shocking for sure but no sham. Not only did Trump win, but he won the popular vote as well (less than 50% but more than Clinton) and the US just got it's version of Brexit. People wanted change and this was their opportunity for just that.

It also put polling on it's ear, RickyP must be having a mind implosion about now but it really didn't shock me that the polls were so off. I have said before the US is more Conservative than Liberals wish to think and the silent majority is in fact Conservative. These silent folks also tend to avoid taking part in polls. Throw in those who simply lied because they could not admit they actually voted for Trump and there you have it, a shocker that really wasn't if you knew the true feelings of Americans.

freeman3 wrote:I'll try to be positive...oh come on, that's ridiculous. That was a travesty of a mockery of a sham of a mockery of a travesty of two mockeries of a sham...and that's understating it. I feel we're part of a bad futuristic novel from like 1995 set in 2016 where ha ha Donald Trump is president...

On the bright side for you, California went insane--in terms of Propositions.

I'm pretty shocked. Realistically, he clobbered her.

Well, at least I can now legally smoke a joint to ease the pain...

freeman3 wrote:Well, at least I can now legally smoke a joint to ease the pain...

Yes and there will be many "non-violent" *cough* felons to give you some pain.

probably should be a new thread (if it gets discussed enough) but since it was mentioned
Recreational pot in Colorado, Washington, Oregon, Alaska, Washington DC is already legal
Now add Massachusetts, Nevada, California (Maine is still up in the air, that count is close)

How can it be restricted now that so many allow it including the biggest state in the union?

I voted for it. I had a few reservations but I did not think there was a enough of a justification like with hard-core drugs (overdoses, addicts committing property and/or violent crimes) to justify dictating what people can ingest.

freeman3 wrote:I voted for it. I had a few reservations but I did not think there was a enough of a justification like with hard-core drugs (overdoses, addicts committing property and/or violent crimes) to justify dictating what people can ingest.

You're going to regret Prop 57. That thing has way too many holes in it.

That was Governor Brown's baby. We are under a federal court order to reduce prison overcrowding so we have been having to come up with various ways to reduce that. I was willing to let Brown try his solution. Better than letting violent strike felons out or having to spend billions on new prisons.

freeman3 wrote:That was Governor Brown's baby. We are under a federal court order to reduce prison overcrowding so we have been having to come up with various ways to reduce that. I was willing to let Brown try his solution. Better than letting violent strike felons out or having to spend billions on new prisons.

Have you seen the list? Raping an unconscious person is non-violent? Arson? Drive-by shooting?

Cops hate that Prop.

Freeman,

The Woody Allen reference was not lost on me. Brilliant...

That was a travesty of a mockery of a sham of a mockery of a travesty of two mockeries of a sham

I expected that you guys would get the reference.

With reference to prop 57 they should be classified as being violent but I suspect those people will have trouble making parole.

freeman3 wrote:With reference to prop 57 they should be classified as being violent but I suspect those people will have trouble making parole.

All I can say is anyone who thinks the prison overcrowding problem has been solved should go to Central California. It's a war zone.

Why would someone go voluntarily to Central California?

freeman3 wrote:Why would someone go voluntarily to Central California?

I know you're joking, but don't go all elitist on us.