There is, of course, only one possible answer to that.
Actually, I applaud the effort and production values they put into it.
Also, I find the translation interesting. The Klingon lexicon is pretty small.
Maybe, just maybe, the libertarian kiddies who’ve given Trump a pass so far will get angry that their newly legalized pot is going to be taken away. I hope.
I guess you can count me as a normal denizen.
Well, at least one non-reg is wondering where this thread went…
(Wandered over to say the same thing, but you got here first.)
The question is, even if those libertarian kiddies desert him are there enough to make a dent in his approval or are they vastly outnumbered by the “with him no matter what he does” crowd?
A brief comment on NPR’s Morning Edition this morning caught my ear (no link to the exact comment that I can find but there is this story on Trump and CPAC). He’s getting a warm welcome there in spite of his alleged support for more investment in infrastructure–one area where he’s completely at odds with “conservative orthodoxy”.
Not that I believe he really intends to invest in infrastructure, and I suspect the CPAC crowd doesn’t either.
Now I wonder what he said, but don’t care enough to view the hidden comment.
I too am a normal denizen.
As for the original post.
“oppressed minorities”? I am pretty sure you didn’t mean it to, but it sounds like pot smoking is just for minorities. White people LOVE pot.
I don’t see how anyone with true libertarian (big or little L) could support him in the first place.
They are vastly outnumbered. But every tiny chip from his support helps. Every time he breaks a campaign promise and disappoints a group of people, it adds to the discontent.[quote=“SpunkyTWS, post:25, topic:95733”]
He’s getting a warm welcome there in spite of his alleged support for more investment in infrastructure
Like you, I don’t think anyone there trusts him, but he’s getting a warm welcome because his existence as President allows Steve Bannon to happen.
Not so much support, but ignore him because “yawn, he and Hillary are the same, just corrupt politicians, but at least he says that he won’t touch the pot laws, so that’s something anyway. He’s a businessman, and pot is big business, and Republicans are all for state’s rights, so my legal pot is safe.”
reminded me of home, but I’m not repeating that in polite company.
No, I mean that this week has seen the administration and other Republicans around the country insisting that states should have the right to discriminate against LGBT people but not to legalize pot.
“States’ Rights” as invoked by conservatives have pretty much always been about the right to keep some subgroup down.
I think this might be @frauenfelder’s alternative to those posts from awhile back where he wasn’t allowing comments at all.
Check your badges. You are a regular, which means you spend too much time here and can read the lounge posts.
Or just distracted. That’s just as useful for their aims.
has spicy said a single thing that hasn’t been utterly full of crap? One. Single. Thing?
We’re polite company? When did that happen? Do I need to get the good china out?