visionary Posted June 3, 2017 Share Posted June 3, 2017 3 minutes ago, LadySkinsFan said: Is that the White Supremacist, Richard Spencer? If so, how does he ever get a TS/SC clearance? No. Not him. Quote Spencer is Trump's second pick to be the Navy's top civilian official. Another wealthy financier, Philip Bilden, was Trump's first choice for the job, but withdrew due to problems untangling his finances. Spencer is now the managing director of venture capital firm Fall Creek Management. He served as an officer in the Marine Corps and held a spot on the Defense Business Board, serving as vice chairman. Spencer's nomination must be confirmed by the Senate. He would be the second service secretary to be confirmed, after Air Force Secretary Heather Wilson. Trump has yet to settle on a nominee for Army secretary after two previous picks withdrew. https://www.navytimes.com/articles/richard-spencer-navy-secretary-nomination?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter Quote His name is Richard Spencer, and he's a former financial industry executive. Spencer is also a former Marine Corps captain. The White House says Spencer most recently was managing partner of Fall Creek Management, a privately held management consulting company in Wyoming. Spencer also was vice chairman and chief financial officer for Intercontinental Exchange Inc., a financial market company, and president of Crossroads Group, a venture capital firm that was bought by Lehman Brothers in 2003. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tshile Posted June 3, 2017 Share Posted June 3, 2017 I found things to like about Bush and Obama. Plenty to disagree with, or outright hate, and definitely plenty of things to not like about the parties they supposedly represented. But I found things to like. I found instances where I felt they were doing what they thought was best, etc. I can't do that with trump, at least as of yet. I can only find things that are not as disastrous as others. The worst thing is he has no conviction on anything. He changes his mind after a 5 minute conversation with someone, he tells us that because he's proud of it as if it means he's flexible or working to get both sides. All it really means is how grossly uninformed he is on basically everything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LadySkinsFan Posted June 3, 2017 Share Posted June 3, 2017 So Spencer served on the Defense Business Board. Maybe RFPs will start up again. All my proposal friends say that business has been dead since before the election. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FanboyOf91 Posted June 3, 2017 Share Posted June 3, 2017 And why not? Erdogan knows he can bully/bribe Trump and get more free stuff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visionary Posted June 3, 2017 Share Posted June 3, 2017 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visionary Posted June 3, 2017 Share Posted June 3, 2017 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tshile Posted June 3, 2017 Share Posted June 3, 2017 From the link in the tweet Quote Sessions has ordered federal prosecutors to once again apply mandatory minimum sentences to low-level, non-violent drug offenders. He recently told Hugh Hewitt, “Marijuana is against federal law, and that applies in states where they may have repealed their own anti-marijuana laws. And I’m not in favor of legalization of marijuana. I think it’s a more dangerous drug than a lot of people realize.” Wonder how long before he goes after the growers and distributors in those states. Maybe one day we'll have thoughtful policy on 'drugs' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoCalMike Posted June 3, 2017 Share Posted June 3, 2017 8 minutes ago, tshile said: From the link in the tweet Wonder how long before he goes after the growers and distributors in those states. Maybe one day we'll have thoughtful policy on 'drugs' Isn't this a problem with the "just let each state decide what they want to do" mentality when it comes to issues like this? It basically means every 4-8 years there is potential for the "laws-sort of laws-not quite laws-unwritten laws" to change. If the federal government would just go ahead and at least decriminalize marijuana itself and be done with the issue, then I think what would be a big step in the "ok it's done with, settled law" category. Instead, there continues to be this gray area about it because every state wants to do their own thing but then at the same time the federal government's enforcement is going to depend on who the President and AG are. Regardless of your own personal views on Marijuana, I do think it's ridiculous that the AG would be looking to override what states want to do on this issue. It's not like he is basing his opinion on any science or hard data, he comes off like an old senile man who say "Reefer Madness" at 15 years old and has been convinced every since "It's the devil's lettuce, ma!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visionary Posted June 3, 2017 Share Posted June 3, 2017 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LadySkinsFan Posted June 3, 2017 Share Posted June 3, 2017 No states rights for marijuana, says the states rights party. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visionary Posted June 3, 2017 Share Posted June 3, 2017 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinsmarydu Posted June 3, 2017 Share Posted June 3, 2017 What's the mental patient going to tweet now? Is he going to stand with our ally? Or will he say something really stupid? Bets? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoCalMike Posted June 3, 2017 Share Posted June 3, 2017 Well this is interesting, with AGJS encouraging more strict enforcement, maybe the Secret Service will also have to relax it's policies on hiring folks with a criminal record? http://www.cnn.com/2017/06/01/politics/secret-service-new-marijuana-policy/?iid=ob_homepage_deskrecommended_pool Secret Service relaxes marijuana policy in bid to swell ranks Quote Following a "whole-person concept" in hiring, the Secret Service will no longer disqualify an applicant who has used marijuana more than a certain number of times, instead potentially allowing a candidate who admits to using the drug, taking into consideration the time between his or her last use and their application to the agency. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinsmarydu Posted June 3, 2017 Share Posted June 3, 2017 1 minute ago, NoCalMike said: Well this is interesting, with AGJS encouraging more strict enforcement, maybe the Secret Service will also have to relax it's policies on hiring folks with a criminal record? "Well, ya know, craziest thing...I was high af and saw this ad,...and...well...">falls off chair<"hehehaha, someone said you needed folks"...>passes out< Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mistertim Posted June 3, 2017 Share Posted June 3, 2017 4 hours ago, LadySkinsFan said: No states rights for marijuana, says the states rights party. This is so often the case it seems. Many times the "state's rights" conservatives are all about the state's making their own way and the feds mostly being hands off...until it has to do with something they oppose ideologically. Then they're all about federal intervention and the states can **** right the hell off. Just like the "keep the government out of peoples' lives" conservatives who change their tune when it comes to women's bodies or gay marriage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinsmarydu Posted June 3, 2017 Share Posted June 3, 2017 16 minutes ago, mistertim said: This is so often the case it seems. Many times the "state's rights" conservatives are all about the state's making their own way and the feds mostly being hands off...until it has to do with something they oppose ideologically. Then they're all about federal intervention and the states can **** right the hell off. Just like the "keep the government out of peoples' lives" conservatives who change their tune when it comes to women's bodies or gay marriage. And you know, the weird thing is...most of the non-educated folks who voted for Trump probably don't have an IRA, so they couldn't care less who sells them a line of bull****, they've got absolutely nothing to lose. For those of us with a very modest investment, we'd at least like to KEEP THAT WHICH WE PUT IN. Like Medicare. I was born in '66, I think my first tax return filing happened in '83. I need a guarantee that this fool won't throw it away. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LD0506 Posted June 4, 2017 Share Posted June 4, 2017 Who knew that if you turned Donald Duck upside down you get the other Donald? I am getting so tired of this, it's the wrong duck! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGreatBuzz Posted June 4, 2017 Share Posted June 4, 2017 Just curious for the Left leaning folks here talking about it, are you all pro-states rights (in the non racist way)? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tshile Posted June 4, 2017 Share Posted June 4, 2017 5 hours ago, NoCalMike said: Isn't this a problem with the "just let each state decide what they want to do" mentality when it comes to issues like this? Yes. Some of us said as much when it started. My other issue is the "make money off it" argument. The money should go to education, treatment, etc. If you propose it as a revenue stream, and it winds up not being, then those other things suffer or it all goes away. You either think people should be allowed to (responsibly) consume things, or you don't. You either recognize the current drug war as a monumental failure, or you don't. 59 minutes ago, mistertim said: Many times the "state's rights" conservatives are all about the state's making their own way and the feds mostly being hands off...until it has to do with something they oppose ideologically. As someone who is pro states rights, and sometimes identifies as a conservative (and is considered one by many here), I hate those people. I really, really hate those people. 4 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said: Just curious for the Left leaning folks here talking about it, are you all pro-states rights (in the non racist way)? This is obviously a trick question because everything the left disagrees with is racist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TradeTheBeal! Posted June 4, 2017 Share Posted June 4, 2017 I've never met nor even heard of anyone who was an active "anti-states rights" supporter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoCalMike Posted June 4, 2017 Share Posted June 4, 2017 20 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said: Just curious for the Left leaning folks here talking about it, are you all pro-states rights (in the non racist way)? I admit I don't have an extensive history of when "states rights" work best in the modern world, but I would tend to think the best things to actually leave up to state and local jurisdictions are things that are unique to that specific region (organically). For example, hunting and wildlife management is likely better left to each state according to native species etc etc......same with agriculture stuff. Things like marriage equality on the other hand, I find no actual benefit in having it state by state. Marijuana laws the same. Now I can understand if states want to treat it like Alcohol and regulate it in their own way, but there is no reason I should be able to possess/use Marijuana in one state, but if I cross over a line, I can be arrested. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGreatBuzz Posted June 4, 2017 Share Posted June 4, 2017 18 minutes ago, TryTheBeal! said: I've never met nor even heard of anyone who was an active "anti-states rights" supporter. Well usually when it gets brought up, its immediately called racist. So i assume that meant a lack of support. I could be wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TradeTheBeal! Posted June 4, 2017 Share Posted June 4, 2017 3 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said: Well usually when it gets brought up, its immediately called racist. So i assume that meant a lack of support. I could be wrong. True. You and tshile went to the race card immediately. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGreatBuzz Posted June 4, 2017 Share Posted June 4, 2017 1 minute ago, TryTheBeal! said: True. You and tshile went to the race card immediately. Can you blame us? It jas been repeatedly in this forum that "states rights" is a racist buzzword. I was just asking a question and clarifying it before racism was brought up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
China Posted June 4, 2017 Share Posted June 4, 2017 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.