By John Q. Hosedrinker 
The online feud between Laura Loomer and Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene escalated, with Loomer accusing Greene of spreading fabricated stories and sabotaging her career prospects. Loomer launched personal attacks on Greene, referencing marital infidelity and alleged steroid use. The feud is not new, as the two have clashed previously, including a dispute over Loomer’s past racist remarks.
Read the original article here
MAGA Is Coming for Legal Marijuana. The initial reaction to the idea of MAGA coming after legal marijuana seems to be a mix of skepticism and frustration, laced with a hefty dose of “whataboutism.” The focus quickly shifts away from the issue of cannabis and zeroes in on the Epstein files and concerns about child sex trafficking, which is a common thread throughout these reflections.
This line of thought seems to argue that the concern over marijuana is a distraction, a political tactic to divert attention from more pressing matters like the alleged protection of pedophiles within the Republican party. The commentary implies that focusing on marijuana is a way to appease certain factions while sidestepping accountability on other, far more serious issues. The idea that Trump, or MAGA more broadly, might want to make weed more accessible, as the original article posits, is seen with suspicion. The suspicion is that it’s purely a strategic move to maintain popularity and distract from other actions.
The economic aspects of the marijuana industry are also brought into the discussion. The suggestion that states are raking in billions in tax revenue and creating hundreds of thousands of jobs creates the impression that it is almost impossible to eliminate. The magnitude of the industry, and the potential tax revenue that would be lost, are emphasized to suggest that any serious threat to legal marijuana is unlikely, especially since the federal government isn’t likely to bridge the financial gap.
The conversation touches on the potential hypocrisy of those opposing marijuana legalization. The comparison of marijuana to alcohol and tobacco—substances that have historically been accepted and even promoted by the government—highlights a sense of arbitrary moral judgment. The idea that the religious right and others are controlling what we can and cannot consume further fuels this sentiment, as does the insinuation that the government, in its own way, will manipulate and even control what is permissible to partake.
The core of the argument rests on the idea that the motives behind potential crackdowns on marijuana are not about the drug itself, but about control, power, and distraction. The commentary suggests that the political machine is designed to protect its own interests first and foremost, and that the issue of marijuana is just a pawn in a larger game.
The discussion references that Trump might be interested in rescheduling cannabis to a lower-level drug and that this may be more appealing to the majority of Americans. It could provide a means to gain popularity, and steal credit for a long-standing issue of interest to voters. However, the article suggests that there’s internal disagreement within MAGA on the issue. Hardliners are apparently pushing back.
Furthermore, it is brought up that some MAGA supporters actually consume marijuana, leading to an implied disconnect between leadership and the base. The political maneuverings are seen as a strategic move with the potential to be popular, but this is viewed with skepticism.
The potential for financial incentives to play a part in the conversation is also discussed. Big Pharma and Big Alcohol are named as companies that might be threatened by legal weed and therefore would likely want to limit its availability.
In conclusion, the collective sentiment appears to be that the purported threat to legal marijuana is either a smokescreen, a strategic distraction, or a reflection of an arbitrary moral agenda. The arguments also suggest that there’s more at play, and that the issue of marijuana is intertwined with larger themes of political maneuvering, personal freedoms, and the protection of powerful interests.