Biden / Harris Focused Discussion

[Machismo]

They kinda were though if you paid actual attention to the gripe being made.

It was an open secret. Before Biden, it was purposely overlooked. Now, even with it being legal in many states, it is all of a sudden not overlooked. You can pretend social contracts like that aren't made, but they are. And even the post you referred to, they weren't outraged.

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.

[Benggaul]

Per CNN:



I don't think this is as unilateral as some people are claiming.

Aww, killjoy. I was saving this link because I wanted to watch them dig themselves deeper for a little while first.

[Machismo]

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..

The White House even explained it... and the more that comes out, the less of an argument you guys have.

[Themius]

You are the one who argued that it's legal in DC, so to say it's a poor argument, is to say that your argument is poor...

Very well.

If someone does something that is legal somewhere else, but not legal for the federal government, then the federal government would act based on their own rules...

That's not sto say I support the banning of marijuana, but to imply that it doesn't fall under their jurisdiction or concern... that's a terrible argument.

Obama had a mention about this during his presidency. I wonder if Biden does as well... very likely he does.

What was mentioned about this during the Obama years was that the federal government will not interfere in states legalisation of marijuana. So here then it seems foolish to also say "but if you leave the state and want to work for us and have never smoke marijuana where it was illegal to do so, you will face an uphill battle"

The federal government in the past took up the argument of "we won't act against states based on our own rules"

In the case of DC, don't smoke on federal property.

[Machismo]

Obama had a mention about this during his presidency. I wonder if Biden does as well... very likely he does.

What was mentioned about this during the Obama years was that the federal government will not interfere in states legalisation of marijuana. So here then it seems foolish to also say "but if you leave the state and want to work for us and have never smoke marijuana where it was illegal to do so, you will face an uphill battle"

The federal government in the past took up the argument of "we won't act against states based on our own rules"

In the case of DC, don't smoke on federal property.

This isn't about legalization, this is about the security clearance process.

They are not acting against the states, they are acting in regards to people on federal property, in the employ of the federal government. They are not denying the same to state employees.

As much as you want to make this into a huge deal, they are simply following the rules that already exist, and are trying to be consistent in the application of those rules. Now, I'm all for getting rid of those rules, but that has not happened, yet.

[Themius]

I mean, clearly you don't, but I absolutely would expect the fact that half of the political class in my entire country are not just against the democratically elected leader, but outright routing for one of our biggest international enemies, to be a bigger issue than some people getting high. That is not normal behaviour and should absolutely be talked about more, not hand waved away as something so basic as "noise" and that nobody cares about it.

Oh but it is normal behaviour and has always been.

Just look back to the founding of this defective country.

One of the biggest contentions that Americans colonies had against the Crown, besides... their tax evasion issues... and annoyance at not having excised power over parliament as the argument was they had enough via their merchant lobbies...

The next big concern was one around religion. If you recall the result of the seven years war, one major contention was around the crown being too soft and forgiving on the catholic french. which made an already tenuous situation more so...Yet... when it came to war just who did the colonies ally themselves with? It is absolutely normal behaviour.

We can go back further to the late 17th century and the bacon rebellion that turned black slaves from being in a socially similar space to white indentured workers (children were born free) to the creation of chattel, purposefully to drive a wedge between the groups and put their cooperation to bed. So who did the poor whites who never got their 50 acres or money and had to have their children also indentured align within years after? Their very own oppressor...

I mention this (race) because there is a theme here with how it connects to modern-day Russia... a country seen by a lot of racists as something to aspire to... a mostly white ethnostate.

It's not surprising to me in the slightest it has happened a lot... is it a "big" deal i have no idea... but it isn't surprising but totally expected.

[DarkTZeratul]

You really are utterly failing here.

A state cannot pass laws that violate rights protected in the constitution. Gay marriage pass in the USA under the argument that the 14th amendment applies.

This is in no way similar to talking about something like drug laws. They followed the "damn law" in their state. This argument is as stupid as yelling at a person in a state where you can turn right on red because they moved to a state you can't turn right on red unless a sign says you can.

Also weed is legalised in DC...this appeal to "law" is just a folly... "but the law but the law well not that law ignroe that law"

Weed is illegal at the federal level, no matter what individual states say. Weed being "legal in those states" is technically not accurate in that it's still illegal everywhere, those states have simply chosen not to act on that fact.

[Thelxi]

That explains the previous admin...

On the bright side, in a lawless administration there is little to fear about your own corrupt officials getting blackmailed with their corruption.

[Themius]

This isn't about legalization, this is about the security clearance process.

They are not acting against the states, they are acting in regards to people on federal property, in the employ of the federal government. They are not denying the same to state employees.

As much as you want to make this into a huge deal, they are simply following the rules that already exist, and are trying to be consistent in the application of those rules. Now, I'm all for getting rid of those rules, but that has not happened, yet.

It is foolish to say "i don't support it but i support them doing it until they change the rules"

I don't support it and I don't support them doing it. They can because they can and they have the rules, but I would want a big stink made about it, and why?

Draws light to the issue and potentially forces quicker change.

- - - Updated - - -

Weed is illegal at the federal level, no matter what individual states say. Weed being "legal in those states" is technically not accurate in that it's still illegal everywhere, those states have simply chosen not to act on that fact.

yet states can and have passed laws legalising it...The Trump administration who even said they would go after states... didn't so much...

It is harder to go after states for marijuana than it is to go after states for violating the constitution explicitly as they can.

[Nurasu]

You really are utterly failing here.

A state cannot pass laws that violate rights protected in the constitution. Gay marriage pass in the USA under the argument that the 14th amendment applies.

This is in no way similar to talking about something like drug laws. They followed the "damn law" in their state. This argument is as stupid as yelling at a person in a state where you can turn right on red because they moved to a state you can't turn right on red unless a sign says you can.

Also weed is legalised in DC...this appeal to "law" is just a folly... "but the law but the law well not that law ignroe that law"

You're the one flailing. You know who is responsible for upholding federal law right? Including Constitutional law? Oh yes, the federal government. If you're a federal employee, it doesn't matter where you reside, because as you just stated yourself, state law cannot supersede. They were required to stop and they wouldn't, which is a violation of federal law. It really is as cut and dry as Kim Davis to me. I don't want another Trump administration just cause it's "my side" this time.

[Thelxi]

The White House even explained it... and the more that comes out, the less of an argument you guys have.

You're just being argumentative. If you wish to actually discuss something with me I'm here, otherwise I suggest you focus on informing and educating yourself. I'd start by contemplating how we get from where we are to decriminalizing all drugs as you claim that it is something you want to see.

[Machismo]

It is foolish to say "i don't support it but i support them doing it until they change the rules"

I don't support it and I don't support them doing it. They can because they can and they have the rules, but I would want a big stink made about it, and why?

Draws light to the issue and potentially forces quicker change.

Not at all. It's respecting that laws exist, and wanting equal application of laws, even when you don't support specific laws themselves.

By all means, get rid of the fucking law. Until that happens, don't push double standards.

These people were not betrayed.

- - - Updated - - -

You're just being argumentative. If you wish to actually discuss something with me I'm here, otherwise I suggest you focus on informing and educating yourself. I'd start by contemplating how we get from where we are to decriminalizing all drugs as you claim that it is something you want to see.

I'm arguing with you, because you are pushing bullshit and nonsense. Even the administration has come out and pointed to how you are wrong. The articles and quotes were already gleefully provided by others.

The bottom line is that the security clearance forms ask about this, and lying on those forms is a crime. Period. Drug use can prevent you from getting a clearance. Lying about drug use (or even alcohol use) can prevent you from getting a clearance.

We decriminalize all drugs, by literally getting rid of the legislation that bans them in the first place. Let's fucking do it. Vote libertarian, and make it happen.

Asking me to inform myself, when you are the one who is clearly ignorant on the issue... is rather ironic.

[Themius]

Not at all. It's respecting that laws exist, and wanting equal application of laws, even when you don't support specific laws themselves.

By all means, get rid of the fucking law. Until that happens, don't push double standards.

These people were not betrayed.

Law doesn't deserve respect by virtue of law. Also, why do you keep lying about double standards? When I have said the point would be if the administration were very publically out against something like this they would be forced to stop applying this generally

[Machismo]

Law doesn't deserve respect by virtue of law. Also, why do you keep lying about double standards? When I have said the point would be if the administration were very publically out against something like this they would be forced to stop applying this generally

So, don't respect it... good for you.

That doesn't mean they aren't doing exactly what they are supposed to be doing.

So, change the fucking law. Let me know when that happens. Personally, if you want it, I suggest you vote libertarian in the future.

[Thelxi]

I'm arguing with you, because you are pushing bullshit and nonsense. Even the administration has come out and pointed to how you are wrong. The articles and quotes were already gleefully provided by others.

The bottom line is that the security clearance forms ask about this, and lying on those forms is a crime. Period. Drug use can prevent you from getting a clearance. Lying about drug use (or even alcohol use) can prevent you from getting a clearance.

We decriminalize all drugs, by literally getting rid of the legislation that bans them in the first place. Let's fucking do it. Vote libertarian, and make it happen.

Asking me to inform myself, when you are the one who is clearly ignorant on the issue... is rather ironic.

You are not arguing with me, you are simply stating that the Biden administration is following the law as if it is a hot take. When you are ready to think, I'll be here.

[Themius]

You're the one flailing. You know who is responsible for upholding federal law right? Including Constitutional law? Oh yes, the federal government. If you're a federal employee, it doesn't matter where you reside, because as you just stated yourself, state law cannot supersede. They were required to stop and they wouldn't, which is a violation of federal law. It really is as cut and dry as Kim Davis to me. I don't want another Trump administration just cause it's "my side" this time.

Ah but state laws often are what trump federal laws in their respective states, with the federal government generally respecting that. Do tell me what laws is being "upheld" by denying or moving people about due to "past" usage of something legal in their state?

It is not as cut and dry as Kim Davis because there are clear differences between directly violating the constitution versus a federal law.

Also trump interfering to get a crony a position is the same as Biden interfering to get policy change affect millions of ordinary workers??????????

You sound like those people are super concerned with being concerned

[DarkTZeratul]

yet states can and have passed laws legalising it...

Which is utterly irrelevant, because IT'S STILL FEDERALLY ILLEGAL regardless of whether states are choosing to enforce that or not.

Ah but state laws often are what trump federal laws in their respective states

State laws never trump federal laws. It's the other way around, every single time.

[PACOX]

This isn't about legalization, this is about the security clearance process.

They are not acting against the states, they are acting in regards to people on federal property, in the employ of the federal government. They are not denying the same to state employees.

As much as you want to make this into a huge deal, they are simply following the rules that already exist, and are trying to be consistent in the application of those rules. Now, I'm all for getting rid of those rules, but that has not happened, yet.

The rules don't make sense and are inconsistent. That's the point of anyone commenting on them.

Clearance rules are outdated and inconsistent. Also if the employees have already been cleared, which they have, then it should not be an issue.

In this case enforcement is due to the discretion of the office. Enforcing it is quite against the administration's messaging. They are being rather conservative for a liberal administration. And as brought up, suddenly staffers have to worry about being blackmailed for old incidents of smoking weed.

[Machismo]

You are not arguing with me, you are simply stating that the Biden administration is following the law as if it is a hot take. When you are ready to think, I'll be here.

Did you even actually read the article, and the reply from the White House?

Methinks you did not.

I'll wait.

[Thelxi]

Did you even actually read the article, and the reply from the White House?

Methinks you did not.

I'll wait.

I've read everything. Is there something you want to discuss?