This could, conceivably, be the hold up at federal level tbh. We have no current means by which we can objectively test for active impairment caused by THC...
Testing for alcohol is rare, and incident specific, because it's a measure of actual impairment. You aren't tested for alcohol to see if you've had a beer in the last 30 days, you're being tested to see if it's dangerous for you to be operating a vehicle, provide healthcare, carry a gun...
The basic principle behind alcohol testing is to determine actual impairment. The premise is that an agency is protecting others from dangers inherent in your being impaired.
The basic principle of drug testing is that the same danger from impairment is prevented by preventing impairment, but the premise is that any use is illegal. It's a "just in case" premise vs an actual matter of being presently impaired.
That fundamental difference is hugely notable in the case of DUI. How exactly do you mitigate the risk of DUI with THC? The current arguments in favor of legalization trend towards "it doesn't impair people as much", but that's a total cop out that doesn't address the issue, exactly the same way prohibition is.
We seriously need a solution to that, and I suspect it could very well be the "mystery cause" of federal legislators on the liberal side dragging their feet. They don't want to open the floodgates and make it unprosecutable to get in your car impaired, because even with an easy means to prosecute that if alcohol is the cause, it's still a huge issue... How bad will it be if it's effectively undetectable?
You want cops deciding based on how well you perform the little monkey dance? I fucking don't. I can't dance for shit perfectly sober...
Plenty of people out there buy houses for cash, spruce them up, and sell them for profit to extract some of the equity inherent in real property. Over time, they collectively push up the perceived value by force, and occasionally, the people who are the ultimate source of that equity, the ones looking to buy a permanent home, will stop buying.
There's been a chunk of time recently, a decade or maybe more, where those permanent home seekers, the true source of the equity, haven't been buying property. COVID exasperated the issue, because the flippers went fucking crazy for a couple years and inflated the amount of non-homes. Now they want their equity back out, but nobody who wants an actual home is looking to buy one because there isn't enough value for them.
So prices have to come down before the actual source of equity starts buying again. The bubble has to deflate some.
Again, the entirety of this statement is simply my personal opinion, so grain of salt, but this is what pure logic and critical thinking suggests is the true mechanism :)
Not sure if that's "left", as it's kinda hard to define those terms anymore, but i exist in a similar place I think :)
My objections are actually related to due process. I feel there's definitely shadow of doubt there, and while I don't like trump, I'm not willing to ignore that shadow, and the current bullshit going on in Texas with Biden is a pretty solid example of why... Not to say they're the same thing at all, the Biden thing is not even a shadow, it's just outright bullshit, but if you don't need an actual conviction, then that's going to be the inevitable outcome...
Do you feel that "left" as you've defined it means democrat? I don't. I certainly don't think it means Republican either though. Not trying to stir any pots or anything, it's just kinda rare for me to agree with a sentiment as much as I agree with yours and I'm genuinely curious about your opinion on the matter :)
He's kinda the only other option the weird cultist zealots will go for... The GOP kinda signed the contract in blood when they agreed to let trump put the R by his name... A lot of those voters won't go back to anything resembling a jeb , etc
My comment had almost exactly nothing to do with republicans... I implied they aren't capable of being reasonable/rational, but the point was really about Dems, and their lack of being reasonable/rational not because they can't, but because they just decide not to.
...and I got the downvotes... Didn't sound like a Democrat, so I must be a repub, because that's just how Dems work now.
You seem uncharacteristically reasonable though, so I replied to you just to say that :)
Roughly $30m in liquidatable assets, $400k/yr residual income, and the ability to generate between 5 and 10 million a year in speaking fees, IF people will still pay to hear him speak (and I have absolutely no clue if that's a yes or a no tbh... Kind of a double edged sword, ya know?). His cameo is very much small potatoes by comparison.
He's pretty notably competent at spending more than he has though, so it's kinda hard to put a price tag on his ass...
I'd argue commentary like yours is a greater hindrance to a reasonable conversation than the republicans are. You're capable of being rational but are willingly refusing to.
And queue the Dems throwing down votes at a someone paying them a compliment and ironically proving my point...
Encephalitis is caused by viral infections. Our immune system usually suppresses said viruses, and HIV takes away the ability to suppress them.
This happens with a lot of illnesses... thrush, Tuberculosis, fungal infections. HIV allows a lot of stuff to have far worse impact than it normally would.
That's not quite the same as HIV causing them... Pedantic maybe, but since we're talking about words meaning things... ;)
"In her letter, Kounalakis acknowledged there would be 'political punditry' about a potential decision to remove Trump from the primary ballot but said 'this is not a matter of political gamesmanship.' "
Bullshit.
Not only is this gamesmanship, it's foolish gamesmanship... Dems are gonna shoot themselves square in the foot with this shit.
If you do declare trump ineligible, what goes on the ballot? You gonna have one of them third world elections with just one name on it? No, you're gonna have trumps mini-me clone... Fucking desantis...
You got Colorado right now. That's not gonna have a huge impact on it's own. Those electoral votes were going to be bidens regardless, so it's something the GOP can, and likely will, completely ignore. In terms of the gamesmanship, all thatx happened is Colorado having made a statement.
If California joins them, it's just as irrelevant (California's electorals also belong to Biden), however, it's now doubled as a statement. It's twice as loud, and half as ignorable.
The real danger is that a state that matters jumps on the bandwagon. Notably Arizona... If a state that has the capability to determine the outcome opts to bar trump, the GOP will drop him and run desantis in 50 states. You'll have every single red state supporting fucking desantis, and the potential to pull "martyr" votes in the battleground states for fucking desantis.
If you had to choose trump or desantis, would you go with desantis? That answer should definitely be no, because a lot of the shit cited as being what's wrong with trump is more attributable to desantis than to trump himself.
Dems are playing with fire with this bullshit, and saying it ain't gamesmanship is as valid in my opinion as trump saying he wasn't responsible for the rioting. Possible, but I got some doubts :)
Lol, is that more a Republican deal? Pretty sure repubs are listening to whoever has the fattest wallet, or perhaps the Jesus book...
I guess your opinion is that Dem legislators are likewise apathetic to the general public? I was implying otherwise, but I guess it didn't sound narrative-y enough eh? Meh.
Democrats are kinda beholden to public opinion and it's mercurial nature because they're platform is that they are the entity responsible for people getting what they want...
If public opinion sways to being against Israel, it is expected that a democratic government will follow suit.
I mean, in with you on pure principle, but why bother in such a "low rent" forum? Kinda feels like trying to rescue a carrot that fell into the garbage disposal? Am I making any sense? Lol
Is that not just a different way of saying what I said? You said it fancier, but I feel like it's the same sentence :)