Douce

1%
40%

Everything bad in the economy is now Obama's fault. Every job lost, all the debt, all the lost retirement funds. All Obama. Are you happy now? We all get to blame Obama!
Kemp currently not being responded to until he makes CONCISE posts.
Avogardo and Noir ignored by me for life so people know why I do not respond to them. (Informational)

Re: Obama La Douce

60%
40%

??

"Sticks and stones may break my bones, but i am Jesus"
"Nothing is worse than a fully prepared fool"

Re: Obama La Douce

40% Conservative, 20% Liberal, 1% Socialist, 1% Libertarian, rest Moderate.

The make up of United States

Everything bad in the economy is now Obama's fault. Every job lost, all the debt, all the lost retirement funds. All Obama. Are you happy now? We all get to blame Obama!
Kemp currently not being responded to until he makes CONCISE posts.
Avogardo and Noir ignored by me for life so people know why I do not respond to them. (Informational)

13 (edited by V. Kemp 27-Feb-2013 22:31:44)

Re: Obama La Douce

Obviously an idiotic oversimplification--aka completely wrong--since we have globalist authoritarian majorities in all branches of government, and have for decades.

You claim "Conservatives" in superior numbers to any other group, yet government has never shrank. Bush raped the fourth amendment. Obama agrees 100% with Bush on this topic! I guess Obama's a Conservative, in your view. Obama can kill American citizens without due process of law... Guess that takes care of the fifth amendment too. So, Conservatives are against law and order? Because you're claiming such a Conservative nation, yet supposedly "Conservative" positions are represented absolutely no where in leadership or law in this country.

40% "Conservative," 51% voted for Obama. By your logic, you must accept Obama as holding a superior position to yours.

[I wish I could obey forum rules]

Re: Obama La Douce

"You're just whining that a majority don't support your Conservative candidates. "

Actually he's whining that your crew seeps into outfits that aren't socially liberal and then starts agitating about gay marriage and drug legalization.  At which point the only viable option is to kill that organization.  Eg, CPAC, and the GOP.

" Bush raped the fourth amendment. Obama agrees 100% with Bush on this topic! I guess Obama's a Conservative, in your view. Obama can kill American citizens without due process of law... Guess that takes care of the fifth amendment too. So, Conservatives are against law and order? Because you're claiming such a Conservative nation, yet supposedly "Conservative" positions are represented absolutely no where in leadership or law in this country."

Wartime combatants have no right to due process in combat.  Don't like that, end the war.

" You want to claim that Conservatism is clearly superior to Libertarianism because it gets more votes, while at the same time ignoring the fact that Socialists are getting more votes than either right now."

Not me.  I'm superior to Libertarians because they want gay buttsex while pirating Thai child pron while under the influence of the waccy tobaccy.  If Abraham Lincoln was debating Buddha at CPAC and the Green Cross Adult Cinema Booth offered a happy hour special, we know where libertarians would be.

The core joke of Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy is that of course no civilization would develop personal computers with instant remote database recovery, and then waste this technology to find good drinks.
Steve Jobs has ruined this joke.

Re: Obama La Douce

Yeah I remember the vote buying by Ron Paulbots.

If we win every popularity contest the Conservatives and Republicans hold it means we are popular amirite? No it menas your so desiring attention, so needing to sound like you are important, so distraught over the truth that no one likes you, that you need to fraud the vote with bought votes, to stuff ballots, to throw yourself where you are not wanted in a vain attempt to "make people understand"


None of this works because your ideals are exwctly what we reject. To us you are the crack jead, tin foil hat, Jew hating, chest thumping, knuckle dragging, deluded, brainwashed indivisuals who would do more harm than good.

Everything bad in the economy is now Obama's fault. Every job lost, all the debt, all the lost retirement funds. All Obama. Are you happy now? We all get to blame Obama!
Kemp currently not being responded to until he makes CONCISE posts.
Avogardo and Noir ignored by me for life so people know why I do not respond to them. (Informational)

Re: Obama La Douce

The Yell,

Those organizations hold contrary views to those of Libertarians. If Libertarians take support away from those organizations, it's because those organizations don't represent people's views as well as Libertarians.

Everybody loves democracy until their candidate loses the support of the people.

There is no declared war. Political rhetoric has no place in law.

And, as usual, attacks on Libertarians like they're all potheads, because you're not happy with the fact that legislation doesn't stop anyone from being gay, and a majority of Americans have smoked pot and millions still do.



Einstein,

You're just happy to support whoever you're given by the Republican establishment. You're too insecure to operate without their approval.

You don't know anything about Ron Paul or Libertarian ideas. It's embarrassing for you to even whine about them, given your abject failure to even state disagreement with a single Libertarian value or position. Ron Paul mobilized a lot of support in some states, where you didn't "want," him, and that says anything about him and his positions? Flawless logic.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YXlWiTPn7pQ&sns=fb
("This video outlines how the media, government and the whole establishment, killed the Ron Paul revolution....")

[I wish I could obey forum rules]

Re: Obama La Douce

>>Those organizations hold contrary views to those of Libertarians. If Libertarians take support away from those organizations, it's because those organizations don't represent people's views as well as Libertarians.<<

There's "taking away support" and there's joining the Chess Club and demanding it switch to golf.

Agitating for conservative organizations to adopt the libertarian agenda is undemocratic.  The freedom of assembly is exclusive as well as inclusive.

>>There is no declared war. Political rhetoric has no place in law.<<

Yes there is.  On Al Qaeda.  It's a formal enemy of the United States (unlike the Soviet Union) and military force against it was authorized by Congress as per the War Powers Act.


>>And, as usual, attacks on Libertarians like they're all potheads, because you're not happy with the fact that legislation doesn't stop anyone from being gay, and a majority of Americans have smoked pot and millions still do.<<

Gee, I somehow lump all libertarians as potheads even though you brought up the War on Drugs in every post and wish to emphasize how popular toking is.  But you're not a pothead.  How dare I.  Maybe I should relax somehow, huh?

The core joke of Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy is that of course no civilization would develop personal computers with instant remote database recovery, and then waste this technology to find good drinks.
Steve Jobs has ruined this joke.

Re: Obama La Douce

Which organizations have they "joined"? Sounds like those organizations needed better charters. And if Libertarian members' votes have so much sway, the organizations clearly didn't have very many "Conservative" members to begin with.

You're talking about relatively insignificant organizations, and organizations which would obviously be even more insignificant without Libertarian support which you're claiming is such a large portion of their members that it directs action.

Yes, of course Congress and all of government supports the false flags that get the sheep to give up their rights. It's still not a declared war; you're confusing political rhetoric with law. Congress hasn't declared war on anyone; there's no nation to declare war on (they give billions to nations they should consider action against). That they've authorized all kinds of junk and ignore standing law does not equate with a declaration of war.

I was pointing out that the majority of the American people do not agree with the position you espouse and claim a large portion of Americans agree with. You and Einstein keep pretending Americans are as terrified as weed as you ignorantly are. They're clearly not.

[I wish I could obey forum rules]

Re: Obama La Douce

http://ronpaulexposed.wordpress.com/

Everything bad in the economy is now Obama's fault. Every job lost, all the debt, all the lost retirement funds. All Obama. Are you happy now? We all get to blame Obama!
Kemp currently not being responded to until he makes CONCISE posts.
Avogardo and Noir ignored by me for life so people know why I do not respond to them. (Informational)

20 (edited by V. Kemp 28-Feb-2013 16:34:21)

Re: Obama La Douce

Yes, clearly if he focuses a little more on people he can actually compete with (to allow him to gain ranking as well as votes), he's a "tard."

Paul is trying to work within the Republican party to save this nation from a total government, monetary, and economic collapse. You're angrily supporting the status quo, because you don't understand the math behind our impending financial ruin and you, frankly, just don't care.

Regardless of politics, Paul consistently voices concern for our unsustainable spending. He talks about what needs to be talked about--something neither mainstream Republicans nor Democrats do. Regardless of politics and his relationships with other Republicans (who, in my humble opinion, are corrupt trash ruining our nation), by comparison he's leagues ahead of anyone you could compare him to.

He's shedding light on the most crucial issues of our day. Romney isn't. Obama isn't. I want to minimize the damage of the coming collapse and make the best future I can for my family. What Paul has consistently advocated for would do that. What Romney and Obama would do wouldn't do that. By all real measures, Paul is far superior.

Complain about his accepting appropriations after lawmakers have already decided to spend money all you want, he's still better than the rest. Complain about his campaign strategy and personal relationships all you want, he's still better than the rest. And he's not shy in voicing his desire for a government that looks very different from the one Romney would have chosen.

[I wish I could obey forum rules]

21 (edited by You_Fool 28-Feb-2013 21:14:05)

Re: Obama La Douce

because you don't understand  math [snip] and you, frankly, just don't care.


Fixed it for you Kemp....




Edit: Thanks Kemp for keeping me at the top of my game....

"Sticks and stones may break my bones, but i am Jesus"
"Nothing is worse than a fully prepared fool"

Re: Obama La Douce

Shouldn't you have snipped the "the" as well?

Jeeze. Take pride in your craft. Do it right. Make it remotely clever or entertaining!

[I wish I could obey forum rules]

Re: Obama La Douce

>>Which organizations have they "joined"? <<

CONSERVATIVE Political Action Committee
and the REPUBLICAN party, and outfit dedicated to preventing LIBERTARIAN Party candidates from getting employment

>>Sounds like those organizations needed better charters. And if Libertarian members' votes have so much sway, the organizations clearly didn't have very many "Conservative" members to begin with.<<

So what? Get out.


You're talking about relatively insignificant organizations, and organizations which would obviously be even more insignificant without Libertarian support which you're claiming is such a large portion of their members that it directs action.<<

So what? Get out.


>>Yes, of course Congress and all of government supports the false flags that get the sheep to give up their rights. It's still not a declared war; you're confusing political rhetoric with law. Congress hasn't declared war on anyone; there's no nation to declare war on (they give billions to nations they should consider action against). That they've authorized all kinds of junk and ignore standing law does not equate with a declaration of war.<<

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This joint resolution may be cited as the ‘‘Authorization for
Use of Military Force’’.
SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.
(a) IN GENERAL.—That the President is authorized to use all
necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed,
or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001,
or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent
any future acts of international terrorism against the United States
by such nations, organizations or persons.
(b) WAR POWERS RESOLUTION REQUIREMENTS.—
(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION.—Consistent with
section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress
declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.

War Powers Act
(a) Congressional declaration
It is the purpose of this chapter to fulfill the intent of the framers of the Constitution of the United States and insure that the collective judgment of both the Congress and the President will apply to the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, and to the continued use of such forces in hostilities or in such situations.
(b) Congressional legislative power under necessary and proper clause
Under article I, section 8, of the Constitution, it is specifically provided that the Congress shall have the power to make all laws necessary and proper for carrying into execution, not only its own powers but also all other powers vested by the Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any department or officer hereof.
(c) Presidential executive power as Commander-in-Chief; limitation
The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to
(1) a declaration of war,
(2) specific statutory authorization, or
(3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.

....(a) Inferences from any law or treaty
Authority to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into situations wherein involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances shall not be inferred—
(1) from any provision of law (whether or not in effect before November 7, 1973), including any provision contained in any appropriation Act, unless such provision specifically authorizes the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into such situations and states that it is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of this chapter[.]

The idea that there is no war unless it's declared on your terms against an organized state is your own personal opinion and not the law.  I'm with Thomas Jefferson--maybe you heard of him?  Uppity ragheads with pointy sticks in large numbers are suitable targets for the Marines.


>> You and Einstein keep pretending Americans are as terrified as weed as you ignorantly are. They're clearly not.<<

Sure, that's why its a) still illegal and b) cause for rightful termination in 50 states.

The core joke of Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy is that of course no civilization would develop personal computers with instant remote database recovery, and then waste this technology to find good drinks.
Steve Jobs has ruined this joke.

Re: Obama La Douce

Sorry, Kemp you are right.... my standards are slipping....

"Sticks and stones may break my bones, but i am Jesus"
"Nothing is worse than a fully prepared fool"

25 (edited by V. Kemp 28-Feb-2013 22:00:19)

Re: Obama La Douce

I'm sorry that many Libertarian-leaning candidates have been preventing the Republican party from achieving complete irrelevancy as quickly as it would have without them. I agree with you that they should have abandoned its dying carcass much sooner than many have; the corrupt Republican garbage you've been electing for decades has been damaging the reputations of these Libertarian-leaning candidates.

The damage your party has done to these candidates continues to harm America today, as these noble, principled candidates are grouped by the general public with the globalist, authoritarian trash you've voted for all your life.

"War" in general terms and one declared by Congress aren't legally the same thing. That's the only distinction I was making. Obviously if the President legally blows up 200 people at a wedding in Yemen because there was a target there, you can call it "war." It's government enacted violence. Congress has made it legal. I was merely pointing out that it's a part of tyranny that sheep have enabled their Congressmen to grant to the president, and it's not the same thing as a war declared by Congress.

Marijuana is still illegal because ignorant sheep aren't aware of its 100% racist and cronyism origins, nor its actual effects on human beings. It's being legalized in more areas and support for legalization grows every year because enough sheeple are slowly being exposed to the truth. It was made illegal because it was the drug of choice of black people and Mexican immigrants. It was made illegal because it was competition for tobacco growers. It was made illegal because hemp is healthy and useful for all kinds of products--additional competition for cotton farmers and various chemical manufacturers.

None of these reasons is logical or just. They're all racist and/or monopoly/cronism driven. And they're all fueled by ignorance and fear of the unknown. Not exactly the most admirable bases for a position.

I have no problem with rightful termination based on marijuana usage, just as I don't for tobacco smoking or alcohol drinking. I do have a problem with the logic that this has anything to do with the corrupt origins of marijuana bans or the illogical continuance of those bans. Because it doesn't.

[I wish I could obey forum rules]