US Joe Biden News Megathread - The Other Biden Derangement Syndrome Thread (with a side order of Fauci Derangement Syndrome)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Let's pretend for one moment that he does die before the election, just for the funsies. What happens then? Will the nomination revert to option number 2, aka Bernie Sanders? Or will his running mate automatically replace him just the way Vice-President is supposted to step in after the Big Man in the White House chokes on a piece of matzo? Does he even have a running mate yet?
 
While you should never trust a journalist, note that Tucker only became baste because after the 1/6 betrayal by Fox (which is not effectively run by Paul Ryan) their ratings nosedived. People were watching Newsmaxx and OANN or whatever they're called, and they got better ratings than Tucker did.

The way to make people do what you want is to have the ability to affect their material circumstances. Deny them material benefit if they don't do what you want, and give them material benefits if they do what you you want. While people like Tucker are amoral, bitching about betrayal reveals that you are deluded and powerless. Wake up to the reality of power dynamics and strive for power.

This doesn't necessarily mean organizing people into political machines that can give people what they want, though that is probably the biggest part of acquiring power. It also involves dirty tricks. You don't need a ton of people to ratfuck, but you do need to understand how the systems you're subverting work and you need a realistic perspective of your situation (neither blackpilled or whitepilled).

About 1/3 of people support thing 1, about 1/3 support thing 2, and about 1/3 go with whoever is strongest or what's in their material interests. Strive to be strong and to gain the means to reward your friends and punish your enemies.

As for the vax bullshit, some people can only learn something by experiencing it themselves. Focus on protecting yourself and laugh at the damage.
Who’s “bitching about betrayal”? I’ve never watched a single episode of Tucker. I haven’t consumed any alphabet network content in 18 months. I just find it hilarious that because Tucker turned in his hornrims, suspenders, and bowtie for an Ill-fitting off-the-rack suit with the top shirt button behind his tie undone “Everyman” costume, folks believe that Bill Kristol’s former protege is now some kind of “populist”.
 
  • Like
Reactions: silverstacks
Who’s “bitching about betrayal”? I’ve never watched a single episode of Tucker. I haven’t consumed any alphabet network content in 18 months. I just find it hilarious that because Tucker turned in his hornrims, suspenders, and bowtie for an Ill-fitting off-the-rack suit with the top shirt button behind his tie undone “Everyman” costume, folks believe that Bill Kristol’s former protege is now some kind of “populist”.
By the same token, no one should ever be allowed to change their beliefs from 10 to 15 years ago ever. No matter how wrong your previous beliefs were proven to be.
 
I do believe Tucker is genuinely based, but he himself has admitted that what he can say is limited by what the execs will allow him to say. Obviously Fox News gives him a very large platform to reach out to a wide audience of normies (and the fact that they are indeed normies is the important detail here, since if Tucker leaves Fox said normies will likely never hear even a whisper of the stuff Tucker brings up on the regular) which he'd have to give up if he went too spicy. He's gotten more and more spicy as time has gone on, so clearly the executives are gradually loosening the reins on Tucker as the overton window shifts further right.
 
By the same token, no one should ever be allowed to change their beliefs from 10 to 15 years ago ever. No matter how wrong your previous beliefs were proven to be.
You’re right. They shouldn’t. Especially if they haven’t publicly repudiated their prior statements and even then I wouldn’t believe a talking head like Tucker for a second

Tucker was as big of a neocon shill as he could have possibly been. He rode W’s tip same as Hannity and all the rest. Now W is Michelle O’s best friend and Tucker is the “everyman’s” best friend? Give me a break.
 
You can't avoid streaming ads if you watch youtube on a smart TV or streaming device, so has anyone else been getting SEIU ads that pop up now, basically talking about how they're fighting for their workers who all come across as lazy consoomers?


It's this ad that was released 3 months ago, but I guess Google was told to push this shit for BBB and that Joepedo whitehouse media blitz.
 
I do believe Tucker is genuinely based, but he himself has admitted that what he can say is limited by what the execs will allow him to say. Obviously Fox News gives him a very large platform to reach out to a wide audience of normies (and the fact that they are indeed normies is the important detail here, since if Tucker leaves Fox said normies will likely never hear even a whisper of the stuff Tucker brings up on the regular) which he'd have to give up if he went too spicy. He's gotten more and more spicy as time has gone on, so clearly the executives are gradually loosening the reins on Tucker as the overton window shifts further right.
If Tucker leaves Fox then that's the end of Fox. Especially with Paul Ryan at the helm.

What we need is something like SNL or Mad TV for right wing media. The left is pompous and insane, and if you can make people laugh at them and get away with it then you will win a lot of power.

You’re right. They shouldn’t. Especially if they haven’t publicly repudiated their prior statements and even then I wouldn’t believe a talking head like Tucker for a second

Tucker was as big of a neocon shill as he could have possibly been. He rode W’s tip same as Hannity and all the rest. Now W is Michelle O’s best friend and Tucker is the “everyman’s” best friend? Give me a break.
I don't necessarily agree with you but your attitude is useful to have as a counter to Q tards. Good luck out there.
 
He is blaming Trump for nuking bipartisanship so he can't pass BBB. Specifically mentioned that "The Big Lie" was fueling it, which makes me wonder if a large increase in people think the election was stolen in his polling.
Honestly I say Pelosi killed bipartisanship considering how many times Trump went to her to do such and she constantly said no.

I am curious too if more people are starting to disprove Biden because their starting to belive he's illegitimate
 
The plan is to make as much money off of his current schtick as possible and then once the bloom is off that rose Tucker can do a heel turn and jump to another network again.
Tucker, for better or worse, is the future of Fox News. Gen Y-Z HATED Bill O'Reilly's guts but Tucker is younger, sexier, and more ability to appeal to young/middle age conservatives post-Trump who find O'Reilly a cuckservative neocon shill who JUST.DOESN'T.GET.IT.

Murdoch has gambled that Tucker will bring in younger viewers and allow Fox News to stay relevant and alive as the original target audience era slowly dies off. And Tucker is all in on this, because it's his big shot to be the top guy instead of the token conservative placecard guy.

If Tucker leaves Fox then that's the end of Fox. Especially with Paul Ryan at the helm.

What we need is something like SNL or Mad TV for right wing media. The left is pompous and insane, and if you can make people laugh at them and get away with it then you will win a lot of power.

They have Gutfield, but Gutfield's basically doing "Tough Crowd With Colin Quinn" which is a radically different format than what most political comedy shit is these days.

But the big issue is that stuff DOES exist online but no fucking network is going to risk alienating the liberal elite assholes in Hollywood to bring it to cable TV. Especially since (as seen with South Park), the left WILL corrupt any conservative that does get through the door somehow one way or another and destroy anyone who refuses.
 
Nancy has officially been press-ganged. DNC won't let her have the pleasure of retiring.

Pelosi will stay around to lead House Democrats through the next election -- and perhaps beyond​

(article)

(CNN)Speaker Nancy Pelosi will stay until at least after the midterm elections, extending her nearly 20-year run as the House's top Democrat after she turns 82 and, perhaps, beyond.

She is planning to file and run for reelection in her San Francisco district next year -- at least for now -- in keeping with her pattern of deciding about staying in Congress after the elections, when she likely will have won an 18th full term.

And sources familiar with Pelosi's thinking say she isn't ruling out the possibility of trying to stay in leadership after 2022, despite her original vow to leave as the top House Democrat. She'll devote much of next year to raising money for Democrats as they try to hold their narrow majority, those sources tell CNN, adding to the nearly $1 billion her office calculates she has already raised for Democrats in her time as leader.

The months of tortuous negotiations over President Joe Biden's legislative initiatives are inspiring a contradictory mix of emotions. Many House Democrats are more eager than ever to see the California Democrat go and give way to younger leadership. But even many of those same lawmakers are terrified that, without her, they will be consumed by squabbling instead of fighting back against House Republicans at a moment when the fundamentals of American democracy appear to be on the line.

"Where do we go from here?" one member said, expressing the stress. "I don't know."

In a series of interviews with key aides and more than two dozen House Democratic members -- across age, ideology and geography, and including Pelosi supporters and critics alike -- a portrait emerges of a leader who still commands respect, and no small measure of fear, within her caucus. (Many of those members requested anonymity to speak frankly with CNN and did not want to anger Pelosi or be seen feeding a narrative about Democratic infighting.) She shepherded Biden's Covid-19 rescue plan last spring and his massive infrastructure plan this fall, and then delivered the most transformative social spending program in generations through her chamber. Each one could be a capstone to an already historic career.

Still, the speaker is also losing her grip on House Democrats. Interviews with her colleagues reveal a struggle to keep up with members who are less concerned with loyalty and allegiance and more willing to blow up negotiations for the sake of a boost on social media or TV. She faced repeated rebellions the last few months, they say. She rescheduled votes over and over because she couldn't get her caucus together -- as Biden and top White House aides lost patience with House Democrats' constant drama. She got so irritated with Congressional Progressive Caucus Chair Pramila Jayapal that she gave the Washington state Democrat the silent treatment for several days, according to several lawmakers who heard of it from the shunned colleague.

Admirers and detractors both confess to a sense of dread about what things will be like after Pelosi leaves. Her grip on House Democrats may be looser than it was, but whoever comes after her won't have anywhere near that control. And with everyone expecting her departure to come soon, many complained to CNN that she hasn't prepared her caucus for the post-Pelosi era, though she has worked to groom several of the top prospects to succeed her.

Pelosi declined an interview through a spokesperson, but a person familiar with her thinking dismissed any speculation she may bow out before the midterms. Pelosi insiders also shot down the idea that she's making some legacy-saving play to avoid handing over the gavel to Republicans again after losing the majority in 2010.

'We're eating our own'

But what's facing her caucus is evident in interview after interview, as they fight over everything from tax cuts to support for Israel to who gets to call themselves progressive and what Democrats really stand for. The divisions are wider and easier to see in the larger, more raucous House, but they're also obvious in the Senate, where Democratic leader Chuck Schumer deals with many of the same issues.

It's that last divide that was most laid bare in the fights over the two bills at the center of Biden's economic agenda this fall.

"We can keep saying our diversity is our power -- but guess what? I got more shit from my fellow Democratic colleagues over the past months than I did from the Republicans," said Rep. Kathleen Rice, a New Yorker who was an initial holdout over the costs of the infrastructure and social spending bills. "We're eating our own at a time when we should be doing everything we can to hold onto our slim majority. Progressives need to remember that Republicans are the ones who want to destroy our democracy, not moderates in their own caucus."

Rep. Jamaal Bowman, a fellow New Yorker who beat a longtime incumbent in a primary last year to become a proud member of the House progressives, responded to Rice by saying he'd never attacked her -- though he had been critical of compromises during the negotiations, eventually voting against the infrastructure deal. Bowman said it's moderates like Rice who should catch up to a changed party, rather than blaming progressives. And he acknowledged that the factions often aren't even talking to each other.

"I agree we have to stop eating our own," Bowman said. "We just need to get to know each other and figure out how to work together, even though we represent different districts. It's not about Pelosi. We run our own offices. So it's on us to pick up the phone, reach out and say, 'Hey, let's have a conversation.'"

What House Democrats are dealing with is nothing like what's engulfing House Republicans, who have ignored anti-democratic, anti-science and racist elements in their own ranks and downplayed much of their colleagues' most controversial behavior. As much as Democrats argue with each other, they're not posting photoshopped anime videos of themselves appearing to kill their GOP colleagues or calling each other "trash" on Twitter.

But like their party as a whole, House Democrats are starting to look past their aging leaders toward an existential crisis about where they're going, how they'll function and what they believe in.

A season of tumult

This fall's fight to pass the Biden plans was beset from the beginning by infighting in Pelosi's ranks. The President -- a Senate veteran -- had deferred the House machinations to Pelosi, but she was unable to get the votes from her caucus for months.

In a promise to moderates, the speaker had set an end-of-September date to put the infrastructure bill on the floor, but she had to keep pushing it back as progressives threatened to tank it unless they got a vote on the broader spending package at the same time.

Finally, frustrated by the party's inability to come together, Biden made an October trip to Capitol Hill to talk to House Democrats, delaying his departure for Europe later that day. Pelosi felt that Biden flubbed the appearance by refusing to ask explicitly for the votes for the infrastructure package, according to people familiar with her thinking. After he spoke, she stood in front of him and told her members what he'd been trying to say.

"He's delayed his plane," she later told her colleagues, as one member recalled it. "We can either be the angels on his shoulder as he lands in Rome, or we can embarrass the President and bring great shame to our nation."

Progressives revolted anyway, despite her appeal and the President's visit. A few weeks later, when Pelosi pressed ahead for the final infrastructure vote, she leaned on her allies in the Congressional Black Caucus to help devise a strategy to get her caucus in line. Some progressives, however, cut Pelosi out of their conversations and dealt directly with Biden.

Several say they simply decided she hadn't been an honest broker for them, and that they ultimately voted yes not for anything she did but because of a last-minute call from Biden in which he said if they didn't vote yes, the whole Build Back Better agenda would lose its momentum and he'd have to move on. ("The country needs to see us get something done," he'd pleaded with them.)

Pelosi was insulted personally and on Biden's behalf that Jayapal had said her caucus members shouldn't vote for the infrastructure package even after that Biden meeting. Jayapal told several colleagues that Pelosi refused to talk to her for days after that. Pelosi had a dismissive view of Jayapal's role, according to those close to her, wondering what the point was of dealing with the progressive caucus leader when she couldn't deliver the progressive votes. Jayapal saw things differently: with 96 members, Pelosi would never be able to line up every demand, or every vote, from the progressive caucus. Eventually, all but six voted yes when the House passed the infrastructure bill in early November, corralled by Jayapal, but also by that Biden call.

Pelosi defenders argue that she changed strategy smartly, as the facts changed, and that's a mark of a leader who's learned how to navigate tough legislation through.

"She was like a trauma surgeon for these bills," said freshman Rep. Jake Auchincloss of Massachusetts. "There were so many times -- sometimes multiple times a day -- when a bill was dead and she was able to put the paddles on and revive it."

Steve Ricchetti, the top Biden aide who was one of the main negotiators with Pelosi and other groups of Democrats, said the White House walked away from the infrastructure experience even more convinced of the speaker's unique ability to make things happen in the House.

"You hear the President say it all the time: Nancy Pelosi is the finest Speaker of the House in the history of our country," Ricchetti said. "Speaker Pelosi always comes through. She was the heart of our effort to pass infrastructure through the House, and there's just no one like the Speaker."

Others have a different view of Pelosi's command of the situation.

"She says a lot of things and doesn't seem to be able to deliver," said Rep. Kurt Schrader of Oregon, a conservative Blue Dog Democrat, referring to Pelosi's initial promise that the House would only consider the same version of the social safety net bill as the Senate. The thinking was that vulnerable House Democrats shouldn't have to cast politically risky votes -- essentially for nothing -- since the pricier version of the package wouldn't survive the Senate anyway.

But Pelosi explained to members that she changed her timeline because the Senate changed the overall scope and price of the package, and that she wasn't going to put a bill on the floor that would fail and embarrass the President -- even though that's exactly what some in her caucus wanted to do.

The House passed the infrastructure bill and the rule that would govern debate on the broader spending package late on a Friday night last month.

Pelosi held the infrastructure vote open until late as she urged members to vote and many of them refused to go to the floor.

What was widely reported when the bill passed -- with 13 Republicans -- in the middle of the night: spontaneous applause for Pelosi, celebrating a crowning achievement in her historic tenure as speaker.

But that's not the full story: a few House Democrats, a few drinks in, were amazed that they'd actually gotten it done, and were taunting Republicans at the back of the chamber. "F*** yeah," they said, not exactly summoning their inner Henry Clays. "We f***ing passed it, b*****s!" Colleagues egged them on. As some of those in the back of the room saw it play out, it was only as the claps and cheers worked their way to the front of the room that they morphed into a salute to the speaker.

'Trust among Democrats'

Pelosi has a simple response to complaints about how she navigated the bipartisan infrastructure bill and the social safety net package, which passed later last month, through the House. No one ever remembers the pain of childbirth, the mother of five likes to say; just the happy faces of the children once they're there.

Even those who ruefully chuckle at the thought of Pelosi staying on as leader wonder how they could pull off a similar feat without her.

She became an icon of the left in her late 70s, as both the face and the force of the opposition to Donald Trump's agenda, from the moment she put on her sunglasses, Matrix-style, walking out of a contentious meeting in the Oval Office, to when she tore up the text of Trump's final State of the Union address as soon as he finished delivering it.

Her high profile has made her a prolific fundraiser. As Virginia Democrat Terry McAuliffe was in a hotel across the Potomac watching himself lose the governor's race last month, Pelosi was at an Italian restaurant a few blocks from the US Capitol headlining an event that raised $2.6 million for House Democrats' campaign arm, and matching it with a transfer from her own campaign account.

"She has a trust among Democrats," said Rep. Ro Khanna, prominent progressive from California, reflecting on the status the speaker has developed in the minds of donors, party activists and more beyond the Capitol. "They trust her judgment, and they trust her skill. Anyone who comes after her is going to have to earn that trust."

To the extent she's thinking about her legacy, Pelosi insiders say, she knows that it might look bad if the captain jumped ship before the red wave hit. Doing so, they fear, might raise Democratic despair and decrease big donations. Pelosi is too loyal to her own members to do that.

But while she rakes in the cash for them, she's not without criticisms of her caucus. Colleagues and others around her say she's told them she has been taken aback at how little loyalty House Democrats have had for Biden in working to his pass his agenda. Multiple members say she's seemed surprised by the lack of respect for her own authority too.

The next generation

Pelosi has been criticized for years for not doing more to raise up or promote the next generation of leaders. She has also declined to name a successor -- something that won't change, those close to her say, whether this is her final year or not. "Pelosi sees a responsibility to groom and advance the next generation of leaders but not to name a successor," said the person close to her. "That's up to the caucus in her view, whenever that may be."

One big name -- albeit from the same generation -- isn't angling for the job even if he would make history as the first Black speaker. "Being speaker is not in my plans," 81-year-old Whip James Clyburn of South Carolina, the third-ranking Democrat in the House, told CNN. "At some point, I want to go to a rocking chair. At some point I want to have more time to play golf," he said, shooting down rumors he would vie for the gavel.

House Democrats are tired of the aging leadership of long-serving icons, but they don't yet trust anyone else to hold them together.

Rep. Hakeem Jeffries, the chair of the caucus, is the most widely mentioned successor to Pelosi. The New York Democrat has worked his way up to be the fifth-highest ranking member of the caucus and has been lining up supporters without ever saying explicitly he's interested in the top job. In talking with colleagues, he's been citing Pelosi's top-down, insular approach on infrastructure as part of what Democrats must change going forward.

And yet, he touted the House margins on the infrastructure and social spending bill votes as "Pelosi's finest hour." As for the trouble keeping his caucus together, Jeffries argued that's just part of being a House Democrat, rather than a Republican. "Democrats are not a cult. We're a coalition," he said.

But several members who are already supporting Jeffries -- himself a member of the Progressive Caucus -- say they wonder if he'll face the kind of revolt of progressives that Pelosi held off. If so, that could line up support for Rep. Katherine Clark of Massachusetts, the fourth-ranking Democrat, or Jayapal, who's been leaning into her profile-raising role in the infrastructure negotiations.

"Speaker Pelosi is masterful. She's done it for a long time. She knows exactly what the parameters are," Jayapal said. "But I also think that's an opportunity to bring new voices in and shape what the caucus looks like for the next generation."

Yet also standing as a possible successor is Steny Hoyer, the House majority leader who has built a reservoir of support and goodwill within the caucus. The Maryland Democrat is 82, though, and many Democrats say they're likely to opt for a new generation of leaders once Pelosi steps aside.

The next generation is also looking for an opportunity back home in California, where Pelosi is only the fifth person to represent her San Francisco district since Calvin Coolidge was president. If she quits after being reelected in 2022, that would spark a special election, much like the one she first won for the seat in 1987. Most political players in the area assume it could be a crowded race dominated by Christine Pelosi, the speaker's daughter, and Scott Wiener, a state senator who's been working his way up in city politics for the last decade, though forces in local politics are already gearing up to stop the younger Pelosi from winning it. Neither would comment on a hypothetical race.

"As you know," Christine Pelosi wrote in a text, "we have a very powerful sitting congresswoman and she's doing an excellent job!!"

Not all of her members agree, especially as cracks in the caucus emerge on everything from legislative priorities to how to deal with offensive comments from across the aisle. The debate over punishing GOP Rep. Lauren Boebert for Islamophobic remarks about Democratic Rep. Ilhan Omar is just the latest tension between the desire to please the liberal base and the need to remain pragmatic. More than a few find it hard to be sympathetic to the Minnesota Democrat given her past comments that have been interpreted as anti-Semitic, and her regular criticism of fellow Democrats -- including voting against the bipartisan infrastructure package.

Multiple members have told Pelosi they won't vote for another censure resolution or even to strip Boebert, a Colorado Republican, of her committees, after voting in November to censure GOP Rep. Paul Gosar of Arizona over the anime video in which he appeared to kill Democratic Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. They don't want to give Republicans more precedent for censures if the GOP wins the majority. Pelosi, agreeing with many of these Democrats that another censure would only distract attention from the legislative achievements they're trying to sell ahead of the midterms, helped fast-track a compromise: they'll vote on a bill from Omar combatting Islamophobia this week, using that as a pressure valve to avoid the harder vote.

Still, several Democratic members argued that the post-Pelosi days will probably be easier to manage if, as most of the caucus now assumes, they end next year in the minority.

"That is a blessing in disguise for whoever succeeds Nancy -- because presumably on a lot of votes, we'll all be voting no," said one Democratic member. "I would be happy to have the problem of, 'How do we govern in our majority in the post-Pelosi world?' But I don't think we're going to."
 
Tucker, for better or worse, is the future of Fox News. Gen Y-Z HATED Bill O'Reilly's guts but Tucker is younger, sexier, and more ability to appeal to young/middle age conservatives post-Trump who find O'Reilly a cuckservative neocon shill who JUST.DOESN'T.GET.IT.

Murdoch has gambled that Tucker will bring in younger viewers and allow Fox News to stay relevant and alive as the original target audience era slowly dies off. And Tucker is all in on this, because it's his big shot to be the top guy instead of the token conservative placecard guy.
irregardless of tuckers own views he is helping lead the party in a new direction. do people here forget last month he released a doc showing the 1/6 riot to be a psy-op by the feds to fuck over the right?

the last year or so every boomer has become more and more pol-esque and now they're talking about glowies. and most of this can be attributed to tucker's show.
 
Tucker is at least not a reptile. A crazy guy was filming him flyfishing like 8 years ago and had a completely human interaction and made friends with the dude.



I hate that the bar is so low.
 
O'Reilly a cuckservative neocon shill who JUST.DOESN'T.GET.IT.
The laughable thing about that is that O'Reilly is probably the Media Personality who is most "Pro-Trump" since they have known each other for years, to the point that O'Reilly is the one Trump chose to do a tour with. I think the only "cuckservative" aspect of Bill is that he thinks that "Respectability Politics" matter anymore.

How can a third of the people in this country go "Yeah, this is fine".
Seething about how good a job Trump did..so they are trying to Cope...until their personal finances get Dilated.
 
Pelosi staying is retarded, which is why they're doing it. If you're going to lose, possibly bigly, get the 80 year old out and let the AAA players gets experience. I know they have no real bench beside the crazies of the squad but they need to get some experience. The Senate at least had Schumer take over for Reid in 2015. Plus Pelosi would remain showing an inability to change course.

Rub salt in the wound, strip Pelosi of committee assignments, make her the minority leader with no pull whatsoever.
 
Tucker, for better or worse, is the future of Fox News. Gen Y-Z HATED Bill O'Reilly's guts but Tucker is younger, sexier, and more ability to appeal to young/middle age conservatives post-Trump who find O'Reilly a cuckservative neocon shill who JUST.DOESN'T.GET.IT.

Murdoch has gambled that Tucker will bring in younger viewers and allow Fox News to stay relevant and alive as the original target audience era slowly dies off. And Tucker is all in on this, because it's his big shot to be the top guy instead of the token conservative placecard guy.
Tucker Carlson has more money than he knows what to do with. I think that he actually wants the USA to not be destroyed, like for real.
 
the feds don't, the cartels do, is my point

I have a lot of faith in middle American political structures but they've never been tested against big fat sacks of Colombian cash. In border states and on the I-5 corridor those structures went down like a metaphor for abusive fellatio.

The extent to which Canada is already a narcostate I invite leafs to discuss if there are any on this thread.

Canada isn't a narostate, at least in the sense of being owned by the cartels. It's basically the same as any other US state: lots of addicts, a police force unable to keep up (if they even wanted to), and lots of progressive politicians out more for their paycheques than constituents. The whole rehabilitation and supervised drug site bullshit is plentiful up here because people adamantly refuse to deal with the reasons behind drug use head on and are perfectly fine with it so long as it stays out their neighbourhood.

It should put into perspective that when Canada legalized weed the number of weed smokers went down; there's not a drug problem north of the border, there's a taxation problem a few toaster-IQ individuals thought they could solve by giving the young and stupid a solution for - ignoring that those morons only care if the vice of their choice is affordable.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back