CPAC Opens and Boots Spencer, Trump Vs. Mexico (Some More), DOJ May Target States That Legalized Pot: P.M. Links

|

  • Richard Spencer
    Jim Lo Scalzo/EPA/Newscom

    The Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) has begun! Scroll down to read coverage from Reason writers in attendance. Alt-right leader Richard Spencer was ejected from attending CPAC. The executive director of CPAC called Spencer and his nationalist movement a "left-wing fascist group."

  • At a press conference today, White House spokesman Sean Spicer said the Department of Justice may engage in enforcement of the federal ban against marijuana in states that have legalized recreational use.
  • If the feud between President Donald Trump and the leadership of Mexico prompts Mexican officials to consider legalizing drugs south of the border, what exactly should we make of that outcome?
  • Department of Homeland Security head John Kelley told Mexican officials Thursday there would not be any "mass deportations" under Trump.
  • The Trump administration may have rescinded the letters from President Barack Obama's administration calling for public schools to accommodate transgender students in bathrooms and other facilities, but the transgender teen behind a case to be heard by the Supreme Court in March is going to continue pressing on.
  • Somebody in Indiana is holding a winning $435 million Powerball lottery ticket.
  • After nearly five years, the City of San Bernardino, California, may finally navigate its way out of bankruptcy.

Follow us on Facebook and Twitter, and don't forget to sign up for Reason's daily updates for more content.

NEXT: Police, Criminal Justice, and the Millennial Vote

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. The Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) has begun!

    More like C-LACK, am I right, people?

    1. Hello.

      Hey, it was portfolio night at my kid’s school. I couldn’t get out of it.

    2. More like C-CUCK!!!

  2. Department of Homeland Security head John Kelley told Mexican officials Thursday there would not be any “mass deportations” under Trump.

    “We’re not that competent.”

    1. “Yuge deportations, however, are still on the table.”

      1. They’re installing a new loo at the White House?

      2. Any chances of a Yuge-ene deportation?

  3. …the Department of Justice may engage in enforcement of the federal ban against marijuana in states that have legalized recreational use.

    At least we’ve ended the stifling ambiguity on the issue from the Obama years.

    1. Oh, so once we’ve empowered the DEA to trample over the states and imprison peaceful business owners and their customers, will America finally be great again?

      Fuck Trump, fuck Spicer, fuck Sessions, and fuck everyone who ever supported or apologized for them.

      1. The problem is the alternative was worse. Unfortunately there were only 2 choices

        1. If only there was a political party that could manage to nominate a non-idiot. I think every major party nominated an idiot in 2016, including the LP.

          1. I agree. What we need is a high profile guy that has a lot of pull and publicity (like Trump) but far more libertarian friendly. Otherwise i don’t think 3rd parties or independents have really any chance due to Team red and Team blue protecting themselves from competition.

            Need someone who is already well known and established

            1. Well, those people have been demonized by the left for the last two decades, so they are no longer viable (Koch). I wouldn’t be surprised to learn that the attacks were (at least partially) for exactly the issue that you raised.

              1. Yea. Unfortunately the president is more of a popularity contest (see how much more people vote) compared to midterms.

                The candidate is what drives people to vote for them first, then policies. if obama had the personality of mccain, i don’t think he would have been elected. Or if they switched places Rs win. Look obama was supposedly popular and hillary wanted to continue his policies…but she had no personality with a stench of corruption

                Need someone that comes off sort of as a rockstar celebrity type

        2. Some fucking consolation that is. I’m especially pissed at the fake libertarians and other fuckers who insisted all this time that Trump was going to usher in this great rollback of the state and that he was the only one who could do it and shouted down anyone who said he was just another authoritarian shitstain like all the others and called them progressive hacks. We’re all getting the government those motherfuckers deserve.

          1. You have to judge in context though. There was no hope for a libertarian candidate and i suspect ever. Your only choice is less of a statist. Hillary would have been trump maybe better on MJ and no wall, but equal or worse on the rest.

            And i think you need to keep perspective….while trump, hilary, obama, bush etc are not good. They are far better than the likes of the turkey guy, putin, castro, un, the chinese leadership, hell a bunch of leaders in africa, the saudi arabia kings, maduro

            Also i think you are getting ahead of yourself with spicer’s comments. if you read them, he was asked a question and then he speculated. it suggests he doesn’t really know…he just left it on the table that could go either direction

          2. Don’t get your panties in too deep a wad over those comments alone.

            I think the legal MJ snowball is still gathering speed as it rolls downhill. I don’t think Sessions can roll it back uphill.

            Just last week the newly elected DA of Harris County, Tx. ( mainly Houston) publicly said she would no longer prosecute MJ cases of 4 ounces or less.

            That’s fucking Texas dude.

            1. Yea exaclty. It was spicer just rambling. And if anything it will go to SC where the government will be ruled against i suspect.

            2. In response my county offered to prosecute twice as hard. Sigh.

  4. They were right to boot Spencer. He is a legitimate white supremacist asshole. They should, however. have had Yiappolis speak. Disinviting Yianopolis was an act of real cowardice on CPAC’s part. But that is what CPAC does, elitists principles into the service of cowardice.

  5. …the transgender teen behind a case to be heard by the Supreme Court in March is going to continue pressing on.

    You know who else was known for pressing on?

      1. Nailed it.

          1. Excellently done, Gentlemen.

        1. This is funny on a lot of levels.

  6. The executive director of CPAC called Spencer and his nationalist movement a “left-wing fascist group.”

    When you’re to the right of the alt-right…

    1. If you go far enough to the right, you end up coming running into the left, and vice versa.

      1. delete the extraneous ‘coming’ from that statement.

          1. You don’t need to work blue.

  7. If the feud between President Donald Trump and the leadership of Mexico prompts Mexican officials to consider legalizing drugs south of the border, what exactly should we make of that outcome?

    That’s an escalation.

    1. It might get Mexico to pay for the wall, to keep all the Reasonoids from invading?

      /4-D Chess?

  8. After nearly five years, the City of San Bernardino, California, may finally navigate its way out of bankruptcy.

    Time for raises.

  9. Somebody in Indiana is holding a winning $435 million Powerball lottery ticket.

    Someone’s about to escape Indiana!

    1. But not the tax man.

  10. I must say Reason’s commentary of CPAC was shit poor. It oscillated between feigned outrage (“but DeVos wouldn’t comment about what potty we should use! How will we know without government!) to the stupid (“conservatives aren’t hip with the kids, unlike us cool guys! We got an old dude who wears a leather jacket and some of us dye our hair!).

    Either cover the speakers or don’t cover it at all. No one cares what the hell is said at CPAC. Stupid conference full of stupid people being covered by stupid journalists.

      1. Help me out here, Bacon; what are you Yepping?

    1. It oscillated between feigned outrage (“but DeVos wouldn’t comment about what potty we should use! How will we know without government!) to the stupid (“conservatives aren’t hip with the kids, unlike us cool guys! We got an old dude who wears a leather jacket and some of us dye our hair!).

      So now you’re just complaining about your own snarky responses to their reporting? I guess self-criticism is a good first step in recovering from RDS.

  11. At a press conference today, White House spokesman Sean Spicer said the Department of Justice may engage in enforcement of the federal ban against marijuana in states that have legalized recreational use.

    Omg — FUCK YOU!!

    1. ^This is what we should be watching out for. The media has it’s pants so soiled you can’t smell the new shit over the smell of the old.

  12. If the feud between President Donald Trump and the leadership of Mexico prompts Mexican officials to consider legalizing drugs south of the border, what exactly should we make of that outcome?

    Jesus Christ Reason, shouldn’t we cheer for more freedom?

  13. So is there anything in the 200 hours of CNN secret footage that Veritas released? Somewhere, someone is watching all 200 hours of it. Talk about a circle of hell.

      1. OMG. Tell me you know about the O’Keefe sting on CNN. He’s crowd sourced sifting through the audio they’ve secretly obtained of the talking hairdos in the newsroom speaking the lyrics to “Dirty Laundry” to each other.

    1. I don’t see the point of this. I doubt there’s anything there so shocking or stupid that CNN wouldn’t say live on the air.

      1. The point is to further the narrative that CNN is the “enemy of the people”.

    2. I seriously doubt that there’s anything as scandalous as WikiLeaks’ revelation that a CNN correspondent leaked debate questions to the Hillary camp. Or, Jake Tapper‘s on-air self-identification with the Hillary campaign.

  14. Department of Homeland Security head John Kelley told Mexican officials Thursday there would not be any “mass deportations” under Trump.

    Define “mass”.

    1. Depends on context. Shooting? 3 or more.

    2. Celebration of the Eucharist in a formalized church service?

      1. You folks are on point today.

        Nicely done, CPRM.

    3. The measure of an objects size and density?

    4. Actually, he was replying to the waiter at lunch. He literally said, “no mas”.

  15. The executive director of CPAC called Spencer and his nationalist movement a “left-wing fascist group.”

    Yeah. Well. I’m glad he spoke against the alt-right. But he basically tried to claim it was a leftist front. It isn’t. It is conservative in a lot of ways. They just want to conserve some pretty horrid things like racial purity.

    1. Matt Yglesias, is that you?

      1. You know, you might be onto something there.

  16. After nearly five years, the City of San Bernardino, California, may finally navigate its way out of bankruptcy.

    The Progs were right all along. We better close up shop 8^D

  17. So i get why illegals here would be concerned about mass deportations.

    Why would mexico leaders be? Didnt they say the illegals were mainly good people and would be inhumane not to want them in US

    1. That does not mean Mexico wants them back.

        1. Because a huge number of them are not Mexican. Shit, right now there are thousands of Haitians waiting for Godot in TJ, trying in vain to get to San Diego, which they cannot do, so Mexico is basically forced to run a fucking Haitian refugee camp.

        2. Money transfers back to Mexico.

      1. My issue is their desire to preen and then when push comes to shove they dont want to actually have anything to do with it.

    2. Why would Mexico leaders be ?

      I dunno. Maybe loss of billions in remittances ?

      Millions of formerly productive workers now jobless with little hope of a good job back in Mexico ?

      Revolution ? Mexico has already had blurbs in the news about possibly having to build refugee camps to house them all .

    3. Re: american socialist,

      Why would mexico leaders be?

      The part where this could potentially be a human tragedy is a never mind to you? That maybe these leaders are taking into account the enormous logistical nightmare such a policy entails?

      The fact is that many immigrants living in the US have made the US their home. That means, Mexico is no longer their home. Trumpistas merely wet-dream about getting rid of the brown people without even a pittance given to the serious disruption in lives and capital that such displacement would mean.

      1. Why dont they shore up their own country’s problems first?

  18. http://heatst.com/life/teacher…..na-attack/

    Remember, there is no downside or risk to accepting refugees. None whatsoever.

    1. ughhhh. These are just the stories that make it into the news. Would Jewish refugees during World War II have done this? Were Belgian refugees in England behaving this way during WWI? I can think of few other groups on Earth more barbaric and more entitled in general, in modern times than Muslims are doing their best to be. The left just can’t stop themselves from feeding this algae bloom.

    2. Remember, there is no downside or risk to accepting refugees. None whatsoever.

      Wow John, you just annihilated that strawman there!

      1. Okay, why don’t you list all of the downsides and risks associated with admitting refugees then? I say you claim there are no risks. If you do in fact claim there are risks and downsides, list them. Otherwise, shut the fuck up and admit the point.

        1. I don’t expect that’ll get much of a response from Cytotoxic Jr over here.

          1. Anytime someone on here accuses you of creating a strawman, just ask them to explain their actual position and how it differs from your alleged strawman. They almost never have an answer.

        2. Of course there are risks. There are risks whenever anyone travels anywhere to do anything. It is possible that a refugee that comes here might end up being a “bad hombre” and do some terrible things. Although the risk of a refugee being a terrorist appears to be very very very low. The risk of a refugee being a common criminal is also very low. These risks are way out of proportion compared to the hysteria and fear that is peddled on the right when it comes to refugees, where every anecdotal story of some refugee doing something terrible in Europe is used as a blanket denunciation of refugees and “proof” that the US should block refugees from coming here.

          Can you admit that the risk of a refugee being a terrorist or a violent criminal, even if it is not zero, is nevertheless very, very low?

          1. that is a cool story but could you provide some citations for all of that beyond your own wishful thinking.

            And saying that “there is some small chance they might do something wrong” isn’t admitting to their being much of a downside. So basically you see a minuscule risk and have concluded that based on no evidence beyond wishful thinking and contrary to a mountain of statistical and anecdotal evidence coming out of Europe.

            1. Well I’m sure you’ve seen this already, but if not, here you go.

              Lots of links there that all basically say the same things: immigrants generally commit less crime than native-born Americans, all else equal.

              As for refugees specifically, there has been no spike in crime in the cities that accepted the most refugees. (except one, but that city has more of a drug/gang problem, not a refugee problem.)

              Now, please post your statistical studies which demonstrate that refugees are a significant threat to commit crime *in the United States*.

              1. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/new…..ve-charts/

                http://theamericanrevenant.com…..l-in-2017/

                There is two about Sweden alone. There are hundreds more about Germany and France. Google is your friend, learn how to use it.

                1. Yes, SWEDEN. Where are your studies about this supposed refugee crime wave in the United States?

            2. “isn’t admitting to their being much of a downside.”

              There isn’t much of a downside insofar as violent crime is concerned. That is not the same as “no downside” which is what you claimed.

              Admit it John, you lied.

              1. There isn’t much of a downside insofar as violent crime is concerned.

                Those were the only downsides you listed. If there are others, then list those as well. You have yet to list anything you consider a significant downside.

                In your opinion is there any significant or rational reason for the country not to admit as many refugees who want to come? Please list all of the downsides you consider significant and warranting of consideration. I don’t mean “well there is some small risk that really doesn’t matter”. You seem to see no significant downside to this. And that is fine. But that makes your position pretty close to my hyperbole. Your response amounts to “I don’t think there is absolutely no downside, I think there is a minuscule one”. Intelligent people call that a distinction without difference. But feel free to continue to be pedantic and make a fool of yourself. IT is your move.

                1. Those were the only downsides you listed. If there are others, then list those as well. You have yet to list anything you consider a significant downside.

                  Because I don’t need to list a “significant downside” in order to disprove your obviously false claim.

                  In your opinion is there any significant or rational reason for the country not to admit as many refugees who want to come?

                  Why don’t you make your own goddamn arguments instead of trying to outsource your work to someone else. And be sure to cite your arguments with statistics and studies and citations, and not citations from Breitbart if you want to have any credibility at all with your claims.

        3. Furthermore, John:

          Can you cite the person here at Reason who claimed that “there is no downside or risk to accepting refugees. None whatsoever.”? If not, then why don’t you admit that you just made up a strawman?

          1. Go find me a citation where they ever admitted to their being a downside. If they don’t believe their are downsides, why haven’t they ever said what they were?

            1. Why don’t you back up your own goddamn claim.

              1. I did. All you have to do to disprove it is show me a citation where reason admits to there being a downside. I can’t prove a negative. If reason admits to downsides, show me where.

                You not only are profoundly stupid, you are tiresome as well.

                1. No you didn’t. You baldly declared something to be true and then demanded everyone else disprove it for you. Well screw you. Why don’t you prove your own claim.

      2. And the crickets continue to chirp. Thanks for playing pal.

        1. Guess what, I don’t spend every waking hour on Reason. Sheesh.

          1. And you still haven’t provided a reasonable answer.

            1. Basically, you made a bunch of totally unsupported assertions that the risk was small. Sorry, but wishful thinking doesn’t count as an argument. It apparently does for stupid people. But not here.

              1. I’ve supported my assertions with studies and citations.

                Where are your studies and citations that refugees pose a significant violent crime risk here in the United States? Hmm?

                All you do is post anecdotes from Europe. (1) Anecdotes don’t prove anything and (2) that is Europe, not the US.

                All you want to do is stoke fear and hysteria about refugees. It is irresponsible and wrong.

  19. If the feud between President Donald Trump and the leadership of Mexico prompts Mexican officials to consider legalizing drugs south of the border, what exactly should we make of that outcome?

    That we’re getting tired of winning?

    1. The drug cartels become the leadership?

  20. 54 comments and that’s with me putting my crappy comments in. Fuckity fuck.

        1. Aren’t you happy the Yokoltarians all ran away? Isn’t that what you wanted? You seem to have run away too. I don’t quite understand that.

        2. All the alleged Yokultarians have left and the people who most bitched about their presence seem to have left with them. What the fuck do you people want?

      1. Nice and quiet around these parts. Trolls are in bed, ex-wife done gone and took that noisy trombone player to the city, and that asshole neighbor is in the hospital with rickets.

        Nice and quiet…

    1. I tend to check out when the whiners get in early. Kinda dampens the energy.

  21. Folks i think you need to relax a bit on the MJ thing. Spicer was asked a question and was guessing. Mr 50 50…he was waffling around answering. It didn’t actually reveal much…mainly speculation and lacking specifics

    “Well I think that’s a question for the Department of Justice,” Spicer replied. “I do believe you’ll see greater enforcement of it. Because again there’s a big difference between the medical use … that’s very different than the recreational use, which is something the Department of Justice will be further looking into.”

      1. Think about it if they had decided and came up with what they are going to do and he knew…he would have said so. His non-committal answer suggests they dont have a position or a plan…..answering one way or the other would make him look stooopd

  22. Somebody in Indiana is holding a winning $435 million Powerball lottery ticket.

    Hmm. Hang on. I’ll be right back.

    1. ….Oh well, back to the links.

  23. “If the feud between President Donald Trump and the leadership of Mexico prompts Mexican officials to consider legalizing drugs south of the border, what exactly should we make of that outcome?”

    I can’t see it ever happening. If they legalize pot the cartels will be seriously displeased and in Mexico when the cartels are displeased even high ranking government officials aren’t safe

    1. Get yourself a Chainsaw shaving kit mayne. Works great, and you only need it to work once, ese.

    2. I had a response to this but I can’t think of the right term for when organized criminals amass enough money and start investing heavily in white-market assets and legitimize their portfolios.

      Anyway I wonder if Mexico making noise about this wouldn’t get the cartels thinking seriously about some of this, whatever it’s called.

      1. It’s called going legitimate. And I am quite sure a lot of that is going on. The cartels make billions of dollars every year. They don’t spend all of that on hookers and blow. Most of it is likely tied up in legal investments and money laundering schemes.

        1. God damn it. I kept using the word and thinking it was the wrong one. Thank you John.

    3. Re: Rasilio,

      I can’t see it ever happening… the cartels will be seriously displeased

      The ONLY ones displeased with Mexico’s flirting with legalization was the United States government and the Republican politicians, not the cartels.

  24. Hey Reason.

    Here’s a freebie just to help with the count.

    1. By the summer I and the lefty troll franchises will be the only ones posting here.

  25. At a press conference today, White House spokesman Sean Spicer said the Department of Justice may engage in enforcement of the federal ban against marijuana in states that have legalized recreational use.

    Let’s see how long the “This is a Nation of Laws!” crowd hold out against the onslaught of pure and raw reality.

  26. So I sat down in the Garden to watch the sunrise. Aur?ra. I fished round in my jacket pockets till I found my pouch and pipe. The pouch was empty, but there was a bit of chaff I scraped out of the seams, and I lit my pipe. I sat there and listened to the birds and watched the beautiful colours in the air. There was some crazy blue flower like I’d never seen before just growing out by the fence. And a squirrel there come hopping along the ridge. That Garden was a heck of a place, all amazing and beautiful and sticky and full of mystique and ennui and good things to eat. That squirrel. He scurries up into the branches of the tree there beside me, up from the roots (there’s a snake in those roots). He’s looking me in the eye. He’s got something in his hand, bright and shiny, maybe a little wrinkly.
    “Come bite the apple,” he says.

    Finish reading: https://www.patreon.com/posts/aurora-8034842

    This is the first message. There will be four messages.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.