ChrisWeigant.com

The Final Propaganda Battle In The War On Weed

[ Posted Thursday, August 30th, 2018 – 17:23 PDT ]

The War On Weed's days are numbered. That should be pretty obvious, by now. State after state has jumped on the bandwagon against the War On Weed, liberalizing their harsh laws on cannabis through decriminalization, legalization of medicinal marijuana, or outright legalization for adult recreational use. In fact, it's getting harder and harder to find any states which haven't done so, in one form or another. Nationally, the public's attitude on the subject has gone through a sea change in the last two decades, and now polls regularly cite public support of complete legalization of marijuana at 60 percent or higher. The weed warriors, obviously, are losing the battle for hearts and minds, and they're losing almost all the battles at the ballot box. This long social warfare, stretching back almost a century, is finally almost over. In the end, sanity will prevail, and the nation's second Prohibition will finally be thrown on the ash heap of failed political and social policy.

That's not to say, however, that the remaining weed warriors will not go down without one last fight. That's the message, at any rate, that BuzzFeed just uncovered at the White House. Here's what has recently been happening behind closed doors:


The White House has secretly amassed a committee of federal agencies from across the government to combat public support for marijuana and cast state legalization measures in a negative light, while attempting to portray the drug as a national threat, according to interviews with agency staff and documents obtained by BuzzFeed News.

The Marijuana Policy Coordination Committee, as it's named in White House memos and emails, instructed 14 federal agencies and the Drug Enforcement Administration this month to submit "data demonstrating the most significant negative trends" about marijuana and the "threats" it poses to the country.

In an ironic twist, the committee complained in one memo that the narrative around marijuana is unfairly biased in favor of the drug. But rather than seek objective information, the committee's records show it is asking officials only to portray marijuana in a negative light, regardless of what the data show.

"The prevailing marijuana narrative in the U.S. is partial, one-sided, and inaccurate," says a summary of a July 27 meeting of the White House and nine departments. In a follow-up memo, which provided guidance for responses from federal agencies, White House officials told department officials, "Departments should provide... the most significant data demonstrating negative trends, with a statement describing the implications of such trends."

. . .

None of the documents indicate that officials are seeking data that show marijuana consumption or legalization laws, which have been approved in eight states, serve any public benefit or do a better job of reducing drug abuse.

In simpler terms, the White House, led by the Office of National Drug Control Policy, is collecting anti-weed propaganda to use in an upcoming campaign to change people's attitudes towards marijuana. This will sound somewhat familiar to anyone with even a cursory knowledge of the long history of the federal government's attempts to demonize weed -- by which I mean anyone who has ever seen Reefer Madness as a midnight movie. The more things change, the more they stay the same, as a Frenchman famously once wrote.

Think "propaganda" is too strong a word? Decide for yourself. The new committee is seeking out personal anecdotes to bolster their case, so they can use these stories as poster children for their own purposes. If that's not a transparent attempt at collecting propaganda to use in a public campaign, I don't know what would qualify as such. From the article:

The agencies should also provide an example of a "story, relating an incident or picture, that illustrates one or more the key areas of concern related to use, production, and trafficking of marijuana," the White House guidance says. The agencies were asked to describe how the drug poses threats to their department and the consequences of marijuana "on national health and security."

That last phrase is fairly ominous, considering what the federal government can get away with these days when they slap the label "threat to national security" on anything. Donald Trump has already used this questionable tactic for his tariffs on foreign cars, but he certainly hasn't been the only modern U.S. president to wildly misuse the concept of fighting national security threats, that's for sure. The phrase "negative impacts of marijuana use, production, and trafficking on national health, safety, and security" is used multiple times in the documents obtained by BuzzFeed.

This all seems somewhat bizarre, considering Donald Trump's rather lax attitude towards marijuana laws and continuing the War On Weed. Trump indicated he'd like state legalization laws to be respected by the federal government (during the campaign), and that he would support legislation which would explicitly allow this to happen (as president). Trump is not really a fire-breathing drug warrior in the War On Weed.

Attorney General Jeff Sessions, however, is. His mindset on marijuana has not changed one iota since the days of Nancy Reagan. He infamously joked once that he thought the KKK were "OK until I found out they smoke pot." So the new policy committee could indeed be a Sessions brainchild. It's hard to tell, because the relationship between Sessions and Trump is so fraught with antagonism, though. Perhaps it was just the bright idea of the current head of the O.N.D.C.P. (the nation's drug-warrior-in-chief)?

Wherever the plan originated, though, it remains a monumentally bad idea. At this point, it'd be hard to even call it a rearguard action, designed to give cover while the main army retreats from the battlefield. This tide has already turned on King Canute. Which brings me to another bit of marijuana news:

The House and Senate of the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI), a U.S. territory in the Pacific Ocean near Guam, have approved legislation to legalize the recreational use of marijuana and allow commercial sale of the drug.

If Republican Gov. Ralph Deleon Guerrero Torres signs the bill, it would make CNMI the first U.S. territory to allow recreational marijuana use, as well as the first locality in the United States to create a commercial marijuana market via legislative action rather than via a voter-driven ballot initiative. This year, lawmakers in Vermont approved a marijuana legalization measure that included no provision for commercial sales.

The CNMI bill passed with overwhelming support in both chambers of government: The vote in the House was 18 to 1, with one abstention, while the Senate vote was 6 to 0 with two abstentions. A majority of lawmakers in both chambers are Republican.

The population of the Northern Mariana Islands stood at about 52,000 as of July 17, slightly smaller than the population of Bethesda, Md. But legalization advocates are nonetheless cheering the move.

OK, they're a small and remote American territory. Even so, it's rather remarkable that any Republican government in America would so overwhelmingly support outright legalization. The times they are indeed a-changin'.

This November, voters in Michigan and North Dakota will vote on ballot initiatives to legalize adult recreational use of cannabis. Voters in Utah and Missouri will vote on legalizing medical marijuana. The legislatures of New York and New Jersey are actively considering legalization bills. The snowball is rolling down the hill, and it is growing.

Any effort by the federal government to halt this process seems doomed to utter failure, not to mention widespread ridicule. But that's entirely appropriate, since they will only be reaping what they have sown. Weed warriors have been overstating their case and using blatant propaganda against marijuana (or "marihuana," as it was called back then) since the 1930s. They have, in a word, lied about weed, for many decades. Part and parcel of this campaign was the concerted effort to accumulate negative information on marijuana. Since Richard Nixon's time in the 1970s, the only scientific research allowed on marijuana (since it is illegal, federal permits must be obtained for such studies) was that whose aim was to prove how evil it is. This has only very recently changed for the better -- this policy was also in effect for decades. If you wanted to study positive effects of marijuana or even wanted to run a completely unbiased study, you were denied a permit to legally do so. But if you wanted to demonize weed, you were given a green light.

In other words, this new secret committee has a long pedigree. But the problem for them is going to be the history which predates it. So much false information about marijuana had been propagated over the decades that the warnings and fears of what would happen if it were to become legal had grown to monstrous proportions. Life, as we knew it, would surely end if you could buy a joint at a store. The sky would most assuredly fall, we were all told.

Such dire warnings worked (to some degree or another) right up until the voters of Washington and Colorado went ahead and legalized weed. And guess what? The sky did not fall. Life, as we know it, went on. All of the fear-mongering was proven, in the end, to be illusory. Which is just a fancy way of saying they've been lying to us all along.

The propaganda worked, for a while. And then it became the butt of many jokes. Stoned young people started watching a federal anti-reefer propaganda movie in order to laugh at it. Slowly, the children of the 1960s and 1970s got older. This is the first generation who had widespread exposure to weed, or who (to put it another way) had first- or second-hand experience of the reality of marijuana. They could see with their own eyes how the federal government was lying to them. And now, these children of the 60s are retiring, leaving fewer and fewer people alive who didn't grow up with weed all around them.

So I heartily invite the White House to go ahead with their propaganda effort. They've already largely lost this war, but some weed warriors have yet to figure this out. This may be the final rearguard action in the War On Weed, in fact, because it is hard to picture any future president launching such an effort, as more and more states openly defy federal marijuana laws. Politically, even Republicans (well, far-flung ones, at the very least) are now voting to legalize recreational marijuana. Donald Trump doesn't even seem all that interested in the subject (the first agenda item in the new propaganda campaign will obviously be the attempt to convince Trump to wage this final battle).

I say: bring it on. Cheap propaganda might have worked 80 years ago, but it just isn't going to work any more. The people can see the truth with their own eyes now. By all means, launch your last-ditch effort to change the public's viewpoint. But don't be too surprised when more and more voters -- and more and more legislators of both parties -- vote for sanity over fearmongering. So let the final battle in the War On Weed begin. Bring it on, weed warriors, but be prepared to lose badly.

-- Chris Weigant

 

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

 

58 Comments on “The Final Propaganda Battle In The War On Weed”

  1. [1] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    I can't wait until they can do a study on why all the movies, tv shows, articles, etc. are aboot weed on the day that you run out of it. :(

  2. [2] 
    Kick wrote:

    CW: I say: bring it on.

    _____________________0_____________________
    ____________________000____________________
    ___________________00000___________________
    __________________000 B 000_________________
    _______00_________000 R 000__________00_____
    _______0000_______000 I 0000_______0000______
    _______000000_____000 N 0000_____000000______
    ________000000____000 G 0000____000000_______
    __________0000000__0000000____0000000_______
    ____________000000__000000___0000000________
    ______0000____00000_0 I 000___00000000_______
    _____000000000__0000_ T 000__000000000_______
    ________000000000__00_0_0_0000000000________
    ____________000000000000000000______________
    _________________000_0_0000________________
    _______________00000_O__00000______________
    ______________00_____N______00_____________
    ______________00_____0______00_____________
    ___________________________________________

  3. [3] 
    Kick wrote:

    CW: I say: bring it on.

    _____________________0____________________
    ____________________000___________________
    ___________________00000__________________
    __________________000 B 000________________
    _______00_________000 R 000__________00____
    _______0000_______000 I 0000_______0000_____
    _______000000_____000 N 0000_____000000_____
    ________000000____000 G 0000____000000______
    __________0000000__0000000____0000000______
    ____________000000__000000___0000000_______
    ______0000____00000_0 I 000___00000000______
    _____000000000__0000_ T 000__000000000______
    ________000000000__00_0_0_0000000000_______
    ____________000000000000000000_____________
    _________________000_0_0000_______________
    _______________00000_O__00000_____________
    ______________00_____N______00____________
    ______________00_____0______00____________
    __________________________________________

  4. [4] 
    Kick wrote:

    CW: So I heartily invite the White House to go ahead with their propaganda effort.

    Pathological lying and just making things up is the specialty of this White House and the BLOTUS.

    If you knew the news wasn't good news and the walls were closing in, what would be left except to go full Orwell and Reichsministerium für Volksaufklärung und Propaganda?

  5. [5] 
    Michale wrote:

    CW,

    Are you trying to claim that there ARE no negative consequences of marijuana legalization and usage??

    Because, if you are, then it seems to me that it is YOU who is waging a propaganda war..

    People have DIED due to legalization...

    Is that sufficient to criminalize it again?? I don't know.

    But to pretend it's not happening puts you in the same basket as what you accuse President Trump of doing..

    Think about it...

  6. [6] 
    James T Canuck wrote:

    As stated, the real work can begin for researchers into the hidden medicinal merits of weed, or at least they will soon be able to duck out to the store for a baggie of shite, when stocks run low, to continue their efforts. Here, 'in the nicely decorated Pot-Shop, above the land that time forgot' depending on what ails you, you can legally pay tax on whichever strain of weed will take that ailment away.

    Obviously, Trump will make dog's breakfast out of the whole proceeding, where an obvious walk-off win is thrown at his feet. In one deft move, Trump could stymy the left and adopt a national policy for weed, walking away with a popular policy in one hand, and a bag of wall cash in the form of a federal grass-tax in the other. Not only that, but knowing how Sessions has championed the anti-reefer right-wing rhetoric for the last 1000 years, his head would pause to announce his resignation then promptly explode.

    By my math, that three birds with one stone(r).

    But what are the odds Trump will spot an obvious coup, it's clear he's oblivious to the entire debate over pot decriminalization. The way things are trending in Trumpland, he's better off taking a few Aspirin and going for a lie down under a tree, while his brain trust flail away at a useless cause.

    Oh well, back to my Tincture, leave it alone on the stove for a minute unattended, you can kiss a kilo of Kush cookies goodbye.

    LL&P

  7. [7] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    People have DIED due to legalization...

    I haven't heard about that. Do you have a cite?

  8. [8] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Maybe someone should give the weed warriors 497 and a half feet of rope by telling them aboot Jaime Brockett's Legend of the USS Titanic and see if they try to use it as evidence of the negative effects of marijuana.

  9. [9] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    The negative effects being that horrible movie with Leonardo DiCaprio.

  10. [10] 
    Michale wrote:

    Consequences of Legalized Marijuana In Colorado

    Increased homelessness..
    snopes.com/uploads/2018/02/2007-2017-PIT-Counts-by-State.xlsx

    The number of drivers involved in fatal crashes in Colorado who tested positive for marijuana has risen sharply each year since 2013, more than doubling in that time, federal and state data show. A Denver Post analysis of the data and coroner reports provides the most comprehensive look yet into whether roads in the state have become more dangerous since the drug’s legalization.

    Increasingly potent levels of marijuana were found in positive-testing drivers who died in crashes in Front Range counties, according to coroner data since 2013 compiled by The Denver Post. Nearly a dozen in 2016 had levels five times the amount allowed by law, and one was at 22 times the limit. Levels were not as elevated in earlier years.

    Last year, all of the drivers who survived and tested positive for marijuana use had the drug at levels that indicated use within a few hours of being tested, according to the Colorado Department of Transportation, which compiles information for the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration’s Fatality Analysis Reporting System.

    The trends coincide with the legalization of recreational marijuana in Colorado that began with adult use in late 2012, followed by sales in 2014. Colorado transportation and public safety officials, however, say the rising number of pot-related traffic fatalities cannot be definitively linked to legalized marijuana.
    denverpost.com/2017/08/25/colorado-marijuana-traffic-fatalities/

    Now, ya'all can argue that there is NO DOWN SIDE to legalization, that EVERYTHING about legal pot is rainbows and unicorns..

    But, then ya'all are doing EXACTLY what you accuse the Trump administration of doing..

    IGNORING the facts in pursuit of propaganda...

    Ya'all are supposed to be BETTER than that, eh??

  11. [11] 
    Michale wrote:

    The negative effects being that horrible movie with Leonardo DiCaprio.

    Which one?? There have been so many... :D

  12. [12] 
    Michale wrote:

    I haven't heard about that. Do you have a cite?

    Why, yes.. Yes I do... :D

  13. [13] 
    Kick wrote:

    JTC
    6

    By my math, that's three birds with one stone(r).

    "Three Little Birds" ~ Bob Marley

    The way things are trending in Trumpland, he's better off taking a few Aspirin and going for a lie down under a tree, while his brain trust flail away at a useless cause.

    Lie up, "lie down"... he really is quite the liar.

    Oh well, back to my Tincture, leave it alone on the stove for a minute unattended, you can kiss a kilo of Kush cookies goodbye.

    Wi run tings, tings nuh run wi! ;)

  14. [14] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Speaking of cheap propaganda that isn't going to work anymore, it's time to get on the right side of the War on Democracy being waged by the current major parties and the Big Money interests that control them.

    The fearmongering by both CMPs aboot the corruption of the other CMP to stir up their base is not fooling a lot of people anymore. See the 125 million people that will not vote in 2018 that Ralph Nader recently wrote aboot.

    Those people see part of the truth with their own eyes.

    All they need is to see the rest of the truth that not voting is not the answer.

    And that could start with an article aboot One Demand and the current opportunity to mobilize some of these 2018 non-voters to participate in One Demand in 2018 instead of not voting.

    Wouldn't it be better to have more and more citizens participating in our political process and standing up against the Big Money interests rather than more and more voters not voting?

    So let the battle for control of our political process begin. Bring it on War on Democracy warriors.

    And pick a side, CW.

  15. [15] 
    Kick wrote:

    Balthasar
    7

    People have DIED due to legalization...

    I haven't heard about that. Do you have a cite?

    Nobody died from "legalization." They may have died from smoking or taking any number of different types of drugs... legal or illegal... but nobody died from "legalization."

    Lots of people abuse lots of drugs as well as alcohol, but no one forces them to abuse it, and people will die from that abuse... even people who don't smoke or use themselves. Cannabis is no different than any other drug, including tobacco; time to stop treating it that way. :)

    WHO SAID IT?

    Every year tobacco kills more Americans than did World War II — more than AIDS, cocaine, heroin, alcohol, vehicular accidents, homicide and suicide combined.

  16. [16] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Kurt Vonnegut once called cigarette smoking the only socially acceptable form of suicide.

  17. [17] 
    Michale wrote:

    Kurt Vonnegut once called cigarette smoking the only socially acceptable form of suicide.

    “Slaughterhouse-5 Vonnegut or Cat's Cradle Vonnegut?”
    -Dean Winchester

    :D

  18. [18] 
    Kick wrote:

    Balthasar
    16

    Kurt Vonnegut once called cigarette smoking the only socially acceptable form of suicide.

    But I would wager you know better than that... being a bartender and all. :)

  19. [19] 
    neilm wrote:

    Treasonous Trump wants his horde to believe that the market would crash and we'd all be poor if he was impeached.

    Of course, reality doesn't bear that out:

    Pearl Harbor: Market dropped 7.6% over a couple of days then bounced back within six months.

    JFK Assassination: Market dropped 2.8% on the following day, then bounced back within days.

    Nixon/Watergate: Markets were already in a multi-year decline due to economic circumstances, little impact from political situation observed.

    Clinton Impeachment: Look for yourself

    http://ritholtz.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/news.png

    The damage being done to the markets by the idiot at 1600 Penn is due to his asinine trade war, the impact of the dumb deal he did with Mexico (particularly on the auto supply chain), the instability he brings by being a general clown, and the hangover that we'll get from the sugar rush of the tax cuts.

    Talking of the tax cuts, we say large cap revenues grow only 0.2%, but after tax profits surge 6.2% - great for anybody with at least $250K in the markets, but the amount being fed into the typical middle class American is minimal at best.

  20. [20] 
    Michale wrote:

    Well, I wasn't going to pollute CW's pet commentaries with off topic crap...

    But, since you went there.. :D

    The damage being done to the markets by the idiot at 1600 Penn is due to his asinine trade war,

    On Election Day 2016, the Dow Jones Industrial Average closed at 18,332.43. On August 29, it closed at 26,124.57. That is an increase of some 40 percent. Other indices show similar gains. Growth in GDP went from 1.5 percent in 2016 to 2.3 percent in 2017 and, helped by the excellent 4.2 percent number in the second quarter, is forecast for around 3 percent in 2018.

    Yea... Please PLEASE President Trump...

    PLEASE give us MORE "damage"... :D

    Face reality Neil.. You live in your own little world where the country is in the toilet and the economy has been decimated..

    THE FACTS of the REAL reality shows how utterly and completely delusional you are... :D

    Yer like the loony mutjob on the street corner soapbox, hair all askew and buck-ass nekkid, holding a sign, REPENT!!! REPENT!!!! The End Is Near!!! and people just walk by you, laugh and hurry on, not making eye contact...

    "Yes, yes.. Thank you for that information... We will ponder that... Thank you.."
    -Philoctetes, HERCULES

    :D

  21. [21] 
    Michale wrote:

    Man, that means I have to copy ALL of my comments in yesterday's commentary over to here.. :^/

    Bummer...

  22. [22] 
    neilm wrote:

    As usual one poll isn't significant, but just the fact these numbers are possible in an A+ rated test (538 ratings), must cause a few concerns in the White House:

    Treasonous Trump:
    - Approve: 36%
    - Disapprove: 60%
    - Difference: -24% (read it and weep)

    Mueller's Investigation:
    - Approve: 63%
    - Disapprove: 29%

    Impeachment:
    - For: 49%
    - Against: 46%

    For the record, I'm against impeachment - I want the American people to throw this bum out on his ass in 2020. Impeachment will make him a martyr for 25% of the country, and he has divided us enough already. Only a humiliation at the polls will clear the country of the stink of this horse's ass.

    Source:

    https://www.langerresearch.com/wp-content/uploads/1200a1TrumpandtheMuellerInvestigation.pdf

  23. [23] 
    Michale wrote:

    Ryan Gosling defends Neil Armstrong biopic 'First Man' leaving out American flag in moon landing scene
    http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2018/08/31/first-man-leaves-out-american-flag-in-moon-landing-scene-ryan-gosling-defends-decision.html

    American was never that great
    -Democrat Party

    Just ask all the America Haters in the world..

    But I guess if a foreigner can play an AMERICAN hero, then there shouldn't be any reason why Scar-Jo can't play a transgender, eh?? :^/

    Hypocrites...

  24. [24] 
    Michale wrote:

    As usual one poll isn't significant, but just the fact these numbers are possible in an A+ rated test (538 ratings), must cause a few concerns in the White House:

    Right.. ONE poll isn't significant..

    Yet, then you go on and spew how "significant" that ONE POLL is.. :D

    I am guessing the irony is lost on you, eh?

    Face the facts neal....

    ALL Polls are significant to you..

    As long as they say what you want to hear...

  25. [25] 
    Michale wrote:

    As usual one poll isn't significant, but just the fact these numbers are possible in an A+ rated test (538 ratings), must cause a few concerns in the White House:

    Right.. ONE poll isn't significant..

    Yet, then you go on and spew how "significant" that ONE POLL is.. :D

    I am guessing the irony is lost on you, eh?

    Face the facts neal....

    ALL Polls are significant to you..

    As long as they say what you want to hear...

  26. [26] 
    neilm wrote:

    S&P500 Annual Returns, selected years:

    2009 (Obama): 26.46%
    2013 (Obama): 32.39%
    2017 (Idiot): 21.83%

    Even with the passing of a tax cut specifically for corporations (Idiot) couldn't surpass two of the last annual returns in the last 10 years.

  27. [27] 
    neilm wrote:

    Right.. ONE poll isn't significant.

    Exactly, one poll isn't significant.

    538 Average:
    Approve: 40.7%
    Disapprove: 54.3%

    Real Clear Average:
    Approve: 42.8%
    Disapprove: 53.9%

    Pretty shabby for the self confessed most popular President since Lincoln's amazing polling averages (har har).

  28. [28] 
    Michale wrote:

    Real Clear Average:
    Approve: 42.8%
    Disapprove: 53.9%

    Pretty shabby for the self confessed most popular President since Lincoln's amazing polling averages (har har).

    And yet, Odumbo's poll numbers were not much higher and often LOWER than President Trump's poll numbers..

    THAT is the fact that TOTALLY demolishes ANY claims you make...

    538 Average???

    BBBBWWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    No, seriously.. Stop it..

    538 Average???

    BBBWWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

    Yer killing me!!!! Stop!!!

    BBBWWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

  29. [29] 
    Michale wrote:

    Dem Gubernatorial Candidate’s PAC Receives $1 Million From Dark Money Group
    Andrew Gillum previously said he would not be 'accountable to corporate money and special interests'

    https://freebeacon.com/politics/dem-gubernatorial-candidates-pac-receives-1-million-dark-money-group/

    Gollum says he would be held accountable to Citizens United money..

    Unless of course, he actually GETS CU money.. Then he'll be bought and paid for..

    Another perfectly example of Democrats SAYING one thing, but DOING the exact opposite..

    :^/

  30. [30] 
    Michale wrote:

    Gollum says he would be held accountable to Citizens United money..

    Unless of course, he actually GETS CU money.. Then he'll be bought and paid for..

    Grrrr...

    WOULDN'T be held accountable to Citizens United money...

  31. [31] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Dem Gubernatorial Candidate’s PAC Receives $1 Million From Dark Money Group

    For anyone who ignored the link, the "Dark Money Group" referred to is the Democratic Governors' Association.

    It's election season! Let the Fake News onslaught begin.

  32. [32] 
    Michale wrote:

    The biggest strike against Gollum is that he intends to repeal the Stand Your Ground laws that leave Floridians at the mercy of armed thugs and scumbags..

    That right there will prevent him from winning the election...

  33. [33] 
    Michale wrote:

    For anyone who ignored the link, the "Dark Money Group" referred to is the Democratic Governors' Association.

    The DGA has raised millions of dollars in dark and corporate money over the years, money that is now being injected into Gillum's PAC. Dark money refers to funds given to nonprofit organizations or PACs that can receive unlimited donations from corporations, individuals and unions, and the donor is not disclose

    Dark money is dark money...

    Does it matter that it's laundered thru the DGA???

    Once again.. You have fake news..

    I have facts.. :D

    But I still respect you in the morning.. :D

  34. [34] 
    Michale wrote:

    FURTHER..

    This is not the first time Gillum's PAC has accepted money from a dark money group. Earlier this year, Forward Florida accepted at least $266,000 from nonprofit Collective Future, the 501(c)(4) arm of the group that served as Gillum's largest contributor in 2018. The Washington, D.C.-based group does have an associated PAC and super PAC that are required to disclose its donors, but Collective Future is not required to do so.

    More Dark Money....

    Once again, you cherry pick the article that you think serves your agenda and ignore the FACTS..

    Gollum is on record as saying he will refuse dark money..

    NOW he is awash in Dark Money...

    I thought Democrats didn't lie??

    Well, maybe SOCIALIST Democrats lie, eh? :D

  35. [35] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    From the DGA website:

    This morning, Florida GOP Congressman Carlos Curbelo said DeSantis should apologize for his ‘monkey’ remark, which Curbelo called “offensive to a lot of people.” Governor Rick Scott refused to defend DeSantis’ remarks, and wouldn’t say if he voted for the Congressman to replace him.

  36. [36] 
    Michale wrote:

    Ahhhhh So we're switching gears now.. I'll accept that as your concession.. :D

    This morning, Florida GOP Congressman Carlos Curbelo said DeSantis should apologize for his ‘monkey’ remark, which Curbelo called “offensive to a lot of people.” Governor Rick Scott refused to defend DeSantis’ remarks, and wouldn’t say if he voted for the Congressman to replace him.

    Curbelo can go frak himself...

    DeSantis' remark is only "racist" and "offensive" to racists and those who LOOK for things to be offended by...

    If you want to be a niggler and strike the word "monkey" from the dictionary because you find it racist, have at it...

    Otherwise, you COULD lighten up and not seek offense where none is intended...

  37. [37] 
    Michale wrote:

    https://youtu.be/IKiWO8f_rBY

    The contrast between the Left and the Right could NOT be clearer.....

  38. [38] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    So you're shocked - shocked! - that a Democratic candidate for Governor got money from the Democratic Governors Association.

    GOP hypocrisy knows no limit.

    And Gillum isn't a socialist (doesn't call himself one - see CW's column from yesterday). He gets that moniker because he supports the ACA, and would consider a well-crafted Universal Health Care plan.

    Barely out of the gate, and the GOP is already playing word games. Better than trying to run on Trump's reputation, I guess.

  39. [39] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    DeSantis' remark is only "racist" and "offensive" to racists and those who LOOK for things to be offended by...

    Google the term "monkey this up" and see if it appears anywhere else. (music plays) No? That's because someone fed DeSantis the line, knowing that it would be heard by the base as the dog whistle it is.

    Then they always give that wide-eyed look of innocence, "Moi?"

  40. [40] 
    Michale wrote:

    So you're shocked - shocked! - that a Democratic candidate for Governor got money from the Democratic Governors Association.

    SHocked???

    Of course not..

    It doesn't surprise me ONE BIT that a Dem candidate got dark money laundered thru a Democrat organization..

    What DOES continue to shock me is that ya'all DON'T have any problem with it...

    And Gillum isn't a socialist (doesn't call himself one - see CW's column from yesterday). He gets that moniker because he supports the ACA, and would consider a well-crafted Universal Health Care plan.

    He's for single-payer, $15 p/h min wage and all the other socialist goodies..

    He's a socialist..

    But it IS telling how you would try to deny he is a socialist.. You recognize how bad a socialist is for this country...

    Barely out of the gate, and the GOP is already playing word games.

    Yea.. Dumbocrats would NEVER stoop to (Let's call Global Warming 'Climate Change' because we look like IDIOTS saying 'GLOBAL WARMING' when there is record snow and cold) playing 'word games' eh?? :D

  41. [41] 
    Michale wrote:

    Google the term "monkey this up" and see if it appears anywhere else.

    GOOGLE??

    BBBWAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    You have never heard that term before??

    "Just a fly in the ointment, Hans. The monkey in the wrench. The pain in the ass."
    John McClane, DIE HARD

    "OH MY GODS!!!! JOHN MCLANE IS A FUCKING RACIST!!!!"

    :D

    Like I said, if you want to be a niggler about it, you can fine ALL SORTS of things to be offended by...

    OR you can follow Sarek of Vulcan's wisdom..

    "There can be no offense where none is taken"

    :D I'm just sayin'....

  42. [42] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    But it IS telling how you would try to deny he is a socialist.. You recognize how bad a socialist is for this country...

    Just don't want to apply a label that the man wouldn't apply to himself. As for my opinion, see:

    http://www.chrisweigant.com/2018/08/28/is-manafort-about-to-flip/#comment-125561

    He's for single-payer, $15 p/h min wage and all the other socialist goodies..

    I get it. You want to apply the term "socialist" to every idea that comes from Democrats. That tactic is so old that my great-grandmother slept with it.

  43. [43] 
    Michale wrote:

    Just don't want to apply a label that the man wouldn't apply to himself.

    And yet, you have applied the 'troll' label to me on several occasions...

    So, obviously, you don't have a HUGE problem with applying a label to a man that wouldn't apply it to himself. :D

    I get it. You want to apply the term "socialist" to every idea that comes from Democrats.

    Only the ideas that are socialist ideas..

    But, as I said.... It's VERY heartening that you realize the negative connotations of being a socialist..

    That indicates to me that there IS hope for you.. :D

  44. [44] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Michale [41]: Still don't see the term "monkey this up" used anywhere but by DeSantis.

    I notice, however, that you've become fond of the word "niggler" today. Making a point?

  45. [45] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    But, as I said.... It's VERY heartening that you realize the negative connotations of being a socialist..

    translation: I didn't even look at your link.

  46. [46] 
    Michale wrote:

    Still don't see the term "monkey this up" used anywhere but by DeSantis.

    So??? Is "monkey this up" a code phrase???

    I notice, however, that you've become fond of the word "niggler" today. Making a point?

    Yes I am.. And I think yer a niggler enough to get it.. :D

  47. [47] 
    Michale wrote:
  48. [48] 
    Michale wrote:

    https://www.businessinsider.com/mueller-obstruction-report-russia-investigation-labor-day-2018-8

    Hmmmmmm I seem to recall someone around here saying that Mueller had an imposed deadline of 1 Sep...

    Now, gee.. I wonder who that could have been...

    Once again, people.. Maybe you should take something for your HHPTDS and realize that I *DO* know what I am talking about.. :D

  49. [49] 
    James T Canuck wrote:

    'The biggest strike against Gollum is that he intends to repeal the Stand Your Ground laws that leave Floridians at the mercy of armed thugs and scumbags..' lol, Floridians could always get stoned and chase the villains around Wally World parking lots...According to Michale Mostlywhite's conflation, guns and weed are on par as far as their lethality is concerned. The right-wing default position on guns has always been...'gun's don't kill, people kill' Now all of a sudden improperly used chunks of weed are to blame for a slight uptick in traffic accidents.

    I'm duty-bound to point out sophistry when I see it, it's slightly more rewarding when you can wrap it around a blunt object like hypocrisy or unwieldly double standard.

    LL&P

  50. [50] 
    Kick wrote:

    Another Guilty Plea

    Sam Patten, ex-Manafort associate, had plead guilty today to one count of violating FARA -- Foreign Agents Registration Act and has agreed to cooperate with OSC/prosecutors.

    https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-08-31/manafort-associate-sam-patten-is-charged-with-fara-violation?srnd=premium

  51. [51] 
    Kick wrote:

    [50] Continued

    Anyone interested in reading Mr. Patten's plea/cooperation agreement? There you go:

    https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/4807017/Plea-Agreement.pdf

  52. [52] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Now all of a sudden improperly used chunks of weed are to blame for a slight uptick in traffic accidents.

    Never underestimate Sessions' vociferous hatred of weed. I think he might have been chased once by a bunch of stoners who thought that he was a Keebler Elf and would lead them to munchies.

    The National Security angle is worrisome though, because it reminds me of the rhetoric that despots use when trying to suppress nearly anything. Using the same logic, for instance, cellphones might be labeled a 'national security threat' because they, too, can be identified as a major cause of car accidents.

  53. [53] 
    Kick wrote:

    In Other News

    The right-wing lunatic fringe are outraged... outraged, I tell you... and are calling for the boycott of a new movie about Neil Armstrong where it is rumored that the United States flag placement on the moon is omitted.

    In other news, half of those exact same morons believe that the moon landing was faked on a movie set and that you can tell because of the shadow from the fake flag on a wire, and the other half cheer wildly with glee each and every time Comrade Trump hunches a real American flag as if it was his grown daughter.

    'Merica!

  54. [54] 
    Kick wrote:

    Sam Patten, the former Paul Manafort associate who plead guilty to FARA violation today, admitted to prosecutors that he assisted foreign donors to give money to Donald Trump's Inaugural Committee.

    According to a court filing, Patten’s Ukrainian client wanted to attend the Trump inauguration in January 2017, but the Inauguration Committee couldn’t accept money from foreign nationals because of Federal Election Commission rules.

    To get around that restriction, Patten enlisted a U.S. citizen to serve as a “straw” buyer, according to the filing. That individual, who wasn’t named, bought four tickets for $50,000, after receiving a check for $50,000 from the consulting firm run by Patten and Konstantin Kilimnik, Manafort’s longtime fixer in Ukraine suspected of having ties to Russian intelligence. That firm, in turn, was reimbursed by a $50,000 wire from the Ukrainian oligarch’s Cypriot bank account, the filing says.

    https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-08-31/patten-caused-foreign-money-to-be-paid-to-inaugural-committee

    Follow the money... all the money... and it's obvious why this isn't likely to be ending any time in the near future and why hundreds of the Trump campaign's Kremlin associated allies are involved in illegal activity... both before and after the election.

    Multiple sources reporting that Trump is behaving like a man "cornered."

    Hint: He is cornered.:)

  55. [55] 
    Michale wrote:

    Sam Patten, ex-Manafort associate, had plead guilty today to one count of violating FARA -- Foreign Agents Registration Act and has agreed to cooperate with OSC/prosecutors.

    Which has nothing to do with President Trump, Russia or the election and is therefore not relevant to anything..

  56. [56] 
    Michale wrote:

    I'm duty-bound to point out sophistry when I see it, it's slightly more rewarding when you can wrap it around a blunt object like hypocrisy or unwieldly double standard.

    And I am duty bound to point out, using your own comment..

    “My own opinion is enough for me, and I claim the right to have it defended against any consensus, any majority, anywhere, any place, any time. And anyone who disagrees with this can pick a number, get in line, and kiss my ass.”

    Ain't it a bitch when your own comment comes around and bites you on the ass? :D

  57. [57] 
    Kick wrote:

    Which has nothing to do with President Trump, Russia or the election and is therefore not relevant to anything..

    Please never stop the daily demonstrations and posts proving exactly how ignorant you are... not that anyone need worry that you would. :) *laughs*

  58. [58] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    56

    And I am duty bound to point out, using your own comment..

    Oh, I really do like this "duty bound" term that you have stolen from JTC. You make so much more sense when you appropriate the words of more intelligent posters rather than using the uneducated repetitive drivel and fabricated bullshit that you usually spew. Perhaps since you claim that you're "duty bound" to point out someone else's comment, you won't mind in the least when someone else does it right back at you. After all, if you're dishing it out ad nauseam to others, you ought to be able to take it... fair is fair.

    Ain't it a bitch when your own comment comes around and bites you on the ass? :D

    In answer to your question to JTC: It is lost on no one on this board... with the possible exception of yourself... that you sure whine incessantly like a little "bitch" when it happens to you.

    LL&P ;)

Comments for this article are closed.