Everything you can propose is FALSE until it's proven TRUE.
If Trump legalized cannabis, he'd lose the majority of the people who voted for him. Conservatives in general are strongly opposed to cannabis and/or drugs. It's not part of their heritage and they are all about old ways, right or wrong.
Your logic is hobbled, your beliefs misplaced.
"alleged or claimed" like: my inauguration crowds were the largest, my tax returns will be released when audit is complete, Mexico will pay for the wall, good people on both sides? Son, these are known falsehoods. They are proven and documented as lies.
Are your signature incoherent babbling and flaccid barbs a symptom of HRC's mocking laughter resounding in the swampy caverns of your skull?
Ya, his most fervent followers are on lock. The bible thumpers venerate him. He leads them in prayer after discussing paying off his porn star mistress.I respectfully disagree.It sure seems to me that his supporters follow him without question.
Clucking hen, stfu.
I dont GAF about your thoughts.
Sure, I can tell, your cooler than the other side of pillow. Nothing gets to you.
Anyway, WHAT is that? a GPS monitor maybe?
View Image
Ya, his most fervent followers are on lock. The bible thumpers venerate him. He leads them in prayer after discussing paying off his porn star mistress.
But his followers arent an homogenized clot. I think some would feel betrayed, some might lose resources (LEO), some are just darn hypocrite party poopers.
Still. it looks to me like MJ legislation could easily be packaged into a legacy move for a guy who is a deal maker. It's no secret that the population approves MJ whereas net neutrality, 1% tax relief law and kill obamacare, all unpopular yet championed by dotard.
More proof you can't be bothered to read because all I have asked in my posts is why he is still president/alive/free, given the weight of proof against him and the number of his offences. I have yet to hear any proper explanation. The more you tell me he's guilty of and more proof you tell me about, the more you highlight the question Im asking, validating me asking it, you moron.
HRC's mocking laughter? right... hey what IS that huge square object protruding from back under her clothing?
I gave you a thorough explanation of the law's limitations where some things are concerned, Spaventa. Never received acknowledgement or a reply.
And it was based in what I know from both national level observations, and from up close & personal observations from when a number of our legislators and others in Alaska (at the State level) were prosecuted for bribery and other infractions.
I'll spare you the litany of proof that exists re. HRC's dishonesty re. her claims to not have had anything to do with running the Clinton Foundation when she was Sec of State, and the contributions from 17 foreign nations that received weapons contracts. By the way, the donations and contracts were news in Time Magazine several years before she ran for Prez.
Trump's legal issues, or current lack of them, were mostly outlined in the first explanation that was over-looked or ignored.
Because in quid pro quo bribery and those sorts of crimes, whether HRC or The Donald, or whom ever, circumstantial evidence isn't sufficient.
However, if actual collusion is proven,