I agree. Even if you don't agree with a lot of what Obama did, his policies didn't do much to the daily lives of other people, except to prevent discriminatory policies. Allowing a transgendered person to use whatever bathroom they choose has no effect on anyone but the trans person. Taking away that right, or "leaving it to the states" still has no effect on a non-trans person, yet could repeal that safety measure for a trans person because trans people make them feel icky. It's weird that they are so obsessed with people going to the bathroom. All the protection does is allow trans people to be left alone and free of discrimination.
I'm curious how states like Colorado and Washington, who've already seen the very real revenue from legalization of marijuana, are going to fight the pressure from the Feds. I can't see this state just letting go of the tax dollars without a fight.
The point is his policies created confusion between states and the Fed. Policies are not only not laws, he enacted policies that contradicted them based on his own views, which was stupid. States passed laws based on those policies, knowing they went against federal law. Any other administration will have its own policies, including a potential literal enforcement of the law, which is the job of the executive branch in the first place. Interpretation is for the Judiciary. So now states want to be able to have those rights they passed in those laws, when they really should not have had since they are already in violation of federal law. But Obama not doing his job in that regard created a mini-constitutional issue around it. I'm for marijuana legalization, but this was never not going to happen. Trump or no Trump.
It could be a case that goes to the supreme court, who could rule either way. Yes, it's against federal law, but I wouldn't be surprised at all if they cited the 10th amendment and wrote a ruling that prevented a crack down. That said I don't think it's for certain that he's going to go after recreational marijuana in the 8 states that legalized it. Spicer didn't specifically say that, he implied that it was a possibility.
http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/321049-white-house-hand-picks-select-media-for-briefing CNN, NYT, LA Times, BBC, Buzzfeed, NYDN, The Hill, Politico blocked from attending a Sean Spicer "gaggle" (apparently an un-televised press briefing essentially). AP and Time boycotted in solidarity. If there's a silver lining to this, it's that the press had become overly complacent about relying on "access" for stories, going back at least through the Obama and Bush years, and we are starting to see the rebirth of actual journalism where they have to go digging for stories the administration doesn't want them to know.
Obama showed favoritism to liberal outlets and his press secretary screened questions before the conferences. It's not like this administration has flat out refused to do interviews with liberal leaning outlets or barred them from every conference. Obama didn't shy away from criticism of the press either, although Trump has certainly taken that to a whole other level with twitter rants.
So this has been going on nearly 4 months now and the intelligence committee has no evidence of a connection between the Trump campaign and the Russian government. They've had the CIA/FBI following every lead, even that ridiculous piss tape dossier. Now, they want to appoint a special prosecutor. Based on what, exactly? Do the special prosecutor if they must, but after a point this is starting to look more like harassment to play up conspiracy theories. Good to see Michael Moore is on the job. He has a history of this...
Don't quote Moore as anything other than an egotistical blowhard looking to get publicity. But seriously... have you forgotten about Flynn's resignation over his contacts with Russia? He was one of many that finally admitted to having contact/discussions with Russia after stating that they did not. Some of the timings of those discussions are worth investigating, and they are discussing appointing a special prosecutor to look into that. Even the Republicans are divided on that, when you'd expect all of them to toe the party line of "no".
The Flynn resignation was based on a violation of the Logan act. It was about the timing rather than proof a nefarious connection. Obviously the administration is going to be discussing sanctions and relations with foreign governments. Is the implication supposed to be that he's a Russian traitor too(he's a career military general by the way)? I mean, appoint the special prosecutor if they have to, and call me naive, but it's starting to look a little ridiculous to me.
Doubtful - Im not sure how many indictments there have been for Logan Act violations, but has there ever been anyone convicted for it? I thought the issue was that he lied to Pence about it, not necessarily that he did anything illegal (ethical wrongdoing aside), and he was cleared by the FBI.
I don't know, maybe I'm giving him too much benefit of the doubt. The Flynn call was quite some time ago, and they didn't release the tapes of it. The intelligence committee recommended against a special prosecutor, and I'm paraphrasing, but they basically said you need evidence of something to prosecute first. My thinking is that recommendation would have been quite different if the tapes contained what those calling for impeachment want them to contain. The Logan Act is virtually never enforced, but my understanding is that they can indict on it, and then he lied/then resigned to avoid a maelstrom for the incoming administration. Appoint the special prosecutor if it puts this to bed, but in my opinion there hasn't been much to go on. My guess is the next thing is they'll find out is that he has past investments in Russia, like he does in China and a couple dozen other countries, and that'll drag out for another 3 months. Then, the other part of this is that it goes back to the question in the first place, which is rather Russian involvement actually decided the election, which I really doubt. The story would be that he risked his whole presidency (with the added possibility of serious jail time) for some reddit fake news and having Russia release DNC e-mails. Which again, not impossible, but the whole narrative just seems unlikely.
The House investigating Trump's Russia ties is only slightly more thorough than an 8 year old turning over a single couch cushion while looking for the TV remote and then giving up and declaring "someone must have stolen it!"
There's plenty of dems who sit on the committee so if something earth shattering comes out, we'll hear about it. And they don't do the investigation. The intelligence community does that.
Net Neutrality is about to be Net Stark'd Why is it always the "pro-business" "free market" "adults in the room" conservatives who have the least understanding of how markets operate? There is no such thing as a free lunch.
I think it'll be hilarious to watch people get hit with the fallout from abolishing Net Neutrality. The US will now suffer the effects of ISP monopolies and greed. If people think that their current cable bill is hard to figure out, then they're in for a bit of a shock.
People are generally so short sighted and ignorant on this issue that they will support rolling it back, if only because the politicians on their "side" are either for it or against it. And then when Netflix becomes more expensive or their cable provider starts charging them more if they use it. Or HBOGo or HBONow or whatever. People from all political ideologies use that stuff. But as usual, when it comes to the far right, the philosophy is "fuck you, until it happens to me".
I hate how vague this administration is in their statements. That article didn't actually say much of anything. It could mean that we're looking at a California electricity crisis level of fuckery, or it could mean they're taking measures to scale back price discrimination by providers, which would be a good thing.