bOtH sIdEs R sAmE

Friday’s proposal to permanently ban hemp THC comes after years of complaints from California’s licensed marijuana industry, which has claimed that it faces unfair competition from unregulated hemp companies. Marijuana companies face sky-high regulatory costs, especially in California, and can only sell their products through state-licensed retailers. Hemp companies, on the other hand, face almost no regulations and have historically been able to sell their intoxicating drugs almost anywhere, including liquor stores, grocery stores and online.

This disparity between the two industries has created pressure on governors like Newsom to protect their state-regulated cannabis companies.

This decision makes sense to me.

It’s weird that every time someone goes against Trump there is an effort to manufacture consent to hate those people.

Because Russian bots try to dispute the fact that Snowden is a Russian asset.

“bOtH sIdEs R sAmE”

It seems like every time someone goes after Trump there is a barrage of commenters online that all of a sudden have a lot of anger to express towards that person.

For example, Mueller, Garland, Cheney.

The timing an quantity of comments always makes it seem like brigading to manufacture consent to attack those people.

Votes are a metric to measure engagement. Which is valuable information

The comments on here don’t reflect those differences.

I see progressives on here everyday attacking democrats for fundraising.

Why is it that both Trump and progressives on lemmy want the DNC to not have fundraising?

Trump has already been impeached multiple times. One more isn’t going to change your reaction.

I’m gonna guess Trump would respond with:

A) “Fake News”

B) “A lot of people are saying they aren’t Chinese”

C) “Ukraine shouldn’t have started the war. China is just helping an ally.”

D) Not comment on it at all and say/do something attention grabbing to distract.

I don’t think he really cares about China. I think he’s just sabotaging the US for Putin.

This is an oversimplification that ignores nuance.

It’s like saying “everyone dies one day, so whatever symptoms you are experiencing automatically mean you are dying now”.

This is all part of the natural life cycle of empires. Best case scenario is they fizzle out with protection from another empire, like Great Britain did. Worst case scenario is really bad.

You’re saying Russia is invading Ukraine and China is getting ready to invade Taiwan because the US has less control because of decadence?

This is all part of the natural life cycle of empires. Best case scenario is they fizzle out with protection from another empire, like Great Britain did. Worst case scenario is really bad.

This isn’t even the first time in US history that they’ve become isolationist.

It looks like all the Russian agents (Republicans) are trying to spoil US relations with Europe. Why would Putin want them to do that?

Why do Democrats talk like they can win elections but then blame voters when they lose?

Because they’ve won the majority of elections in the last 3 decades. They arent blaming voters when they lose. The voters that voted democrat are blaming leftists for not voting and getting Trump elected.

And to be honest, I don’t really even follow your post. Are Democrats not progressives? Are we agreeing that they are center right and that their base isn’t really motivated to vote for that?

Democrats have been moving left since Obama. Leftist didn’t show up to vote this elections because of Gaza so they got Trump elected. So now democrats need to cater to the right to increase voter turnout.

Why is it that progressives consistently lose elections but talk like they know how to win elections?

If progressives know how to win better than democrats why do they keep losing elections?

We are in an echo chamber. Downvotes on lemmy do not reflect a real world consensus on opinions.

Literally anyone can run in a closed primary. A closed primary means that only registered members of the party can vote in the primary.

Winning the primary decides whether or not someone can run as a candidate in the general election. Either you need that explained because you don’t know anything about primaries or you are pretending to not understand what you’re reading.

There are only 15 states that hold closed primaries. I live in a state with open primaries, and I’m repped by Ed Markey, Elizabeth Warren, and Ayanna Pressley. Not exactly a bunch of secret conservatives, is it?

Your reading comprehension is failing you again. Having no vetting process doesn’t guarentee the candidate is a “secret conservative” it just increases the chances of it happening. I’m surprised I need to explain that again.

It isn’t. Sit down, you don’t know what you’re talking about.

vetting noun [ U ] US /ˈvet.ɪŋ/ UK /ˈvet.ɪŋ/ the action of examining someone or something carefully to make certain that they are or it is acceptable or suitable for something

It’s literally the definition of what they are doing with closed primaries. Why does that need to be explained to you?

And giving people the choice between center right and far-right doesn’t motivate voters.

That choice was made by the voters.

LOL, how do you think letting anyone run as a candidate without vetting them will turn out?

Absolutely any bad actor will be able to run without intervention. The floodgates would be open. Which is probably what the bad actors calling for open primaries want.

Also, closed primaries don’t add any more vetting. They just mean that the only people who get to vote in the primaries are party members.

This is the definition of vetting. lol