But its true. I would rather have a candidate that says what is wrong vs one that the tows the party line and says its good for you , na na na I can't hear you. I'd also prefer a candidate is is fallible like the rest of us and can learn and change from mistakes.The dig at the cancer society is probably what killed her run.
But its true. I would rather have a candidate that says what is wrong vs one that the tows the party line and says its good for you , na na na I can't hear you. I'd also prefer a candidate is is fallible like the rest of us and can learn and change from mistakes.
+1she just has to learn how to say things properly.
Its like stating that cannabis oil 'cures' cancer. In reality, it 'kills' cancer tumors.
That fact alone is used by people around the world to study herb.
Is that a cure? One would think if you got cancer once and nothing changed, it'll come back again.
So the statement of it "curing" can put people in jail in not only our part but other parts of the world. Making out right "claims" have to have proof behind them.
There is no proof that anyone has been able to state this fact, other than the ones who have been successful in killing their cancer tumors.
All anecdotal of course.
they're all quacks of course selling and promitting snake oil eh....oooooo ohhhh snakkke oil.
I know my sarcasm is worse than @WHATFG![]()
They shouldn't be detrimental to a party that said they were prepared to legalize...There is only one party against any form of legalization.
I know it's an important issue for many people but the election is about far more than just pot.
Every party drops candidates if skeletons are found in their closets. She just happened to make some comments about a highly respected organization. May she be right about her claims or not, the things she said could be extremely detrimental to the party.
It's just politics.
If we want any real change we need the red headed stepchild of federal politics to do it.NDP look better everyday