Biden / Harris Focused Discussion

[Machismo]

What a fucking asinine side to take... "you didn't put a space therefore you can't spell it." is foolish... and also is literally a fallacious argument. The ability to spell a word or pronounce a word isn't important to the substance of an argument.

"Is there a space or not?" doesn't somehow negate everything lmao... why so cranky?

Also being told that I spelt something wrong for not putting a space and should shut up... that's rich coming from a person who doesn't understand the word about.

- - - Updated - - -



What does this have to do with the fact that in effect state laws surpass the federal ones when the government decides to not interfere? That's just a fact yes?

it doesn't surpass it, it's simply not enforced....

Jesus.

That's like saying I beat you in a race you were never in.

And, what does this have to do with security clearances being denied?

[Themius]

It was obvious he was referring to Trump supporters. You are the one who must be new here?

You know he went on to then attack bernie supporters... and the way he has defined "bernie bros" in the past basically means everyone who supported him... so whenever he says things like that...i have no clue who they're including. Felya foolishly decided it's a large part of the left for some reasons, proving that the sentiment I was suspicious of indeed exsists and I am trying to find out on which side the person I quoted fell on... given their past.

- - - Updated - - -

it doesn't surpass it, it's simply not enforced....

Jesus.

That's like saying I beat you in a race you were never in.

And, what does this have to do with security clearances being denied?

under all this is "in that specific state"

"In new jersey, the state laws that makes marijuana is legal in effect surpass the federal ones saying it isn't legal, as the federal government has taken a stance of doing nothing against the state or its peoples for marijuana."<<<<< do you disagree with this statement? On what grounds.

[PACOX]

When Trump was more lax on weed than a liberal...

Just because someone you support did something asinine mean you have to support it or remove that person from your life because you don't agree...

[Machismo]

You know he went on to then attack bernie supporters... and the way he has defined "bernie bros" in the past basically means everyone who supported him...

- - - Updated - - -




under all this is "in that specific state"

"In new jersey, the state laws that makes marijuana is legal in effect surpass the federal ones saying it isn't legal, as the federal government has taken a stance of doing nothing against the state or its peoples for marijuana."<<<<< do you disagree with this statement? On what grounds.

This isn't New jersey, this is the federal government on federal property.

If fucking goats was legal in Uzbekistan ( I will not research the veracity of such things), they could still hold it against people for fucking goats.

This has absolutely fuck all to do with any state laws.

- - - Updated - - -

When Trump was more lax on weed than a liberal...

He wasn't, which is the lie that is being perpetrated.

The Biden White House actually loosened restrictions.

[PhaelixWW]

"can and will" is not the same as "have, and doing to in growing numbers"

Are we already forgetting the release by Obama's administration specifically taking a stance of non-interference on this?

As I said, I worked with these kinds of issues, and your position here is pure bullshit. I've literally witnessed it first-hand.

The Cole Memorandum cited a lack of resources as the reason for the guidance, not "generally respecting states' laws". And it simply narrows the scope of the enforcement that they will focus on, not eliminate it entirely.

I honestly don't know how you can turn "we're not able/willing to go to the mattresses over this" to "we respect your laws".

You're just flat-out wrong on this, and it's sad that you're unwilling to just admit it.

[Endus]

Not to get too serious here, but clearly not everyone understands how drug use relates to security clearance. The intent is not to regulate people's consumption out of fear that someone might get high or drunk and fuck a Chinese spy. As with most things security clearance, the main concern is blackmail/leverage, as in someone finds out about your drug use and threatens to expose you to the government which would CLEARLY NOW cause you to lose your job.

Hopefully you don't need Rachel Maddow to explain to you that this is not only regressive politically, but actually counterproductive to the very concept of national security as now Biden staffers are unusually susceptible to exactly such blackmail, over weed..

I mean, I think you've got the facts here right, and then you draw exactly the wrong conclusion.

The facts, roughly, are as follows;
Some aides smoke pot, a violation of federal law, while working in the White House, a federal institution.
They were asked if they did or not. Those who said they did were denied security clearances and/or fired.
Admitting to using a controlled substance illegally is the kind of thing that will generally fail you out of a security clearance, all by itself. Even an abuse problem with a legal substance, like alcohol, can be sufficient to deny you.
The reason for this is that, even if the use doesn't impair you (a separate consideration completely), it creates an ability for you to be pressured or tempted to violate ethical standards, and demonstrates a willingness on your part to break such kinds of rules in the first place.

I'm 100% pro-legalization. I live in a country where it's legal, and despite not being a pot user, I'm planning on picking up some gummies at my local dispensary in the near future; I want to try them out for medical reasons. I may snag some high-THC ones too for fun reasons. I say this to be super clear that what I'm about to say has fuck-all to do with marijuana.

You can't have people working at the White House who are using marijuana. It's illegal, federally. It doesn't matter if it would be legal somewhere else, what matters is federal law. It's grounds for firing them. The clemency they should be offered for their honesty is a lack of federal charges, not continued employment. And the latter could only really happen if they were willing to accept repeated, constant drug testing moving forward, on like a biweekly basis, for a super long time. Like 6 months to a year, minimum. Which is probably cost-prohibitive to boot.

The White House's hands are kind of tied until federal law changes. And outing these folks and removing them protects the White House and its security. They shouldn't have been in those positions in the first place, and they must have lied on some official form somewhere to do so.

The "solution" is to push to legalize nationally. Short of that, they really don't have an alternative to something like this.

[Themius]

You said leftists earlier, now it is just Bernie Bros? Which is it? And I don't doubt that you are even twisting his words or just outright lack proper reading comprehension. You seem to be confused an awful lot to be so quick to try and act smug towards other

whenever he says things like that...i have no clue who they're including. Felya foolishly decided it's a large part of the left for some reasons, proving that the sentiment I was suspicious of indeed exists and I am trying to find out on which side the person I quoted fell on... given their past.

Are you brand new? have you ignored their post history? They've already said similar things before int his very thread.

"anti-war" online commentators who are these people to milch? They've been everyone from the left to the right, he has said as much themselves, so asking for clarification is fair, would you not agree?

[Themius]

I mean, I think you've got the facts here right, and then you draw exactly the wrong conclusion.

The facts, roughly, are as follows;
Some aides smoke pot, a violation of federal law, while working in the White House, a federal institution.
They were asked if they did or not. Those who said they did were denied security clearances and/or fired.
Admitting to using a controlled substance illegally is the kind of thing that will generally fail you out of a security clearance, all by itself. Even an abuse problem with a legal substance, like alcohol, can be sufficient to deny you.
The reason for this is that, even if the use doesn't impair you (a separate consideration completely), it creates an ability for you to be pressured or tempted to violate ethical standards, and demonstrates a willingness on your part to break such kinds of rules in the first place.

I'm 100% pro-legalization. I live in a country where it's legal, and despite not being a pot user, I'm planning on picking up some gummies at my local dispensary in the near future; I want to try them out for medical reasons. I may snag some high-THC ones too for fun reasons. I say this to be super clear that what I'm about to say has fuck-all to do with marijuana.

You can't have people working at the White House who are using marijuana. It's illegal, federally. It doesn't matter if it would be legal somewhere else, what matters is federal law. It's grounds for firing them. The clemency they should be offered for their honesty is a lack of federal charges, not continued employment. And the latter could only really happen if they were willing to accept repeated, constant drug testing moving forward, on like a biweekly basis, for a super long time. Like 6 months to a year, minimum. Which is probably cost-prohibitive to boot.

The White House's hands are kind of tied until federal law changes. And outing these folks and removing them protects the White House and its security. They shouldn't have been in those positions in the first place, and they must have lied on some official form somewhere to do so.

The "solution" is to push to legalize nationally. Short of that, they really don't have an alternative to something like this.

White House can give an opinion, which puts pressure on lawmakers.

Drug testing also isn't necessary or absolutely required. The government leaves up the policy around it, to the agency. So an agency may require drug testing to get employment, but an agency could also say, we don't drug test as part of employment.

People with security clearances usually are designated to be tested, but it is a guideline, which doesn't have to be followed by the agency. So there absolutely exists the possibility to stop the practice, without changing federal law.

That alone perhaps could happen with enough public pressure, and that is a much lower hurdle to jump than changing it federally right now.

- - - Updated - - -

You notice how he put anti-war in quotations? Maybe there are some context clues there. You also seem to be the only one confused as to what he meant while several others tried to explain it to you. Another clue hmm...

It's like you pride on being obtuse and creating arguments out of it while trying to insult others in the process. The ways of a small and pathetic little man.

Oh, excuse me for not ignoring a posters history and taking everything they say with a grain of salt, when they equate far leftists to far right on a number of issues.

I noticed the quotes, but when someone has equated two sides to each other.. being fictitious doesn't provide enough context.

[Paranoid Android]

Prospects dim for Jan. 6 riot commission amid partisan disputes; Republican and Democratic leaders can't agree on who will be on the commission and what exactly it will study. https://t.co/0GXRAaddSk

https://twitter.com/NBCNews/status/1...261780483?s=19

Glad we had all those Benghazi hearings. Actually the inciters want equal representation, so they would just stonewall.

So I guess the Dems likely need to do the theatrics of Benghazi.

[Rasulis]

Interesting article.

After Biden stimulus, US economic growth could rival China's for the first time in decades

Goldman Sachs is calling for 2021 US GDP growth of 6.9%, the fastest since 1984. Morgan Stanley is even more bullish, predicting 7.3% growth. That would surpass the Chinese government's humble target of 6%. More importantly, these Wall Street estimates for the US' pace are not far from the 8.4% consensus forecast for China among economists polled by Refinitiv.

For average Americans, this optimism signals a stronger jobs market and better prospects for prosperity after a dreadful 2020. Morgan Stanley expects the US unemployment rate will drop below 5% by the end of this year and below 4% by the end of 2022.

Oxford Economics expects the US contribution to 2021 global growth to be stronger than China's — something that hasn't happened since 2005.

"The US economy is going to once again become the global locomotive. And it will help pull the rest of the world out of this Covid crisis," said Gregory Daco, chief US economist at Oxford Economics.

Daco is expecting 7% US GDP growth this year, and he also wonders whether economists are underestimating the pace of the rebound, as they did last summer when the pandemic eased for a few months.

"People were surprised by the speed of the recovery in the wake of the unprecedented shock. We could be surprised on the upside again," Daco said. "Sometimes optimism feels odd when you come out of a deep recession, but we have the right ingredients to form a fairly powerful cocktail."

And that should unleash enormous pent-up demand among Americans to eat at restaurants, go to the movies, stay a hotels and hop on planes. Many consumers have stocked up cash waiting for just this moment. Morgan Stanley estimates US households have built up $2.3 trillion in excess savings — money that can be drawn down as the economy reopens.

The total size of the US economy is now on track to reach its precrisis level by the end of March, Morgan Stanley said.

"Reopening is progressing, the rate of vaccinations is ramping and the labor market is gaining momentum," Morgan Stanley economists wrote.

Not an economist. However, we are drowning in projects right now. Including two large park projects which are being funded by developers. Something that has not happened since the 2008 real estate crash.

[Thelxi]

I mean, I think you've got the facts here right, and then you draw exactly the wrong conclusion.

The facts, roughly, are as follows;
Some aides smoke pot, a violation of federal law, while working in the White House, a federal institution.
They were asked if they did or not. Those who said they did were denied security clearances and/or fired.
Admitting to using a controlled substance illegally is the kind of thing that will generally fail you out of a security clearance, all by itself. Even an abuse problem with a legal substance, like alcohol, can be sufficient to deny you.
The reason for this is that, even if the use doesn't impair you (a separate consideration completely), it creates an ability for you to be pressured or tempted to violate ethical standards, and demonstrates a willingness on your part to break such kinds of rules in the first place.

I'm 100% pro-legalization. I live in a country where it's legal, and despite not being a pot user, I'm planning on picking up some gummies at my local dispensary in the near future; I want to try them out for medical reasons. I may snag some high-THC ones too for fun reasons. I say this to be super clear that what I'm about to say has fuck-all to do with marijuana.

You can't have people working at the White House who are using marijuana. It's illegal, federally. It doesn't matter if it would be legal somewhere else, what matters is federal law. It's grounds for firing them. The clemency they should be offered for their honesty is a lack of federal charges, not continued employment. And the latter could only really happen if they were willing to accept repeated, constant drug testing moving forward, on like a biweekly basis, for a super long time. Like 6 months to a year, minimum. Which is probably cost-prohibitive to boot.

The White House's hands are kind of tied until federal law changes. And outing these folks and removing them protects the White House and its security. They shouldn't have been in those positions in the first place, and they must have lied on some official form somewhere to do so.

The "solution" is to push to legalize nationally. Short of that, they really don't have an alternative to something like this.

What conclusion are you referring to? I don't see anything contradictory here.

[Bodakane]

They really weren't betrayed. Military recruiters push FAR MORE egregious narratives to get people to sign up.

When was it an open secret? When was it overlooked? I'm going to want some fucking evidence on that.

Sigh.

I'm not gauging the merits of the other person's arguments. I'm telling you, your original approach to argue against their stance was stupid because it didn't address their point at all.

The above should have been your argument to them.

[Endus]

What conclusion are you referring to? I don't see anything contradictory here.

The idea that the Biden administration firing those who admitted to using pot was in any way ethically "wrong".

I don't see that they had a choice. Not while marijuana is federally criminalized.

[Zan15]

Interesting article.

After Biden stimulus, US economic growth could rival China's for the first time in decades



Not an economist. However, we are drowning in projects right now. Including two large park projects which are being funded by developers. Something that has not happened since the 2008 real estate crash.

Would be nice and even on the low end it would be 200%+ higher than trump's best year.

Imagine Biden hitting the #'s Trump promised.

[Thelxi]

The idea that the Biden administration firing those who admitted to using pot was in any way ethically "wrong".

I don't see that they had a choice. Not while marijuana is federally criminalized.

That was not my conclusion. The firings and demotions are a consequence, not the problem. The problem and gaffe is that multiple people were under the impression that things had changed and honesty was encouraged, unlike all other recent administrations, when evidently that was not the case at all. No one caught wind of this until multiple sources went and blabbed to the media about it, and now they are pushed into a corner they really shouldn't have been in and that does not benefit anyone.

[Benggaul]

The idea that the Biden administration firing those who admitted to using pot was in any way ethically "wrong".

I don't see that they had a choice. Not while marijuana is federally criminalized.

It also, according to the articles linked, does not appear to be why they were fired.

[Machismo]

Sigh.

I'm not gauging the merits of the other person's arguments. I'm telling you, your original approach to argue against their stance was stupid because it didn't address their point at all.

The above should have been your argument to them.

You made specific claims in your argument. Just because you were piggy-backing off of what someone else said... doesn't make it my problem. If the claim is going to be made, I expect some evidence. Otherwise, don't make such claims.

So, are you going to provide that evidence, or simply slink away?

[Endus]

That was not my conclusion. The firings and demotions are a consequence, not the problem. The problem and gaffe is that multiple people were under the impression that things had changed and honesty was encouraged, unlike all other recent administrations, when evidently that was not the case at all. No one caught wind of this until multiple sources went and blabbed to the media about it, and now they are pushed into a corner they really shouldn't have been in and that does not benefit anyone.

I fundamentally disagree with what you're saying. Honesty was encouraged, but were they ever told there would be no consequences for confessing to criminal conduct?

What's "wrong" here is that marijuana is federally criminalized. I won't support that. Firing these aides, though? I don't see any grounds for attacking that as any kind of moral or ethical wrong. It was practically a necessary step.

[Machismo]

That was not my conclusion. The firings and demotions are a consequence, not the problem. The problem and gaffe is that multiple people were under the impression that things had changed and honesty was encouraged, unlike all other recent administrations, when evidently that was not the case at all. No one caught wind of this until multiple sources went and blabbed to the media about it, and now they are pushed into a corner they really shouldn't have been in and that does not benefit anyone.

That's their fault... and it's your misperception of what actually transpired.

[Bodakane]

You made specific claims in your argument. Just because you were piggy-backing off of what someone else said... doesn't make it my problem. If the claim is going to be made, I expect some evidence. Otherwise, don't make such claims.

So, are you going to provide that evidence, or simply slink away?

No I didn't. They were the poster's claims. I was trying to get you to understand your argument didn't address what they were saying.