1. We have added the ability to collapse/expand forum categories and widgets on forum home.
    Dismiss Notice
  2. Photobucket has changed its policy concerning hotlinking images and now requires an account with a $399.00 annual fee to allow hotlink. More information is available at: this link.
    Dismiss Notice
  3. All Civ avatars are brought back and available for selection in the Avatar Gallery! There are 945 avatars total.
    Dismiss Notice
  4. To make the site more secure, we have installed SSL certificates and enabled HTTPS for both the main site and forums.
    Dismiss Notice
  5. Civ6 is released! Order now! (Amazon US | Amazon UK | Amazon CA | Amazon DE | Amazon FR)
    Dismiss Notice
  6. Dismiss Notice
  7. Forum account upgrades are available for ad-free browsing.
    Dismiss Notice

Party of Big Government Overrides States Rights to Confiscate Private Property

Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by GoodEnoughForMe, Jul 20, 2017.

  1. GoodEnoughForMe

    GoodEnoughForMe n.m.s.s.

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2006
    Messages:
    4,689
    Location:
    new alhambra
    Yesterday, the esteemed Attorney General started to put into action his plan to make asset forfeiture more common in the US, by allowing cops to see property even in states that have or may ban it in the future.

    Nightmare stories of asset forfeiture are common, and the evidence that they prevent crime is anything but. However, both Sessions and Trump have been proponents of the program and have expressed the desire to ramp it up.

    Do you agree with the program and the fact that more private property is confiscated through it than property lost to all burglaries and robberies combined? Are you sick and tired of nanny state Republicans trampling on private citizen's property rights? Discuss away!
     
  2. Berzerker

    Berzerker Chieftain

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2000
    Messages:
    11,437
    Location:
    Topeka, Kansas
    Trump also supports eminent domain to benefit business

    the courts allow asset forfeiture and they allow no-knock raids, the 4th Amendment has little meaning to these people who told God they'd enforce it
     
    Owen Glyndwr likes this.
  3. civver_764

    civver_764 Pro-White

    Joined:
    May 19, 2007
    Messages:
    6,004
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    San Jose, CA
    The Trump administration is completely wrong about drug policy. I'm very disappointed with them.
     
    hobbsyoyo, Perfection and Vincour like this.
  4. Lexicus

    Lexicus Warlord

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2007
    Messages:
    8,476
    Location:
    Sovereign State of the Have-Nots
    Apparently this disappointment is outweighed by your desire to see other people suffer from emotional distress though
     
  5. Timsup2nothin

    Timsup2nothin Another drone in the hive mind

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2013
    Messages:
    23,568
    Location:
    Banned at Stormfront, for the same reasons
    C'mon man. Everyone knows that the most important aspect in analyzing public policy is whether it will 'make liberals' heads explode.' The average conservative would murder his family and burn down his house if you convinced them that it would upset the liberals enough.
     
    MilesGregarius and Leonel like this.
  6. Tristan_C

    Tristan_C Chieftain

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2006
    Messages:
    1,052
    I don't really know where Trump and Sessions come into the picture, except insofar as such characters are never far from the benighted thoughts of people reading The New Yorker. I do know that civil forfeiture was one of the tricks Sessions used to drive the KKK out of Alabama during the eighties. This bit of history was inconvenient to the narrative that Sessions is a racist so the media ignored it during his confirmation hearing. While neither of them can be relied on to correct drug policies, they could be relied on to fight Mexican drug cartels by, say, building a certain hypothetical thing that will make it difficult to cross illegally from Mexico.

    Based on certain details in the NY article buried below the anecdotes, civil forfeiture has too many benefits to be done away with. The article reveals outrageous violations of the practice, so when it concedes that agents "have also used forfeiture to go after ruthless migrant smugglers, organized-crime tycoons, and endangered-species poachers, stripping them of their illicit gains" to the tune of 4 billion a year, the situation is far more complicated than the choice anecdotes. The town the author focused on was a thoroughfare for Mexican cartel traffic. While I think that drugs should be legalized and the prison industry rolled back, in the mean time the dealers and international traffickers seem to be bankrolling some of the enforcement apparatus.
     
  7. Berzerker

    Berzerker Chieftain

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2000
    Messages:
    11,437
    Location:
    Topeka, Kansas
    Sessions drove the KKK out of Alabama? Was that after he found out they smoke pot?
     
  8. GoodSarmatian

    GoodSarmatian Temporary Configuration

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2006
    Messages:
    7,661
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Germany, The Horned City
    How are you disappointed ?

    HE RAN AS A REPUBLICA N !!!!!!!!!!!!


    I apologize. All-caps and multiple exclamation marks are undignified and I should be better than this ... but ... argh ... just ... Aaargh !!!!
     
  9. Farm Boy

    Farm Boy As you wish.

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2010
    Messages:
    13,306
    If you want to "win" the issue, you have to win over the Republicans. That's happening, albeit slowly, and piecemeal, through the furnace of the states. Take heart, rather than find scorn, when a Republican agrees with you on weed. It's a sign of the times, and believe it or not, it's a cause for hope. If you try to force them to find being a Republican and being anti-cannabis-prohibition a mutually exclusive proposition, you will likely do harm to your issue, rather than good, should they make the mistake of believing you.
     
    VicRatlhead5199 and Owen Glyndwr like this.
  10. GoodSarmatian

    GoodSarmatian Temporary Configuration

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2006
    Messages:
    7,661
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Germany, The Horned City
    Yeah...what triggered agitated me was the word disappointed.
    It's always good when an American Rightwinger goes against the Republican party line (because the party is wrong about EVERYTHING!!!), but disappointment means you expected something better/different.
    I know, I'm an outside observer of American politics, but I haven't seen any indication that the Reps are moving towards a sane drug policy. If you vote Republican you vote for Jailing Pot Smokers*.
    Please, go against the party line. But you should know that you're going against the party line because you should know what the party line is. Especially in a country that has only two relevant parties.


    *But hey, at least "Liberals" are against Jailing Pot Smokers and will cry about this pointless cruelty, so it's a win-win.
    #LiberalTears
     
  11. Perfection

    Perfection The Great Head.

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2002
    Messages:
    48,928
    Location:
    Salisbury Plain
    I can expect something to go badly and still be disappointed when it does.
     
  12. GoodSarmatian

    GoodSarmatian Temporary Configuration

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2006
    Messages:
    7,661
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Germany, The Horned City
    OK, I get that. That's pretty much my default position on Post-Schröder German Social Democrats.
    It's still a mystery to me how anyone could expect a Republican administration to tacitly approve of marijuana consumption. Especially when the first party guy to support Trump said that he liked the KKK until he found out that they smoke pot.
     
  13. Perfection

    Perfection The Great Head.

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2002
    Messages:
    48,928
    Location:
    Salisbury Plain
    Presumably he doesn't expect them to do that, and he supports Trump Adminstration for other reasons.
     
  14. Berzerker

    Berzerker Chieftain

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2000
    Messages:
    11,437
    Location:
    Topeka, Kansas
    The Democrats and Republicans have taken billions in bribes from drug dealers, pot doesn't need drug dealers
     
    VicRatlhead5199 likes this.
  15. GoodSarmatian

    GoodSarmatian Temporary Configuration

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2006
    Messages:
    7,661
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Germany, The Horned City
    I know that they've both taken bribes. Our politicians are taking bribes.
    Still, to my understanding there are some politically relevant Democrats and no Republicans in favor of "pottery".
    Maybe I'm mistaken. How many relevant (by which I mean governors or senators) Republicans want to legalize pot ?
     
  16. Berzerker

    Berzerker Chieftain

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2000
    Messages:
    11,437
    Location:
    Topeka, Kansas
    Gary Johnson (R-NM) was the only governor I know, he ended up running as the libertarian prez candidate. The Dems talk, but when they got control they shut up... Both parties play to the base and head for the less provocative center for elections. Cory Booker (D-NJ) has supposedly introduced a bill in the senate to end federal prohibition. I doubt it'll even get a vote for lack of support.
     
  17. VicRatlhead5199

    VicRatlhead5199 Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2013
    Messages:
    932
    Location:
    Michigan
    Snyder actually helped formulate regulations to keep the medical marijuana business in Michigan running after dispensaries were made illegal in the Supreme court in 2013. That kind of seems pro- medical weed anyway. I don't know many federal GoPers in favor of it. Even the almost Libertarian Rand Paul has said it shouldn't be made legal.

    The thing that bugs me the most about this is it's the State's Rights party that's attempting to supersede state laws. Terribly hypocritical.
     
  18. Tristan_C

    Tristan_C Chieftain

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2006
    Messages:
    1,052
    There was ample opportunity for the Democrats to deal with this years ago. The 111th congress (2008-2010) was an augmented D majority, and they controlled the White House. Why wasn't weed legalized? Why weren't other drugs decriminalized? Procedure could have been employed to break a senate fillibuster (as per Obamacare), and of course there would have been no veto.

    Why does this discussion focus on the Republicans? A lot of conservatives hate drugs and the Republicans are reputedly the "law and order" party that is more easily pliant to the needs of the prison industry. But they had no control of government for two years. Why wasn't anything done then? Why does it "bug you most" that the party less friendly to drugs is against legalizing them, when the party supposedly gung-ho about legalization didn't even try?
     
    danjuno likes this.
  19. VicRatlhead5199

    VicRatlhead5199 Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2013
    Messages:
    932
    Location:
    Michigan
    At that time states were just starting to legalize. At the time many viewed CO's legalization to be an experiment that may lead to federal legalization if it turned out to be successful. In 2008-2010 the legalize sentiments just weren't as strong. Now we have examples of legalization and a lot of the imagined problems just haven't manifested. There's even the reduced opioid death rates in states that have legalized as evidence of positive effects that just weren't present in 2010.

    Why does it focus on Republicans? Kind of a silly question. They're the ones in power and they're the ones attempting to ramp up the drug war. Sessions is actually looking into the legality of infringing on state legalization legislation while a Democrat pharma shill like Cory Booker is sponsoring legalization legislation despite his despicable loyalties. Federally this is partisan even if it isn't partisan on the state and local level.
     
  20. Ajidica

    Ajidica High Quality Person

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2006
    Messages:
    17,148
    I would argue that they had bigger fish to fry (you know, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, keeping the international financial system from going all Hindenburg on us, for examples).
    Plus, as Vic pointed about above, the legalization movement wasn't very strong in 2008-2010 and Obama was issuing regulatory guidance and executive orders to focus law enforcement efforts away from Bob the Stoner to areas that actually matter.
     

Share This Page