[AnOscelot]

Dislike Obama all you want, but he's let the states experiment with legalization. He's freed some people sentenced to harsh terms for non-violent drug offenses. I expect a huge wave of pardons and commutations of other non-violent offenders as his term ends.

As for Trump, he's put a nazi (or alt-right if you prefer) in the White House. He's nominated another racist for AG: Sessions who was considered too racist to be a judge, in a confirmation hearing in 1986. The judiciary committee was led by none other than Strom Thurmond. Thurmond and company thought he was too racist. Thurmond! Let that sink in.

Speaking of foreign donations, the President-Elect has 'invited' foreign dignitaries to stay at the Trump Hotel (the Old Post Office) in DC. Which they are doing so in an effort to gain favor with the new administration. Profits from their stays, of course, goes straight to Trump. Unfortunately for him, this will be quite illegal, and un-Constitutional according to the emoluments clause, as soon as he takes office. This clause will also apply to his foreign holdings, many of which remain in the dark because Trump has decided to be as non-transparent as possible.

[FireBeyond]

"Profits from their stays, of course, goes straight to Trump. Unfortunately for him, this will be quite illegal, and un-Constitutional according to the emoluments clause, as soon as he takes office."

Of course, once in office, those businesses will be administered by the "blind" trust run by his children... and Trump wants to stay in New York a few days a week to "be around his family"... where of course, they won't possibly talk business, right? (That's if they're not accompanying him around the world, be it Ivanka joining in meetings with Japanese dignitaries, his sons being part of his transition team, or peddling his son-in-law as one of his advisors - someone so ignorant of the operation of government that until after the election, he apparently didn't realize that Trump would have to hire advisors to replace Obama's...).

What could possibly be untoward about any of that...?

[mattst88]

> The judiciary committee was led by none other than Strom Thurmond. Thurmond and company thought he was too racist. Thurmond! Let that sink in.

Mentioning Thurmond is simply misleading and detracts from the main point that Sessions was rejected from a federal judgeship because of concerns that he was a racist.

The fact of the matter is that Thurmond voted for Sessions.

> On June 5, 1986, the Committee voted 10–8 against recommending the nomination to the Senate floor, with Republican Senators Charles Mathias of Maryland and Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania voting with the Democrats.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeff_Sessions

[75j]

> but he's let the states experiment with legalization

Not really. Under Obama the federal government raided hundreds (if not thousands) of legal dispensaries and grow operations, and spent hundreds of millions in doing so.