There have been Presidents I didn’t support, because they had policies I disliked. And some were terrible Presidents, too.
Trump, on the other hand, is a terrible person. I wouldn’t want him to be manager of the local Dunkin’ Donuts, much less leader of the free world. Terrible, evil people should not be “given a chance.” They should be opposed at every step.
Let’s assume the current rumors about Trump and the hookers is false (which it probably is).
Can I still revel in the schadenfreude of the whole thing — that a man who spent the last eight years pushing lies about Obama not being born in America now has to deal with his own fake news stories? That people are believing this even though we currently don’t have any proof of it at all?
And, just in case they are true, allow me to say this:
Remember when I blogged “Look, the issue isn’t the word ‘pussy’ it’s the word ‘grab.'”?
In this case, the issue isn’t the words “golden showers” — it’s the word “hooker.”
Seriously, the words “President of the United States of America” and “hooker” should never appear in the same sentence.
(By the way, “Trump and the Hookers” is a good name for a band.)
Look, Trump people. We rejected you. We rejected you by a large amount — almost 3 million votes. On the chart of “winners” of our elections, Trump is the Biggest Loser. The next on the chart is George W. Bush, who lost by half a million.
The people said loudly and clearly that they don’t want you or your policies. 
You only won because of an ancient loophole we’re stuck with — something that should have been removed long ago. This is like a baseball team getting the most runs but losing the game because of a 100 year old rule that says that the team who has the best uniform wins, decided after the game by a group of people who are biased in favor of one team.
That is nothing to be proud of, and it is certainly not cause for you to lie and claim that you have a mandate to destroy everything the majority of Americans specifically voted against you not to destroy.
If there is a mandate, it is for the exact opposite of what you claim.
But then again, look at your leader — a lying ass who only cares about himself, who has spent his entire life cheating the system to get what he wants, by declaring bankruptcy as a business strategy and by suing everyone until he gets his way. What did we expect, huh? Of course you have no problem with abusing the system to serve yourself.
And the saddest thing is this: You don’t give a damn. You’re proud of your dishonesty. You’re more than happy to screw over the majority of Americans as long as you get what you want. Hell, that’s basically the platform you ran on.
So don’t act all surprised that we say “Screw you, we didn’t choose you.” And don’t act all pure and innocent when we point out that America rejected you.
We’re not poor losers — we’re the winners. You got off on a loophole, you weaselly bastards, and there’s no way to spin that into support.
Here in Pennsylvania, medical marijuana is about to become legal, so clearly our legislature will have to address that with the DUI laws which currently prohibits any amount of marijuana to be in your blood when you drive, even if you smoked it weeks earlier. So far, they’ve done nothing. It may take a few appeals from defense attorneys like me before that happens.
Years ago, that law was challenged but the Pennsylvania Supreme Court held that since marijuana was illegal, and since driving is a privilege and not a right, that you could be charged even if the amount in your system was minimal.
I’ve been waiting for a client to come in and tell me she smoked in Colorado or somewhere else where it’s legal and then got pulled over in Pennsylvania days later and charged with a DUI for marijuana. I could then argue that the first part of the argument for our DUI laws was invalid because the marijuana was legal at the time smoked.
Realistically, though, if you’re not under the influence of it days later, you probably wouldn’t get pulled over anyway since you’re not showing any signs of being under the influence. A cop can’t demand you take a blood test without some sort of reasonable suspicion that you’re under the influence, even if you look like a stoner.
Where it still comes into play, though, is in situations like this: Let’s say you have had a beer and the cop smells alcohol on your breath and then makes you take a blood test. The blood test shows that your Blood Alcohol Count is .07% which is legal and under the DUI limits but the test also shows a presence of marijuana that you smoked days earlier. Now he can charge you, and in Pennsylvania the presence of drugs carries a harsher penalty than just alcohol. Technically and scientifically, you were “under the influence” of neither but legally, you were for marijuana. And that’s where the problem lies.
Remember that even when marijuana becomes legal, it will still be illegal to drive under its influence. Hell, it’s illegal to drive under the influence of cough syrup if it affects your driving.
Even in Colorado, you can’t drive while under the influence. However, their law (as I understand it) says what the limits have to be in your system, just like the law does now with alcohol. A small amount isn’t enough.
I bring this all up because of a recent decision in Arizona that held that simply having marijuana in your system is insufficient for a DUI conviction absent a showing of some sort of driving impairment. In other words, even if the amount shows that you just smoked it, if there is no evidence that your driving was impaired, you can’t be charged. (This is unlike the “per se” alcohol laws that say if you have more than .08% in your system you can be charged even if your driving was perfect.)
Ironically, I have mixed feelings on this, as I have previously argued in favor of lowering the Blood Alcohol levels from .08% to .05% as it is in most of the rest of the world (as long as the penalty is non-criminal and minor). I personally believe that there should be a level for marijuana as well, even though I don’t know what that level should be.
Would Bernie have won? I don’t know, and neither do you.
What I do know is that Hillary didn’t. Mind you, that was because of the Electoral College — the majority of Americans wanted her by a pretty big margin.
But would Bernie have attracted more votes in Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin, thus guaranteeing a win? Hillary’s losses in those states was within 2%. These are states with large populations of working-class white voters who felt (wrongly) that the Democratic party had abandoned them.
When I suggest that Bernie could have done it, I am often knocked down by those who point out all his negatives and say the people would never support him. Many made the same argument a year ago during the primaries. These same people predicted with confidence that Trump would never get the nomination.
The fact is that we don’t know. This year has turned everything topsy turvy. The traditional rules I learned when getting my Political Science degree and in all my years of working on campaigns were thrown out the window this year. Nobody knows anything.
Pointing out that he lost the primaries to Hillary isn’t convincing. Primaries involve a small percentage of the voters, and are almost always the insiders and most active of the party members. Hillary had already wrapped up many of them years beforehand. In any event, winning among Democrats doesn’t mean much because in order to win the final election, you have to reach independents and even some Republicans. Hillary’s negatives among those groups was high, Bernie’s wasn’t.
We often criticize Republicans for living in a “bubble” and ignoring facts that are inconvenient, but Democrats do that too. The Democratic bubble has to do with dismissing non-liberals as rubes or ignorant rednecks or people in the fly-over states that don’t matter. It has to do with ignoring how much people didn’t like Hillary, whether justified or not.
Perhaps a different candidate — one that could appeal to the working class as well as the “liberal elite” in the big cities — could have made a difference.
ventrellaquest.com 