Trump Would Be the Most Marijuana Frendly President

OK before You guys bust out Rand and Bernie, I am only using Trump because I think that he and Hilary and the only ones at this point that are going to win presidency but I will not count out Bernie to bet Hilary. Hilary says no for legalization but is for research. Trump recently said he is not for legalization but 100% for medicinal. In the past, Trump has been for the legalization of all drugs because the war on drugs doesn't work. I believe that Trump knows how much money the cannabis industry makes and if he sees dollar signs he is there, so I believe that trump is playing it cool for now but I know what he is thinking.

www.theweedblog.com...

I'd rather pot be illegal than Trump be president to be honest. I'm a big marijuana supporter but there are places even I won't go to make it legal.

Honestly, who cares what the presidential candidates say? If the people really wanted it, they would make the change at the state level, as other states have.

In many states we are seeing an evolution take place where it is becoming more and more acceptable.

The states are where we need to focus on that issue.

What amazes me is how he's a front runner (supposedly) and people don't see anything amiss with that.

I knew from an early age that business and politics aren't supposed to mix. He's an Oligarch for Chrissakes.

You'll be trumped alright.

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
I'd rather pot be illegal than Trump be president to be honest. I'm a big marijuana supporter but there are places even I won't go to make it legal.

I am not sure why you feel this would be worse than Hilary. I think that Trump would be a superior President to her any day, but I am hoping it will end up being Dr. Carson at this point. Even if I don't agree with everything he believes, I like the fact that he is someone that hasn't been tainted by years as a politician and is a man of integrity. Something Hilary definitely doesn't have.

Wouldn't it be more shrewd to select a President that is someone who can get us out of financial debt, enact fair trade with China and secure our borders. I would rather have a President looking out for the nations interest instead of how much dope he can supply us with.

a reply to: Metallicus

I don't think any of them are good choices. I like Bernie but I'm not sure I can trust him fully, so I choose not to pick sides.

I just know whoever gets into office will continue to tow the line and keep the agenda rolling. They wouldn't be in the running if that weren't the case in my opinion.

a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

I think Bernie is probably an honest, decent human being, but I wouldn't want him as President. He wants to turn us into a European Dystopia and frankly I think their should be someplace to live that isn't European in nature. People came here initially to escape Europe and we need to keep their brand of Socialism over there where it belongs.

Yay more playing with the lives of innocent people, sick and dying people, for political gain.

This War on Human Nature stinks and the illegal and immoral laws, still upheld and active in 2015, being supported by mindless miscreants in places of power makes me sick.

originally posted by: introvert
Honestly, who cares what the presidential candidates say? If the people really wanted it, they would make the change at the state level, as other states have.

In many states we are seeing an evolution take place where it is becoming more and more acceptable.

The states are where we need to focus on that issue.

I agree the state level is an important step, but not more important than the federal level. State laws won't mean a thing if someone like Chris Christie is elected and sends the DEA "en masse" to Colorado.

a reply to: Enochstask

I agree completely. There are far more important things than that to base your vote on.

originally posted by: Enochstask
Wouldn't it be more shrewd to select a President that is someone who can get us out of financial debt, enact fair trade with China and secure our borders. I would rather have a President looking out for the nations interest instead of how much dope he can supply us with.

Taxing the sale of drugs would help.

Legal or not, drugs will always be sold.

originally posted by: Foderalover
OK before You guys bust out Rand and Bernie, I am only using Trump because I think that he and Hilary and the only ones at this point that are going to win presidency but I will not count out Bernie to bet Hilary. Hilary says no for legalization but is for research. Trump recently said he is not for legalization but 100% for medicinal. In the past, Trump has been for the legalization of all drugs because the war on drugs doesn't work. I believe that Trump knows how much money the cannabis industry makes and if he sees dollar signs he is there, so I believe that trump is playing it cool for now but I know what he is thinking.

www.theweedblog.com...

If they are to arrive at a casheless society during for shortly after, his presidental term, he has to be the Most Marijuana Frendly President.

Why do they want a cashless society?

well:

Cash cannot be traced to anyone.

Signing a credit card slip is a hit and miss affair.

PIN numbers enable the transaction to be traced to 2-3 people but does still not 100% accurately identify the person who did the transaction enough to lead to conviction.

Cashless provides 100% traceability to you and will be ruled definitive evidence and so lead to automatic conviction.

A cashless economy means that you will never be able to keep your money anywhere other than in a bank. Perhaps that’s why they wrote those bail in laws.

It enables a lifelong 100% accurate financial transaction history from cradle to grave.

They will be able to account for every single cent the state, an employer, friends, family or anyone else gives you and for each and every cent you ever spend. Each and every ‘un-authorised’ transaction will be known at the press of the enter key and you will have some explaining to do.

With cash, none of these ‘inappropriate expenditures for a ‘benefits recipient’ can be known to govt other than though the ‘dob in’ system.

Cashless money enables central banks to impose negative interests rates because you won’t be able to take your money out of the bank, accept to put it into another bank which would achieve little or nothing.

Cashless makes it easy for the govt to regulate what you can buy and stop you from buying anything they think you should not have as they will, through technology, be able to automatically stop the transaction from going through ‘the till.’

Cashless money also makes it impossible for you to do a bit of work for cash in the hand.

Cashless makes it easy for the govt or the corporations to control you, regulate your actions and narrow down the choices and options available to you to exercise.

Cashless ensures you cannot ever keep your money under your bed for a rainy day so you have some discretion on what you can buy without the govt knowing such as some medical care not approved for them by the govt.

Cashless facilitates the introduction of a one world currency.

Legalizing street drugs will be a sure sign a cashless economy will soon be upon us.

Edging closer to starting to feel like a slave are you?

cheers

Problem is that Bernie Sanders made a promise to take weed off schedule 1 which is a good thing. I have not seen a Republican yet stand up for legalization of weed despite the fact that it is a revenue generator for the gov.

originally posted by: intrptr
What amazes me is how he's a front runner (supposedly) and people don't see anything amiss with that.
I knew from an early age that business and politics aren't supposed to mix. He's an Oligarch for Chrissakes.
You'll be trumped alright.

Although Trump did grow up rich, inheriting money and property from his fathers businesses, the Trump Family is self-made for the most part and not likely to be truly accepted by NWO types (however, all the Trumps were, in some way, Tax Dodgers).

Trumps grandfather was an illegal alien, that did not process properly through Ellis Island, in the late 1800's. Keeping that in mind, it becomes easier to understand how people, that come from self-made families, like Trump and Perot, would be considered "trash" by the standards of the Romney, McCain and Bush clans, with family members having held political offices in the Untied States, as far back as the 1850's (with inheritances & trusts backing them, that go back just as far). Note, Reagan, Clinton, and Obama also had no direct family ties to NWO types initially. However, they were not nearly as wealthy, nor as independently bold, as Trump or Perot and eventually all of them did "toe the line", following the orders of the NWO. People like Trump and Perot would not be under the same type of pressure to conform, due to the threat of losing high lifetime earnings being a lesser issue for them.

The reality is that Trump will NEVER be accepted as part of the true "Owners of Capital" club because he is the decedent of regular working class immigrants from Germany, that came to the USA, via Ellis Island. Whether voters believe it or not, people like Donald Trump and Ross Perot before him, are truly, the best chance, regular people have to being represented by someone in office who's family is not part of the NWO, yet, also understand the nature of how the NWO ACTUALLY operates. Although I have not thoroughly checked, it does not appear that Donald Trump, nor Ross Perot, were ever invited to or attended the Bilderberg Conference. That's a GOOD sign, not a bad one.

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
I just know whoever gets into office will continue to tow the line and keep the agenda rolling. They wouldn't be in the running if that weren't the case in my opinion.

There are some other things to consider, if, Trump somehow wins the Republican nomination or somehow gets huge backing as an Independent, the "Owners of Capital" will simply do what they did to Ross Perot and once that process unfolds he will eventually decide to "willingly withdraw" from the race. Do people really believe, that if someone like Donald Trump wins the election, that he will be able to do what he wants, as apposed to, what the "Military Industrial Complex" wants him to do? Anyone who becomes President of the United States has to "cow tow" to the "Military Industrial Complex" and even Donald Trump is not immune to a guaranteed "CIA visit" once in office.

Be assured they will pay him a visit, if he ever wins, and like Ross Perot, Jessie Ventura, Arnold Schwarzenegger and Obama, he too will be told to "toe the line" and "play ball", as they dictate. For example, why in the world did Arnold Schwarzenegger need to do ANYTHING along party lines? His fame and popularity COMPLETELY transcended political parties, yet somehow he was still "answering" to politicians who "in theory" should have had no affect on his personal life, political career or personal fortune, all of which existed prior to being elected and was held COMPLETELY outside of the confines or influence of the "Military Industrial Complex".

Also consider this angle, there is a huge assets difference between someone like Mitt Romney, who has a $250 million net worth and Ross Perot with a $5 billion net worth and Donald Trump having a net worth of $4 Billion. Yet, someone like Romney was a shoe in for party nominations, but not Perot or Trump and this time around it will be Jeb Bush that gets the Republican party nomination, not Trump. As I alluded to above, its NOT the money nor the popular vote that matters, people like Mitt and Jeb are government insiders and both come from families that always have been government insiders. That was not the case at all with Perot and the same goes for Trump, hence neither of them can be elected regardless of the popular vote or the public's desires.

Ross Perot dropping out of the 1992 election was not happenstance either, nor simply about his daughters wedding:

Mr. Perot offered no evidence, only quoting friends and an unidentified "top Republican." "I can't prove any of it today," he said on tonight's CBS News program "60 Minutes." "But it was a risk I did not have to take," he added, "and a risk I would not take where my daughter is concerned." Mr. Perot accused the unidentified C.I.A. employee of being hired to tap into his computerized stock trading program to prevent him from having the money to revive his campaign.

I think Ross Perot would have done a much better job than ANY of the "good ol' boys" that we've gotten as Presidents since then. Again, Perot dropping out of the 1992 election was not happenstance, nor was it simply about his daughters wedding. He was likely threatened in some way that none of us can imagine. Also, why has he been so quiet, for the last 20+ years? Mark my words, Donald Trump will be no different, but, if he decides to run for President and he does somehow win, best case scenario, it will be Arnold Schwarzenegger or Ronald Reagan all over again.

Trump and Sanders, in my opinion, are the least likely, "visible candidates" to be heavily affiliated with NWO/Old-Money types. Trump and Sanders weren't "born into" the "right kind" of political families, in fact, their ancestors were immigrants from the lower classes of Europe (Jewish Holocaust survivors in the case of Sanders). Its really too bad they can't be on the same ticket, running as Independents, with Sanders as President and Trump as VP, with people like Ralph Nader, Jessie Venture and Ron Paul filling the various cabinet positions. INTENTIONALLY pooling campaign resources, with the intention of actually trying to win, as a team and not as solo candidates.

But if any of them tried to pull a "hat trick" like that, I'm sure quite a few of them would QUICKLY find themselves at risk of being in a "plane crash" or on the wrong end of a "car accident"

I wonder what laws could be enforced if a candidate came out in full force supporting mj.

In the last debate the topic was skipped over like a hot potato and I wonder if it because of laws?

a reply to: introvert

Good in theory but it doesn't play-out the same as it did in Colorado. The huge financial potential has politicians climbing over one another to figure out how to get the biggest piece of the pie they can. In the process nothing gets done. In MA we passed medicinal use by a large margin way back in 2012. We were told dispensaries would open that year. Ha! There are a few very small ones that have been able to open but the way the laws were written others are struggling to get through the bureaucracy. Look at yesterday's vote in OH. Even longtime, staunch supporters of legalization voted against the law because it was written to give a small group of highly-connected people exclusive rights to grow in the state. Utter BS.

Keep in mind, if you've been around long enough to have seen many Presidential elections it would have become completely clear that no matter WHAT a candidate says he/she will do, and no matter what that candidate sincerely WANTS to do, they have little real power to change jack. The people pulling the strings decide what happens. Irrespective of what the people vote. You can take that to the bank.

a reply to: Foderalover

Bernie is the most marijuana friendly president regardless of your opinion on who is going to get the nomination or not. Your thread title is just wrong.

a reply to: rockintitzWhat good does it do to tax a business that does all of their transactions in cash?

a reply to: boohoo

Thank you, boohoo.

He is wealthy and deals with the very wealthy. The other thing I consider, all candidates lie to get votes. Trump is no different.

My concern is that anyone in business as an elected official is loyal to the company first and the people second.

Any back door deals with business back then would have been grounds for impeachment. Even though we both know it goes on, the notion a big business man can or might even possibly get in the White House is unbelievable to older generations.

Trump won't stoop to being elected, anyway. The cut in pay would be too much for him to bear. He'll get tired of blowing his trumpet and go back to work, eventually.

Greed supersedes "higher office".