US Politics: 2017 Edition

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Peregrine**

Just going to take the invitation to get this started. So, politics, huh. Did you know it's an election year already? NC gets to have a special election for our legislature because the republicans gerrymandered so blatantly the court tossed out half our districts. So that whole "at least the election year is over" optimism? FORGET ABOUT IT.

**reds8n**

..I think we'll go with a slightly less provocative title m'kay ?

I'm sure the thread will be full of wacky hijinks soon enough.

**Verviedi**

Well, here's something pertaining to the issue, that isn't that horrible. A judge managed to halt part of that law that the GOP passed to sieze power from Cooper. Not the whole thing, but progress.
http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2016/12/31/NC-judge-sides-with-Dems-halts-change-to-state-election-law/7041483226516/?spt=hs&or=tn_us

**Vash108**

Verviedi wrote:
Well, here's something pertaining to the issue, that isn't that horrible. A judge managed to halt part of that law that the GOP passed to sieze power from Cooper. Not the whole thing, but progress.
http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2016/12/31/NC-judge-sides-with-Dems-halts-change-to-state-election-law/7041483226516/?spt=hs&or=tn_us

They do love democracy.

**Do_I_Not_Like_That**

I don't know that much about NC in general, aside from colonial history

but to this neutral observer, and from the newspaper articles I've read, it seems as though NC is turning into a banana republic.

**Co'tor Shas**

And in New Mexico, public defenders are so over-worked that they are refusing to take more cases.

When Defendants Cannot Afford a Lawyer, and Neither Can New Mexico

HOBBS, N.M. — When Bennett J. Baur, New Mexico’s chief public defender, took office in April, he set out to review the workload of every lawyer on his team, ahead of another year of belt-tightening in a state whose budget has been crippled by the slump in oil and gas prices.

One place stood out: Hobbs, the largest city in Lea County, a misshapen rectangle speckled by pump jacks in the oil-rich Permian Basin, along the edge of western Texas. The number of felony cases in Hobbs had almost doubled since 2011, rising through the oil boom and bust even as the number of public defenders dropped by one-third in only three months.

In October, Mr. Baur ordered his lawyers here, who on average were representing 200 defendants each, to stop taking any new cases. It was a desperate and unprecedented step in this state, which triggered a nasty legal fight that has roiled this town of 43,000 for months.

“We have to turn off the spigot,” Mr. Baur said. “It is unconstitutional, inefficient and, frankly, not fair to represent more people if we can’t give them a functioning attorney.”

Lisa Kuykendall, Lea County’s chief deputy district attorney, called Mr. Baur’s decision to stop taking on new cases an “abdication of their statutory duty” and an affront to the more than 250 indigent defendants who have appeared in court to respond to criminal charges only to hear their lawyers tell judges, who are themselves working longer hours, they cannot do the job.

“We’re all doing a lot more with a lot less,” Ms. Kuykendall said.

Late last month, a district court judge found Mr. Baur in contempt of court, forcing the public defenders to go back to taking on cases. So the lawyers changed strategy. They started showing up in court and immediately asking judges to dismiss the cases without prejudice, meaning that the cases could still be filed later on.

So far, none of the judges have granted their requests.

And the crisis continues.

Poor defendants almost always make a first court appearance on their own, without a lawyer present to interpret the charges against them. Routinely, they meet the public defenders assigned to represent them only moments before they are supposed to negotiate critical decisions, such as a plea deal or the conditions for their release.

Public defenders contend that they are unable to properly prepare for hearings, thoroughly interview witnesses, evaluate the evidence against their clients or file the correct motions because they are stretched way too thin.

There is no relief in sight. Already confronting a $1.3 million shortfall this year, the courts are preparing for more cuts. Earlier this month, Arthur W. Pepin, director of the state’s Administrative Office of the Courts, asked magistrate and district judges to send him a memo listing ways they can trim expenses further.

“We are strained and we consistently hear prosecutors and public defenders tell us there are not enough of them to do the job that they ought to do,” Mr. Pepin said. “We’ve reached a point where the judges have grave concerns about the system’s ability to deliver justice.”

Mr. Baur had tried cajoling defenders assigned to other parts of the state to move to Hobbs, where housing remains relatively expensive and scarce. He had met with judges and the Lea County district attorney, Dianna Luce, to brainstorm solutions. He had advertised for two open positions and two new slots, hoping to bring the number of lawyers in the office to eight.

Months passed and no solution was in sight. One new hire resigned a week ahead of his start date. Most applicants, Mr. Baur said, were not even qualified enough to be interviewed. One who got hired this month was not experienced enough in criminal trials to take on a full caseload.

By then, Mr. Baur had already taken the dramatic step of turning down any new cases. “There’s no cavalry going over the hill,” said Mr. Baur (pronounced BOW-er). “We’re going to have to figure this out on our own.”

At the same time, the City of Hobbs finds its budget in the black. Having learned their lesson from previous boom-and-bust cycles, its leaders decided to set aside a third or more of what the city was taking in during the flush times. The saving has helped to hire new police officers, which has led to additional strain on the state-run courts.

The types of cases that come through magistrate court, the entry point to the state’s judicial system, highlight the economic struggles facing many of those who live in and around Hobbs: domestic violence, drunken driving, drug abuse.

“When oil took a dive, people’s meth addiction that allowed them to work 72 hours on the oil fields didn’t go away,” said Freeman Faust, a public defender.

On a recent morning in Lea County Magistrate Court in Hobbs, the metal detector buzzed as defendants walked through, but there was no one monitoring it; the court had no money to afford a security guard, Judge Willie R. Henry said.

In a corner of the lobby, Mr. Faust told one of his clients, Alfred M. Sosa, that prosecutors had offered to dismiss a charge of tampering with a motor vehicle — an ex-girlfriend had accused him of kicking in the door of her car — if Mr. Sosa pleaded guilty to a separate charge of assault on a family member.

They were meeting for the first time and Mr. Faust had yet to read Mr. Sosa’s case file, which he said made it hard to give his client any meaningful advice. According to the criminal complaint, the assault stemmed from the ex-girlfriend accusing him of swinging “a sock toward her face, barely missing her nose.”

Mr. Sosa chose to go to trial.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/29/us/new-mexico-lawyer-shortage.html?_r=0http://www.dakkadakka.com/core/forum_rules.jsp

But you just gotta cut those budgets, don't'cha.

**Rosebuddy**

reds8n wrote:
..I think we'll go with a slightly less provocative title m'kay ?

I'm sure the thread will be full of wacky hijinks soon enough.

That laughter and disbelief over the fact that Trump, the actual Donald Trump, is going to be the head of state of the mightiest nation on the planet is too provocative really says a lot about the state of the Western political discourse.

**Co'tor Shas**

I think is says a lot about Donald Trump...

**whembly**

I so what him to say "Obama, you're fired" at his inauguration.

I wouldn't put it past him.

**Do_I_Not_Like_That**

whembly wrote:
I so what him to say "Obama, you're fired" at his inauguration.

I wouldn't put it past him.

We can only hope that Trump is statesman like, gracious, and says something about healing divisions and moving the nation forward.

I'm not expecting an FDR inauguration speech, but let's hope he doesn't echo his recent twitter messages.

**AllSeeingSkink**

Rosebuddy wrote:
reds8n wrote:
..I think we'll go with a slightly less provocative title m'kay ?

I'm sure the thread will be full of wacky hijinks soon enough.

That laughter and disbelief over the fact that Trump, the actual Donald Trump, is going to be the head of state of the mightiest nation on the planet is too provocative really says a lot about the state of the Western political discourse.

Too provocative *for a thread title*. Surely we want the thread to be general about US politics, not just Donny Trumpo.

Given this is going to be the number 1 troll thread on all Dakka for the next year (or however long it takes to get locked) best to keep the gak storm to the thread content rather than the thread title, no?

**Verviedi**

Number one troll thread? I doubt it. I'm sure the reasonable and mature posters of Dakka can keep this thread completely on topic all year, without a single MOD warning or thread lock.

**Tannhauser42**

Verviedi wrote:
Number one troll thread? I doubt it. I'm sure the reasonable and mature posters of Dakka can keep this thread completely on topic all year, without a single MOD warning or thread lock.

To be fair, now that we actually are getting plastic Sisters of Battle, this really does have a shot at being the number one troll thread on Dakka.

Peregrine wrote:
NC gets to have a special election for our legislature because the republicans gerrymandered so blatantly the court tossed out half our districts.

Hopefully, the people will punish the legislators responsible for the worst offenses. But will the redistricting be handled fairly? Also, will the current legislators remain as incumbents in the new districts?

**AllSeeingSkink**

Verviedi wrote:
Number one troll thread? I doubt it. I'm sure the reasonable and mature posters of Dakka can keep this thread completely on topic all year, without a single MOD warning or thread lock.

I doubt it'll get by on topic and without warnings (and I'm sure as usual there'll be plenty of veiled and not-so-veiled insults that slip under the radar), it'll probably dodge being locked because the mods seem to like keeping the US and UK politics threads open to contain all the crazy in one place, if they get locked they'll start seeping out all over the rest of the forum

**Verviedi**

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
Verviedi wrote:
Number one troll thread? I doubt it. I'm sure the reasonable and mature posters of Dakka can keep this thread completely on topic all year, without a single MOD warning or thread lock.
I doubt it'll get by on topic and without warnings (and I'm sure as usual there'll be plenty of veiled and not-so-veiled insults that slip under the radar), it'll probably dodge being locked because the mods seem to like keeping the US and UK politics threads open to contain all the crazy in one place, if they get locked they'll start seeping out all over the rest of the forum

Ah, so this thread is like a squid made of anger. If you lock it, it will spray ink all over the forum and make everybody pissed.

**Spinner**

I prefer to think of it as a mysterious burning bag left on your doorstep. You know you really should stomp it out, but if you do, guess what splatters everywhere...

“When oil took a dive, people’s meth addiction that allowed them to work 72 hours on the oil fields didn’t go away,” said Freeman Faust, a public defender.

Certainly doesn't mince words, does he? Hope they can get the public defender thing resolved soon.

**Breotan**

Kilkrazy wrote:
In other news, here is another smoking gun pointing at Russian hacking.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-38479179
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-38370630

Well, at least one of those stories isn't everything it seemed to be. The Washington Post also ran the story about the Burlington electric grid being hacked and is now walking it back.

http://nypost.com/2017/01/01/washington-post-retracts-story-about-russian-hack-at-vermont-utility/

“Authorities say there is no indication of that so far [that Russians had penetrated the US electric grid],” according to an editor’s note attached to a corrected version of the story on the paper’s Web site.

So, while the laptop had a virus it never touched the electric grid. Sort of like when you bring your personal laptop to work but don't connect to the corporate network.

Let's be clear here, malware has been around since the internet became a thing back in the 90s. What we have in this case is some dumb schmuck going to a website he/she probably shouldn't have (porn, poker, who knows) and wound up clicking on something and downloading a trojan. Trojans =/= hacking.

**Vaktathi**

So, new thread, new discussions, new flame wars and burnt bottoms, lets get dangerous.

If we can keep it civil, I'd like to raise a discussion topic that often causes much gnashing of teeth, on the potential dangerous subject of guns, primarily for anyone living in CA the DoJ released new "assault weapons" rules friday afternoon. Now ostensibly these are "proposed" rules, but are unlikely to be changed as the legislation has already come into full effect.

Now, I bring this up not so much to debate the merits of the new AW ban (I don't live there anymore, though I do very much disagree with it), but more to point out some of the "slippery slope"-ness about the implementation that is often raised by some and dismissed by others, and how these perceptions come about and what they're grounded in and generate so much drama with this particular topic.

To illustrate the point, in July of 2016, in the wake of various shootings, CA passed yet another AW ban, expanding the definition of "assault weapons" by redefining the meaning of what a "detachable magazine" is to include magazines that require a tool to remove. I'll hold off on the specifics and debate over efficacy and whatnot. However, the restrictions became effective Jan 1 2017 for possession (and registration by Jan 1 2018), meaning the deadline to start DROS (background check & 10 day wait) in CA to take possession of weapons before the cut-off date was Dec 21 2016, and the CA DoJ was supposed to issue guidelines, rulings, and regulations before the ban kicked in, so that people would know how to register their AW's, what exactly was considered an AW now, etc.

Well, the CA DoJ waited and waited ultimately the new rules didn't make it to the public until...the afternoon on a Friday before a long holiday weekend, December 30th 2016...basically about 30something hours before they became effective.

So, we can see where this raises issues already, particularly with the DROS cut-off for people to buy rifles that may be banned ending before the actual rules are in place.

Furthermore, the DoJ's regulations then goes on to create several new complications and distinctions that did not exist in the initial legislation passed nor in previous AW legislation, again, right at the last minute, including how the CA DoJ treats the registration of "assault weapons" now significantly differently than the Federal government and the ATF (which in and of itself creates problems for people trying to follow the law). To give some examples, under federal law, only a receiver of a firearm is a gun, and for things like federally mandated background checks on firearms sales or NFA registration, that's all done with based off the receiver (as an example, this is an AR15 lower receiver, in and of itself considered a firearm under federal law) whether it is a complete gun or not, while the new CA ban will not allow registry "unless the firearm is fully assembled and fully functional" (without necessarily defining what that means). Additionally we get issues where now an AW isn't just an AW, an AW under the multiple other bans can retain full unmodified functionality and owners can basically change them however they like, while AW's registered under this new ban are effectively a new type of AW that cannot have parts modified or changed despite being registered AW's like older weapons. Registration and de-listing requirements have changed relative to older bans, now requiring 4 distinct different photographs of the firearm.

While not wanting to argue too much about the details or merits or constitutionality and whatnot of the ban, I'd like to discuss why the implementation feels extremely underhanded and overtly political, coming off as a "gotcha" to many to make things onerous for firearms owners rather than coming from a genuine regard for public safety (EDIT: If one wants to see how to identify an "assault weapon" under CA law, you basically need this detailed flowchart, which is about to become more complicated yet.), and why it feeds such teeth gnashing and "slipper slope" arguments whenever "guns" come up in legislation if we can keep it civil.

PDF link of CA DoJ proposed regulations filed with the California office of administrative law on 12-29.
https://cdn.firearmspolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/bullet-button-proposed-regulations.pdf

There's a host of other CA laws coming into effect as well (such as ammo requiring background checks and online ammo purchases having to be sent to an FFL for pickup and background check like firearms) that I won't dive into too much, but want to highlight a couple major points to go along with the AW thing. As something of an addendum, in 2016 CA passed a ban on possession of "high capacity" magazines (anything over 10 rounds) that becomes effective July 1 2017. There has been a ban on selling/importing/transferring/etc on such in CA for almost 20 years now, but those who owned them previously were grandfathered in, and this ban will require those people who legally possessed them prior to the ban to surrender those magazines they had been told they were allowed to keep for almost two decades by post-facto legislation. Now, on top of this, the CA DoJ a couple weeks ago put out a proposal "emergency" regulation to make that effective Jan 2 2017, with basically zero time for public comment or legislative review. This was eventually withdrawn without comment a couple days ago (yes, just a couple days before it would have been effective), but feeds the above points about "slippery slopeness" and why there's such strong reactions to almost any firearms legislation at this point.

**Relapse**

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
whembly wrote:
I so what him to say "Obama, you're fired" at his inauguration.

I wouldn't put it past him.

We can only hope that Trump is statesman like, gracious, and says something about healing divisions and moving the nation forward.

I'm not expecting an FDR inauguration speech, but let's hope he doesn't echo his recent twitter messages.

While I am hoping the liberals aren't going to try to close down roads, riot, or otherwise try to cause a massive disruption at the inauguration.

**Co'tor Shas**

Wow, didn't even take one page. GG Dakka, GG.

**NinthMusketeer**

Relapse wrote:
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
whembly wrote:
I so what him to say "Obama, you're fired" at his inauguration.

I wouldn't put it past him.

We can only hope that Trump is statesman like, gracious, and says something about healing divisions and moving the nation forward.

I'm not expecting an FDR inauguration speech, but let's hope he doesn't echo his recent twitter messages.

While I am hoping the liberals aren't going to try to close down roads, riot, or otherwise try to cause a massive disruption at the inauguration.

And here I was hoping that people would scale back characterising huge groups of people based on the actions of a few of them, but that's a pretty unrealistic hope. But if 'the liberals' do decide to riot I think the nation will be in pretty bad bad straights considering that's somewhere between a third and half the population.

**Breotan**

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
I don't know that much about NC in general, aside from colonial history

but to this neutral observer, and from the newspaper articles I've read, it seems as though NC is turning into a banana republic.

North Carolina is essentially the last bastion of everything the Klan holds dear. They're a massive thorn in the side of the RNC and believe me, if we could write them off we would.

**Co'tor Shas**

Yeah, nobody like NC. They are the epitome of everything bad with state governments.

**ZergSmasher**

Relapse wrote:
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
whembly wrote:
I so what him to say "Obama, you're fired" at his inauguration.

I wouldn't put it past him.

We can only hope that Trump is statesman like, gracious, and says something about healing divisions and moving the nation forward.

I'm not expecting an FDR inauguration speech, but let's hope he doesn't echo his recent twitter messages.

While I am hoping the liberals aren't going to try to close down roads, riot, or otherwise try to cause a massive disruption at the inauguration.

Close down roads? Riot? Naw, liberals would never do that...

I'm worried that one of those #NeverTrump or #NotMyPresident whack jobs will try to assassinate Trump before he can be officially sworn in. Given the security around the place, it's unlikely such an attempt would succeed, but it would be tragic.

As for the "You're fired!" thing, I've made jokes about Trump doing just that, but I sincerely hope it won't actually happen. I also made jokes about having "The Apprentice: Presidential Cabinet Edition", but that didn't happen either.

Either way, let's wait until Trump does something dumb before we trash him, shall we?

**sirlynchmob**

ZergSmasher wrote:
Relapse wrote:
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
whembly wrote:
I so what him to say "Obama, you're fired" at his inauguration.

I wouldn't put it past him.

We can only hope that Trump is statesman like, gracious, and says something about healing divisions and moving the nation forward.

I'm not expecting an FDR inauguration speech, but let's hope he doesn't echo his recent twitter messages.

While I am hoping the liberals aren't going to try to close down roads, riot, or otherwise try to cause a massive disruption at the inauguration.

Close down roads? Riot? Naw, liberals would never do that...

I'm worried that one of those #NeverTrump or #NotMyPresident whack jobs will try to assassinate Trump before he can be officially sworn in. Given the security around the place, it's unlikely such an attempt would succeed, but it would be tragic.

As for the "You're fired!" thing, I've made jokes about Trump doing just that, but I sincerely hope it won't actually happen. I also made jokes about having "The Apprentice: Presidential Cabinet Edition", but that didn't happen either.

Either way, let's wait until Trump does something dumb before we trash him, shall we?

how much more dumb stuff does he need to do? its been his defining trait during his run, saying and doing dumb stuff. It should have been his campaign slogan, will do dumb stuff for votes.

**Relapse**

NinthMusketeer wrote:
Relapse wrote:
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
whembly wrote:
I so what him to say "Obama, you're fired" at his inauguration.

I wouldn't put it past him.

We can only hope that Trump is statesman like, gracious, and says something about healing divisions and moving the nation forward.

I'm not expecting an FDR inauguration speech, but let's hope he doesn't echo his recent twitter messages.

While I am hoping the liberals aren't going to try to close down roads, riot, or otherwise try to cause a massive disruption at the inauguration.
And here I was hoping that people would scale back characterising huge groups of people based on the actions of a few of them, but that's a pretty unrealistic hope. But if 'the liberals' do decide to riot I think the nation will be in pretty bad bad straights considering that's somewhere between a third and half the population.

In all fairness, my statement is in the same vein as this one of yours,

"Ah yes, funny how Republican supporters love to shift blame for Trump to anyone but themselves. Keep at it, worked so well for you thus far! I'll keep laughing at you as the GOP continues their burning fall into irrelevance. "

**NinthMusketeer**

You are right, my tone was not at all exaggerated, it was serious and had no reason not to be taken at exactly face value. I messed up previously, which completely excuses you doing the same.

**Relapse**

NinthMusketeer wrote:
You are right, my tone was not at all exaggerated, it was serious and had no reason not to be taken at exactly face value. I messed up previously, which completely excuses you doing the same.

Actually, I could have chosen my words more carefully. Pals?

**NinthMusketeer**

Fair enough, I have certainly made my fair share of poorly worded statements in the past.

**Ahtman**

Group hug?