Furthermore, with respect to the differences between a "peaceful protest" and a "civil disobedience"....one's 'right' to protest ends when you interfere with others' freedom of movement.
Civil disobedience is a form of peaceful protest. The fact that a protest is inconvenient to you does not mean that it is violent or not a protest.
Civil disobedience by definition, is an unlawful gathering.
Blocking my legitimate movement is a battery(I think that's what it's called in court) under all state laws.
No it is not.
So I don't have legitimate movement on highway? You're gravely mistaken.
Indeed... those who chose to block highways and major thoroughfares just to draw attention to their cause are taking a great risk, something that is NOTthe job of public safety officials to ignore.
There is no risk if you are a safe driver. There is a great inconvenience, perhaps, but the only risk comes from reckless and/or negligent drivers who are 100% responsible for any harm. You know the protest is there, you are free to stop your vehicle and wait until the protest is out of the way before proceeding. If all drivers do this there is zero risk to anyone.
Not every driver is a good driver... in fact, we're surrounded by idiots on the road.
Stop whitewashing this, it's more than an inconvience. It's a safety hazard as well, potentially impacting emergency vehicle movements.
from the aclu's website:
" A protest that blocks vehicular or pedestrian traffic is illegal without a permit."
Get your permit and block traffic for weeks for the cause.
so if a construction worker holds a stop sign up while you're driving down the road, do you consider that battery as well?
Again, blocking roads can be done legally, it is not automatically civil disobedience. And unless you can quote a specific law, I again refer to the first amendment.
If the driver did, indeed hit & killed the pedestrian, that's auto manslaughter.
Then I'll be sure to maim the next protestor I see... Just to be sure a human can live without legs, right? Those are completely superfluous, like a fetus?
Jesus fething Christ. Of course the political party that things anyone from Syria must be a sleeper agent until proven otherwise thinks its a good idea to force people to prove they didn't warrant being physically harmed.
You're being hyperbolic... dial it down a bit please.
The sad thing is that we're not being hyperbolic, and that's why there's no point in taking this gak seriously anymore.
Furthermore, with respect to the differences between a "peaceful protest" and a "civil disobedience"....one's 'right' to protest ends when you interfere with others' freedom of movement.
Damn straight. I say we go back in time, arrest all those silly protestors and hang um from the closest tree with the nicest rope money can by. I vote we start with Martin Luther King Jr. Then we'll do Ghandi (big two really important), and from there we'll find Rosa Parks (make sure you rape her first that's how it was done back then and obviously if she can't prove she has a right to sitting in the front of the bus when the law says she clearly doesn't she's gonna have to prove she had a right to sit there after we subject her to some "physical force").
Blocking my legitimate movement is a battery(I think that's what it's called in court) under all state laws.
Oh I'm so sor'eh masta. I never get in ya way again masta.
Far to often, our culture has become excessively deferential to violating the rights of others.
Peregrine wrote: 3) Ignores the fact that a driver must yield to pedestrians in all circumstances, even if the pedestrian is not in the road in the correct place.
Pretty sure you have to defer to state law in that regard. In Indiana, at least, you yield to pedestrians in cross walks. Jaywalkers do NOT have the right of way, which would lump protesters in the same vein as jaywalkers, as far as the law goes. So yeah, block a road in Indiana, and you can be arrested.
As far as "...life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" goes, if someone is made late to their job because of this, or happens to get fired because of not being somewhere on time, or some majorly important service can't be rendered because of the blockade, wouldn't that interfere with "the pursuit of happiness"? Your rights are guaranteed until you infringe upon the rights of others, whether your rights violations are sympathy enducing or not.
One, I'm not Peregrine and Peregrine isn't me. Who are you asking the question?
Two, your question isn't relevant to anything I or Peregrine have said or either of our criticisms so I'm not clear on why it matters or warrants answering.
Co'tor Shas wrote: I still want to know what attrocties "the left" commited.
Historically?
Stalin and the Soviets.
Mao.
Pol Pot.
Khmer Rouge.
Fidel Castro.
The Stasi.
Or recently?
Sexualisation of children through sex ed.
The undermining of the traditional family unit.
Attacking the right to free speech in the name of fighting racism, sexism, and many other isms.
Putting the rights of foreign immigrants or terrorists at a higher priority than American/European citizens.
Cosying up to Islamic nations like Saudi Arabia or Palestine and damaging the US-Israel relationship.
Whether true or not (I make no claim as to their veracity), these are "crimes" the Left are frequently accused of. To shrug your shoulders and pretend to be unaware of what the Right accuse the Left of doing is either disingenuous or ignorant.
Peregrine wrote: 3) Ignores the fact that a driver must yield to pedestrians in all circumstances, even if the pedestrian is not in the road in the correct place.
Pretty sure you have to defer to state law in that regard. In Indiana, at least, you yield to pedestrians in cross walks. Jaywalkers do NOT have the right of way, which would lump protesters in the same vein as jaywalkers, as far as the law goes. So yeah, block a road in Indiana, and you can be arrested.
As far as "...life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" goes, if someone is made late to their job because of this, or happens to get fired because of not being somewhere on time, or some majorly important service can't be rendered because of the blockade, wouldn't that interfere with "the pursuit of happiness"? Your rights are guaranteed until you infringe upon the rights of others, whether your rights violations are sympathy enducing or not.
does that only apply to protesters, or are you looking to sue the next construction company that makes you late for work? or if theirs an accident on the road, you should sue the people who caused the accident for infringing on your rights.
Allow me to quote a favorite saying among the Navy:
If you're late, it's on you, leave earlier and plan ahead because gak happens.
whembly wrote: Walking in traffic is dangerous fething gak.
No it isn't. In the kind of "shut down the street" protests we're talking about the protest is easily visible, traffic is slowed sufficiently that braking distance and reaction time are not relevant, and the only reason hitting a person is at all a possible outcome is that people don't want to accept that the road is shut down and try to force their way through. If you are driving safely, which includes yielding to pedestrians no matter where they may be or what you might think of their actions, you will not hit a protestor.
Like Whembly, I have no sympathy for idiots in the street trying to stop traffic getting hit by cars. A protest with a permit is one thing. This is something a city can plan for and maybe work around.
The stupidity in Fergusen and like situations make it at the moron's own risk if they decide to get into the way of traffic.
Co'tor Shas wrote: I still want to know what attrocties "the left" commited.
Historically?
Stalin and the Soviets.
Mao.
Pol Pot.
Khmer Rouge.
Fidel Castro.
The Stasi.
Or recently?
Sexualisation of children through sex ed.
The undermining of the traditional family unit.
Attacking the right to free speech in the name of fighting racism, sexism, and many other isms.
Putting the rights of foreign immigrants or terrorists at a higher priority than American/European citizens.
Cosying up to Islamic nations like Saudi Arabia or Palestine and damaging the US-Israel relationship.
Whether true or not (I make no claim as to their veracity), these are "crimes" the Left are frequently accused of. To shrug your shoulders and pretend to be unaware of what the Right accuse the Left of doing is either disingenuous or ignorant.
LOL, that is the dumbest thing I've ever seen posted here. Oh I'm aware the right blames the left for everything with no regard to facts or evidence, and as always the correct thing to do is laugh at dumb stuff like this.
It's still a peaceful protest. Making a peaceful protest illegal doesn't make it cease being a peaceful protest.
So I don't have legitimate movement on highway? You're gravely mistaken.
What does this have to do with the crime of battery? Blocking a road is not battery, period.
Not every driver is a good driver... in fact, we're surrounded by idiots on the road.
Yes, this is true, but we hold those idiots responsible (in civil and/or criminal court) when their idiocy hurts someone. We don't say "it's ok, they took a risk because idiots like you are on the road" and excuse their harmful actions.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: Whether true or not (I make no claim as to their veracity), these are "crimes" the Left are frequently accused of. To shrug your shoulders and pretend to be unaware of what the Right accuse the Left of doing is either disingenuous or ignorant.
So the guy who complained about libel is now knowling repeating claims you suspect might be false (otherwise you'd have no reason to voice any doubt as to their veracity) to smugly equate protestors who oppose an oil pipeline running through their lives with Pol Pot and the Stasi, and then claims anyone who somehow didn't connect "evils of the left" in a modern political discussion about the contemporary United States with such things is ignorant or disingenuous?
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: Then by your own standards you are advocating violence, the exact thing you are accusing Whembly of, which makes you a hypocrite.
It does no such thing. My accusations against whembly have nothing to do with a general "no advocating violence" rule. I object to his choice of victims for that advocacy, and I object to his attempts to weasel out of responsibility for the things he said.
It has gotten remarkably rude in here recently, with a lot of people violating the rules of dakka. I'm going to lock this for a short while. That's not an invitation to create new politics threads, this is a general slap of the hands away from the keyboards. Everyone use the next couple of hours to cool down before the thread unlocks.
Unlocked. Remember the rules of dakka dakka, you all agreed to them when you joined the website.
A ridiculous claim that has nothing to do with reality.
The undermining of the traditional family unit.
"Undermining" the obligation to live according to right-wing Christian ideology is not an atrocity. The US is a secular nation and, while right-wing Christians are free to follow the rules of their religion, they do not have the right to force the rest of us to do the same.
Attacking the right to free speech in the name of fighting racism, sexism, and many other isms.
No such thing is happening. Freedom of speech has never meant freedom from ordinary citizens objecting to your speech, the right to force private property owners to let you speak on their property, or a right to have an audience listen to you. The left is doing nothing to attack freedom of speech.
Putting the rights of foreign immigrants or terrorists at a higher priority than American/European citizens.
Nobody is putting the rights of terrorists at a higher priority, and the foreign immigrants "risk" is vastly overstated.
Cosying up to Islamic nations like Saudi Arabia or Palestine and damaging the US-Israel relationship.
IOW, doing just what the right has been doing? The right has been a fan of Saudi Arabia and any other Islamic nation that happens to be useful for their foreign policy goals. The only real difference is that the left isn't as eager to give Israel a blank check to commit whatever abuses it wants in the name of "security", but that's hardly anything worthy of the label "atrocity".
Whether true or not (I make no claim as to their veracity), these are "crimes" the Left are frequently accused of. To shrug your shoulders and pretend to be unaware of what the Right accuse the Left of doing is either disingenuous or ignorant.
Co'tor Shas asked for examples of atrocities done by "the left". The things you mentioned are not atrocities at all. Nor is the request faking ignorance, it's a demand for proof of a ridiculous accusation. I (and presumably Co'tor Shas) do not expect any answer to be provided, because no such atrocities exist to be presented.
whembly wrote: It's mainly a misdemeaner for public nuisance and unlawful assembly.
...which also makes it OK if these people are hit by cars.
Ninth... stop lying. I'm not saying it's OK of these people are hit by cars.
I interpreted your statements about having zero empathy/not caring if these people get hit by cars as meaning you felt it was OK if that happened. I don't see how that was an unreasonable interpretation, or how it means I was lying, even I was wrong.
As a sidenote I don't really understand the inciting murder and whatnot line of conversation going on and I assure you my views have nothing to do with that.
Just Tony wrote: Pretty sure you have to defer to state law in that regard. In Indiana, at least, you yield to pedestrians in cross walks. Jaywalkers do NOT have the right of way, which would lump protesters in the same vein as jaywalkers, as far as the law goes.
So in Indiana if you ignore a jaywalker and, instead of stopping and letting them cross, you run over them you honestly think "but I had right of way" is going to be a sufficient defense in court?
So yeah, block a road in Indiana, and you can be arrested.
That isn't the issue here. Nobody is objecting to the idea of arresting people for blocking the road and removing them so that traffic can move again. The issue is a proposed law that makes "they were protesting in the road" a defense if you hurt or kill someone with your car. Under this proposed law the state would have the near-impossible burden of proving that the act was deliberate murder, instead of the current situation where the driver is presumed to be at fault for hitting a pedestrian unless they can prove that the accident was unavoidable.
As far as "...life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" goes, if someone is made late to their job because of this, or happens to get fired because of not being somewhere on time, or some majorly important service can't be rendered because of the blockade, wouldn't that interfere with "the pursuit of happiness"? Your rights are guaranteed until you infringe upon the rights of others, whether your rights violations are sympathy enducing or not.
"Pursuit of happiness" is not a right under US law.
Automatically Appended Next Post: And to answer an earlier question:
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: What about that famous "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" aspect of the Declaration of Independence? Was that just a bit of prose, and never codified in the Constitution or other law?
Honest question here, I'm not American.
The "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" bit is from the Declaration of Independence, which is not law. It was a propaganda document published before the US even won the war to become an independent nation, and before the failed government that existed before our current constitution. Some of the ideas have become law elsewhere, but "pursuit of happiness" has not. It remains, at most, an often-quoted statement of US values with no legal status.
NinthMusketeer wrote: As a sidenote I don't really understand the inciting murder and whatnot line of conversation going on and I assure you my views have nothing to do with that.
The inciting murder line of conversation exists because people (Peregrine et al) were explicitly saying...that he was inciting murder. Literally in those exact words.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: The inciting murder line of conversation exists because people (Peregrine et al) were explicitly saying...that he was inciting murder. Literally in those exact words.
If you're going to say "literally in those exact words" you might want to actually read the posts in question to see if those words are used. I never used the word "incite", and it is not an accurate description of what I objected to whembly doing.
A ridiculous claim that has nothing to do with reality.
The undermining of the traditional family unit.
"Undermining" the obligation to live according to right-wing Christian ideology is not an atrocity. The US is a secular nation and, while right-wing Christians are free to follow the rules of their religion, they do not have the right to force the rest of us to do the same.
Attacking the right to free speech in the name of fighting racism, sexism, and many other isms.
No such thing is happening. Freedom of speech has never meant freedom from ordinary citizens objecting to your speech, the right to force private property owners to let you speak on their property, or a right to have an audience listen to you. The left is doing nothing to attack freedom of speech.
Putting the rights of foreign immigrants or terrorists at a higher priority than American/European citizens.
Nobody is putting the rights of terrorists at a higher priority, and the foreign immigrants "risk" is vastly overstated.
Cosying up to Islamic nations like Saudi Arabia or Palestine and damaging the US-Israel relationship.
IOW, doing just what the right has been doing? The right has been a fan of Saudi Arabia and any other Islamic nation that happens to be useful for their foreign policy goals. The only real difference is that the left isn't as eager to give Israel a blank check to commit whatever abuses it wants in the name of "security", but that's hardly anything worthy of the label "atrocity".
Whether true or not (I make no claim as to their veracity), these are "crimes" the Left are frequently accused of. To shrug your shoulders and pretend to be unaware of what the Right accuse the Left of doing is either disingenuous or ignorant.
Co'tor Shas asked for examples of atrocities done by "the left". The things you mentioned are not atrocities at all. Nor is the request faking ignorance, it's a demand for proof of a ridiculous accusation. I (and presumably Co'tor Shas) do not expect any answer to be provided, because no such atrocities exist to be presented.
First, they aren't my claims, so please don't make this personal. I'm playing Devil's Advocate, saying "This is what the Right alleges. How do you not know this?". Whether they're true or not is a separate matter. Lord of Hats has also tried to drag me down this tangent and personally attacked me as though they are positions that I personally hold. Maybe I do, maybe I don't. But I refuse to follow that tangent.
Second, Atrocities was Cotor's choice of words, not the person he was asking the question of. The person he was talking to referred to "evils" of the left, not atrocities. "Evils" has a lower standard than "atrocities". Many things the Left does are considered "evil" by the Right, and vice versa. Whereas Atrocities has a much more severe connotation and definition. Whether he intended to or not, Cotor subtly shifted the goal posts by changing the discussion from "Evils" to "Atrocities", and we've all been arguing past each other at straw men on this point since then. I wish I'd noticed sooner.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: The inciting murder line of conversation exists because people (Peregrine et al) were explicitly saying...that he was inciting murder. Literally in those exact words.
If you're going to say "literally in those exact words" you might want to actually read the posts in question to see if those words are used. [...]I never used the word "incite"
Fine. I checked back over your posts, and my use of the term "literally in those exact words is inaccurate hyperbole. I apologise for that. However...
and it is not an accurate description of what I objected to whembly doing.
Yes it is. You might not have used the exact words, but it is exactly what you said.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: I'm playing Devil's Advocate, saying "This is what the Right alleges. How do you not know this?".
Then your devil's advocacy is completely wrong. The question is not "I don't know what the right believes", it's "the right's accusations of evil are absurd, and I bet you can't point out any that aren't".
Are you retracting this statement?
No, because it's true. Saying "lol, zero sympathy" about a murder victim and "I'm all for this" about a law excusing the murder is advocating, or at least approving of that murder. What it isn't doing is inciting murder, which refers to a specific crime, not merely saying positive things about an act of murder.
Prestor Jon wrote: No, trying to punish a company because a member of the ownership who is only tangentially involved with the company makes a donation from their personal wealth as a private citizen to the Republican presidential candidate's campaign for the sole purpose of trying to intimidate anyone else from making personal donations to politicians you don't like is clearly an operation designed to suppress speech.
I don't know, this sounds an awful lot like people using their freedom of speech to say "use the free market to purchase from companies that I favor". Freedom of speech means that the government won't censor you for having unpopular opinions, it does NOT mean that your fellow citizens will not say " that guy".
What exactly did LL Bean the corporate entity do wrong that warrants a boycott and what is the goal of the boycott?
Who cares? LL Bean is not entitled to sales. Nor is there an obligation to only boycott for "good" reasons, from a freedom of speech or free market point of view. You can certainly disagree with the people advocating or participating in the boycott, but this isn't a freedom issue.
The outraged group has made it very clear that their goal is to punish LL Bean and the memeber of the Bean family that donated to Trump because they don't like Trump. Trying to whip up an angry online mob to punish businesses in order to intimidate people into withholding their support from politicians you deem unworthy is downright unAmerican.
It's not un-American at all, you just don't understand what freedom of speech means. Nothing about American law guarantees you freedom from the consequences of your speech.
You're not understanding the argument I'm making. I never said boycotts were bad I said that Trump's tweet supported Linda Bean's right to free . speech.
Linda Bean is free to support any political candidate she wants. She has a right to vote for whomever she wants, hold whatever political beliefs she wants and support any candidate she wants and the fact that she chose to support a candidate that opposed the candidate you chose to support doesnt give you any moral, ethical or reasonable cause to attack her and seek to punitively damage her livelihood. ("you" refers to the boy otters not Peregrine)
Linda Bean happens to be a relative of the founder of LL Bean so she has a minority ownership interest in the company but doesn't hold any influence over LL Bean. The company has no connection to the Trump campaign the boycotters only want to hurt LL Bean's sales as a means to force Linda Bean to be divested from the company to punish her for supporting Trump. Nobody should be punished for supporting the "wrong" candidate. We're all free to support different candidates and hold different views and nobody should be ok with punishing people just because they hold different beliefs than you.
If people want to try to change the way LL Bean runs their business because they don't like some aspect of their current operation that's fine but there's nothing the company could have or should have done to prevent the founder's great granddaughter from writing a personal check out to a presidential campaign. Protesting that is just dumb. It's the same kind of ridiculous guilt by association transitive property hooey that the Republicans tried to use against Obama in 2008 that was met with derision by the Democrats. Obama's minor connection to Bill Ayers didn't make Obama a terrorist or terrorist sympathizer and LL Bean doesn't endorse Trump just because a stockholder donated to Trump's campaign.
This is akin to people protesting the New England Patriots because Tom Brady was a supporter of the Trump campaign. Brady's endorsement of Trump doesn't carry over and somehow taint the team or signify an endorsement of any or all of Trump's views/positions by the Patriots. No one should feel the need to try to enact a boycott against the Patriots to get Brady cut from the team and kept out of the NFL because he supported the "wrong" candidate.
I'm not surprised this thread go locked temporarily there can be an unhealthy amount of absolutism in political discussions these days.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: I'm playing Devil's Advocate, saying "This is what the Right alleges. How do you not know this?".
Then your devil's advocacy is completely wrong. The question is not "I don't know what the right believes", it's "the right's accusations of evil are absurd, and I bet you can't point out any that aren't".
Are you retracting this statement?
No, because it's true. Saying "lol, zero sympathy" about a murder victim and "I'm all for this" about a law excusing the murder is advocating, or at least approving of that murder. What it isn't doing is inciting murder, which refers to a specific crime, not merely saying positive things about an act of murder.
Just because somebody gets hit by a car doesn't mean it's murder or that the driver was at fault. Numerous times on my commute I've seen people run across multiple lanes of a highway with 55-70mph speed limits just because jaywalking across the highway is a shortcut. If you're driving along obeying the law, staying in your lane, not speeding, maintaining a safe distance between yourself and other cars etc. and some guy decides to run across the highway like a human version of the game Frogger you can't control when that guy runs into the highway, if he times it right, how fast he runs, when you see him etc. Hitting that guy with your car wouldn't necessarily be murder. Jaywalking is illegal because it's dangerous and so is blocking traffic without first obtaining a permit. This isn't a preplanned march or parade route it's an unexpected group of people walking into traffic in the roadway. If you want to literally go out and play in traffic you're choosing to create a life threatening situation, protestors could be fatally struck by cars and the unexpected traffic jam could cause fatal car accidents.
Prestor Jon wrote: You're not understanding the argument I'm making. I never said boycotts were bad I said that Trump's tweet supported Linda Bean's right to free . speech.
No, I understand it perfectly, you're just wrong. The right to free speech means that the government can not prevent you from speaking or punish you for doing so. It does not mean that private citizens can not treat you badly for speaking. Linda Bean is free to support any political candidates she wants, and people are free to express their disgust with her actions and say " you, vote for someone else". Trump's tweet was not supporting Linda Bean's right to free speech (which is not being infringed upon), it was supporting some bizarre "right" to never have any consequences for your speech or beliefs, no matter how horrible they are.
No one should feel the need to try to enact a boycott against the Patriots to get Brady cut from the team and kept out of the NFL because he supported the "wrong" candidate.
This I will agree with. Nobody should support a boycott against the Patriots because of Brady's political choices. They should be supporting a boycott against the Patriots because the Patriots and Brady. If you're a Patriots fan you're already the lowest of the low, so expecting you to vote correctly would be wildly unrealistic.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Prestor Jon wrote: Just because somebody gets hit by a car doesn't mean it's murder or that the driver was at fault. Numerous times on my commute I've seen people run across multiple lanes of a highway with 55-70mph speed limits just because jaywalking across the highway is a shortcut. If you're driving along obeying the law, staying in your lane, not speeding, maintaining a safe distance between yourself and other cars etc. and some guy decides to run across the highway like a human version of the game Frogger you can't control when that guy runs into the highway, if he times it right, how fast he runs, when you see him etc. Hitting that guy with your car wouldn't necessarily be murder. Jaywalking is illegal because it's dangerous and so is blocking traffic without first obtaining a permit. This isn't a preplanned march or parade route it's an unexpected group of people walking into traffic in the roadway. If you want to literally go out and play in traffic you're choosing to create a life threatening situation, protestors could be fatally struck by cars and the unexpected traffic jam could cause fatal car accidents.
You're missing the point here.
Currently the driver is presumed to be at fault, but not required to be at fault. The driver can use the "it wasn't possible to avoid them" defense in court, but has the burden of proof and must convince the jury that the accident was in fact unavoidable. If you hit someone who suddenly sprints across a 70mph road within your reasonable stopping distance you aren't at fault. But if you're speeding, driving drunk, failed to stop even though you had sufficient stopping distance, etc, you are responsible for the injury/death and pay the price. And "but they were doing something illegal" isn't going to be an acceptable defense. You don't get to kill someone just because they're doing something illegal, you're still obligated to attempt to avoid the pedestrian. Whether or not the police punish them for jaywalking is an entirely separate question.
The proposed law reverses the burden of proof: the driver is presumed to be innocent unless the prosecution can prove that it was a deliberate act of murder, as long as the victim was illegally blocking traffic. This is a huge problem because meeting that burden of proof is virtually impossible unless the defendant is stupid enough to confess to a crime. If they say "oops, it was an accident" the prosecution can't prove that it was deliberate. So if you're mad about a protester standing in the road and blocking your commute you can just keep driving, and if they don't dodge fast enough and you kill them you can't be punished for it.
It should be pretty obvious why the current situation is clearly better than the alternative.
Which is how March, the three-volume graphic novel that he wrote about the US civil rights movement and his role in it, with collaborators Andrew Aydin and Nate Powell suddenly became the best-selling book on Amazon.com, and sold out of the internet seller’s entire back stock, though they have been getting more copies in.
Top Shelf Comix are already preparing to meet the demand with this the sudden surge for the series, already extremely popular, with the third and final volume topping many Best Of 2016 lists. But for those unable to find print copies, it is available digitally on ComiXology as well.
Breotan wrote: I'm actually hoping that once he becomes President he'll be too busy to be on social media. It's one thing to make the election a three ring circus act but he can't be pulling his Trump vs Rosie "I'll sue you" tantrums while he's President.
An US president with an active twitter account. The worst of the worst. 140 letters to cause conflicts on the world. Germans are Nazis and Chinese are steeling. His world is very simple. He might be smart in business terms but in terms of politics he has no clue whatsoever.
There has been some talk about laws and I wanted to add some context....
Battery is an un-consented to touch. Nothing to do with blocking your movement. That idea is just odd.
Drivers hitting peds.... A driver is always assumed to be in control of their vehicle and acting in a reasonable manner. That means they should be able to stop within a reasonable amount of time and distance IF objects appear in their path. Often you have requirements about your distance between cars based on speed and road conditions. This essentially legislates the "reasonable" portion.
If someone runs out in front of your car, assuming you are operating sober and within speed limits and not texting, the actual assumption is you didn't do anything wrong. The "they just ran out" excuse works pretty well. BUT... if they "just ran out" 200 feet in front of you and you never even slowed...well, you're screwed. All of this seems pretty reasonable, right? The law they're discussing actually is pretty horrific. You can see someone blocking traffic, 200 feet away, and just not slow down. You are allowed to just mow them over. How reasonable does that seem?
protesting.... You either support people's right to free speech and assembly or you don't.Period. You either stand up for our constitutional rights or you don't. Period. The question about what is "appropriate" when it comes to protest isn't a question or debate. It is merely people trying to say, in a faux southern genteel way, "don't protest. Just please shut up. Whatever you're complaining about doesn't effect me nor should it." The point of protest is to make your opinion known and to let others know what the situation is and why you are protesting. It is supposed to effect others. Thats sort of the point. The forces of status quo would rather you just protest in your living room. That way no one has to see or hear you and no one has to recognize the situation. That just wont fly.
Civil Disobedience...the point is to break the law. The point is to be punished for breaking an unjust law. To bring attention for the unjust nature of the situation..like getting arrested for drinking at a whites only fountain.
Boycotts...a great way to non-violently effect the world.
Trumps LL Bean tweet...I think a lot of people forget that Trump isnt a person. He is the PEOTUS. That title and that position does not give him the same or more rights. It is a grave responsibility that often limits what your responses may indeed be. It's pretty obvious trump doesn't get that. Being president is a job that comes with responsibilities and expectations. Trump is treating it like it is no more important then workin the fry machine at Wendy's.
I'm confused. If I'm carrying concealed at the mall, and I'm coming up the escalator, and someone is at the top of the escalator standing there looking at his phone while blocking my path off the escalator, he is battering me because he is restricting my right to free movement. So it's okay for me to draw and defend myself, right?
No, it isn't so your wannabe clever use of a hastag is pointless.
The point is that ridiculous people will do crazy things regardless of what part of the political spectrum they occupy, despite your attempts to make it seem like this is a problem with "the left."
Threatening to kill people, and indeed, killing people is a bad thing. Those that threaten to kill innocent people are bad people who should take a long, hard look at their life. Those who have threats to kill people that reach the burden of proof for the legal system of <their location> should be prosecuted.
Compel wrote: Threatening to kill people, and indeed, killing people is a bad thing. Those that threaten to kill innocent people are bad people who should take a long, hard look at their life. Those who have threats to kill people that reach the burden of proof for the legal system of <their location> should be prosecuted.
Happy now?
Happy. Good thing I neither advocated or threatened as such...
Well then... going off the deep end based on snippets on a news article is fraught with perils. I took the liberty to look for the ND bill in question, to seek clarification on the "burden of proof shift"... turns out, it's something else (I'm not seeing anything else... if someone has a different bill, let us know):
39-10-33. Pedestrian on roadway.
1. Where a sidewalk is provided and its use is practicable, it is unlawful for any pedestrian to walk along and upon an adjacent roadway.
2. Where a sidewalk is not available, any pedestrian walking along and upon a highway shall walk only on a shoulder, as far as practicable from the edge of the roadway.
3. Where neither a sidewalk nor a shoulder is available, any pedestrian walking along and upon a highway shall walk as near as practicable to an outside edge of the roadway, and, if on a two-way roadway, shall walk only on the left side of the roadway.
4. Except as otherwise provided for in this chapter, any pedestrian upon a roadway shall yield the right of way to all vehicles upon the roadway.
5. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a driver of a motor vehicle who unintentionally causes injury or death to an individual obstructing vehicular traffic on a public road, street, or highway is not guilty of an offense.
Not seeing this "burden of proof" shift as described in that article...
This isn't simply 'targeting' protestors... but all pedestrians.
The brouhaha looks to be #5. Good luck proving the unintentionally part...
If this goes into effect, and somehow the driver was able to prevail on #5, all that means is the criminal charges won't apply. I'm not seeing anything that prevents civil a case (where you'd get sued for damages and such).
There are stupid people on all sides of the political divide.
That being said... the idea of "tolerance" has become a bludgeon used by the altright in an attempt to shut liberals up... A liberal disagrees? they aren't being tolerant....whine, whine, whine... It's good to tolerate things that are annoying or that you don't like. It's also good to say I think that's BS"
Personally, I am intolerant toward racism and sexism. It's a badge of intolerance I wear with pride.
Compel wrote: Threatening to kill people, and indeed, killing people is a bad thing. Those that threaten to kill innocent people are bad people who should take a long, hard look at their life. Those who have threats to kill people that reach the burden of proof for the legal system of <their location> should be prosecuted.
Happy now?
Happy. Good thing I neither advocated or threatened as such...
Not everything in the politics thread is about you, Whembly.
Compel wrote: Threatening to kill people, and indeed, killing people is a bad thing. Those that threaten to kill innocent people are bad people who should take a long, hard look at their life. Those who have threats to kill people that reach the burden of proof for the legal system of <their location> should be prosecuted.
Happy now?
Happy. Good thing I neither advocated or threatened as such...
Not everything in the politics thread is about you, Whembly.
Personally, I am intolerant toward racism and sexism. It's a badge of intolerance I wear with pride.
Well said.
How high will Trump's tolerance level be towards people who dont think or act in his way? He's the worst what could happen to the US
I'm plenty tolerant towards people who think my wife is a negroid ape, who think my children are mixed race abominations before God, and who think I'm a traitor to my race. I know they exist, they have told me as much. I'm not tolerant towards people who act on those thoughts.
In the same way I'm also intolerant towards gays who want to force straights to have gay sex, or pedophiles who try to have sex with children, or pot smokers who try to make me inhale.
Personally, I am intolerant toward racism and sexism. It's a badge of intolerance I wear with pride.
Well said.
How high will Trump's tolerance level be towards people who dont think or act in his way? He's the worst what could happen to the US
I'm plenty tolerant towards people who think my wife is a negroid ape, who think my children are mixed race abominations before God, and who think I'm a traitor to my race. I know they exist, they have told me as much. I'm not tolerant towards people who act on those thoughts.
In the same way I'm also intolerant towards gays who want to force straights to have gay sex, or pedophiles who try to have sex with children, or pot smokers who try to make me inhale.
#simplestuff
A few things...
feth anyone who think inter-racial marriages and " children are mixed race abominations before God ". I gave my kidney to my ex-sister-in-law who's married to black man... who, has since had 2 beautiful daughters. We still stay in touch and go to the kids sports game.
Secondly... the what-and-what about gays wanting to force straights to have gay sex? (the others I've seen/heard... but that? O.o )
So, from where I coming from, 15 mins away from the Ferguson riots and having been stuck twice on the highways because of these civil disobedience shutting down highways. I have zero empathy for anyone's cause. feth them. If that makes me a cold unfeeling bastard, so be it, I'll own up to that.
I know this was a few pages ago, but I would just like to take the time and tell Whembly to grow up. If you live in the St. Louis area, you have had longer delays from construction and rush hour traffic. I know I have. Defending something that changes the dynamic of the court system just so protesters will have a harder time defending themselves in court is a hack move and a slap in the face to our system. It works the way it does for a reason. If your only argument in your favor is "I was stuck in traffic two times", then you really have no argument here.
Also, the idea of people only protesting in areas where they can get permits is hilarious. I wonder if the Forefathers you love so much got those permits.
I bet they did when they were paying their tea taxes.....
So, from where I coming from, 15 mins away from the Ferguson riots and having been stuck twice on the highways because of these civil disobedience shutting down highways. I have zero empathy for anyone's cause. feth them. If that makes me a cold unfeeling bastard, so be it, I'll own up to that.
I know this was a few pages ago, but I would just like to take the time and tell Whembly to grow up.
Nah... I'm fine bro... thanks for sharing.
If you live in the St. Louis area, you have had longer delays from construction and rush hour traffic. I know I have.
There's a difference. You know where the contruction traffic will be and adjust your commute accordingly. Whereas, most of the time, you're not aware of an adhoc civil disobedience to shut down the highway.
Defending something that changes the dynamic of the court system just so protesters will have a harder time defending themselves in court is a hack move and a slap in the face to our system. It works the way it does for a reason. If your only argument in your favor is "I was stuck in traffic two times", then you really have no argument here.
That makes me a heartless bastard.
Also, the idea of people only protesting in areas where they can get permits is hilarious. I wonder if the Forefathers you love so much got those permits.
You don't need a 'permit' to protest and have not advocated that you must have a permit to simply protest. You do need a permit to legally shut down a stretch of road so that the public entities can be prepared. It's the same how parades are conducted...since forever.
Breaking the law to shutdown a stretch of highway in the midst of a protest cease being a 'protest' and becomes a 'civil disobedience'.
And your point is? Just because you are breaking the law doesn't make it not a protest, nor make your protest any less valid.
I think I've made my point. When it’s a question of peaceful protest, no matter how much it may interfere with our getting on with our own business... I let 'em do their thing. They’re not hurting anyone. They're just carrying signs and yammer into bullhorns.
They’re not putting themselves or anyone else in any great danger, and it is probably better to let them blow off steam.
However, I cannot endose the practice of blocking roads and major highways in order to draw attention. In the information age, there are easier means to get your point across. Shutting down the roads...all you're really doing is pissing off the locals.
This isn't Selma.
You illegally shutting down the highway isn't the right thing to do... you can even be held liable for damaging a car in Missouri.
However, I cannot endose the practice of blocking roads and major highways in order to draw attention. In the information age, there are easier means to get your point across. Shutting down the roads...all you're really doing is pissing off the locals.
Really? Because people are still whining about it being done. One person in particular is still whining about Ferguson, which was awhile ago.
Seems like a perfect way to draw attention. In fact, it may be the best way.
ender502 wrote: There are stupid people on all sides of the political divide.
That being said... the idea of "tolerance" has become a bludgeon used by the altright in an attempt to shut liberals up... A liberal disagrees? they aren't being tolerant....whine, whine, whine... It's good to tolerate things that are annoying or that you don't like. It's also good to say I think that's BS"
Personally, I am intolerant toward racism and sexism. It's a badge of intolerance I wear with pride.
Do you know what the left calls anyone who tries to defend a religious group's beliefs about homosexuality? Intolerant. When you ask for vetting of refugees from areas that have explicitly stated their intent to infiltrate the refugees with jihadists specifically there to orchestrate attacks once in their destination country? Intolerant. If I get upset about someone spitting on me and calling me a baby killer because I'm in uniform, I'm being intolerant of their beliefs and their rights to protest. Cuts both ways, I guess...
Just Tony wrote: Do you know what the left calls anyone who tries to defend a religious group's beliefs about homosexuality? Intolerant.
People can believe whatever they want about whomever they want. It's the acting on those beliefs that is intolerant.
When you ask for vetting of refugees from areas that have explicitly stated their intent to infiltrate the refugees with jihadists specifically there to orchestrate attacks once in their destination country? Intolerant.
Well yeah, because you're asking for something that already takes place and is rather extensive to begin with. Framing it as "vetting" is the same as framing the right to discriminate as "religious liberty;" it's just a euphemism for being a douchebag.
If I get upset about someone spitting on me and calling me a baby killer because I'm in uniform, I'm being intolerant of their beliefs and their rights to protest.
I'm sure you were just walking down the street one day and a mean, intolerant liberal walked up to you and called you a baby killer and then spit on you. Then after that, you were upset and they told you that you were intolerant. That's totally believable.
NinthMusketeer wrote: The US has the most extensive refugee vetting process in the world. It takes years.
Yes, but the problem is that eventually those scary brown people might get a chance to come to America. We need extra vetting to make sure that doesn't happen.
ender502 wrote: There are stupid people on all sides of the political divide.
That being said... the idea of "tolerance" has become a bludgeon used by the altright in an attempt to shut liberals up... A liberal disagrees? they aren't being tolerant....whine, whine, whine... It's good to tolerate things that are annoying or that you don't like. It's also good to say I think that's BS"
Personally, I am intolerant toward racism and sexism. It's a badge of intolerance I wear with pride.
Do you know what the left calls anyone who tries to defend a religious group's beliefs about homosexuality? Intolerant. When you ask for vetting of refugees from areas that have explicitly stated their intent to infiltrate the refugees with jihadists specifically there to orchestrate attacks once in their destination country? Intolerant. If I get upset about someone spitting on me and calling me a baby killer because I'm in uniform, I'm being intolerant of their beliefs and their rights to protest. Cuts both ways, I guess...
How best to tackle all that...
1. There is a big difference between a religious group that says they think homosexuality is wrong and one that advocates against extending full constitutional rights to people just cause they don't like their sex acts. You're painting with a broad brush....as so many sadly do.
2. refugees can undergo years of vetting. American allied afghani translators can take 3 years to get vetted. The idea that vetting isn't happening is a brietbart, dailystormer and fox news lie designed to manipulate anyone too lazy to actually do the research. Liberals have never complained about the vetting process. what they complain about is a form with 1 box...are you a muslim? That is intolerant and just a great way to show folks how right the jihadists are about America.
3. Baby killer? Ummm... it aint the 60's. If someone spits on you, that's a battery. Prosecute. Nothing intolerant about that.
What liberals are consistently intolerant to are policies that legitimize racism, sexism, homophobia and religious intolerance. to put it more simply, what liberals call "intolerance" is not what you think...but policies groups advocate for. You, as an individual, can be as intolerant as you want. That's your right. What they will not stand for is your individual intolerance defining every one else's existence.
Personally, I am intolerant toward racism and sexism. It's a badge of intolerance I wear with pride.
Well said.
How high will Trump's tolerance level be towards people who dont think or act in his way? He's the worst what could happen to the US
I'm plenty tolerant towards people who think my wife is a negroid ape, who think my children are mixed race abominations before God, and who think I'm a traitor to my race. I know they exist, they have told me as much. I'm not tolerant towards people who act on those thoughts.
In the same way I'm also intolerant towards gays who want to force straights to have gay sex, or pedophiles who try to have sex with children, or pot smokers who try to make me inhale.
#simplestuff
Ive been hit on by guys. Been groped at clubs a couple of times...ive never been told I had to have gay sex. Nor, as I recall has anyone ever advocated for such a law. Heck, I didn't even have to get divorced and then get married to a dude after Oberfell (sp?). I'm not sure where you are hanging out but I think they may be filling your head with nonsense.
Pedophiles are pretty sick IMO. I'm all about being intolerant toward anyone who commits such a heinous crime. I agree with pot smoke analogy as well. But I also think that would apply to cigarette smoke as well. Smoke is, a particulate matter, and should be dealt with like any other tort.
People that define others based on race are, IMO, pretty freaking ignorant. Lucky for us, they would never become attorney general. Right? Right?
Pedophilia is "just" another paraphilia, and I do think there needs to be a distinction between people who are pedophiles and people who act on their pedophilia. I think that the vast majority of pedophiles know that it is not a safe and appropriate attraction, but they also have a difficult time coming forward and seeking help to keep from acting on their paraphilia because it's one of the most stigmatized forms there is due to the tremendous damage it inflicts on victims of it is acted upon.
Which is the reason why I included being tolerant of pedophiles, because the more we push them into the shadow the less likely they are to ever get the help they need that keeps them from acting on their paraphilia, while still being intolerant of pedophiles who force their sexual desires onto others.
Ahtman wrote: When you say "groped at clubs" I assume you mean gaming clubs where people are there for Warhammer et al. Gamers are very handsy.
HAHA. Nah. Dance clubs...when I was but a young lad. I make sure to keep my distance from gamers. It's not the hands, it's the smell.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
d-usa wrote: Pedophilia is "just" another paraphilia, and I do think there needs to be a distinction between people who are pedophiles and people who act on their pedophilia. I think that the vast majority of pedophiles know that it is not a safe and appropriate attraction, but they also have a difficult time coming forward and seeking help to keep from acting on their paraphilia because it's one of the most stigmatized forms there is due to the tremendous damage it inflicts on victims of it is acted upon.
Which is the reason why I included being tolerant of pedophiles, because the more we push them into the shadow the less likely they are to ever get the help they need that keeps them from acting on their paraphilia, while still being intolerant of pedophiles who force their sexual desires onto others.
i get what you're saying. im not sure if i agree but i hear you.
Paul Ryan had his town meeting where he layed out the case for repealing and replacing ACA. Basically he stood there and told a bunch of lies, because the argument to dump ACA is a big lie, and Paul Ryan is a lying gak.
He claimed ACA was collapsing. While this claim is deliberately vague (because he's lying to people), we can have a quick look at ACA enrolments. 11 million in 2016, and it is on track to be 12 million. Expanding coverage year on year is the opposite of collapsing, so Ryan is lying.
Ryan focused on the pre-subsidy increase in one state, Arizona. He ignored that premium increases are slower than they were pre-ACA, and ignored states like Ohio and New Hampshire were rates went up just 2%, or states like Massachusetts or Indiana where rates have dropped. And he ignored that ACA is designed to have rising subsidies offset higher insurance. For instance, while the sticker price for a family of four will more than double to a scary sounding $1,500 a month, on a family income of $60k then after subsidies the family will be paying $400 a month. Ryan mentioned none of that because he is a liar trying to sell people a con.
Ryan tried to sell people on high risk pools as a way to trick people that pre-existing conditions would still be covered. Ryan lied when he claimed 8% of people had pre-existing conditions (the figure is actually north of 25%), and putting these people in a seperate system would make insurance for everyone else a lot cheaper. And Ryan missed out the key facts that show that the pre-existing pools that existed before ACA were a disaster. Premiums were frequently double those paid by healthy individuals, and deductibles often exceeded $10,000. Almost all states with these plans excluded coverage of the condition that forced the person in to the high risk pool for the first year. In Ryan's own state of Wisconsin, premiums were double the normal rate, deductibles were $5,000, and there was a 6 month waiting period before they'd cover anything related to your pre-existing condition. And rates like that were only affordable because of government subsidies paid in to the high risk pool, taxes and levies paid by the rest of the insurance pool, meaning Ryan's claim of making things cheaper for everyone else was a lie, as it was just a different system of spreading the cost around.
Ryan lied when he again claimed the 'death spiral'. He claimed young people were leaving, when the number of young people enrolled has remained steady at 28% for a few years now. For Ryan's death spiral to be true that number would have to be in decline, it isn't and so Ryan's claim becomes yet another lie.
And lastly, when asked about what Republicans wanted to replace ACA with, Ryan said he didn't want to go in to all 'legislative mumbo jumbo'. This is obviously a lie, as Ryan pretended he couldn't just give a broad summary of the plan Republicans intend to enact instead. Ryan did talk briefly on health savings accounts, which aren't insurance and only work for wealthy people who are able to save more and benefit most from the tax free status of these accounts. On a method of ensuring people with pre-existing conditions can get affordable healthcare, and the insurance remains affordable for everyone, Ryan was totally silent. Whether this is because the Republican plan doesn't care about those things, or can't deliver those things, or because Republicans have no replacement plan is unclear.
The only thing that's clear is that Paul Ryan is telling lies.
sebster wrote: Paul Ryan had his town meeting where he layed out the case for repealing and replacing ACA. Basically he stood there and told a bunch of lies, because the argument to dump ACA is a big lie, and Paul Ryan is a lying gak.
He claimed ACA was collapsing. While this claim is deliberately vague (because he's lying to people), we can have a quick look at ACA enrolments. 11 million in 2016, and it is on track to be 12 million. Expanding coverage year on year is the opposite of collapsing, so Ryan is lying.
Ryan focused on the pre-subsidy increase in one state, Arizona. He ignored that premium increases are slower than they were pre-ACA, and ignored states like Ohio and New Hampshire were rates went up just 2%, or states like Massachusetts or Indiana where rates have dropped. And he ignored that ACA is designed to have rising subsidies offset higher insurance. For instance, while the sticker price for a family of four will more than double to a scary sounding $1,500 a month, on a family income of $60k then after subsidies the family will be paying $400 a month. Ryan mentioned none of that because he is a liar trying to sell people a con.
Ryan tried to sell people on high risk pools as a way to trick people that pre-existing conditions would still be covered. Ryan lied when he claimed 8% of people had pre-existing conditions (the figure is actually north of 25%), and putting these people in a seperate system would make insurance for everyone else a lot cheaper. And Ryan missed out the key facts that show that the pre-existing pools that existed before ACA were a disaster. Premiums were frequently double those paid by healthy individuals, and deductibles often exceeded $10,000. Almost all states with these plans excluded coverage of the condition that forced the person in to the high risk pool for the first year. In Ryan's own state of Wisconsin, premiums were double the normal rate, deductibles were $5,000, and there was a 6 month waiting period before they'd cover anything related to your pre-existing condition. And rates like that were only affordable because of government subsidies paid in to the high risk pool, taxes and levies paid by the rest of the insurance pool, meaning Ryan's claim of making things cheaper for everyone else was a lie, as it was just a different system of spreading the cost around.
Ryan lied when he again claimed the 'death spiral'. He claimed young people were leaving, when the number of young people enrolled has remained steady at 28% for a few years now. For Ryan's death spiral to be true that number would have to be in decline, it isn't and so Ryan's claim becomes yet another lie.
And lastly, when asked about what Republicans wanted to replace ACA with, Ryan said he didn't want to go in to all 'legislative mumbo jumbo'. This is obviously a lie, as Ryan pretended he couldn't just give a broad summary of the plan Republicans intend to enact instead. Ryan did talk briefly on health savings accounts, which aren't insurance and only work for wealthy people who are able to save more and benefit most from the tax free status of these accounts. On a method of ensuring people with pre-existing conditions can get affordable healthcare, and the insurance remains affordable for everyone, Ryan was totally silent. Whether this is because the Republican plan doesn't care about those things, or can't deliver those things, or because Republicans have no replacement plan is unclear.
The only thing that's clear is that Paul Ryan is telling lies.
I think the usa may need a reality check on the healthcare thing - i'm getting the feeling that 'the people in control' (idk who they might be) are projecting to the public that these big universal healthcare schemes are only good for the usa, but are essentially riding on the positive aspects of an NHS (like in britain) without addressing that most Americans don't really 'get' the benefit and therefore only see the (increasing?) financial cost.
On that basis i don't see it ever working because it will always be starved of funding; the inverse of this has happened in britain as political types are getting influenced by big healthcare firms to financially starve and then privatize the NHS - which has already started.
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/aug/15/creeping-privatisation-nhs-official-data-owen-smith-outsourcing This has been allowed because, as a whole we are starting to become complacent about the value of our healthcare system and the attitude of "not wanting my taxes to get wasted on ....." is becoming more common among middle class types who would usually be more egalitarian than that.
Do you know what the left calls anyone who tries to defend a religious group's beliefs about homosexuality? Intolerant.
Being as how the beliefs in question tend to be that gay people are depraved spawn of evil who must be either fought or converted, yes, that is intolerance.
SirDonlad wrote: I think the usa may need a reality check on the healthcare thing - i'm getting the feeling that 'the people in control' (idk who they might be) are projecting to the public that these big universal healthcare schemes are only good for the usa, but are essentially riding on the positive aspects of an NHS (like in britain) without addressing that most Americans don't really 'get' the benefit and therefore only see the (increasing?) financial cost.
On that basis i don't see it ever working because it will always be starved of funding; the inverse of this has happened in britain as political types are getting influenced by big healthcare firms to financially starve and then privatize the NHS - which has already started.
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/aug/15/creeping-privatisation-nhs-official-data-owen-smith-outsourcing This has been allowed because, as a whole we are starting to become complacent about the value of our healthcare system and the attitude of "not wanting my taxes to get wasted on ....." is becoming more common among middle class types who would usually be more egalitarian than that.
I don't personally think something like NHS would work here mostly do to geographic limitations. It's hard devising a functioning scheme of nationalized healthcare that can cover the US's landmass and varying population density (with some areas being very sparse). I don't like the privatization of social services remotely, but I'll probably have to end up settling for it regardless because something along those lines is probably the best we can get.
He critisized automotive companies like BMW to produce in Mexico. I guess he has a limited view of the global market.
The funny thing is that US car manufacturers also make the cars in Mexico XD The plants in the US are mostly assembly lines. Manufacturing is done overseas.
And they still can't make a good car (except you Ford. You make Mustangs and that's the only get out of jail card you'll ever need )
Indeed. But one does wonder how rare that actually is - I suspect it's really quite common, especially when trying to maintain a centre-right/right wing narrative.
But I've got to say, I've always wanted to revisit the USA. Man V Food has left an impression, as did my all-too-short school exchange to Maine back in 1994.
However seeing what I'm seeing, I don't want to go visit until 2021 at the earliest. I know some might look up on this with scorn, but the USA we've seen recently just doesn't seem to be the USA of past years, including the Bush years.
Still. Gives me plenty of time to save up loads and loads of munneh so I can go have a proper whale of a time once Trump and Pence are out.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: You're forgetting your history, and I'll remind you of one of my favourite pieces of American history
After Andrew Jackson was sworn into office, he invited the public back for a few drinks at the White House.
Big mistake
The White House was trashed and plates, tables, portraits and cutlery went missing...
Trump ain't gonna trump Jackson's inauguration
Fair enough
Personally though I was more referring to being reminded of the two edged disappointment that there are people who want to pay people to sabotage a public event just to score points, and that there are people willing to be paid to sabotage a public event just to score points. That gak is just sad.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: You're forgetting your history, and I'll remind you of one of my favourite pieces of American history
After Andrew Jackson was sworn into office, he invited the public back for a few drinks at the White House.
Big mistake
The White House was trashed and plates, tables, portraits and cutlery went missing...
Trump ain't gonna trump Jackson's inauguration
Fair enough
Personally though I was more referring to being reminded of the two edged disappointment that there are people who want to pay people to sabotage a public event just to score points, and that there are people willing to be paid to sabotage a public event just to score points. That gak is just sad.
American history is full of dirty tricks, scandal, violence, and skulduggery when it comes to Presidential elections.
Even the founding fathers were not immune to this, and you'd think they'd know better. Jefferson Vs. Adams was a gutter fight.
Trump is not the first President who is clearly unfit for office, and won't be the last.
If we had social media in the 1960s, Jack Kennedy would have been drummed out of office within weeks. To say his private life was scandalous would be an understatement.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: You're forgetting your history, and I'll remind you of one of my favourite pieces of American history
After Andrew Jackson was sworn into office, he invited the public back for a few drinks at the White House.
Big mistake
The White House was trashed and plates, tables, portraits and cutlery went missing...
Trump ain't gonna trump Jackson's inauguration
Fair enough
Personally though I was more referring to being reminded of the two edged disappointment that there are people who want to pay people to sabotage a public event just to score points, and that there are people willing to be paid to sabotage a public event just to score points. That gak is just sad.
Have you read Indecent Exposure by Tom Sharpe? Incredibly funny book satirising the apartheid South African police.
At one point in it, one of the officers is convinced that there are secret communist cells operating in the city. So he sends off secret police to identify and infiltrate the groups. In order to maintain security, none of the secret police know about any of the others, not what they look like or even that there are other members of the sting operation. At first none of them have much luck but then they all manage to infiltrate communist cells at around the same time. And seem to be carrying out similar activities at around the same time. You can probably see where this is going
Seems like it is a good mirror for this whole "pay people to sabotage things so you can prove that people will be paid to sabotage things" line of investigation
SirDonlad wrote: I think the usa may need a reality check on the healthcare thing - i'm getting the feeling that 'the people in control' (idk who they might be) are projecting to the public that these big universal healthcare schemes are only good for the usa, but are essentially riding on the positive aspects of an NHS (like in britain) without addressing that most Americans don't really 'get' the benefit and therefore only see the (increasing?) financial cost.
On that basis i don't see it ever working because it will always be starved of funding; the inverse of this has happened in britain as political types are getting influenced by big healthcare firms to financially starve and then privatize the NHS - which has already started.
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/aug/15/creeping-privatisation-nhs-official-data-owen-smith-outsourcing This has been allowed because, as a whole we are starting to become complacent about the value of our healthcare system and the attitude of "not wanting my taxes to get wasted on ....." is becoming more common among middle class types who would usually be more egalitarian than that.
I've read several post from Brits on these forums bitching about the NHS and how they have had problems getting good healthcare through it. Wasn't there some kind of healthcare worker strike in Britain a few months ago?
Relapse wrote: I've read several post from Brits on these forums bitching about the NHS and how they have had problems getting good healthcare through it. Wasn't there some kind of healthcare worker strike in Britain a few months ago?
That hardly qualifies as a consensus on their healthcare system. Overall, surveys show that even though there are valid complaints about the NHS, people are generally pleased with the care they receive.
Also in a recent poll, the NHS is listed as the thing that makes Brits proud to be British.
I've read several post from Brits on these forums bitching about the NHS and how they have had problems getting good healthcare through it. Wasn't there some kind of healthcare worker strike in Britain a few months ago?
Junior Doctors had a couple of 24-hour strikes, were some pre-booked treatments were postponed, emergency rooms and procedures still ran as expected.
Our NHS is being run into the ground by our government who want to privatise it (something like 210 of our politicians have ties to private medical companies), by reducing funding as far as possible, but it's still got nothing on the gakshow that is American health care. It's better in Scotland as we've got control over it and tend to be a lot more lefty than the UK as a whole.
Being in hospital in both the US and the UK, I have to admit that the US treatment was nicer (got my own room, got tests done and back really quickly), but there's no way I could have afforded it if my travel insurance didn't pick up the bill. IIRC I was paying something like $100/hour just to be there, and the visit cost something north of $80,000, when my annual salary at the time (as a student) was <$10,000/year. We may pay more tax over here than you, but I've never heard of people over here having to sell their house when their partner gets sick.
I'd chose the NHS over any insurance system any day, under any conditions. You guys pay far more, per head, than we do, for a service that is much, much worse. Why does that make sense?
SirDonlad wrote: I think the usa may need a reality check on the healthcare thing - i'm getting the feeling that 'the people in control' (idk who they might be) are projecting to the public that these big universal healthcare schemes are only good for the usa, but are essentially riding on the positive aspects of an NHS (like in britain) without addressing that most Americans don't really 'get' the benefit and therefore only see the (increasing?) financial cost.
On that basis i don't see it ever working because it will always be starved of funding; the inverse of this has happened in britain as political types are getting influenced by big healthcare firms to financially starve and then privatize the NHS - which has already started.
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/aug/15/creeping-privatisation-nhs-official-data-owen-smith-outsourcing This has been allowed because, as a whole we are starting to become complacent about the value of our healthcare system and the attitude of "not wanting my taxes to get wasted on ....." is becoming more common among middle class types who would usually be more egalitarian than that.
I've read several post from Brits on these forums bitching about the NHS and how they have had problems getting good healthcare through it. Wasn't there some kind of healthcare worker strike in Britain a few months ago?
Our NHS is not perfect, but any Brit would happily till you that.
I'm still glad we have it though. It saved my life once.
SirDonlad wrote: I think the usa may need a reality check on the healthcare thing - i'm getting the feeling that 'the people in control' (idk who they might be) are projecting to the public that these big universal healthcare schemes are only good for the usa, but are essentially riding on the positive aspects of an NHS (like in britain) without addressing that most Americans don't really 'get' the benefit and therefore only see the (increasing?) financial cost.
On that basis i don't see it ever working because it will always be starved of funding; the inverse of this has happened in britain as political types are getting influenced by big healthcare firms to financially starve and then privatize the NHS - which has already started. https://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/aug/15/creeping-privatisation-nhs-official-data-owen-smith-outsourcing This has been allowed because, as a whole we are starting to become complacent about the value of our healthcare system and the attitude of "not wanting my taxes to get wasted on ....." is becoming more common among middle class types who would usually be more egalitarian than that.
I've read several post from Brits on these forums bitching about the NHS and how they have had problems getting good healthcare through it. Wasn't there some kind of healthcare worker strike in Britain a few months ago?
Our NHS is not perfect, but any Brit would happily till you that.
I'm still glad we have it though. It saved my life once.
This. The NHS saved my life and continues to do so.
I pay £10.40 a month (for 10 months but giving me 12 months coverage of my prescription costs) for my prescription, no matter the cost of the drugs or how many different drugs I need.
Summing up the costs for some of the different tablets I get for that £10.40: MMF 250mg £80 for 50 tablets (would last me 25 days) MMF 500mg £80 for 50 tablets (would last me 25 days) Tacrolimus 1mg £160 for 100 tablets (would last me 25 days)
So over a whole year I am paying £104 but getting ~£4672 worth of medication. Even at standard prescription charge rates (£8.40 per item) it would only cost me £302 a year.
The NHS seems like our VA: people will readily admit there are issues, some have horror stories, but the vast majority don't want to see it go away and are very happy with it despite the flaws.
d-usa wrote: The NHS seems like our VA: people will readily admit there are issues, some have horror stories, but the vast majority don't want to see it go away and are very happy with it despite the flaws.
There are a LOT of horror stories with the VA, way more than the NHS, but like with any public service, obviously not having it is worse. The old better than nothing cliche.
Bikers for Trump became a protective force, and it’s not alone. Another group, Lions of Trump, popped up online after Chicago to scour social media for likely protesters and expose them. Its website prominently quotes the Italian fascist dictator Benito Mussolini. At a Trump rally in Wisconsin in late March, a local Tea Party activist arrived several hours early and assisted a campaign security consultants in identifying area progressive activists, who were then removed. And Citizens for Trump, an all-purpose grassroots support group, has deployed a team scouring social media for death threats to Trump, while a handful of its members tour the country on the lookout for protesters at rallies.
While security experts warn that untrained vigilante groups could cause more harm than good, and even expose a candidate to charges of negligence in the case of violence, Trump’s campaign and paid consultants are doing little to discourage Bikers for Trump or other security volunteers.
“I immediately thought of the Rolling Stones' use of the Hells Angels to provide security and crowd control at their infamous Altamont concert!” said Steve Amitay, the executive director and general counsel of the National Association of Security Companies, of Bikers for Trump’s activities at the candidate’s events. “How did that work out?” (The 1969 concert in northern California at which members of the Hells Angels provided security ended with one 18-year-old concert-goer dead at the motorcycle club’s hands.)
“If it can be shown the Trump campaign permitted them to assume this security role, and then something bad happened involving a biker security volunteer, the Trump campaign could easily be found liable for negligence,” he said.
At this state, you will have a Civil War Day One of Trump being in office. Could be "fun" to rub this into the Right Wingers who said Hillary "started" more wars than Trump.
SirDonlad wrote: I think the usa may need a reality check on the healthcare thing - i'm getting the feeling that 'the people in control' (idk who they might be) are projecting to the public that these big universal healthcare schemes are only good for the usa, but are essentially riding on the positive aspects of an NHS (like in britain) without addressing that most Americans don't really 'get' the benefit and therefore only see the (increasing?) financial cost.
On that basis i don't see it ever working because it will always be starved of funding; the inverse of this has happened in britain as political types are getting influenced by big healthcare firms to financially starve and then privatize the NHS - which has already started.
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/aug/15/creeping-privatisation-nhs-official-data-owen-smith-outsourcing This has been allowed because, as a whole we are starting to become complacent about the value of our healthcare system and the attitude of "not wanting my taxes to get wasted on ....." is becoming more common among middle class types who would usually be more egalitarian than that.
I've read several post from Brits on these forums bitching about the NHS and how they have had problems getting good healthcare through it. Wasn't there some kind of healthcare worker strike in Britain a few months ago?
Our NHS is not perfect, but any Brit would happily till you that.
I'm still glad we have it though. It saved my life once.
This. The NHS saved my life and continues to do so.
I pay £10.40 a month (for 10 months but giving me 12 months coverage of my prescription costs) for my prescription, no matter the cost of the drugs or how many different drugs I need.
Summing up the costs for some of the different tablets I get for that £10.40:
MMF 250mg £80 for 50 tablets (would last me 25 days)
MMF 500mg £80 for 50 tablets (would last me 25 days)
Tacrolimus 1mg £160 for 100 tablets (would last me 25 days)
So over a whole year I am paying £104 but getting ~£4672 worth of medication. Even at standard prescription charge rates (£8.40 per item) it would only cost me £302 a year.
There's another way of looking at that, and as I've said before, it always surprises me that the USA doesn't share this viewpoint.
For example, you pay £104 and get £4672 worth of medical drugs in return. On the surface, that looks a pretty bad deal.
And yet, if you do nothing, and let that person's health gets worse, it's more than likely that:
that person gets a serious condition and has to go to hospital. A team of surgeons has to operate on that person, plus weeks of after care, plus the cost of the ambulance to get them to hospital = more than £4672.
Plus, if those drugs keep that person going, keep them working, then they pay tax back, and it's likely that they claim no benefits because they have a job.
Now, that is good value for money. Surely the Americans can see the business sense in that?
Oh yeah, if I don't take those drugs then there is a good chance that I will reject my transplanted kidney. So then I have to go into hospital and pump much higher doses of those drugs into me to try and bring my immune system back into line. If that fails then it is onto dialysis and the waiting list for a new kidney.
Which does not make me a very productive member of society, to say the least
Sarouan wrote: At this state, you will have a Civil War Day One of Trump being in office. Could be "fun" to rub this into the Right Wingers who said Hillary "started" more wars than Trump.
Yeah, not that fun, actually.
I'm mostly worried about the commander of DC's national guard being replaced with a Trumper immediately preceding the Women's March.
Sarouan wrote: At this state, you will have a Civil War Day One of Trump being in office. Could be "fun" to rub this into the Right Wingers who said Hillary "started" more wars than Trump.
Yeah, not that fun, actually.
A Civil War where the right wingers would win...
Be careful what you wish for...
Seriously though, the people freaking out over Cheeto Jesus is really something else.
The inauguration is something you'd watch on TV... if you go in person, you're really just vacationing in DC. Unless you're a hoi poi who can go to the inauguration ball.
It's also a bunch of false bravado and bs. Most right wingers I know are the most out of shape buffoons you'll ever meet, or think their 308 rifle will save them versus a drone. This is a very stupid tangent to go down anyway as our country is so fat, lazy, and stupid we put Trump in power in the first place, we're not gonna die to remove him because of those reasons.
Serious question, and one asked devoid of hope or endorsement, but is there a general feeling that Trump, one way or another, won't see out his four years?
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Serious question, and one asked devoid of hope or endorsement, but is there a general feeling that Trump, one way or another, won't see out his four years?
When you have both Obama's and Bush's ethics lawyers saying that Trump will be in violation of the Constitution from day one, there's a chance of impeachment if the Republican/Trump relationship melts down (especially since that puts a cookie-cutter Republican in charge), or if Democrats take Congress in 2018.
Norm Eisen gives a pretty good overview of all the insanely corrupt problems that are going to crop up just from Trump's decision to retain his businesses in the latest episode of Pod Save America.
There's another way of looking at that, and as I've said before, it always surprises me that the USA doesn't share this viewpoint.
For example, you pay £104 and get £4672 worth of medical drugs in return. On the surface, that looks a pretty bad deal.
And yet, if you do nothing, and let that person's health gets worse, it's more than likely that:
that person gets a serious condition and has to go to hospital. A team of surgeons has to operate on that person, plus weeks of after care, plus the cost of the ambulance to get them to hospital = more than £4672.
Plus, if those drugs keep that person going, keep them working, then they pay tax back, and it's likely that they claim no benefits because they have a job.
Now, that is good value for money. Surely the Americans can see the business sense in that?
That's exactly why my company pays for private medical insurance - they want us back up and running faster.
But you're correct; early treatment is almost always cheaper than later treatment, and the US system seems to be set up to prevent people seeking treatment until it's got as bad as they can handle.
There's another way of looking at that, and as I've said before, it always surprises me that the USA doesn't share this viewpoint.
For example, you pay £104 and get £4672 worth of medical drugs in return. On the surface, that looks a pretty bad deal.
And yet, if you do nothing, and let that person's health gets worse, it's more than likely that:
that person gets a serious condition and has to go to hospital. A team of surgeons has to operate on that person, plus weeks of after care, plus the cost of the ambulance to get them to hospital = more than £4672.
Plus, if those drugs keep that person going, keep them working, then they pay tax back, and it's likely that they claim no benefits because they have a job.
Now, that is good value for money. Surely the Americans can see the business sense in that?
That's exactly why my company pays for private medical insurance - they want us back up and running faster.
But you're correct; early treatment is almost always cheaper than later treatment, and the US system seems to be set up to prevent people seeking treatment until it's got as bad as they can handle.
I'm glad I'm not the only one that thinks prevention is better than cure.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Serious question, and one asked devoid of hope or endorsement, but is there a general feeling that Trump, one way or another, won't see out his four years?
When you have both Obama's and Bush's ethics lawyers saying that Trump will be in violation of the Constitution from day one, there's a chance of impeachment if the Republican/Trump relationship melts down (especially since that puts a cookie-cutter Republican in charge), or if Democrats take Congress in 2018.
Norm Eisen gives a pretty good overview of all the insanely corrupt problems that are going to crop up just from Trump's decision to retain his businesses in the latest episode of Pod Save America.
Can't see Trump getting impeached. That would require the GOP to have a spine.
And given the ease with which Trump swept aside the approved GOP presidential candidates and hijacked the GOP, who would replace him? Pence?
I'm sure that would go down well with Trump's base.
Can't see Trump getting impeached. That would require the GOP to have a spine.
And given the ease with which Trump swept aside the approved GOP presidential candidates and hijacked the GOP, who would replace him? Pence?
I'm sure that would go down well with Trump's base.
Actual picture of GOP leadership.
Spoiler:
The GOP are a shadow of their former glories, hollowed out and fading with each passing year. The declining number of voters backing them is testament to that.
Nah, for better or for worse, the GOP will stand or fall with Trump. They can't ditch him. Once you jump out of that aeroplane, you can't turn back, you can only hope your parachute is working.
d-usa wrote: I'm confused. If I'm carrying concealed at the mall, and I'm coming up the escalator, and someone is at the top of the escalator standing there looking at his phone while blocking my path off the escalator, he is battering me because he is restricting my right to free movement. So it's okay for me to draw and defend myself, right?
That's what the kids get for playing Pokémon Go!
If they're playing Pokémon Go! it's your civic duty to weed them out of the gene pool.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Serious question, and one asked devoid of hope or endorsement, but is there a general feeling that Trump, one way or another, won't see out his four years?
When you have both Obama's and Bush's ethics lawyers saying that Trump will be in violation of the Constitution from day one, there's a chance of impeachment if the Republican/Trump relationship melts down (especially since that puts a cookie-cutter Republican in charge), or if Democrats take Congress in 2018.
Norm Eisen gives a pretty good overview of all the insanely corrupt problems that are going to crop up just from Trump's decision to retain his businesses in the latest episode of Pod Save America.
Obama told dems to make Republicans "own" a repeal of the ACA. In the same vein I think Republicans will have to own trump. And I think this will be the end for them. Gerrymandering and voter suppression are all that are keeping them afloat at this point. Another 4 years and they wont be able to come close to winning a national election. I mean, they lost the popular vote by nearly 3 million votes and HRC was crazy unpopular.
I think talk of civil was is silly.
What concerns me is the slow erosion of voting rights we have seen and will continue to see under a trump administration.
The only time Republicans have a spine is when denying people the right to vote, reducing VA benefits or taking healthcare away from children. They are real adamant on those points.
d-usa wrote: The NHS seems like our VA: people will readily admit there are issues, some have horror stories, but the vast majority don't want to see it go away and are very happy with it despite the flaws.
There are a LOT of horror stories with the VA, way more than the NHS, but like with any public service, obviously not having it is worse. The old better than nothing cliche.
It's worth noting that that UK also has private health insurance and pay as you go private health options, as well as the NHS.
Prestor Jon wrote: You're not understanding the argument I'm making. I never said boycotts were bad I said that Trump's tweet supported Linda Bean's right to free . speech.
No, I understand it perfectly, you're just wrong. The right to free speech means that the government can not prevent you from speaking or punish you for doing so. It does not mean that private citizens can not treat you badly for speaking. Linda Bean is free to support any political candidates she wants, and people are free to express their disgust with her actions and say " you, vote for someone else". Trump's tweet was not supporting Linda Bean's right to free speech (which is not being infringed upon), it was supporting some bizarre "right" to never have any consequences for your speech or beliefs, no matter how horrible they are.
No one should feel the need to try to enact a boycott against the Patriots to get Brady cut from the team and kept out of the NFL because he supported the "wrong" candidate.
This I will agree with. Nobody should support a boycott against the Patriots because of Brady's political choices. They should be supporting a boycott against the Patriots because the Patriots and Brady. If you're a Patriots fan you're already the lowest of the low, so expecting you to vote correctly would be wildly unrealistic.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Prestor Jon wrote: Just because somebody gets hit by a car doesn't mean it's murder or that the driver was at fault. Numerous times on my commute I've seen people run across multiple lanes of a highway with 55-70mph speed limits just because jaywalking across the highway is a shortcut. If you're driving along obeying the law, staying in your lane, not speeding, maintaining a safe distance between yourself and other cars etc. and some guy decides to run across the highway like a human version of the game Frogger you can't control when that guy runs into the highway, if he times it right, how fast he runs, when you see him etc. Hitting that guy with your car wouldn't necessarily be murder. Jaywalking is illegal because it's dangerous and so is blocking traffic without first obtaining a permit. This isn't a preplanned march or parade route it's an unexpected group of people walking into traffic in the roadway. If you want to literally go out and play in traffic you're choosing to create a life threatening situation, protestors could be fatally struck by cars and the unexpected traffic jam could cause fatal car accidents.
You're missing the point here.
Currently the driver is presumed to be at fault, but not required to be at fault. The driver can use the "it wasn't possible to avoid them" defense in court, but has the burden of proof and must convince the jury that the accident was in fact unavoidable. If you hit someone who suddenly sprints across a 70mph road within your reasonable stopping distance you aren't at fault. But if you're speeding, driving drunk, failed to stop even though you had sufficient stopping distance, etc, you are responsible for the injury/death and pay the price. And "but they were doing something illegal" isn't going to be an acceptable defense. You don't get to kill someone just because they're doing something illegal, you're still obligated to attempt to avoid the pedestrian. Whether or not the police punish them for jaywalking is an entirely separate question.
The proposed law reverses the burden of proof: the driver is presumed to be innocent unless the prosecution can prove that it was a deliberate act of murder, as long as the victim was illegally blocking traffic. This is a huge problem because meeting that burden of proof is virtually impossible unless the defendant is stupid enough to confess to a crime. If they say "oops, it was an accident" the prosecution can't prove that it was deliberate. So if you're mad about a protester standing in the road and blocking your commute you can just keep driving, and if they don't dodge fast enough and you kill them you can't be punished for it.
It should be pretty obvious why the current situation is clearly better than the alternative.
Linda Bean =\= LL Bean. People can protest Linda Bean for supporting Trump if they want, it's an extremely intolerant attitude to be that outraged against somebody simply because he/she exercised their constitutionally protected right to speak and vote their conscience in a way that was different than yours. Trump's tweet thanked Linda Bean and promoted LL Bean, which was ignorant because again, Linda Bean =\= LL Bean, she has no influence over the company. The people that want to protest LL Bean and force them to take away Linda Bean's minority ownership stake in her family's company because Linda supported Trump. I consider that to be un-American in idea and practice because all Americans should value our liberties that allow us to vote for the "wrong" candidate and express the "wrong" thoughts and be secure in our own individual thoughts and actions. Nobody should want to arbitrarily limit options to force people to only be able to choose the "right" candidates and beliefs, that's totalitarian and the antithesis of our free society. I don't dislike boycotts I just don't like boycotts based on overtly faulty reasoning and faux outrage.
I'm glad we're in agreement on idea that nobody should be a Patriots fan. I knew we had common ground somewhere. Evil exists in the world and it resides in the portion of the Venn diagram where Patriots fans, cat people and people who put ketchup on hot dogs overlaps.
I don't think there are a lot of people out there who want to kill people with their car. If you put yourself out in the roadway then you're creating a traffic hazard and you're responsible for any accidents caused by the willful creation of that hazard. If I'm driving on the road and something falls out of the back of my truck onto the road, thereby creating a hazard, which results in a traffic accident that leaves people injured or dead it's my fault. I may have had no intention of creating a hazard, I may have even made an attempt to secure the contents of my truck to prevent anything from falling out but I'm still responsible for the accident I caused. If a drive is impaired/under the influence, speeding, distracted by their phone, etc. then that's a mitigating circumstance that may render the driver at fault or partially at fault but the onus is on people to stay out of the street if they're not using a crosswalk. Around here we have a problem with deer crossing roads and causing accidents. Hitting the deer isn't illegal, nobody gets in trouble for hitting a deer but nobody wants to hit the deer, nobody aims for them or accelerates into them. I don't think this proposed law is really necessary, I don't think there's a problem with how current law handles people impeding traffic but if the new law passes it isn't going to magically instill murderous intent in people either.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
sebster wrote: Paul Ryan had his town meeting where he layed out the case for repealing and replacing ACA. Basically he stood there and told a bunch of lies, because the argument to dump ACA is a big lie, and Paul Ryan is a lying gak.
He claimed ACA was collapsing. While this claim is deliberately vague (because he's lying to people), we can have a quick look at ACA enrolments. 11 million in 2016, and it is on track to be 12 million. Expanding coverage year on year is the opposite of collapsing, so Ryan is lying.
Ryan lied when he again claimed the 'death spiral'. He claimed young people were leaving, when the number of young people enrolled has remained steady at 28% for a few years now. For Ryan's death spiral to be true that number would have to be in decline, it isn't and so Ryan's claim becomes yet another lie.
I didn't watch the town hall but I'm curious if Ryan was talking about enrollment numbers or costs. The ACA can be collapsing because of the cost of ensuring everyone regardless of preexisting conditions coupled with the constant rise in overall costs of health care outpacing the amount of money coming from premiums and new enrollees. If the expense is growing faster than the revenue then its a death spiral regardless of enrollment increases. Similar issue with the young people claim. If Ryan said young people are leaving when the numbers are remaining constant then that's clearly a lie but if the number of young people enrolling is holding steady at 28% and that's below the predictions and necessary percentage of young enrollees needed to offset rising costs of the expanded pool of insured people then it's a death spiral. Expanding coverage isn't really an effective method for reducing costs which is the main problem with the ACA, it's not pushing costs down.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ender502 wrote: Obama told dems to make Republicans "own" a repeal of the ACA. In the same vein I think Republicans will have to own trump. And I think this will be the end for them. Gerrymandering and voter suppression are all that are keeping them afloat at this point. Another 4 years and they wont be able to come close to winning a national election. I mean, they lost the popular vote by nearly 3 million votes and HRC was crazy unpopular.
I think talk of civil was is silly.
What concerns me is the slow erosion of voting rights we have seen and will continue to see under a trump administration.
The only time Republicans have a spine is when denying people the right to vote, reducing VA benefits or taking healthcare away from children. They are real adamant on those points.
Gerrymandering and voter suppression didn't make 62,000,000+ people turnout and vote for a "terrible" Republican candidate. Having the support of all those people is going to keep the Party relevant for the foreseeable future. The 3 million margin in the popular vote is attributable to HRC beating Trump by 3 million votes in CA. The popular vote in the other 49 states was effectively a draw. The Republican party ceasing to be a viable party on the local and state level in the most populous state in the country is the big obstacle facing the Republican Party on a national level. Even other "Blue" states like Wisconsin, MA, NJ, NY, etc. we see Republicans winning statewide elections for governor and senator because there isn't the massive disparity between party affiliation and influence that there is in CA.
CA has frequentl had Republican governors, the problem is they put up Meg Whitman last time who's answer to unemployment was going to be to fire tens of thousands of state workers
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Serious question, and one asked devoid of hope or endorsement, but is there a general feeling that Trump, one way or another, won't see out his four years?
When you have both Obama's and Bush's ethics lawyers saying that Trump will be in violation of the Constitution from day one, there's a chance of impeachment if the Republican/Trump relationship melts down (especially since that puts a cookie-cutter Republican in charge), or if Democrats take Congress in 2018.
Norm Eisen gives a pretty good overview of all the insanely corrupt problems that are going to crop up just from Trump's decision to retain his businesses in the latest episode of Pod Save America.
You talking about the emolument clause?
Frankly, it's a nothing-burger.
Right, remember everyone:
Clinton Foundation receiving money from foreign governments for supposed "access" to government = huge strike against Clinton, charity should be shut down.
Trump's businesses receiving money from foreign governments for supposed "access" to government, in direct opposition to the Constitution = Eh, whatta gonna do about it?
Vaktathi wrote: CA has frequentl had Republican governors, the problem is they put up Meg Whitman last time who's answer to unemployment was going to be to fire tens of thousands of state workers
Peter Theil is "thinking" of a run...
First open gay Gov, who's also a republican. (wasn't he the guy who bankroll'ed Hulk's defamation case against Gawker?)
ender502 wrote: There has been some talk about laws and I wanted to add some context....
protesting.... You either support people's right to free speech and assembly or you don't.Period. You either stand up for our constitutional rights or you don't. Period. The question about what is "appropriate" when it comes to protest isn't a question or debate. It is merely people trying to say, in a faux southern genteel way, "don't protest. Just please shut up. Whatever you're complaining about doesn't effect me nor should it." The point of protest is to make your opinion known and to let others know what the situation is and why you are protesting. It is supposed to effect others. Thats sort of the point. The forces of status quo would rather you just protest in your living room. That way no one has to see or hear you and no one has to recognize the situation. That just wont fly.
Civil Disobedience...the point is to break the law. The point is to be punished for breaking an unjust law. To bring attention for the unjust nature of the situation..like getting arrested for drinking at a whites only fountain.
The courts have consistently upheld the ability of municipalities and states to infringe on the people's right to assemble and protest in the form of making certain forms of civil disobedience illegal and requiring people to secure a permit to make use of public spaces for protests/events. I think that's whembly's point, that there are many ways people can organize and conduct protests that don't break the law. People don't have to break the law to have an effective protest. Oftentimes people do break the law when they protests to varying degrees but it's not a requirement for the process to be effective. Multiple NFL players got face to face meetings with mayors, governors and police chiefs due to their protests during the national anthem before games and their comments at press conferences and on social media. Did the people who burned down a Walmart in Charlotte during the protests in the streets there get meetings with people who can actually make changes to policing policies?
Vaktathi wrote: CA has frequentl had Republican governors, the problem is they put up Meg Whitman last time who's answer to unemployment was going to be to fire tens of thousands of state workers
Peter Theil is "thinking" of a run...
First open gay Gov, who's also a republican. (wasn't he the guy who bankroll'ed Hulk's defamation case against Gawker?)
i know nothing about him so cant comment, but would make for interesting CA political theater.
Just Tony wrote: If I get upset about someone spitting on me and calling me a baby killer because I'm in uniform, I'm being intolerant of their beliefs and their rights to protest. Cuts both ways, I guess...
just as a question...did this actually happen to you? Because this is a persistent myth across many nations and wars going back at least to the 19th century with basically zero actual documented evidence of ever having occurred.
Vaktathi wrote: CA has frequentl had Republican governors, the problem is they put up Meg Whitman last time who's answer to unemployment was going to be to fire tens of thousands of state workers
Other than the Governator how many Republican governors have they had in the last couple decades? Who was the last Republican senator from CA?
Vaktathi wrote: CA has frequentl had Republican governors, the problem is they put up Meg Whitman last time who's answer to unemployment was going to be to fire tens of thousands of state workers
Other than the Governator how many Republican governors have they had in the last couple decades? Who was the last Republican senator from CA?
Since the first time Jerry Brown was governor, CA had one recalled democrat and the rest were Republicans.
Vaktathi wrote: CA has frequentl had Republican governors, the problem is they put up Meg Whitman last time who's answer to unemployment was going to be to fire tens of thousands of state workers
Peter Theil is "thinking" of a run...
First open gay Gov, who's also a republican. (wasn't he the guy who bankroll'ed Hulk's defamation case against Gawker?)
I'm not sure the religious right would let that happen.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Serious question, and one asked devoid of hope or endorsement, but is there a general feeling that Trump, one way or another, won't see out his four years?
When you have both Obama's and Bush's ethics lawyers saying that Trump will be in violation of the Constitution from day one, there's a chance of impeachment if the Republican/Trump relationship melts down (especially since that puts a cookie-cutter Republican in charge), or if Democrats take Congress in 2018.
Norm Eisen gives a pretty good overview of all the insanely corrupt problems that are going to crop up just from Trump's decision to retain his businesses in the latest episode of Pod Save America.
You talking about the emolument clause?
Frankly, it's a nothing-burger.
Right, remember everyone:
Clinton Foundation receiving money from foreign governments for supposed "access" to government = huge strike against Clinton, charity should be shut down.
Trump's businesses receiving money from foreign governments for supposed "access" to government, in direct opposition to the Constitution = Eh, whatta gonna do about it?
You really can't compare the two...
Clinton foundation is a charity. (lookee here, guys the foreign donations has dried up... CGI is shutting down).
Trump's businesses are simply that... a business. His assets are mainly tied to his properties and his "Trump" brands. So, unless you're advocating for him to sell off his properties (which they'd lose massive money + still owes money to banks)... and sell his "Trump" brand (how the feth do you do that??)... we're all kinda stuck with this. It stinks to high heavens, but let's be pragmatic here... he isn't divesting his properties or selling his brand.
Weirdly... the president is specifically excluded from the federal conflicts of interest law (whereas, Clinton was NOT excluded during her tenure as SoS). The issues he is dealing with are not legal issues, but appearances of conflicts.
Emolument clause doesn't mean his business can't ever take money from foreign government for at-market hotel rates... it means that Presidents may not accept payments for services whilst in an office. (I'm sure accepting above-rate for these rooms would constitute as bribery, which he CAN be impeached/removed for...).
Don't know if this we discuss here at dakka, but his lawyers last week stated that Trump has committed all profits on rooms rented by foreign officials to be paid to the U.S. Treasury. It'll be interesting as to how this would mechanically work, but there is that.
ender502 wrote: There has been some talk about laws and I wanted to add some context....
protesting.... You either support people's right to free speech and assembly or you don't.Period. You either stand up for our constitutional rights or you don't. Period. The question about what is "appropriate" when it comes to protest isn't a question or debate. It is merely people trying to say, in a faux southern genteel way, "don't protest. Just please shut up. Whatever you're complaining about doesn't effect me nor should it." The point of protest is to make your opinion known and to let others know what the situation is and why you are protesting. It is supposed to effect others. Thats sort of the point. The forces of status quo would rather you just protest in your living room. That way no one has to see or hear you and no one has to recognize the situation. That just wont fly.
Civil Disobedience...the point is to break the law. The point is to be punished for breaking an unjust law. To bring attention for the unjust nature of the situation..like getting arrested for drinking at a whites only fountain.
The courts have consistently upheld the ability of municipalities and states to infringe on the people's right to assemble and protest in the form of making certain forms of civil disobedience illegal and requiring people to secure a permit to make use of public spaces for protests/events. I think that's whembly's point, that there are many ways people can organize and conduct protests that don't break the law. People don't have to break the law to have an effective protest. Oftentimes people do break the law when they protests to varying degrees but it's not a requirement for the process to be effective. Multiple NFL players got face to face meetings with mayors, governors and police chiefs due to their protests during the national anthem before games and their comments at press conferences and on social media. Did the people who burned down a Walmart in Charlotte during the protests in the streets there get meetings with people who can actually make changes to policing policies?
I think we have to recognize that not all law breaking is the same. Burning down a WalMart isnt in the same league as blocking traffic.
If someone breaks a law in order to either show the injustice of the law or to bring attention to an issue, I'm cool with that. I am not cool with arson.
I am also alright with requiring permits for protests, especially when it will effect traffic. It's a safety issue.
ender502 wrote: There has been some talk about laws and I wanted to add some context....
protesting.... You either support people's right to free speech and assembly or you don't.Period. You either stand up for our constitutional rights or you don't. Period. The question about what is "appropriate" when it comes to protest isn't a question or debate. It is merely people trying to say, in a faux southern genteel way, "don't protest. Just please shut up. Whatever you're complaining about doesn't effect me nor should it." The point of protest is to make your opinion known and to let others know what the situation is and why you are protesting. It is supposed to effect others. Thats sort of the point. The forces of status quo would rather you just protest in your living room. That way no one has to see or hear you and no one has to recognize the situation. That just wont fly.
Civil Disobedience...the point is to break the law. The point is to be punished for breaking an unjust law. To bring attention for the unjust nature of the situation..like getting arrested for drinking at a whites only fountain.
Multiple NFL players got face to face meetings with mayors, governors and police chiefs due to their protests during the national anthem before games and their comments at press conferences and on social media.
You are telling me famous NFL players that bring revenue to states/cities were able to protest effectively live on television? It is almost like they had the audience right in front of them the whole time. Where the people who are blocking off the highways/interstates probably do not have a film crew following them or 100,000+ followers/friends on various forms of social media.
I wonder why some people break the law to get attention for their cause and others do not.
Vaktathi wrote: CA has frequentl had Republican governors, the problem is they put up Meg Whitman last time who's answer to unemployment was going to be to fire tens of thousands of state workers
Peter Theil is "thinking" of a run...
First open gay Gov, who's also a republican. (wasn't he the guy who bankroll'ed Hulk's defamation case against Gawker?)
I'm not sure the religious right would let that happen.
In CA?... I have family there... but, I haven't felt the "pulse" of that state in quite some time.
I don't think him being gay would be an issue... it's the fact that he's a Republican.
ender502 wrote: There has been some talk about laws and I wanted to add some context....
protesting.... You either support people's right to free speech and assembly or you don't.Period. You either stand up for our constitutional rights or you don't. Period. The question about what is "appropriate" when it comes to protest isn't a question or debate. It is merely people trying to say, in a faux southern genteel way, "don't protest. Just please shut up. Whatever you're complaining about doesn't effect me nor should it." The point of protest is to make your opinion known and to let others know what the situation is and why you are protesting. It is supposed to effect others. Thats sort of the point. The forces of status quo would rather you just protest in your living room. That way no one has to see or hear you and no one has to recognize the situation. That just wont fly.
Civil Disobedience...the point is to break the law. The point is to be punished for breaking an unjust law. To bring attention for the unjust nature of the situation..like getting arrested for drinking at a whites only fountain.
Multiple NFL players got face to face meetings with mayors, governors and police chiefs due to their protests during the national anthem before games and their comments at press conferences and on social media.
You are telling me famous NFL players that bring revenue to states/cities were able to protest effectively live on television? It is almost like they had the audience right in front of them the whole time. Where the people who are blocking off the highways/interstates probably do not have a film crew following them or 100,000+ followers/friends on various forms of social media.
I wonder why some people break the law to get attention for their cause and others do not.
America: "If you have money, you can do anything!"
ender502 wrote: There has been some talk about laws and I wanted to add some context....
protesting.... You either support people's right to free speech and assembly or you don't.Period. You either stand up for our constitutional rights or you don't. Period. The question about what is "appropriate" when it comes to protest isn't a question or debate. It is merely people trying to say, in a faux southern genteel way, "don't protest. Just please shut up. Whatever you're complaining about doesn't effect me nor should it." The point of protest is to make your opinion known and to let others know what the situation is and why you are protesting. It is supposed to effect others. Thats sort of the point. The forces of status quo would rather you just protest in your living room. That way no one has to see or hear you and no one has to recognize the situation. That just wont fly.
Civil Disobedience...the point is to break the law. The point is to be punished for breaking an unjust law. To bring attention for the unjust nature of the situation..like getting arrested for drinking at a whites only fountain.
Multiple NFL players got face to face meetings with mayors, governors and police chiefs due to their protests during the national anthem before games and their comments at press conferences and on social media.
You are telling me famous NFL players that bring revenue to states/cities were able to protest effectively live on television? It is almost like they had the audience right in front of them the whole time. Where the people who are blocking off the highways/interstates probably do not have a film crew following them or 100,000+ followers/friends on various forms of social media.
I wonder why some people break the law to get attention for their cause and others do not.
It was the same cause and the NFL players are perfectly capable of advocating for it and discussing it intelligently and in depth. Lawful protests are better than unlawful rioting.
ender502 wrote: Obama told dems to make Republicans "own" a repeal of the ACA. In the same vein I think Republicans will have to own trump. And I think this will be the end for them. Gerrymandering and voter suppression are all that are keeping them afloat at this point. Another 4 years and they wont be able to come close to winning a national election. I mean, they lost the popular vote by nearly 3 million votes and HRC was crazy unpopular.
I think talk of civil was is silly.
What concerns me is the slow erosion of voting rights we have seen and will continue to see under a trump administration.
The only time Republicans have a spine is when denying people the right to vote, reducing VA benefits or taking healthcare away from children. They are real adamant on those points.
It wasn't voter suppression that won it for Trump. It was the failure of the Democrats to turn out and vote. This led to some very narrow results in key states like Florida going to Trump with the all or nothing rule. The built-in conservative bias of rural states getting more EC votes per head than major population states also played a role, but this is not voter suppression.
ender502 wrote: Obama told dems to make Republicans "own" a repeal of the ACA. In the same vein I think Republicans will have to own trump. And I think this will be the end for them. Gerrymandering and voter suppression are all that are keeping them afloat at this point. Another 4 years and they wont be able to come close to winning a national election. I mean, they lost the popular vote by nearly 3 million votes and HRC was crazy unpopular.
I think talk of civil was is silly.
What concerns me is the slow erosion of voting rights we have seen and will continue to see under a trump administration.
The only time Republicans have a spine is when denying people the right to vote, reducing VA benefits or taking healthcare away from children. They are real adamant on those points.
It wasn't voter suppression that won it for Trump. It was the failure of the Democrats to turn out and vote. This led to some very narrow results in key states like Florida going to Trump with the all or nothing rule. The built-in conservative bias of rural states getting more EC votes per head than major population states also played a role, but this is not voter suppression.
EC votes are awarded on the basis of congressional representation. A state's number of EC votes is reviewed and changed appropriately alongside their congressional representation with each census. If the EC has a conservative bias then so does the US Congress and I don't think history shows evidence of such a bias in Congress.
ender502 wrote: Obama told dems to make Republicans "own" a repeal of the ACA. In the same vein I think Republicans will have to own trump. And I think this will be the end for them. Gerrymandering and voter suppression are all that are keeping them afloat at this point. Another 4 years and they wont be able to come close to winning a national election. I mean, they lost the popular vote by nearly 3 million votes and HRC was crazy unpopular.
I think talk of civil was is silly.
What concerns me is the slow erosion of voting rights we have seen and will continue to see under a trump administration.
The only time Republicans have a spine is when denying people the right to vote, reducing VA benefits or taking healthcare away from children. They are real adamant on those points.
It wasn't voter suppression that won it for Trump. It was the failure of the Democrats to turn out and vote. This led to some very narrow results in key states like Florida going to Trump with the all or nothing rule. The built-in conservative bias of rural states getting more EC votes per head than major population states also played a role, but this is not voter suppression.
ender502 wrote: Obama told dems to make Republicans "own" a repeal of the ACA. In the same vein I think Republicans will have to own trump. And I think this will be the end for them. Gerrymandering and voter suppression are all that are keeping them afloat at this point. Another 4 years and they wont be able to come close to winning a national election. I mean, they lost the popular vote by nearly 3 million votes and HRC was crazy unpopular.
I think talk of civil was is silly.
What concerns me is the slow erosion of voting rights we have seen and will continue to see under a trump administration.
The only time Republicans have a spine is when denying people the right to vote, reducing VA benefits or taking healthcare away from children. They are real adamant on those points.
It wasn't voter suppression that won it for Trump. It was the failure of the Democrats to turn out and vote. This led to some very narrow results in key states like Florida going to Trump with the all or nothing rule. The built-in conservative bias of rural states getting more EC votes per head than major population states also played a role, but this is not voter suppression.
EC votes are awarded on the basis of congressional representation. A state's number of EC votes is reviewed and changed appropriately alongside their congressional representation with each census. If the EC has a conservative bias then so does the US Congress and I don't think history shows evidence of such a bias in Congress.
States get an EC vote per X 100,000 head of population plus two EC votes for their senators. Since the Senate seats are independent of population, this means that low population states get more EC votes per head of population. These states are generally rural, and tend to be conservative as is pretty common in rural areas worldwide.
reds8n wrote: .... an army of loyal people to help the Leader.
That always works out well.
Well, if they all wear black or brown jackets or shirts or something, at least they could be easily identified.
Some sort of Protection Squadron? I think the Germans had a similar thing not that long ago, the Allgemeine Schutzstaffel. But that's a bit of a mouthful. So probably best to just stick to Bikers for Trump.
ender502 wrote: There has been some talk about laws and I wanted to add some context....
protesting.... You either support people's right to free speech and assembly or you don't.Period. You either stand up for our constitutional rights or you don't. Period. The question about what is "appropriate" when it comes to protest isn't a question or debate. It is merely people trying to say, in a faux southern genteel way, "don't protest. Just please shut up. Whatever you're complaining about doesn't effect me nor should it." The point of protest is to make your opinion known and to let others know what the situation is and why you are protesting. It is supposed to effect others. Thats sort of the point. The forces of status quo would rather you just protest in your living room. That way no one has to see or hear you and no one has to recognize the situation. That just wont fly.
Civil Disobedience...the point is to break the law. The point is to be punished for breaking an unjust law. To bring attention for the unjust nature of the situation..like getting arrested for drinking at a whites only fountain.
Multiple NFL players got face to face meetings with mayors, governors and police chiefs due to their protests during the national anthem before games and their comments at press conferences and on social media.
You are telling me famous NFL players that bring revenue to states/cities were able to protest effectively live on television? It is almost like they had the audience right in front of them the whole time. Where the people who are blocking off the highways/interstates probably do not have a film crew following them or 100,000+ followers/friends on various forms of social media.
I wonder why some people break the law to get attention for their cause and others do not.
It was the same cause and the NFL players are perfectly capable of advocating for it and discussing it intelligently and in depth. Lawful protests are better than unlawful rioting.
So, we should rely on Celebrities to advocate for the poor?
We are talking about protests, not rioting. Blocking a highway is not a riot.
Vaktathi wrote: CA has frequentl had Republican governors, the problem is they put up Meg Whitman last time who's answer to unemployment was going to be to fire tens of thousands of state workers
Peter Theil is "thinking" of a run...
First open gay Gov, who's also a republican. (wasn't he the guy who bankroll'ed Hulk's defamation case against Gawker?)
I'm not sure the religious right would let that happen.
In CA?... I have family there... but, I haven't felt the "pulse" of that state in quite some time.
I don't think him being gay would be an issue... it's the fact that he's a Republican.
Or maybe, just maybe, Californians like to vote Democrat because we feel they better represent our needs? Aside from the college crowd there isn't a lot of bad blood towards Republicans, relatively speaking. Hell, a huge portion of the positions we vote for are non-partisan; candidates can declare a party preference if they want but it isn't required or on the ballot. At any rate, neither being gay or republican would be anything more than a tie-breaker.
ender502 wrote: Obama told dems to make Republicans "own" a repeal of the ACA. In the same vein I think Republicans will have to own trump. And I think this will be the end for them. Gerrymandering and voter suppression are all that are keeping them afloat at this point. Another 4 years and they wont be able to come close to winning a national election. I mean, they lost the popular vote by nearly 3 million votes and HRC was crazy unpopular.
I think talk of civil was is silly.
What concerns me is the slow erosion of voting rights we have seen and will continue to see under a trump administration.
The only time Republicans have a spine is when denying people the right to vote, reducing VA benefits or taking healthcare away from children. They are real adamant on those points.
It wasn't voter suppression that won it for Trump. It was the failure of the Democrats to turn out and vote. This led to some very narrow results in key states like Florida going to Trump with the all or nothing rule. The built-in conservative bias of rural states getting more EC votes per head than major population states also played a role, but this is not voter suppression.
EC votes are awarded on the basis of congressional representation. A state's number of EC votes is reviewed and changed appropriately alongside their congressional representation with each census. If the EC has a conservative bias then so does the US Congress and I don't think history shows evidence of such a bias in Congress.
People in less populated states get more EC votes per voter than the more populous states. More rural states (which often have lower population) are more likely to be conservative (for whatever reason) and so conservative politics is more likely to gain an advantage from disproportionate weighting of votes in the EC system.
Spoiler:
CA: 55 EC votes, population 38.3M:..... ~1 EC vote per 697,000 people. TX: 38 EC, pop 26.5M:...........................~1 EC vote per 697,000 people. NY and FL: 29 EC, pop ~19.5M: .......... ~1 EC vote per 670,000 people IL and PA: 20 EC, pop ~12.75M:........... ~1 EC vote per 637,500 people OH: 18 EC, pop ~11.5M: .......................~1 EC vote per 638,000 people GA & MI: 16 EC, pop ~9.9M: ................ ~1 EC vote per 618,750 people NC: 15 EC, pop ~9.85M:.........................~1 EC vote per 656,666 people NJ: 14 EC, pop ~8.9M:........................... ~1 EC vote per 635,700 people VA: 13 EC, pop ~8.3M:............................~1 EC vote per 638,500 people WA: 12 EC, pop ~7M:..............................~1 EC vote per 583,300 people MA: 11 EC, pop ~6.7M:...........................~1 EC vote per 600,000 people AZ & IN: 11 EC, pop ~6.6M:....................~1 EC vote per 600,000 people TN: 11 EC, pop ~6.5M:............................~1 EC vote per 590,000 people MO & MD: 10 EC, pop ~6M:....................~1 EC vote per 600,000 people WI: 10 EC, pop ~5.7M:.............................~1 EC vote per 570,000 people MN: 10 EC, pop ~5.4M:............................~1 EC vote per 540,000 people CO: 9 EC, pop ~5.3M:..............................~1 EC vote per 590,000 people AL & SC: 9 EC, pop ~4.8M:......................~1 EC vote per 530,000 people LA & KYL 8 EC, pop ~4.5M:.....................~1 EC vote per 560,000 people OR & OK: 7 EC, pop ~3.9M:.....................~1 EC vote per 560,000 people CT: 7 EC, pop ~3.6M:.................................~1 EC vote per 514,000 people IA, MS, AR, UT: 6 EC, pop ~3M:................~1 EC vote per 500,000 people NV & KS: 6 EC, pop ~2.84M:.....................~1 EC vote per 470,000 people NM: 5 EC, pop ~2M:...................................~1 EC vote per 400,000 people NE & WV: 5 EC, pop ~1.86M:.....................~1 EC vote per 372,000 people ID: 4 EC, pop ~1.6M:...................................~1 EC vote per 400,000 people HI: 4 EC, pop ~1.4M:...................................~1 EC vote per 350,000 people ME & NH: 4 EC, pop ~1.32M:.....................~1 EC vote per 330,000 people RI: 4 EC, pop ~1.05M:.................................~1 EC vote per 263,000 people MT: 3 EC, pop ~1M:.....................................~1 EC vote per 330,000 people DE: 3 EC, pop ~0.9M:.................................~1 EC vote per 300,000 people SD: 3 EC, pop ~0.84M:...............................~1 EC vote per 280,000 people AK & ND: 3 EC, pop ~0.73M:.....................~1 EC vote per 240,000 people DC: 3 EC, pop ~0.65M:...............................~1 EC vote per 220,000 people VT: 3 EC, pop ~0.63M:................................~1 EC vote per 210,000 people WY: 3 EC, pop ~0.58M:...............................~1 EC vote per 190,000 people
ender502 wrote: Obama told dems to make Republicans "own" a repeal of the ACA. In the same vein I think Republicans will have to own trump. And I think this will be the end for them. Gerrymandering and voter suppression are all that are keeping them afloat at this point. Another 4 years and they wont be able to come close to winning a national election. I mean, they lost the popular vote by nearly 3 million votes and HRC was crazy unpopular.
I think talk of civil was is silly.
What concerns me is the slow erosion of voting rights we have seen and will continue to see under a trump administration.
The only time Republicans have a spine is when denying people the right to vote, reducing VA benefits or taking healthcare away from children. They are real adamant on those points.
It wasn't voter suppression that won it for Trump. It was the failure of the Democrats to turn out and vote. This led to some very narrow results in key states like Florida going to Trump with the all or nothing rule. The built-in conservative bias of rural states getting more EC votes per head than major population states also played a role, but this is not voter suppression.
EC votes are awarded on the basis of congressional representation. A state's number of EC votes is reviewed and changed appropriately alongside their congressional representation with each census. If the EC has a conservative bias then so does the US Congress and I don't think history shows evidence of such a bias in Congress.
People in less populated states get more EC votes per voter than the more populous states.
Spoiler:
CA: 55 EC votes, population 38.3M: ~1 EC vote per 697,000 people.
TX: 38 EC, pop 26.5M: ~1 EC vote per 697,000 people.
NY and FL: 29 EC, pop ~19.5M: ~1 EC vote per 670,000 people
IL and PA: 20 EC, pop ~12.75M: ~1 EC vote per 637,500 people
OH: 18 EC, pop ~11.5M: ~1 EC vote per 638,000 people
GA & MI: 16 EC, pop ~9.9M: ~1 EC vote per 618,750 people
NC: 15 EC, pop ~9.85M: ~1 EC vote per 656,666 people
NJ: 14 EC, pop ~8.9M: ~1 EC vote per 635,700 people
VA: 13 EC, pop ~8.3M: ~1 EC vote per 638,500 people
WA: 12 EC, pop ~7M: ~1 EC vote per 583,300 people
MA: 11 EC, pop ~6.7M: ~1 EC vote per 600,000 people
AZ & IN: 11 EC, pop ~6.6M: ~1 EC vote per 600,000 people
TN: 11 EC, pop ~6.5M: ~1 EC vote per 590,000 people
MO & MD: 10 EC, pop ~6M: ~1 EC vote per 600,000 people
WI: 10 EC, pop ~5.7M: ~1 EC vote per 570,000 people
MN: 10 EC, pop ~5.4M: ~1 EC vote per 540,000 people
CO: 9 EC, pop ~5.3M: ~1 EC vote per 590,000 people
AL & SC: 9 EC, pop ~4.8M: ~1 EC vote per 530,000 people
LA & KYL 8 EC, pop ~4.5M: ~1 EC vote per 560,000 people
OR & OK: 7 EC, pop ~3.9M: ~1 EC vote per 560,000 people
CT: 7 EC, pop ~3.6M: ~1 EC vote per 514,000 people
IA, MS, AR, UT: 6 EC, pop ~3M: ~1 EC vote per 500,000 people
NV & KS: 6 EC, pop ~2.84M: ~1 EC vote per 470,000 people
NM: 5 EC, pop ~2M: ~1 EC vote per 400,000 people
NE & WV: 5 EC, pop ~1.86M: ~1 EC vote per 372,000 people
ID: 4 EC, pop ~1.6M: ~1 EC vote per 400,000 people
HI: 4 EC, pop ~1.4M: ~1 EC vote per 350,000 people
ME & NH: 4 EC, pop ~1.32M: ~1 EC vote per 330,000 people
RI: 4 EC, pop ~1.05M: ~1 EC vote per 263,000 people
MT: 3 EC, pop ~1M: ~1 EC vote per 330,000 people
DE: 3 EC, pop ~0.9M: ~1 EC vote per 300,000 people
SD: 3 EC, pop ~0.84M: ~1 EC vote per 280,000 people
AK & ND: 3 EC, pop ~0.73M: ~1 EC vote per 240,000 people
DC: 3 EC, pop ~0.65M: ~1 EC vote per 220,000 people
VT: 3 EC, pop ~0.63M: ~1 EC vote per 210,000 people
WY: 3 EC, pop ~0.58M: ~1 EC vote per 190,000 people
ender502 wrote: Obama told dems to make Republicans "own" a repeal of the ACA. In the same vein I think Republicans will have to own trump. And I think this will be the end for them. Gerrymandering and voter suppression are all that are keeping them afloat at this point. Another 4 years and they wont be able to come close to winning a national election. I mean, they lost the popular vote by nearly 3 million votes and HRC was crazy unpopular.
I think talk of civil was is silly.
What concerns me is the slow erosion of voting rights we have seen and will continue to see under a trump administration.
The only time Republicans have a spine is when denying people the right to vote, reducing VA benefits or taking healthcare away from children. They are real adamant on those points.
It wasn't voter suppression that won it for Trump. It was the failure of the Democrats to turn out and vote. This led to some very narrow results in key states like Florida going to Trump with the all or nothing rule. The built-in conservative bias of rural states getting more EC votes per head than major population states also played a role, but this is not voter suppression.
EC votes are awarded on the basis of congressional representation. A state's number of EC votes is reviewed and changed appropriately alongside their congressional representation with each census. If the EC has a conservative bias then so does the US Congress and I don't think history shows evidence of such a bias in Congress.
Congress no. If anything I'd argue the Senate has a Democratic bias in elections. Voter demographics in the past played out in that way. Likewise I think the House has a Republican bias, because a big state like Cali might have a horde of reps, but the people of LA can't vote in Colusa county. The Republicans have a much better spread for House runs than the Dems.
Only if you don't understand why it was done. I'd go into detail but I'd just be repeating everything that was said about the Electoral College in the previous thread, so instead I'll let you google it.
whembly wrote: A Civil War where the right wingers would win...
You base that on what, exactly?
We have all the god damn guns. My street literally has more firearms than Canada. Plus no leftwinger has served in the US military since Forrest Gump.
Seriously though, who do you think voted for Trump?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
lonestarr777 wrote: It's also a bunch of false bravado and bs. Most right wingers I know are the most out of shape buffoons you'll ever meet, or think their 308 rifle will save them versus a drone. This is a very stupid tangent to go down anyway as our country is so fat, lazy, and stupid we put Trump in power in the first place, we're not gonna die to remove him because of those reasons.
Have you polled the politics of the drone drivers recently?
ender502 wrote: There has been some talk about laws and I wanted to add some context....
protesting.... You either support people's right to free speech and assembly or you don't.Period. You either stand up for our constitutional rights or you don't. Period. The question about what is "appropriate" when it comes to protest isn't a question or debate. It is merely people trying to say, in a faux southern genteel way, "don't protest. Just please shut up. Whatever you're complaining about doesn't effect me nor should it." The point of protest is to make your opinion known and to let others know what the situation is and why you are protesting. It is supposed to effect others. Thats sort of the point. The forces of status quo would rather you just protest in your living room. That way no one has to see or hear you and no one has to recognize the situation. That just wont fly.
Civil Disobedience...the point is to break the law. The point is to be punished for breaking an unjust law. To bring attention for the unjust nature of the situation..like getting arrested for drinking at a whites only fountain.
Multiple NFL players got face to face meetings with mayors, governors and police chiefs due to their protests during the national anthem before games and their comments at press conferences and on social media.
You are telling me famous NFL players that bring revenue to states/cities were able to protest effectively live on television? It is almost like they had the audience right in front of them the whole time. Where the people who are blocking off the highways/interstates probably do not have a film crew following them or 100,000+ followers/friends on various forms of social media.
I wonder why some people break the law to get attention for their cause and others do not.
It was the same cause and the NFL players are perfectly capable of advocating for it and discussing it intelligently and in depth. Lawful protests are better than unlawful rioting.
So, we should rely on Celebrities to advocate for the poor?
We are talking about protests, not rioting. Blocking a highway is not a riot.
Blocking a road without a permit is illegal and dangerous and road blocking will lead to justifiable arrests and isn't a prerequisite for an effective protest. Celebrities can advocate for whatever they want, same as poor people. Protests don't have to be violent to be effective. MLK preached was adamant that the Southern Christian Leadership Conference practice nonviolent protests and they were very effective.
ender502 wrote: Obama told dems to make Republicans "own" a repeal of the ACA. In the same vein I think Republicans will have to own trump. And I think this will be the end for them. Gerrymandering and voter suppression are all that are keeping them afloat at this point. Another 4 years and they wont be able to come close to winning a national election. I mean, they lost the popular vote by nearly 3 million votes and HRC was crazy unpopular.
I think talk of civil was is silly.
What concerns me is the slow erosion of voting rights we have seen and will continue to see under a trump administration.
The only time Republicans have a spine is when denying people the right to vote, reducing VA benefits or taking healthcare away from children. They are real adamant on those points.
It wasn't voter suppression that won it for Trump. It was the failure of the Democrats to turn out and vote. This led to some very narrow results in key states like Florida going to Trump with the all or nothing rule. The built-in conservative bias of rural states getting more EC votes per head than major population states also played a role, but this is not voter suppression.
EC votes are awarded on the basis of congressional representation. A state's number of EC votes is reviewed and changed appropriately alongside their congressional representation with each census. If the EC has a conservative bias then so does the US Congress and I don't think history shows evidence of such a bias in Congress.
States get an EC vote per X 100,000 head of population plus two EC votes for their senators. Since the Senate seats are independent of population, this means that low population states get more EC votes per head of population. These states are generally rural, and tend to be conservative as is pretty common in rural areas worldwide.
Yes that's exactly what I said. Congress = the House + the Senate which is the same amount of EC votes a state gets. The electorates that elects Senators and Congressional Representatives is the same one that votes for EC delegates. Any inherent bias in the EC is inherent in Congress, its' the same number of delegates elected by the same group of people. We've had 200+ years of Congress and 50+ presidential elections, is there quantifiable evidence of conservative candidates consistently gaining an advantage in elections due to a systematic imbalance that favors rural voters? If such an imbalance exists and it needs to be removed for the betterment of the country then we'll need to change a lot more than just the EC.
Actually, it's per house rep, not per population. And because they refuse to increase the size of the house of reps (something long overdue), it's reached the point of having over 700000 people per representative in some cases. The original design was something like 50-60K per each. The UK Parliament, for example, representing 64M people, is current at 650, significantly more than our 435, who are representing over 300M.
Co'tor Shas wrote: End because they refuse to increase the size of the house of reps (something long overdue), it's reached the point of having over 700000 people per representative in some cases.
Too a degree some reps have more constituents than others is entirely unavoidable. However if district lines were drawn for representative purposes rather than electoral ones this wouldn't be a problem.
Increasing the size of the house is a bad idea. Ever try sitting over 400 people in a room when they all have equal rights to speak, amend, and make motions? The House is already at an unwieldy size. That's why we capped it at 435. There are so many hours in a session, and this is a big country. If anything the functionality of the house would improve if we made it smaller, not bigger.
The original design was something like 50-60K per each. The UK Parliament, for example, representing 64M people, is current at 640, significantly more than our 435, who are representing over 300M.
The UK is also a much smaller country economically, and regionally and functions on a Parliamentary model. With how spread out the US population is, the structure of the federal system in the US (where a larger degree of the burden of governing is shifted to the state and local governments out of the national government), I think it is a mistake to treat these as 1 to 1 comparisons.
Co'tor Shas wrote: End because they refuse to increase the size of the house of reps (something long overdue), it's reached the point of having over 700000 people per representative in some cases.
Too a degree some reps have more constituents than others is entirely unavoidable. However if district lines were drawn for representative purposes rather than electoral ones this wouldn't be a problem.
Increasing the size of the house is a bad idea. Ever try sitting over 400 people in a room when they all have equal rights to speak, amend, and make motions? The House is already at an unwieldy size. That's why we capped it at 435. There are so many hours in a session, and this is a big country. If anything the functionality of the house would improve if we made it smaller, not bigger.
The original design was something like 50-60K per each. The UK Parliament, for example, representing 64M people, is current at 640, significantly more than our 435, who are representing over 300M.
The UK is also a much smaller country economically, and regionally and functions on a Parliamentary model. With how spread out the US population is, the structure of the federal system in the US (where a larger degree of the burden of governing is shifted to the state and local governments out of the national government), I think it is a mistake to treat these as 1 to 1 comparisons.
I always thought we shouldexpand the house to reflect the population growth a bit...
But... you do make a good point. Otherwise, if the Reps where hard locked to "per X peeps"... we may end up with this:
Co'tor Shas wrote: End because they refuse to increase the size of the house of reps (something long overdue), it's reached the point of having over 700000 people per representative in some cases.
Too a degree some reps have more constituents than others is entirely unavoidable. However if district lines were drawn for representative purposes rather than electoral ones this wouldn't be a problem.
Increasing the size of the house is a bad idea. Ever try sitting over 400 people in a room when they all have equal rights to speak, amend, and make motions? The House is already at an unwieldy size. That's why we capped it at 435. There are so many hours in a session, and this is a big country. If anything the functionality of the house would improve if we made it smaller, not bigger.
The original design was something like 50-60K per each. The UK Parliament, for example, representing 64M people, is current at 640, significantly more than our 435, who are representing over 300M.
The UK is also a much smaller country economically, and regionally and functions on a Parliamentary model. With how spread out the US population is, the structure of the federal system in the US (where a larger degree of the burden of governing is shifted to the state and local governments out of the national government), I think it is a mistake to treat these as 1 to 1 comparisons.
I always thought we shouldexpand the house to reflect the population growth a bit...
But... you do make a good point. Otherwise, if the Reps where hard locked to "per X peeps"... we may end up with this:
Spoiler:
Well if you will insist on having such a ridiculously large country
Co'tor Shas wrote: End because they refuse to increase the size of the house of reps (something long overdue), it's reached the point of having over 700000 people per representative in some cases.
Too a degree some reps have more constituents than others is entirely unavoidable. However if district lines were drawn for representative purposes rather than electoral ones this wouldn't be a problem.
Increasing the size of the house is a bad idea. Ever try sitting over 400 people in a room when they all have equal rights to speak, amend, and make motions? The House is already at an unwieldy size. That's why we capped it at 435. There are so many hours in a session, and this is a big country. If anything the functionality of the house would improve if we made it smaller, not bigger.
The original design was something like 50-60K per each. The UK Parliament, for example, representing 64M people, is current at 640, significantly more than our 435, who are representing over 300M.
The UK is also a much smaller country economically, and regionally and functions on a Parliamentary model. With how spread out the US population is, the structure of the federal system in the US (where a larger degree of the burden of governing is shifted to the state and local governments out of the national government), I think it is a mistake to treat these as 1 to 1 comparisons.
I always thought we shouldexpand the house to reflect the population growth a bit...
But... you do make a good point. Otherwise, if the Reps where hard locked to "per X peeps"... we may end up with this:
Spoiler:
The crazy geographical layout of congressional districts is a state problem. State legislatures gerrymander districts and it causes a lot of variance with district populations. State constitutional amendments to reform districting to be more standardized by population rather than designed to produce guaranteed (or at least highly probable) political outcomes it would help mitigate some issues. Of course that would require people living in states to organize support around the districting issue and pressure legislators to enact meaningful change so its unlikely to happen.
Voter suppression isnt just thugs outside of polling places.
Since nobody is giving you any attention with your conspiracy theory BS, I will give it a go.
First: the rolling stone? Really? The same rag that published that fake university rape story and then doubled down on it when it came to light it was false before trying to backtrack and save face? Real reputable source there...
Second: my state, Indiana, had organizations registering Illinois voters in our state, thus giving people opportunity to vote in two states. So the basis for the crosschecking law at least has a precedent.
Third: I don't remember a spot on my ballot to list my race, so I really question this absurdity.
Co'tor Shas wrote: End because they refuse to increase the size of the house of reps (something long overdue), it's reached the point of having over 700000 people per representative in some cases.
Too a degree some reps have more constituents than others is entirely unavoidable. However if district lines were drawn for representative purposes rather than electoral ones this wouldn't be a problem.
Increasing the size of the house is a bad idea. Ever try sitting over 400 people in a room when they all have equal rights to speak, amend, and make motions? The House is already at an unwieldy size. That's why we capped it at 435. There are so many hours in a session, and this is a big country. If anything the functionality of the house would improve if we made it smaller, not bigger.
The original design was something like 50-60K per each. The UK Parliament, for example, representing 64M people, is current at 640, significantly more than our 435, who are representing over 300M.
The UK is also a much smaller country economically, and regionally and functions on a Parliamentary model. With how spread out the US population is, the structure of the federal system in the US (where a larger degree of the burden of governing is shifted to the state and local governments out of the national government), I think it is a mistake to treat these as 1 to 1 comparisons.
I always thought we shouldexpand the house to reflect the population growth a bit...
But... you do make a good point. Otherwise, if the Reps where hard locked to "per X peeps"... we may end up with this:
Spoiler:
Well if you will insist on having such a ridiculously large country
Downsizing is a lot more difficult for us than it was for the UK because virtually all of our empire is on the same continent.
ender502 wrote: There has been some talk about laws and I wanted to add some context....
protesting.... You either support people's right to free speech and assembly or you don't.Period. You either stand up for our constitutional rights or you don't. Period. The question about what is "appropriate" when it comes to protest isn't a question or debate. It is merely people trying to say, in a faux southern genteel way, "don't protest. Just please shut up. Whatever you're complaining about doesn't effect me nor should it." The point of protest is to make your opinion known and to let others know what the situation is and why you are protesting. It is supposed to effect others. Thats sort of the point. The forces of status quo would rather you just protest in your living room. That way no one has to see or hear you and no one has to recognize the situation. That just wont fly.
Civil Disobedience...the point is to break the law. The point is to be punished for breaking an unjust law. To bring attention for the unjust nature of the situation..like getting arrested for drinking at a whites only fountain.
Multiple NFL players got face to face meetings with mayors, governors and police chiefs due to their protests during the national anthem before games and their comments at press conferences and on social media.
You are telling me famous NFL players that bring revenue to states/cities were able to protest effectively live on television? It is almost like they had the audience right in front of them the whole time. Where the people who are blocking off the highways/interstates probably do not have a film crew following them or 100,000+ followers/friends on various forms of social media.
I wonder why some people break the law to get attention for their cause and others do not.
It was the same cause and the NFL players are perfectly capable of advocating for it and discussing it intelligently and in depth. Lawful protests are better than unlawful rioting.
So, we should rely on Celebrities to advocate for the poor?
We are talking about protests, not rioting. Blocking a highway is not a riot.
Blocking a road without a permit is illegal and dangerous and road blocking will lead to justifiable arrests and isn't a prerequisite for an effective protest. Celebrities can advocate for whatever they want, same as poor people. Protests don't have to be violent to be effective. MLK preached was adamant that the Southern Christian Leadership Conference practice nonviolent protests and they were very effective.
Co'tor Shas wrote: End because they refuse to increase the size of the house of reps (something long overdue), it's reached the point of having over 700000 people per representative in some cases.
Too a degree some reps have more constituents than others is entirely unavoidable. However if district lines were drawn for representative purposes rather than electoral ones this wouldn't be a problem.
Increasing the size of the house is a bad idea. Ever try sitting over 400 people in a room when they all have equal rights to speak, amend, and make motions? The House is already at an unwieldy size. That's why we capped it at 435. There are so many hours in a session, and this is a big country. If anything the functionality of the house would improve if we made it smaller, not bigger.
The original design was something like 50-60K per each. The UK Parliament, for example, representing 64M people, is current at 640, significantly more than our 435, who are representing over 300M.
The UK is also a much smaller country economically, and regionally and functions on a Parliamentary model. With how spread out the US population is, the structure of the federal system in the US (where a larger degree of the burden of governing is shifted to the state and local governments out of the national government), I think it is a mistake to treat these as 1 to 1 comparisons.
I always thought we shouldexpand the house to reflect the population growth a bit...
But... you do make a good point. Otherwise, if the Reps where hard locked to "per X peeps"... we may end up with this:
Spoiler:
Well if you will insist on having such a ridiculously large country
Downsizing is a lot more difficult for us than it was for the UK because virtually all of our empire is on the same continent.
I thought California had been looking into a bit of independence?
ender502 wrote: There has been some talk about laws and I wanted to add some context....
protesting.... You either support people's right to free speech and assembly or you don't.Period. You either stand up for our constitutional rights or you don't. Period. The question about what is "appropriate" when it comes to protest isn't a question or debate. It is merely people trying to say, in a faux southern genteel way, "don't protest. Just please shut up. Whatever you're complaining about doesn't effect me nor should it." The point of protest is to make your opinion known and to let others know what the situation is and why you are protesting. It is supposed to effect others. Thats sort of the point. The forces of status quo would rather you just protest in your living room. That way no one has to see or hear you and no one has to recognize the situation. That just wont fly.
Civil Disobedience...the point is to break the law. The point is to be punished for breaking an unjust law. To bring attention for the unjust nature of the situation..like getting arrested for drinking at a whites only fountain.
Multiple NFL players got face to face meetings with mayors, governors and police chiefs due to their protests during the national anthem before games and their comments at press conferences and on social media.
You are telling me famous NFL players that bring revenue to states/cities were able to protest effectively live on television? It is almost like they had the audience right in front of them the whole time. Where the people who are blocking off the highways/interstates probably do not have a film crew following them or 100,000+ followers/friends on various forms of social media.
I wonder why some people break the law to get attention for their cause and others do not.
It was the same cause and the NFL players are perfectly capable of advocating for it and discussing it intelligently and in depth. Lawful protests are better than unlawful rioting.
So, we should rely on Celebrities to advocate for the poor?
We are talking about protests, not rioting. Blocking a highway is not a riot.
Blocking a road without a permit is illegal and dangerous and road blocking will lead to justifiable arrests and isn't a prerequisite for an effective protest. Celebrities can advocate for whatever they want, same as poor people. Protests don't have to be violent to be effective. MLK preached was adamant that the Southern Christian Leadership Conference practice nonviolent protests and they were very effective.
Where is the violence in blocking a road?
I don't recall saying that blocking a road was a violent act. Playing chicken with oncoming traffic can result in some pretty violent collisions so I wouldn't recommend doing regardless of your motivation or cause.
Co'tor Shas wrote: End because they refuse to increase the size of the house of reps (something long overdue), it's reached the point of having over 700000 people per representative in some cases.
Too a degree some reps have more constituents than others is entirely unavoidable. However if district lines were drawn for representative purposes rather than electoral ones this wouldn't be a problem.
Increasing the size of the house is a bad idea. Ever try sitting over 400 people in a room when they all have equal rights to speak, amend, and make motions? The House is already at an unwieldy size. That's why we capped it at 435. There are so many hours in a session, and this is a big country. If anything the functionality of the house would improve if we made it smaller, not bigger.
The original design was something like 50-60K per each. The UK Parliament, for example, representing 64M people, is current at 640, significantly more than our 435, who are representing over 300M.
The UK is also a much smaller country economically, and regionally and functions on a Parliamentary model. With how spread out the US population is, the structure of the federal system in the US (where a larger degree of the burden of governing is shifted to the state and local governments out of the national government), I think it is a mistake to treat these as 1 to 1 comparisons.
I always thought we shouldexpand the house to reflect the population growth a bit...
But... you do make a good point. Otherwise, if the Reps where hard locked to "per X peeps"... we may end up with this:
[spoiler]
Well if you will insist on having such a ridiculously large country
Downsizing is a lot more difficult for us than it was for the UK because virtually all of our empire is on the same continent.
[/spoiler]
I thought California had been looking into a bit of independence?
Texas was independent for a while before becoming a state.Since the ACW we just play hot potato with secessation talk. Now it's California's turn, previously it's been Texas or parts of New England or the Midwest. In Alaska and Hawaii there's active groups who call for secession, in Hawaii it's a nativist motivated thing and in Alaska it's an anti govt thing. There's also been talk over the years of breaking up Cali into smaller states too.
*Trying to spoiler long quote tunnels for the benefit of cell phone users but doing it on my iPhone contributes to me mucking it up, apologies
It's completely nonviolent, and lets be honest. No one in their right mind is going to drive head long into a wall of people in the middle of the road. This isn't a "people jumping into traffic" scenario. There are walls of people in the road;
Now blocking a roadway like that probably violates more a few laws, so arrest them but lets not pretend that this is a "game of chicken." The only way someone collides with something here is by criminal levels of negligence or wilful desire to do harm. The former of course is a constant on the road, which makes blocking one a particularly dangerous way of drawing attention, to which I would simply suggest we all contemplate what has people riled up enough to do it in the first place.
It's completely nonviolent, and lets be honest. No one in their right mind is going to drive head long into a wall of people in the middle of the road. This isn't a "people jumping into traffic" scenario. There are walls of people in the road;
Now blocking a roadway like that probably violates more a few laws, so arrest them but lets not pretend that this is a "game of chicken." The only way someone collides with something here is by criminal levels of negligence or wilful desire to do harm.
MLK had thousands of national guardsman mobilized to clear the road and protect the protestors. If Johnson hadn't mobilized the guard with a presidential order the county sherrifs in Alabama would have shut down that march at the county line like they did the previous attempts at it.
It's a game of chicken because the motorists don't know the crowd will move from the shoulder of the road into the path of traffic until it happens. Braking to a full stop in the middle of the road just because some people might start jaywalking is a good way to get rear ended and cause a pile up.
LordofHats wrote: If you get rear ended, the person behind you was following to closely. No protestor is responsible for their reckless driving.
If you willfully put an obstruction such as yourself in the road creating a hazard that disrupts traffic and causes an accident you are responsible for the accident. It's no different than if you throw something off an overpass onto the highway below and cause an accident it's your fault.
Prestor Jon wrote: If you willfully put an obstruction such as yourself in the road creating a hazard that disrupts traffic and causes an accident you are responsible for the accident.
That's not how responsibility works.
The first thing anyone learns in Drivers Ed is to always leave room to stop in case of obstruction. It's literal day one stuff. If you don't leave room and someone in front of you has to make a sudden stop and you hit them, that is your fault regardless of the reason the person in front of you stopped (edit: barring specific laws about certain insurance fraud schemes anyway).
Now if someone jumps in front of you, and you hit them because there was no time to stop that's not your fault, but I'm not sure what protests your watching because these people;
Are not jumping into a road here. I'm just assuming I don't have to explain the point of playing chicken. I hope these people are being smart in how they first enter roadways, but once their there it's not remotely like playing chicken and if a horde of people enter a road and you don't stop when you had the time I don't think "they shouldn't have entered the road" is going to fly in your negligent homicide case (then again given the attitude presented by some in this thread it very well might).
Prestor Jon wrote:Blocking a road without a permit is illegal and dangerous and road blocking will lead to justifiable arrests and isn't a prerequisite for an effective protest. Celebrities can advocate for whatever they want, same as poor people. Protests don't have to be violent to be effective. MLK preached was adamant that the Southern Christian Leadership Conference practice nonviolent protests and they were very effective.
Blocking a road is not violence, it's just a inconvenience. MLK also had something to say about people who think one should only protest according to some idealised idea of a protest and when it's not causing too many problems with your schedule.
Prestor Jon wrote: If you willfully put an obstruction such as yourself in the road creating a hazard that disrupts traffic and causes an accident you are responsible for the accident.
That's not how responsibility works.
The first thing anyone learns in Drivers Ed is to always leave room to stop in case of obstruction. It's literal day one stuff. If you don't leave room and someone in front of you has to make a sudden stop and you hit them, that is your fault regardless of the reason the person in front of you stopped (edit: barring specific laws about certain insurance fraud schemes anyway).
Now if someone jumps in front of you, and you hit them because there was no time to stop that's not your fault, but I'm not sure what protests your watching because these people;
Are not jumping into a road here. I'm just assuming I don't have to explain the point of playing chicken. I hope these people are being smart in how they first enter roadways, but once their there it's not remotely like playing chicken and if a horde of people enter a road and you don't stop when you had the time I don't think "they shouldn't have entered the road" is going to fly in your negligent homicide case (then again given the attitude presented by some in this thread it very well might).
During the Ferguson riots we had local sympathy protests. They includes a small crowd of maybe a few dozen protestors in dark nonreflective clothing gathering along the side of the Durham Freeway, 55 mph 2 lanes each side with a median, at night and there are no streetlights and then slowly started to edge out onto the freeway during rush hour traffic while I was commuting home. I watched the local news coverage later and there's protester footage up on YouTube (it's in the linked article below) it's tough to see the protesters or read their signs because the only illumination is from the headlights stopped traffic. Thankfully nobody was hurt but it was an extremely dangerous stunt that led to 31 arrests. Not every road blocking protest is a well organized slow developing daytime occurrence with good visibility.
I'm going to copy/paste the relevant section you link, because I think it's a good thing to add and important for people to read;
I must make two honest confessions to you, my Christian and Jewish brothers. First, I must confess that over the last few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in the stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Council-er, or the Klu Klux Klanner, but the white moderate who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I can't agree with your methods of direct action;" who paternalistically feels that he can set the time-table for another man's freedom; who lives by the myth of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait until a "more convenient season." Shaloow understanding from people of goodwill is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.
I had hoped that the white moderate would understand that law and order exist for the purpose of establishing justice, and that when they fail to do this they become the dangerously structured dams that block the flow of social progress. I had hoped that the white moderate would understand that the present tension in the South is merely a necessary phase of the transition from an obnoxious negative peace, where the Negro passively accepted his unjust plight, to a substance-filled positive peace, where all men will respect the dignity and worth of human personality. Actually, we who engage in nonviolent direct action are not the creators of tension. We merely bring to the surface the hidden tension that is already alive. We bring it out in the open where it can be seen and dealt with. Like a boil that can never be dured as long as it is covered up but must be opened with all its pus-flowing ugliness to the natural medicines of air and light, injustice must likewise be exposed, with all of the tension its exposing creates, to the light of human sonscience and the air of national opinion before it can be cured.
In your statement you asserted that our actions, even though peaceful, must be condemned because they precipitate violence. But can this assertion be logically made? Isn't this like condemning the robbed man because his possession of money precipitated the evil act of robbery? Isn't this like condeming Socrates because his unswerving commitment to truth and his philosophical delvings precipitated the misguided popular mind to make him drink the hemlock? Isn't this like condemning Jesus because his unique God-consciousness and never-ceasing devotion to His will precipitated the evil act of crucifixion? We must come to see, as federal courts have consistentyly affirmed, that it is immoral to urge an individual to withdraw his efforts to gain his basic constitutional rights because the quest precipitates violence. Society must protect the robbed and punish the robber.
I had also hoped that the white moderate would reject the myth of time. I received a letter this morning from a white brother in Texas which said, "All Christians know that the colored people will receive equal rights eventually, but is it possible that you are in too great of a religious hurry? It has taken Christianity almost 2000 years to accomplish what it has. The teachings of Christ take time to come to earth." All that is said here grows out of a tragic misconception of time. It is the strangely irrational notion that there is something in the very flow of time that will inevitably cure all ills. Actually, time is neutral. It can be used either destructively or constructively. I am coming to feel that the people of ill will have used time much more effectively than the people of good will. We will have to repent in this generation not merely for the vitriolic words and actions of the bad people but for the appalling silence of the good people. We must come to see that human progress never rolls in on wheels of inevitability. It comes through the tireless efforts and persistent work of men willing to be coworkers with God, and without this hard work time itself becomes an ally of the forces of social stagnation. YOU spoke of our activity in Birmingham as extreme. At first I was rather disappointed that fellow clergymen would see my nonviolent efforts as those of an extremist. I started thinking about the fact that I stand in the middle of two opposing forces in the Negro community. One is a force of complacency made up of Negroes who, as a result of long years of oppression, have been so completely drained of self-respect and a sense of "somebodyness" that they have adjusted to segregation, and, on the other hand, of a few Negroes in the middle class who, because of a degree of academic and economic security and because at points they profit by segregation, have unconsciously become insensitive to the problems of the masses. The other force is one of bitterness and hatred and comes perilously close to advocating violence. It is expressed in the various black nationalist groups that are springing up over the nation, the largest and best known being Elijah Muhammad's Muslim movement. This movement is nourished by the contemporary frustration over the continued existence of racial discrimination. It is made up of people who have lost faith in America, who have absolutely repudiated Christianity, and who have concluded that the white man is an incurable devil. I have tried to stand between these two forces, saying that we need not follow the do-nothingism of the complacent or the hatred and despair of the black nationalist. There is a more excellent way, of love and nonviolent protest. I'm grateful to God that, through the Negro church, the dimension of nonviolence entered our struggle. If this philosophy had not emerged, I am convinced that by now many streets of the South would be flowing with floods of blood. And I am further convinced that if our white brothers dismiss as "rabble-rousers" and "outside agitators" those of us who are working through the channels of nonviolent direct action and refuse to support our nonviolent efforts, millions of Negroes, out of frustration and despair, will seek solace and security in black nationalist ideologies, a development that will lead inevitably to a frightening racial nightmare.
Oppressed people cannot remain oppressed forever. The urge for freedom will eventually come. This is what has happened to the American Negro. Something within has reminded him of his birthright of freedom; something without has reminded him that he can gain it. Consciously and unconsciously, he has been swept in by what the Germans call the Zeitgeist, and with his black brothers of Africa and his brown and yellow brothers of Asia, South America, and the Caribbean, he is moving with a sense of cosmic urgency toward the promisedland of racial justice. Recognizing this vital urge that has engulfed the Negro community, one should readily understand public demonstrations. The Negro has many pent-up resentments and latent frustrations. He has to get them out. So let him march sometime; let him have his prayer pilgrimages to the city hall; understand why he must have sit-ins and freedom rides. If his repressed emotions do not come out in these nonviolent ways, they will come out in ominous expressions of violence. This is not a threat; it is a fact of history. So I have not said to my people, "Get rid of your discontent." But I have tried to say that this normal and healthy discontent can be channeled through the creative outlet of nonviolent direct action. Now this approach is being dismissed as extremist. I must admit that I was initially disappointed in being so categorized.
But as I continued to think about the matter, I gradually gained a bit of satisfaction from being considered an extremist. Was not Jesus an extremist in love? -- "Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, pray for them that despitefully use you." Was not Amos an extremist for justice? -- "Let justice roll down like waters and righteousness like a mighty stream." Was not Paul an extremist for the gospel of Jesus Christ? -- "I bear in my body the marks of the Lord Jesus." Was not Martin Luther an extremist? -- "Here I stand; I can do no other so help me God." Was not John Bunyan an extremist? -- "I will stay in jail to the end of my days before I make a mockery of my conscience." Was not Abraham Lincoln an extremist? -- "This nation cannot survive half slave and half free." Was not Thomas Jefferson an extremist? -- "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal." So the question is not whether we will be extremist, but what kind of extremists we will be. Will we be extremists for hate, or will we be extremists for love? Will we be extremists for the preservation of injustice, or will we be extremists for the cause of justice?
I had hoped that the white moderate would see this. Maybe I was too optimistic.
Martin Luther King Jr.
Martin Luther King might have been talking about the plight of Black Americans in a dark time, but they're not the only ones for whom these words hold truth. I highly suggest reading the entirety of this paper however. King may be most famous for his oratory, but he was an excellent writer.
Prestor Jon wrote:Blocking a road without a permit is illegal and dangerous and road blocking will lead to justifiable arrests and isn't a prerequisite for an effective protest. Celebrities can advocate for whatever they want, same as poor people. Protests don't have to be violent to be effective. MLK preached was adamant that the Southern Christian Leadership Conference practice nonviolent protests and they were very effective.
Blocking a road is not violence, it's just a inconvenience. MLK also had something to say about people who think one should only protest according to some idealised idea of a protest and when it's not causing too many problems with your schedule.
Again, I never said it was violent I said it was dangerous and unlawful and can cause accidents. If you want to play in traffic go for it but I wouldn't recommend it.
Not every road blocking protest is a well organized slow developing daytime occurrence with good visibility.
I would actually think night is a great time to start a road blocking protest. As a guy who worked nights most of his life, I can tell you even busy rush hour highways can be quite barren at five in the morning. A good time to throw on some orange jackets, some flashlights, and raise the picket signs.
I'm going to copy/paste the relevant section you link, because I think it's a good thing to add and important for people to read;
Spoiler:
I must make two honest confessions to you, my Christian and Jewish brothers. First, I must confess that over the last few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in the stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Council-er, or the Klu Klux Klanner, but the white moderate who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I can't agree with your methods of direct action;" who paternalistically feels that he can set the time-table for another man's freedom; who lives by the myth of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait until a "more convenient season." Shaloow understanding from people of goodwill is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.
I had hoped that the white moderate would understand that law and order exist for the purpose of establishing justice, and that when they fail to do this they become the dangerously structured dams that block the flow of social progress. I had hoped that the white moderate would understand that the present tension in the South is merely a necessary phase of the transition from an obnoxious negative peace, where the Negro passively accepted his unjust plight, to a substance-filled positive peace, where all men will respect the dignity and worth of human personality. Actually, we who engage in nonviolent direct action are not the creators of tension. We merely bring to the surface the hidden tension that is already alive. We bring it out in the open where it can be seen and dealt with. Like a boil that can never be dured as long as it is covered up but must be opened with all its pus-flowing ugliness to the natural medicines of air and light, injustice must likewise be exposed, with all of the tension its exposing creates, to the light of human sonscience and the air of national opinion before it can be cured.
In your statement you asserted that our actions, even though peaceful, must be condemned because they precipitate violence. But can this assertion be logically made? Isn't this like condemning the robbed man because his possession of money precipitated the evil act of robbery? Isn't this like condeming Socrates because his unswerving commitment to truth and his philosophical delvings precipitated the misguided popular mind to make him drink the hemlock? Isn't this like condemning Jesus because his unique God-consciousness and never-ceasing devotion to His will precipitated the evil act of crucifixion? We must come to see, as federal courts have consistentyly affirmed, that it is immoral to urge an individual to withdraw his efforts to gain his basic constitutional rights because the quest precipitates violence. Society must protect the robbed and punish the robber.
I had also hoped that the white moderate would reject the myth of time. I received a letter this morning from a white brother in Texas which said, "All Christians know that the colored people will receive equal rights eventually, but is it possible that you are in too great of a religious hurry? It has taken Christianity almost 2000 years to accomplish what it has. The teachings of Christ take time to come to earth." All that is said here grows out of a tragic misconception of time. It is the strangely irrational notion that there is something in the very flow of time that will inevitably cure all ills. Actually, time is neutral. It can be used either destructively or constructively. I am coming to feel that the people of ill will have used time much more effectively than the people of good will. We will have to repent in this generation not merely for the vitriolic words and actions of the bad people but for the appalling silence of the good people. We must come to see that human progress never rolls in on wheels of inevitability. It comes through the tireless efforts and persistent work of men willing to be coworkers with God, and without this hard work time itself becomes an ally of the forces of social stagnation. YOU spoke of our activity in Birmingham as extreme. At first I was rather disappointed that fellow clergymen would see my nonviolent efforts as those of an extremist. I started thinking about the fact that I stand in the middle of two opposing forces in the Negro community. One is a force of complacency made up of Negroes who, as a result of long years of oppression, have been so completely drained of self-respect and a sense of "somebodyness" that they have adjusted to segregation, and, on the other hand, of a few Negroes in the middle class who, because of a degree of academic and economic security and because at points they profit by segregation, have unconsciously become insensitive to the problems of the masses. The other force is one of bitterness and hatred and comes perilously close to advocating violence. It is expressed in the various black nationalist groups that are springing up over the nation, the largest and best known being Elijah Muhammad's Muslim movement. This movement is nourished by the contemporary frustration over the continued existence of racial discrimination. It is made up of people who have lost faith in America, who have absolutely repudiated Christianity, and who have concluded that the white man is an incurable devil. I have tried to stand between these two forces, saying that we need not follow the do-nothingism of the complacent or the hatred and despair of the black nationalist. There is a more excellent way, of love and nonviolent protest. I'm grateful to God that, through the Negro church, the dimension of nonviolence entered our struggle. If this philosophy had not emerged, I am convinced that by now many streets of the South would be flowing with floods of blood. And I am further convinced that if our white brothers dismiss as "rabble-rousers" and "outside agitators" those of us who are working through the channels of nonviolent direct action and refuse to support our nonviolent efforts, millions of Negroes, out of frustration and despair, will seek solace and security in black nationalist ideologies, a development that will lead inevitably to a frightening racial nightmare.
Oppressed people cannot remain oppressed forever. The urge for freedom will eventually come. This is what has happened to the American Negro. Something within has reminded him of his birthright of freedom; something without has reminded him that he can gain it. Consciously and unconsciously, he has been swept in by what the Germans call the Zeitgeist, and with his black brothers of Africa and his brown and yellow brothers of Asia, South America, and the Caribbean, he is moving with a sense of cosmic urgency toward the promisedland of racial justice. Recognizing this vital urge that has engulfed the Negro community, one should readily understand public demonstrations. The Negro has many pent-up resentments and latent frustrations. He has to get them out. So let him march sometime; let him have his prayer pilgrimages to the city hall; understand why he must have sit-ins and freedom rides. If his repressed emotions do not come out in these nonviolent ways, they will come out in ominous expressions of violence. This is not a threat; it is a fact of history. So I have not said to my people, "Get rid of your discontent." But I have tried to say that this normal and healthy discontent can be channeled through the creative outlet of nonviolent direct action. Now this approach is being dismissed as extremist. I must admit that I was initially disappointed in being so categorized.
But as I continued to think about the matter, I gradually gained a bit of satisfaction from being considered an extremist. Was not Jesus an extremist in love? -- "Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, pray for them that despitefully use you." Was not Amos an extremist for justice? -- "Let justice roll down like waters and righteousness like a mighty stream." Was not Paul an extremist for the gospel of Jesus Christ? -- "I bear in my body the marks of the Lord Jesus." Was not Martin Luther an extremist? -- "Here I stand; I can do no other so help me God." Was not John Bunyan an extremist? -- "I will stay in jail to the end of my days before I make a mockery of my conscience." Was not Abraham Lincoln an extremist? -- "This nation cannot survive half slave and half free." Was not Thomas Jefferson an extremist? -- "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal." So the question is not whether we will be extremist, but what kind of extremists we will be. Will we be extremists for hate, or will we be extremists for love? Will we be extremists for the preservation of injustice, or will we be extremists for the cause of justice?
I had hoped that the white moderate would see this. Maybe I was too optimistic.
Martin Luther King Jr.
Martin Luther King might have been talking about the plight of Black Americans in a dark time, but they're not the only ones for whom these words hold truth. I highly suggest reading the entirety of this paper however. King may be most famous for his oratory, but he was an excellent writer.
I agree with you and am still puzzled as to why you were so vehemently argumentative in the Charlotte riots thread when the violence and looting were condemned and the point that nonviolence is indeed "the more excellent way" to protest was made.
So um.. yeah. Being Scottish, that's the first time I've ever read anything from Martin Luther King Jr and, well, especially with the stuff going on right now with John Lewis, I really can't help but sit here and go.
"Dude... Like... Dude... C'mon. You must realise how close to a knife edge we all are right now."
Of course, my second thought is that we really need to have the next X-Men film, set in the 90's have its villains be the Friends of Humanity.
- Of course, Professor X being based on Martin Luther King Jr, with Magneto being based on Malcolm X.
I agree with you and am still puzzled as to why you were so vehemently argumentative in the Charlotte riots thread when the violence and looting were condemned and the point that nonviolence is indeed "the more excellent way" to protest was made.
Speaking from the heart?
I don't like violence. At heart I am a pacifist. I am saddened when an American soldier dies far from home, and shockingly I am saddened when the ISIS insurgent who killed him is killed in turn. Because its fething sad. A waste of life. But that is sadly the world. I do not know what causes someone to join ISIS. I don't understand it. I don't know how someone can travel from being some kid playing with other kids to lining people up and gunning them down in God's name. I don't know how anyone gets that twisted inside... I do know why people in Charlotte would riot. Because my country leaves whole communities in squalor. Trivializes their cries for help. Reduces the neigh infinite complexity of our world and society into petty and self-serving claims about who worked hard, and who has a "good culture." I understand why people in Charlotte riot for the same reason Martin Luther King offered a fervent defense of nonviolent direct action in his letter from Birmingham; because "oppressed people cannot remain oppressed forever." Either they will be acknowledged, vindicated as human beings and helped, or they "out of frustration and despair will seek solace and security" in extreme actions.
I tried to talk about why the people in Charlotte were rioting and all some of the posters in that thread seemed to want to do was pat each other on the back in agreement about how wrong it is to destroy roads and bridges. I argued vehemently because people just don't seem to get it. it was a thread wide case of missing the point. And it's going to happen again (riots not the thread... that might happen to) because as a society we are still ignoring the problem. We'd rather pass vindicitive laws to punish the dissenters, or build a stupid oil pipeline that can go a different direction for a few more tax dollars than even talk about solving the problem. And that's not just the Republicans or Conservatives I'm accusing. I might think them worse on this matter, but it's not like shouting down someone for dropping the n-bomb is helping. Go ahead and shout him down, he deserves it, but Jesus it sure is easier to shout someone down than to actually walk into an inner city and come up with a good plan to make it better isn't it? The Democrats haven't offered a compelling policy strategy for tackling urban blight in inner city.neighborhoods recently. I share King's frustration, because I see a lot of talk and little follow through. And part of that comes from my own helplessness because God knows I don't know how to fix any of it...
LordofHats wrote: If you get rear ended, the person behind you was following to closely. No protestor is responsible for their reckless driving.
If you willfully put an obstruction such as yourself in the road creating a hazard that disrupts traffic and causes an accident you are responsible for the accident. It's no different than if you throw something off an overpass onto the highway below and cause an accident it's your fault.
Maybe. But how different US driving laws are to Finland? In Finland in above scenario don't know what the person standing in road would be charged but either way the one crashing from behind would regardless be charged of unsafe driving. His job is to keep safe distance that he CAN stop even if the one ahead does sudden break. That's what "safe distance" means. You are supposed to have enough distance ahead you for the car ahead to be able to make emergency stop without you driving straight into him.
Although TBF some of those merely pointed sniper rifles at law enforcement officials.
Oh yeah, they did do that didn't they XD
So people would be okay (or rather sympahetic towards) with demonstrators protesting the government so long as they have guns, point them at law enforcement, and proclaimed their intent to start the Second American Revolution because the government of the United States is an illegal foreign power, and attest to s willingness to "defend themselves" if "attacked" by said illegal foreign power's jack boot thugs?
Hold on. I'll let the Liberal Hive Mind know right away. To think, all anyone had to do was point guns at people this whole time!
/end sarcasm
I actually expected someone might ask about Bundy but I admit that was not the comment on the matter I expected XD
Hah. You know how I mentioned the friends of humanity from Xmen a few posts back, in the cartoon, they were defeated when it was revealed their founder, Craydon Creed was the son of the mutant, Victor Creed, aka Sabertooth. The entire movement was based on one mans self loathing.
Those cartoons really were great at talking about important stuff.
wuestenfux wrote: Inauguration will become a disaster. No celebrities announced. Foreign statesmen might feel a bit disoriented by Trumps statements made recently.
Yup. Looks like it's going to be terrible
Prestor Jon wrote: Is there a high incidence of any other crimes in the area besides pot smoking? The mere act of smoking marijuana really doesn't negatively impact anyone. People should be free to smoke or not smoke marijuana as they choose its pretty pathetic that we've criminalized smoking marijuana.
Found the Bernie supporter wearing a Bob Marley beanie. It's an illegal drug.
Voter suppression isnt just thugs outside of polling places.
Since nobody is giving you any attention with your conspiracy theory BS, I will give it a go.
First: the rolling stone? Really? The same rag that published that fake university rape story and then doubled down on it when it came to light it was false before trying to backtrack and save face? Real reputable source there...
Second: my state, Indiana, had organizations registering Illinois voters in our state, thus giving people opportunity to vote in two states. So the basis for the crosschecking law at least has a precedent.
Third: I don't remember a spot on my ballot to list my race, so I really question this absurdity.
Yup, just like Russian hacking the DNC...until it wasn't. Millions of votes were eliminated? Why? Because of this program. What system is there to make sure those votes were eliminated correctly? None.
I know the shpeel... It's a conspiracy theory. No proof. Sit down. Shut up. It's the standard argument made by those threatened by people actually talking. The system discussed was designed to fix the nearly nonexistent problem of inperson voter fraud. What we got was a thinly veiled attempt to radically effect the election. And when ts brought up what do we get? The instant its a conspiracy cry. Sad, considering we are talking about disenfranchising millions of people.
One appreciates there's a degree of hyperbole there but it's....... odd....... to say the least.
FFS, Charles Stross and his joke-prediction for the next year is going to turn out to be right. We'll have Trump going on vacation as much as possible, with the same people who shrieked whenever they saw Obama outside of D.C. defending the orange blowhard until they're red in the face.
reds8n wrote: Do people really care about the inauguration ?
was/is anyone planning on watching it ?
Not really, no. It's another speech that takes away from work and/or painting miniatures or drinking wine.
No one really watches it unless they receive social security, are in social studies class, or is a journalist.
If he had Maria Carrie lip syncing in a deep V dress, I'd watch. Or that red headed British chick from that show on TV that time.
If it wasn't so early in the day I'd proffer a nice drinking game involving shots every time the term "bigly," "am I right?," and "great" are mentioned.
One appreciates there's a degree of hyperbole there but it's....... odd....... to say the least.
FFS, Charles Stross and his joke-prediction for the next year is going to turn out to be right. We'll have Trump going on vacation as much as possible, with the same people who shrieked whenever they saw Obama outside of D.C. defending the orange blowhard until they're red in the face.
Hmmm... in my circle we cheered whenever the Obama's goes on vacation or when he's on the golf course... he can't do any damage to the country.
Likewise, we should always encourage Drumpf to go on vacay... less time in the oval office.
wuestenfux wrote: Inauguration will become a disaster. No celebrities announced. Foreign statesmen might feel a bit disoriented by Trumps statements made recently.
Yup. Looks like it's going to be terrible
Prestor Jon wrote: Is there a high incidence of any other crimes in the area besides pot smoking? The mere act of smoking marijuana really doesn't negatively impact anyone. People should be free to smoke or not smoke marijuana as they choose its pretty pathetic that we've criminalized smoking marijuana.
Found the Bernie supporter wearing a Bob Marley beanie. It's an illegal drug.
Ha. I'm a registered Independent who's voted for more Libertarian candidates than any other party and I've never smoked marijuana. None of which is relevant to the fact that pot smoking in and of itself isn't a dangerous crime and the reasoning behind the Feds/DEA making it an illegal substance are incredibly weak and faulty.
No, but smokers of marijuana do become crashing bores - only every going on about their drug of choice like it's somehow controversial and edgy, or forever dragging conversations back to when they last had enough wherewithal to follow. Which can be hours.
Voter suppression isnt just thugs outside of polling places.
Since nobody is giving you any attention with your conspiracy theory BS, I will give it a go.
First: the rolling stone? Really? The same rag that published that fake university rape story and then doubled down on it when it came to light it was false before trying to backtrack and save face? Real reputable source there...
Second: my state, Indiana, had organizations registering Illinois voters in our state, thus giving people opportunity to vote in two states. So the basis for the crosschecking law at least has a precedent.
Third: I don't remember a spot on my ballot to list my race, so I really question this absurdity.
Yup, just like Russian hacking the DNC...until it wasn't. Millions of votes were eliminated? Why? Because of this program. What system is there to make sure those votes were eliminated correctly? None.
I know the shpeel... It's a conspiracy theory. No proof. Sit down. Shut up. It's the standard argument made by those threatened by people actually talking. The system discussed was designed to fix the nearly nonexistent problem of inperson voter fraud. What we got was a thinly veiled attempt to radically effect the election. And when ts brought up what do we get? The instant its a conspiracy cry. Sad, considering we are talking about disenfranchising millions of people.
When the crux of your crackpot conspiracy is "throw out all the black and brown votes" I do call it a crackpot conspiracy theory. If you can show proof that they somehow isolated black and brown voters to discard their votes, I'll be on board. Until then: crackpot conspiracy theory.
...
In summary: In 2009, we identified the outlines of what would become a Democratic problem: weakness among traditionally Democratic voters in rural areas and towns. In 2016, this weakness became significant enough that it overwhelmed Democratic strength in urban areas in two states that President Obama had won. As we saw above, this is significant, because while urban areas are growing, they are growing at a slower rate than many analysts seem to appreciate.
I think the harkening back to the days of Zoot Suit riots is extremely appropriate for this nomination. My smooth dance moves will mesh bigly to the pending inauguration.
Prestor Jon wrote: Is there a high incidence of any other crimes in the area besides pot smoking? The mere act of smoking marijuana really doesn't negatively impact anyone. People should be free to smoke or not smoke marijuana as they choose its pretty pathetic that we've criminalized smoking marijuana.
Found the Bernie supporter wearing a Bob Marley beanie. It's an illegal drug.
You just responded to someone arguing that marijuana shouldn't be illegal by stating that it's illegal as if that were a counterargument. Do you realize the level of nonsense that represents?
Why didn't any of the Black presidents do anything about slavery huh ?!
First, it's LaPage. He's almost as bad as Trump when it comes to speaking without thinking.
Second, the Republican party of Lincoln, Grant, etc., is not the Republican party of today, so perhaps LePage should be the one checking his history.
Why didn't any of the Black presidents do anything about slavery huh ?!
First, it's LaPage. He's almost as bad as Trump when it comes to speaking without thinking.
Second, the Republican party of Lincoln, Grant, etc., is not the Republican party of today, so perhaps LePage should be the one checking his history.
I honestly thought Trump couldn't be topped on this front to be honest.
I mean the guy last got arrested while a sitting member of the House in 2013 during a sit-in protesting the lack of meaningful immigration reform coming from Congress (during a government shut down, cause apparently the government having no money is no excuse to not arrest people for the crime sitting somewhere Congress finds their presence inconvenient). He was a Freedom Rider, and a member of the Big Six who was beaten half to death by the KKK and Donald Trump wants to lecture him on making a difference because he wrote a comic book about his experiences?
Why didn't any of the Black presidents do anything about slavery huh ?!
First, it's LaPage. He's almost as bad as Trump when it comes to speaking without thinking.
Second, the Republican party of Lincoln, Grant, etc., is not the Republican party of today, so perhaps LePage should be the one checking his history.
The Republican Party of Today is not even the Republican Party of last year.
If "stop bitching, we passed our last great civil rights bill 50 years ago, what more do you want" is the best defense the GOP has to offer, I would say that speaks pretty loudly against them.
d-usa wrote: If "stop bitching, we passed our last great civil rights bill 50 years ago, what more do you want" is the best defense the GOP has to offer, I would say that speaks pretty loudly against them.
"If he knew about it, it could very well be a violation of the law," Schumer told CNN. "Now they say there's a broker, it's kind of strange that this broker would pick this stock totally independently of him introducing legislation that's so narrow and specific to this company."
Schumer also called for an investigation of Price after CNN reported that Price bought up to $15,000 worth of stock in Zimmer Biomet -- a medical device maker -- and then introduced a measure that would have directly benefited the company. One week after Price bought the stock, he put in a measure that would have delayed a new regulation that would have harmed the company.
First on CNN: Trump's Cabinet pick invested in company, then introduced a bill to help it
"This is a very narrow, specific company that dealt with implants—hip and knee—and the legislation specifically affects implants. He puts it in a week after he buys the stock? That cries out for an investigation," Schumer told CNN.
"If he knew about it, it could very well be a violation of the law," Schumer told CNN. "Now they say there's a broker, it's kind of strange that this broker would pick this stock totally independently of him introducing legislation that's so narrow and specific to this company."
Schumer also called for an investigation of Price after CNN reported that Price bought up to $15,000 worth of stock in Zimmer Biomet -- a medical device maker -- and then introduced a measure that would have directly benefited the company. One week after Price bought the stock, he put in a measure that would have delayed a new regulation that would have harmed the company.
First on CNN: Trump's Cabinet pick invested in company, then introduced a bill to help it
"This is a very narrow, specific company that dealt with implants—hip and knee—and the legislation specifically affects implants. He puts it in a week after he buys the stock? That cries out for an investigation," Schumer told CNN.
Seems awfully coincidential...
Chuckie would have the opportunity to ask Price about that tomorrow.
"If he knew about it, it could very well be a violation of the law," Schumer told CNN. "Now they say there's a broker, it's kind of strange that this broker would pick this stock totally independently of him introducing legislation that's so narrow and specific to this company."
Schumer also called for an investigation of Price after CNN reported that Price bought up to $15,000 worth of stock in Zimmer Biomet -- a medical device maker -- and then introduced a measure that would have directly benefited the company. One week after Price bought the stock, he put in a measure that would have delayed a new regulation that would have harmed the company.
First on CNN: Trump's Cabinet pick invested in company, then introduced a bill to help it
"This is a very narrow, specific company that dealt with implants—hip and knee—and the legislation specifically affects implants. He puts it in a week after he buys the stock? That cries out for an investigation," Schumer told CNN.
I propose a broad inquisitorial mandate that will drag on for years and years, followed by unjustifiable innate assumptions of guilt regardless of the outcome of the investigation, followed by further investigations, followed by more innate assumptions of guilt.
Firstly insider trading is totally legal within congress. How do you think Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and many many more make their millions after being elected?
SickSix wrote: Firstly insider trading is totally legal within congress. How do you think Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and many many more make their millions after being elected?
Wait... wut?
...I think I vaguely remember this, but do you have a legal source for this?
SickSix wrote: Firstly insider trading is totally legal within congress. How do you think Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and many many more make their millions after being elected?
The same Nancy Pelosi who voted for the STOCK Act? The very act which made what Tom Price is accused of illegal?
SickSix wrote: Firstly insider trading is totally legal within congress. How do you think Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and many many more make their millions after being elected?
You want strict ethics rules? Start at the top -- with the shining example of the noble knights of the House of Representatives, which bans all gifts from lobbyists and imposes a $50 limit on gifts from anyone else. And no, you can't give an infinite number of $49 gifts to Larry Lawmaker. Sayeth the holy rulebook.
The general provision goes on to state that a member, officer or employee may accept from any other source virtually any gift valued below $50, with a limitation of less than $100 in gifts from any single source in a calendar year. Gifts having a value of less than $10 do not count toward the annual limit.
Okay, so maybe you can give an infinite number of $9.99 gifts, and meals are specifically designated as such. Feel free to make your case to Rep. Portentous over a daily lunch at Arby's. But still: pretty tight rules, eh?
Except that one thing you can do as a member is study pending legislation and regulatory changes, call up your broker and instruct him to trade on that nonpublic information. Do this as often as you want; you will suffer no penalty. There is no limit to how much money you can earn on insider trading in the House or Senate. Lawmakers and their staffers are specifically exempted.
As you might expect, those who work in the hallowed halls are not shy about availing themselves of the opportunity. A Wall Street Journal analysis published more than six months ago that has thus far provoked no particular sense of shame on Capitol Hill found that at least 72 Congressional aides in both parties had recently traded shares of companies that their bosses helped regulate. In 2009, while Senate Banking Committee member Mike Crapo, a Republican from Idaho, was involved in discussing “stress tests” on banks such as Bank of America, his aide Karen Brown traded the company's stock on several occasions in the weeks before May 7, 2009 -- when BofA surged thanks to a press release on its stress-test result, assuring Ms. Brown a nifty profit.
Asked by the Wall Street Journal to explain, Sen. Crapo's office said the trades weren't really made by Karen Brown but by her husband, who had no knowledge of what was going on in the banking committee. Would you go to your compliance officer, much less the SEC, with that line? True, these folks do need a good laugh now and again, and the SEC has to be in a jolly mood after the jury in the Galleon case all but repeated the verdict from The Producers: “We find the defendants incredibly guilty.”
Last week a study of some 16,000 stock transactions carried out by House members was published in the journal Business and Politics. This detailed analysis showed that the investment portfolios of House members beat the market by about six points a year. (Democrats did especially well, outperforming by some nine points a year, while Republicans topped the average investor by only two percent annually.) Senators apparently do even better: “their portfolios show some of the highest excess returns ever recorded over a long period of time, significantly outperforming even hedge fund managers,” noted the journal, citing a previously published study.
In a surprising twist, the study found that there tended to be an inverse relationship between the lawmaker's seniority and the insider-trading profits pocketed by him and his minions. The authors speculated that “Whereas Representatives with the longest seniority (in this case more than 16 years), have no trouble raising funds for campaigns, junkets and whatever other causes they may deem desirable owed to the power they wield, the financial condition of a freshman Congressman is far more precarious. His or her position is by no means secure, financially or otherwise. House Members with the least seniority may have fewer opportunities to trade on privileged information, but they may be the most highly motivated to do so when the opportunities arise.”
Doesn't that give you a cozy feeling, knowing that nonpublic securities info is helping make your friendly local politician more secure as he daydreams new ways to prevent, limit, or appropriate for his own reelection purposes - sorry, the needs of the Republic!-- your financial success?
It's not an accident that Congressionalites are expressly exempt from insider-trading laws. The reasoning is that, were the situation otherwise, “it might tend to “insulate a legislator from the personal and economic interests that his/her constituency, or society in general, has in governmental decisions and policy,” says the House ethics manual.
This is entirely beside the point: no one would object if lawmakers placed their assets in ETFs, in which case they'd still have an interest in the overall performance of the market. Or why not be simple and allow Congressional trading on everything except nonpublic information?
In what must be treated as more of a practical joke than a serious effort at legislation, every so often a group of lawmakers typically numbering in the high single digits proposes that Congress be subjected to the same insider-trading laws as you or me. Said proposal is always swiftly ignored -- it has yet to reach the House floor and hasn't even been bandied in the Senate. Then everyone goes out to their Spartan lunches of baloney and Cheez Curls, comfortable in the knowledge that they have improved on the Golden Rule: He who makes the rules pockets the gold.
Here in the UK, when it's the Queen's birthday, you're legally allowed to start blasting cannons in celebrations.
Anything similar in the USA?
The Wife is making me take jitterbug lessons that Friday. We have matching dance shoes.
Matching dance shoes! Oh my God, that's so fething...adorable. I remember taking dance lessons with my wife for our wedding. I love her, but she's Elaine Benes when it comes to dancing.
You want strict ethics rules? Start at the top -- with the shining example of the noble knights of the House of Representatives, which bans all gifts from lobbyists and imposes a $50 limit on gifts from anyone else. And no, you can't give an infinite number of $49 gifts to Larry Lawmaker. Sayeth the holy rulebook.
The general provision goes on to state that a member, officer or employee may accept from any other source virtually any gift valued below $50, with a limitation of less than $100 in gifts from any single source in a calendar year. Gifts having a value of less than $10 do not count toward the annual limit.
Okay, so maybe you can give an infinite number of $9.99 gifts, and meals are specifically designated as such. Feel free to make your case to Rep. Portentous over a daily lunch at Arby's. But still: pretty tight rules, eh?
Except that one thing you can do as a member is study pending legislation and regulatory changes, call up your broker and instruct him to trade on that nonpublic information. Do this as often as you want; you will suffer no penalty. There is no limit to how much money you can earn on insider trading in the House or Senate. Lawmakers and their staffers are specifically exempted.
As you might expect, those who work in the hallowed halls are not shy about availing themselves of the opportunity. A Wall Street Journal analysis published more than six months ago that has thus far provoked no particular sense of shame on Capitol Hill found that at least 72 Congressional aides in both parties had recently traded shares of companies that their bosses helped regulate. In 2009, while Senate Banking Committee member Mike Crapo, a Republican from Idaho, was involved in discussing “stress tests” on banks such as Bank of America, his aide Karen Brown traded the company's stock on several occasions in the weeks before May 7, 2009 -- when BofA surged thanks to a press release on its stress-test result, assuring Ms. Brown a nifty profit.
Asked by the Wall Street Journal to explain, Sen. Crapo's office said the trades weren't really made by Karen Brown but by her husband, who had no knowledge of what was going on in the banking committee. Would you go to your compliance officer, much less the SEC, with that line? True, these folks do need a good laugh now and again, and the SEC has to be in a jolly mood after the jury in the Galleon case all but repeated the verdict from The Producers: “We find the defendants incredibly guilty.”
Last week a study of some 16,000 stock transactions carried out by House members was published in the journal Business and Politics. This detailed analysis showed that the investment portfolios of House members beat the market by about six points a year. (Democrats did especially well, outperforming by some nine points a year, while Republicans topped the average investor by only two percent annually.) Senators apparently do even better: “their portfolios show some of the highest excess returns ever recorded over a long period of time, significantly outperforming even hedge fund managers,” noted the journal, citing a previously published study.
In a surprising twist, the study found that there tended to be an inverse relationship between the lawmaker's seniority and the insider-trading profits pocketed by him and his minions. The authors speculated that “Whereas Representatives with the longest seniority (in this case more than 16 years), have no trouble raising funds for campaigns, junkets and whatever other causes they may deem desirable owed to the power they wield, the financial condition of a freshman Congressman is far more precarious. His or her position is by no means secure, financially or otherwise. House Members with the least seniority may have fewer opportunities to trade on privileged information, but they may be the most highly motivated to do so when the opportunities arise.”
Doesn't that give you a cozy feeling, knowing that nonpublic securities info is helping make your friendly local politician more secure as he daydreams new ways to prevent, limit, or appropriate for his own reelection purposes - sorry, the needs of the Republic!-- your financial success?
It's not an accident that Congressionalites are expressly exempt from insider-trading laws. The reasoning is that, were the situation otherwise, “it might tend to “insulate a legislator from the personal and economic interests that his/her constituency, or society in general, has in governmental decisions and policy,” says the House ethics manual.
This is entirely beside the point: no one would object if lawmakers placed their assets in ETFs, in which case they'd still have an interest in the overall performance of the market. Or why not be simple and allow Congressional trading on everything except nonpublic information?
In what must be treated as more of a practical joke than a serious effort at legislation, every so often a group of lawmakers typically numbering in the high single digits proposes that Congress be subjected to the same insider-trading laws as you or me. Said proposal is always swiftly ignored -- it has yet to reach the House floor and hasn't even been bandied in the Senate. Then everyone goes out to their Spartan lunches of baloney and Cheez Curls, comfortable in the knowledge that they have improved on the Golden Rule: He who makes the rules pockets the gold.
SickSix wrote: Firstly insider trading is totally legal within congress. How do you think Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and many many more make their millions after being elected?
The same Nancy Pelosi who voted for the STOCK Act?
Hey man, she's in Congress and she's rich and clearly cheating is the only way anyone can be in Congress and rich. Remember that time Harry Reid was serving on the Nevada Gaming Commission and was offered a bribe of $12,000 and instead of taking the money he called the FBI? I mean honestly. Where did he go to Rich Guy School? Nah. He had to go to Congress cause that's where he learned the best way to profit from his position was to back laws for greater financial transparency.
You want strict ethics rules? Start at the top -- with the shining example of the noble knights of the House of Representatives, which bans all gifts from lobbyists and imposes a $50 limit on gifts from anyone else. And no, you can't give an infinite number of $49 gifts to Larry Lawmaker. Sayeth the holy rulebook.
The general provision goes on to state that a member, officer or employee may accept from any other source virtually any gift valued below $50, with a limitation of less than $100 in gifts from any single source in a calendar year. Gifts having a value of less than $10 do not count toward the annual limit.
Okay, so maybe you can give an infinite number of $9.99 gifts, and meals are specifically designated as such. Feel free to make your case to Rep. Portentous over a daily lunch at Arby's. But still: pretty tight rules, eh?
Except that one thing you can do as a member is study pending legislation and regulatory changes, call up your broker and instruct him to trade on that nonpublic information. Do this as often as you want; you will suffer no penalty. There is no limit to how much money you can earn on insider trading in the House or Senate. Lawmakers and their staffers are specifically exempted.
As you might expect, those who work in the hallowed halls are not shy about availing themselves of the opportunity. A Wall Street Journal analysis published more than six months ago that has thus far provoked no particular sense of shame on Capitol Hill found that at least 72 Congressional aides in both parties had recently traded shares of companies that their bosses helped regulate. In 2009, while Senate Banking Committee member Mike Crapo, a Republican from Idaho, was involved in discussing “stress tests” on banks such as Bank of America, his aide Karen Brown traded the company's stock on several occasions in the weeks before May 7, 2009 -- when BofA surged thanks to a press release on its stress-test result, assuring Ms. Brown a nifty profit.
Asked by the Wall Street Journal to explain, Sen. Crapo's office said the trades weren't really made by Karen Brown but by her husband, who had no knowledge of what was going on in the banking committee. Would you go to your compliance officer, much less the SEC, with that line? True, these folks do need a good laugh now and again, and the SEC has to be in a jolly mood after the jury in the Galleon case all but repeated the verdict from The Producers: “We find the defendants incredibly guilty.”
Last week a study of some 16,000 stock transactions carried out by House members was published in the journal Business and Politics. This detailed analysis showed that the investment portfolios of House members beat the market by about six points a year. (Democrats did especially well, outperforming by some nine points a year, while Republicans topped the average investor by only two percent annually.) Senators apparently do even better: “their portfolios show some of the highest excess returns ever recorded over a long period of time, significantly outperforming even hedge fund managers,” noted the journal, citing a previously published study.
In a surprising twist, the study found that there tended to be an inverse relationship between the lawmaker's seniority and the insider-trading profits pocketed by him and his minions. The authors speculated that “Whereas Representatives with the longest seniority (in this case more than 16 years), have no trouble raising funds for campaigns, junkets and whatever other causes they may deem desirable owed to the power they wield, the financial condition of a freshman Congressman is far more precarious. His or her position is by no means secure, financially or otherwise. House Members with the least seniority may have fewer opportunities to trade on privileged information, but they may be the most highly motivated to do so when the opportunities arise.”
Doesn't that give you a cozy feeling, knowing that nonpublic securities info is helping make your friendly local politician more secure as he daydreams new ways to prevent, limit, or appropriate for his own reelection purposes - sorry, the needs of the Republic!-- your financial success?
It's not an accident that Congressionalites are expressly exempt from insider-trading laws. The reasoning is that, were the situation otherwise, “it might tend to “insulate a legislator from the personal and economic interests that his/her constituency, or society in general, has in governmental decisions and policy,” says the House ethics manual.
This is entirely beside the point: no one would object if lawmakers placed their assets in ETFs, in which case they'd still have an interest in the overall performance of the market. Or why not be simple and allow Congressional trading on everything except nonpublic information?
In what must be treated as more of a practical joke than a serious effort at legislation, every so often a group of lawmakers typically numbering in the high single digits proposes that Congress be subjected to the same insider-trading laws as you or me. Said proposal is always swiftly ignored -- it has yet to reach the House floor and hasn't even been bandied in the Senate. Then everyone goes out to their Spartan lunches of baloney and Cheez Curls, comfortable in the knowledge that they have improved on the Golden Rule: He who makes the rules pockets the gold.
You want strict ethics rules? Start at the top -- with the shining example of the noble knights of the House of Representatives, which bans all gifts from lobbyists and imposes a $50 limit on gifts from anyone else. And no, you can't give an infinite number of $49 gifts to Larry Lawmaker. Sayeth the holy rulebook.
The general provision goes on to state that a member, officer or employee may accept from any other source virtually any gift valued below $50, with a limitation of less than $100 in gifts from any single source in a calendar year. Gifts having a value of less than $10 do not count toward the annual limit.
Okay, so maybe you can give an infinite number of $9.99 gifts, and meals are specifically designated as such. Feel free to make your case to Rep. Portentous over a daily lunch at Arby's. But still: pretty tight rules, eh?
Except that one thing you can do as a member is study pending legislation and regulatory changes, call up your broker and instruct him to trade on that nonpublic information. Do this as often as you want; you will suffer no penalty. There is no limit to how much money you can earn on insider trading in the House or Senate. Lawmakers and their staffers are specifically exempted.
As you might expect, those who work in the hallowed halls are not shy about availing themselves of the opportunity. A Wall Street Journal analysis published more than six months ago that has thus far provoked no particular sense of shame on Capitol Hill found that at least 72 Congressional aides in both parties had recently traded shares of companies that their bosses helped regulate. In 2009, while Senate Banking Committee member Mike Crapo, a Republican from Idaho, was involved in discussing “stress tests” on banks such as Bank of America, his aide Karen Brown traded the company's stock on several occasions in the weeks before May 7, 2009 -- when BofA surged thanks to a press release on its stress-test result, assuring Ms. Brown a nifty profit.
Asked by the Wall Street Journal to explain, Sen. Crapo's office said the trades weren't really made by Karen Brown but by her husband, who had no knowledge of what was going on in the banking committee. Would you go to your compliance officer, much less the SEC, with that line? True, these folks do need a good laugh now and again, and the SEC has to be in a jolly mood after the jury in the Galleon case all but repeated the verdict from The Producers: “We find the defendants incredibly guilty.”
Last week a study of some 16,000 stock transactions carried out by House members was published in the journal Business and Politics. This detailed analysis showed that the investment portfolios of House members beat the market by about six points a year. (Democrats did especially well, outperforming by some nine points a year, while Republicans topped the average investor by only two percent annually.) Senators apparently do even better: “their portfolios show some of the highest excess returns ever recorded over a long period of time, significantly outperforming even hedge fund managers,” noted the journal, citing a previously published study.
In a surprising twist, the study found that there tended to be an inverse relationship between the lawmaker's seniority and the insider-trading profits pocketed by him and his minions. The authors speculated that “Whereas Representatives with the longest seniority (in this case more than 16 years), have no trouble raising funds for campaigns, junkets and whatever other causes they may deem desirable owed to the power they wield, the financial condition of a freshman Congressman is far more precarious. His or her position is by no means secure, financially or otherwise. House Members with the least seniority may have fewer opportunities to trade on privileged information, but they may be the most highly motivated to do so when the opportunities arise.”
Doesn't that give you a cozy feeling, knowing that nonpublic securities info is helping make your friendly local politician more secure as he daydreams new ways to prevent, limit, or appropriate for his own reelection purposes - sorry, the needs of the Republic!-- your financial success?
It's not an accident that Congressionalites are expressly exempt from insider-trading laws. The reasoning is that, were the situation otherwise, “it might tend to “insulate a legislator from the personal and economic interests that his/her constituency, or society in general, has in governmental decisions and policy,” says the House ethics manual.
This is entirely beside the point: no one would object if lawmakers placed their assets in ETFs, in which case they'd still have an interest in the overall performance of the market. Or why not be simple and allow Congressional trading on everything except nonpublic information?
In what must be treated as more of a practical joke than a serious effort at legislation, every so often a group of lawmakers typically numbering in the high single digits proposes that Congress be subjected to the same insider-trading laws as you or me. Said proposal is always swiftly ignored -- it has yet to reach the House floor and hasn't even been bandied in the Senate. Then everyone goes out to their Spartan lunches of baloney and Cheez Curls, comfortable in the knowledge that they have improved on the Golden Rule: He who makes the rules pockets the gold.
Voter suppression isnt just thugs outside of polling places.
Since nobody is giving you any attention with your conspiracy theory BS, I will give it a go.
First: the rolling stone? Really? The same rag that published that fake university rape story and then doubled down on it when it came to light it was false before trying to backtrack and save face? Real reputable source there...
Second: my state, Indiana, had organizations registering Illinois voters in our state, thus giving people opportunity to vote in two states. So the basis for the crosschecking law at least has a precedent.
Third: I don't remember a spot on my ballot to list my race, so I really question this absurdity.
Yup, just like Russian hacking the DNC...until it wasn't. Millions of votes were eliminated? Why? Because of this program. What system is there to make sure those votes were eliminated correctly? None.
I know the shpeel... It's a conspiracy theory. No proof. Sit down. Shut up. It's the standard argument made by those threatened by people actually talking. The system discussed was designed to fix the nearly nonexistent problem of inperson voter fraud. What we got was a thinly veiled attempt to radically effect the election. And when ts brought up what do we get? The instant its a conspiracy cry. Sad, considering we are talking about disenfranchising millions of people.
When the crux of your crackpot conspiracy is "throw out all the black and brown votes" I do call it a crackpot conspiracy theory. If you can show proof that they somehow isolated black and brown voters to discard their votes, I'll be on board. Until then: crackpot conspiracy theory.
So, just coincidence that it is primarily minorities that get knocked out by that scheme? Sure. Just like it's coincidence that voter ID laws primarily effect minorities. Sure, all just a coincidence. No discriminatory intent there...
You want strict ethics rules? Start at the top -- with the shining example of the noble knights of the House of Representatives, which bans all gifts from lobbyists and imposes a $50 limit on gifts from anyone else. And no, you can't give an infinite number of $49 gifts to Larry Lawmaker. Sayeth the holy rulebook.
The general provision goes on to state that a member, officer or employee may accept from any other source virtually any gift valued below $50, with a limitation of less than $100 in gifts from any single source in a calendar year. Gifts having a value of less than $10 do not count toward the annual limit.
Okay, so maybe you can give an infinite number of $9.99 gifts, and meals are specifically designated as such. Feel free to make your case to Rep. Portentous over a daily lunch at Arby's. But still: pretty tight rules, eh?
Except that one thing you can do as a member is study pending legislation and regulatory changes, call up your broker and instruct him to trade on that nonpublic information. Do this as often as you want; you will suffer no penalty. There is no limit to how much money you can earn on insider trading in the House or Senate. Lawmakers and their staffers are specifically exempted.
As you might expect, those who work in the hallowed halls are not shy about availing themselves of the opportunity. A Wall Street Journal analysis published more than six months ago that has thus far provoked no particular sense of shame on Capitol Hill found that at least 72 Congressional aides in both parties had recently traded shares of companies that their bosses helped regulate. In 2009, while Senate Banking Committee member Mike Crapo, a Republican from Idaho, was involved in discussing “stress tests” on banks such as Bank of America, his aide Karen Brown traded the company's stock on several occasions in the weeks before May 7, 2009 -- when BofA surged thanks to a press release on its stress-test result, assuring Ms. Brown a nifty profit.
Asked by the Wall Street Journal to explain, Sen. Crapo's office said the trades weren't really made by Karen Brown but by her husband, who had no knowledge of what was going on in the banking committee. Would you go to your compliance officer, much less the SEC, with that line? True, these folks do need a good laugh now and again, and the SEC has to be in a jolly mood after the jury in the Galleon case all but repeated the verdict from The Producers: “We find the defendants incredibly guilty.”
Last week a study of some 16,000 stock transactions carried out by House members was published in the journal Business and Politics. This detailed analysis showed that the investment portfolios of House members beat the market by about six points a year. (Democrats did especially well, outperforming by some nine points a year, while Republicans topped the average investor by only two percent annually.) Senators apparently do even better: “their portfolios show some of the highest excess returns ever recorded over a long period of time, significantly outperforming even hedge fund managers,” noted the journal, citing a previously published study.
In a surprising twist, the study found that there tended to be an inverse relationship between the lawmaker's seniority and the insider-trading profits pocketed by him and his minions. The authors speculated that “Whereas Representatives with the longest seniority (in this case more than 16 years), have no trouble raising funds for campaigns, junkets and whatever other causes they may deem desirable owed to the power they wield, the financial condition of a freshman Congressman is far more precarious. His or her position is by no means secure, financially or otherwise. House Members with the least seniority may have fewer opportunities to trade on privileged information, but they may be the most highly motivated to do so when the opportunities arise.”
Doesn't that give you a cozy feeling, knowing that nonpublic securities info is helping make your friendly local politician more secure as he daydreams new ways to prevent, limit, or appropriate for his own reelection purposes - sorry, the needs of the Republic!-- your financial success?
It's not an accident that Congressionalites are expressly exempt from insider-trading laws. The reasoning is that, were the situation otherwise, “it might tend to “insulate a legislator from the personal and economic interests that his/her constituency, or society in general, has in governmental decisions and policy,” says the House ethics manual.
This is entirely beside the point: no one would object if lawmakers placed their assets in ETFs, in which case they'd still have an interest in the overall performance of the market. Or why not be simple and allow Congressional trading on everything except nonpublic information?
In what must be treated as more of a practical joke than a serious effort at legislation, every so often a group of lawmakers typically numbering in the high single digits proposes that Congress be subjected to the same insider-trading laws as you or me. Said proposal is always swiftly ignored -- it has yet to reach the House floor and hasn't even been bandied in the Senate. Then everyone goes out to their Spartan lunches of baloney and Cheez Curls, comfortable in the knowledge that they have improved on the Golden Rule: He who makes the rules pockets the gold.
How about you post the actual bill that made it impossible to verify. I have clicked on your link, and the link in that, and the link in that. I am currently 4 links deep, and I have yet to find an actual primary source that says what you (and these links) claim it says.
President Obama quietly signed legislation Monday that rolled back a provision of the STOCK Act that required high-ranking federal employees to disclose their financial information online.
The White House announced Monday that the president had signed S. 716, which repealed a requirement of the Stop Trading on Congressional Knowledge (STOCK) Act requiring the disclosure, which had previously been delayed several times by Congress.
That provision, added to the bipartisan bill aimed at halting insider trading by members of Congress, would have required roughly 28,000 senior government officials to post their financial information online, and had come under harsh criticism from federal government employee unions.
...
Under the new law, the beefed-up reporting requirements will still apply to the president, vice president, members of Congress and candidates for Congress. Some presidentially nominated and Senate-confirmed government employees would also still adhere to the new disclosure requirement. The new law also delays the creation of that database until the beginning of 2014.
Edit:
Of note, it didn't make insider trading illegal, just hard to verify that it did or didn't happen. Even for those federal employees, if you can proof it happened it's still something you can prosecute.
In other recurring news: once again trump is being sued for sexual assault, only this time he can't settle like he usually does, especially if this jeffrey guy is involved. I don't know who he is, but that seems to be a brilliant tactic against trump.
Jeffrey Guterman Verified account
@JeffreyGuterman
#Allred states client #SummerZervos willing to dismiss lawsuit if #Trump retracts false allegations calling her liar & admit sexual assault.
3:07 PM - 17 Jan 2017
Christina Wilkie White House reporter, The Huffington Post
A former contestant on Donald Trump’s reality show “The Apprentice” on Friday became the 11th woman to accuse the Republican nominee of sexual assault or misconduct, alleging that in 2007, Trump brought her to a hotel bungalow and forced himself on her.
Speaking at a press conference in Los Angeles, Summer Zervos described an encounter with Trump in a Beverly Hills hotel room where, she said, Trump kissed and groped her. Nearly a dozen women have come forward in recent days with similar stories of unwanted sexual advances from Trump, who has denied all accusations.
Zervos said she reached out to Trump some time after appearing on the NBC show in hopes of getting work at Trump’s real estate company. (Zervos appeared on the fifth season of “The Apprentice,” which aired in 2006.) She lived in L.A., but met with Trump during a trip to New York and asked about a job.
Zervos says that Trump kissed her on the lips at the start of their meeting ― “I was surprised, but felt that perhaps it was just his form of greeting” ― and praised her performance on his show. He mentioned that he’d be in Los Angeles soon and would be in touch.
“As I was about to leave, he again kissed me on the lips,” Zervos said. “This made me feel nervous and embarrassed. This is not what I wanted or expected.”
At Trump’s request, Zervos said, she gave him her phone number. “I left hurriedly and called a friend who lived in New York, because I was upset by the kiss,” she said. “I also called my parents to let them know what had happened.”
Back in L.A., she says, Trump called her and asked to meet her for dinner. Rather than take her to a restaurant, Trump had one of his security guards escort her to a bungalow at the Beverly Hills Hotel.
X
Soon after she arrived, Zervos said, Trump “came to me and started kissing me open-mouthed as he was pulling me towards him. I walked away and I sat down on a chair ... He then asked me to sit next to him. I complied, and he then grabbed my shoulder and began kissing me again very aggressively and placed his hand on my breast.”
When she got up and walked away, she said, Trump “grabbed my hand and walked me into the bedroom.” She walked out of the room, at which point she says Trump suggested: “Let’s lay down and watch some telly-telly.”
“He put me in an embrace and I tried to push him away,” Zervos said. “I pushed his chest to put space between us, and I said, ‘Come on, man, get real.’ He repeated my words back to me ― ‘get reeeal’ ― as he began thrusting his genitals. He tried to kiss me again, and with my hand still on his chest, I said, ‘Dude, you’re tripping right now.’”
“He said, ‘What do you want?’” Zervos said. “And I said, ‘I came to have dinner.’ He said, ‘OK, we’ll have dinner.’”
Once it was clear she would not entertain his advances, Zervos said, Trump “paced around the room. He acted like he was a bit angry. He pointed out that someone had delivered a fruit basket.” Zervos said she felt like Trump pointed out the fruit basket “to show me how important he was.”
Over a shared sandwich for dinner, Zervos said, Trump advised her to default on her home mortgage, even though the loan was in good standing. Trump, she said, bragged about how he was able to “maneuver to get out of debt.” Once she defaulted on her home, Trump told Zervos, she should call the bank and say she planned to leave the keys on the kitchen table and walk away forever. “He said that would be a mini version of what he does,” she said.
Trump does, in fact, have a long history of using bankruptcy courts and debt defaults to get out of having to repay money he borrows from banks and investors. His four corporate bankruptcies have dogged Trump on the presidential campaign trail, where Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton has joked that Trump’s many ghostwritten business advice books “all seem to end at Chapter 11.”
A spokeswoman for the Trump campaign did not immediately respond to The Huffington Post’s request for comment.
UPDATE 11:55 p.m. ― Trump responded to Zervos on Friday evening, saying in a statement that he barely remembered her from “The Apprentice,” and “never met her at a hotel or greeted her inappropriately a decade ago.”
Also on Friday, Trump’s campaign issued a statement from what it said was a Zervos cousin named John Barry, who said Zervos had always spoken highly of Trump. Barry speculated that Zervos’ account of the assault was “an attempt to regain the spotlight at Mr. Trump’s expense,” according to the statement.
The Huffington Post was unable to independently verify Barry’s authenticity, or his relationship to Zervos.
UPDATE: Oct. 15: Attorney Gloria Allred told The Huffington Post on Saturday that a third witness, Ann Russo, has come forward to corroborate Zervos’ account of her experience with Trump. Allred also confirmed that John Barry is a cousin of Zervos’ who previously worked at her family restaurant but whose employment ended “several months ago.”
Today President Obama commuted the sentence of former US Army Private, Chelsea Manning. I read the President's statement and am disappointed with his reasoning and his contrast (in part at least) with the Snowden case.
I believe this will ultimately damage President Obama's legacy and I fully expect Democrats to be hammered with this in the mid-term elections as part of the "soft on crime" label.
Breotan wrote: Today President Obama commuted the sentence of former US Army Private, Chelsea Manning. I read the President's statement and am disappointed with his reasoning and his contrast (in part at least) with the Snowden case.
I believe this will ultimately damage President Obama's legacy and I fully expect Democrats to be hammered with this in the mid-term elections as part of the "soft on crime" label.
Well... that's disappointing...
I guess that means Snowden/Bergdahlwill be commuted.
What's the likelihood that Clinton and her staff getting a 'blanketed' pardoned?
Manning is a scumbag. Violated his oath, violated his NDAs, gave up a gak ton of classified during time of war, with some of it related to ongoing ops.
feeder wrote: Did Manning's actions lead to anything more than embarrassing the US? Did any operatives lose their lives, for example?
Would we honestly be told? Revealing any such operatives might in itself endanger other operatives, assets, etc. We likely won't know until all records are unsealed 50-100 years from now.
Breotan wrote: Today President Obama commuted the sentence of former US Army Private, Chelsea Manning. I read the President's statement and am disappointed with his reasoning and his contrast (in part at least) with the Snowden case.
I believe this will ultimately damage President Obama's legacy and I fully expect Democrats to be hammered with this in the mid-term elections as part of the "soft on crime" label.
Well... that's disappointing...
I guess that means Snowden/Bergdahlwill be commuted.
What's the likelihood that Clinton and her staff getting a 'blanketed' pardoned?
Yeah, I don't like it. She should serve her time. Snowden, I could see, as he was actually doing something good (revealing that the government was spying on citizens), but he ran away to Russia, so that rules that our for me.
Yeah, I don't like it. She should serve her time. Snowden, I could see, as he was actually doing something good (revealing that the government was spying on citizens), but he ran away to Russia, so that rules that our for me.
Because of the later I'd actually posit that pardoning Snowden is a prudent course. I feel that Snowden acted honestly out of conscience, and he fled because he had to. Russia used him now as a propaganda tool. The US government lost on that one. Give up, and let the guy come home.
Manning's behavior was reckless, and I honestly think there is something wrong with her (and its not that she's trans, she really does seem to have some issues outside that), so if Obama thinks she should be pardoned I supposed I don't really care that much. A few years were served, its not like anyone else is going to jump at the chance to do the same thing and gamble on Trump or whoever comes next offering them leniency.
Breotan wrote: Today President Obama commuted the sentence of former US Army Private, Chelsea Manning. I read the President's statement and am disappointed with his reasoning and his contrast (in part at least) with the Snowden case.
I believe this will ultimately damage President Obama's legacy and I fully expect Democrats to be hammered with this in the mid-term elections as part of the "soft on crime" label.
Well... that's disappointing...
I guess that means Snowden/Bergdahlwill be commuted.
What's the likelihood that Clinton and her staff getting a 'blanketed' pardoned?
Yeah, I don't like it. She should serve her time. Snowden, I could see, as he was actually doing something good (revealing that the government was spying on citizens), but he ran away to Russia, so that rules that our for me.
Regardless, there were/are legal means to "blow the whistle". They chose not to use that avenue... hence why da' law hammer came crashing down.
The unfortunate lesson here is that Obama will be blamed for every jr. intel officer who goes off the reservation for the next 15 or so years, who'll cite this as precedent...
Yeah, I don't like it. She should serve her time. Snowden, I could see, as he was actually doing something good (revealing that the government was spying on citizens), but he ran away to Russia, so that rules that our for me.
Because of the later I'd actually posit that pardoning Snowden is a prudent course. I feel that Snowden acted honestly out of conscience, and he fled because he had to. Russia used him now as a propaganda tool. The US government lost on that one. Give up, and let the guy come home.
Snowden undeniably embarrassed the Whitehouse... and they had to scramble to clean up the mess diplomatically.
For all the hysteria over the Podesta/DNC hack that was given to Wikileak, it's the Snowden/Manning document dump that pleased our adversaries (Russia/China/etc...).
Manning's behavior was reckless, and I honestly think there is something wrong with her (and its not that she's trans, she really does seem to have some issues outside that), so if Obama thinks she should be pardoned I supposed I don't really care that much. A few years were served, its not like anyone else is going to jump at the chance to do the same thing and gamble on Trump or whoever comes next offering them leniency.
The only thing that makes sense to me about this pardon, was that Obama was pandering to his LGBT base.
It's good to be king with plenary pardon powah... eh?
Regardless, there were/are legal means to "blow the whistle". They chose not to use that avenue... hence why da' law hammer came crashing down.
I thought the issue was the whistle-blowin' process was revealed to be a sham.... hence, the leakage.
The unfortunate lesson here is that Obama will be blamed for every jr. intel officer who goes off the reservation for the next 15 or so years, who'll cite this as precedent...
Can there never be enough "Thanks, Obama"?
The only thing that makes sense to me about this pardon, was that Obama was pandering to his LGBT base.
It's good to be king with plenary pardon powah... eh?
Pandering for what? He's running for Senator again?
whembly wrote: The unfortunate lesson here is that Obama will be blamed for every jr. intel officer who goes off the reservation for the next 15 or so years, who'll cite this as precedent...
whembly wrote: The only thing that makes sense to me about this pardon, was that Obama was pandering to his LGBT base.
Alternatively, her sentence (including extremely poor treatment in prison) was vastly disproportionate to the crime and clearly a "you embarrassed us, now you're going to pay for it" thing rather than any kind of justice. Commuting (NOT pardoning) her sentence to the time she's already spent in prison is a legitimate act of mercy and decency, no pandering required.
whembly wrote: The unfortunate lesson here is that Obama will be blamed for every jr. intel officer who goes off the reservation for the next 15 or so years, who'll cite this as precedent...
So, why commute Manning? The justifications are very weak-sauced.
She knowingly and intentionally placed lives in danger by indiscriminately placing our nation’s secrets in the public domain.
She [b]risked American lives.
She risked allied lives.
She dumped hundreds of thousands of classified documents into the public domain without the slightest regard for the lives of others.
These documents detailed US military operations, the identities of American military allies, and placed sensitive American diplomatic relationships at risk... and Obama's own Whitehouse really had to scramble to mitigate the damages.
There is simply no excuse.
The only thing that makes sense to me about this pardon, was that Obama was pandering to his LGBT base.
Or to call Assange's bluff to extradite himself. Or to rid the DoD of having to deal with all of the complications Manning was going to cause them.
I don't believe Obama would do that "just to give the DoD" an out of providing her treatments.
So the question remains... why should her gender dysphoria have any bearings to the merits of her commutation?
The Assange thing is purely a joke. He ain't going to turn himself in... especially since Obama won't be able to do ANYTHING meaningful as he won't be president anymore. (may it's great to say that! )
It's good to be king with plenary pardon powah... eh?
Well, Manning wasn't pardoned and I don't think her life after May 2017 is going to be all gumdrops and rainbows.
Oh, I know her dishonorable discharge remains in effect. But, it's difficult to square the severity of her crimes to Obama commutation.
Hey, isn’t that … Vice President-elect Mike Pence, roaming the aisles of the Safeway near his Chevy Chase rental home on Thursday night? The suit-clad Veep-to-be was shopping solo (that is, except for a herd of Secret Service agents surrounding him), a fellow shopper tells us, and ultimately located the object of his mission: two half-gallon tubs of Turkey Hill ice cream.
Pence shook hands with a cashier on the way out but otherwise went undisturbed. He left in a convoy of three SUVs.
Maybe he was responding to a hey-can-you-pick-something-up on-your-way-home request from his family? Or does Marlon Bundo eat ice cream?
whembly wrote: So the question remains... why should her gender dysphoria have any bearings to the merits of her commutation?
Because it's related to her poor treatment in prison. If she was receiving proper treatment (as a woman) for it in prison then it wouldn't be relevant, and the merits of the commutation would be entirely the fact that her sentence was a disproportionate act of revenge.
Last chance, folks. There's debate on closing the thread permanently, and some voices in favor of closing the OT forum permanently. Kindly conduct yourselves with at least a little decorum, and in accordance with Dakka's few rules.
... So what happened in the Mountain West? Well, the same thing as happened in the South: The Republican share went up a fair amount in rural areas, and down a bit in urban areas. But unlike the South, this was a bad trade-off for Republicans here. Unless something changes, this will pose problems for Republicans in the future.
It's continuing the trend of how polarizing "rural vs urban" areas.
I also like their description of "contagion" when analyzing the trends...
Rosebuddy wrote: Chelsea Manning is a hero and that she will finally be freed is the week's first piece of good news. It has really made my day to hear it.
I strongly disagree mate.... The reason Manning was tried and convicted in the first place was because of the massive stack of paperwork showing behavioral issues. Manning's actions are very clearly a childish lashing out at her leadership and military service.
In actual political news, I'm seeing from numerous sources that the DeVos confirmation hearings aren't going so well for her... Many senators who are in favor of strong public schools are hammering her.... this is good news.
Donald Trump announces plans for military parades in major US cities after he becomes President
'We’re going to show the people as we build up our military, we’re going to display our military'
Donald Trump announces plans for military parades in major US cities after he becomes President
'We’re going to show the people as we build up our military, we’re going to display our military'
Like all the really great countries do.
Oi Vey.... Does this clown not realize that our roads are utter gak? I mean, if he goes through with this, we're gonna be forced to repair/replace roads that are even more undrivable because of M1 and M2 tracks tearing them up.
Donald Trump announces plans for military parades in major US cities after he becomes President 'We’re going to show the people as we build up our military, we’re going to display our military'
Like all the really great countries do.
Oi Vey.... Does this clown not realize that our roads are utter gak? I mean, if he goes through with this, we're gonna be forced to repair/replace roads that are even more undrivable because of M1 and M2 tracks tearing them up.
I don't see the situation as outside the realm of possibility that Trump, who seems incapable of letting go of grudges, would have military marches through Democrat-held cities as a means of intimidation, and then force them to pay for the necessary repairs. Or promise federal funds for repairs that never manage to appear.
In actual political news, I'm seeing from numerous sources that the DeVos confirmation hearings aren't going so well for her... Many senators who are in favor of strong public schools are hammering her.... this is good news.
Donald Trump announces plans for military parades in major US cities after he becomes President 'We’re going to show the people as we build up our military, we’re going to display our military'
Like all the really great countries do.
Its a shame Obama didn't do this. The militia aluminum hat wearing wannabees would be losing their minds. I'll have to see if they lose their minds on Salon and Slate.
EDIT: Agreed. I don't want military parades going through town. The last time we had military parades in Texas, they were wearing blue...
WrentheFaceless wrote: I was under the impression that a dishonorable discharge pretty much boned you for life in of itself?
Inmate Manning who will now transition(ahem) into being Felon Manning will probably be a quasi celebrity in some circles until people move on to their next passion project. Manning will be alright, as long as help is given for the appropriate mental issues.
I know a few folks that have Dishonorable Discharges and they're doing alright. It used to be a bigger deal, but from what I can see, personally, most employers are so insulated from anything related to military service that they don't even know what a DD entails.
Janthkin wrote: Last chance, folks. There's debate on closing the thread permanently, and some voices in favor of closing the OT forum permanently. Kindly conduct yourselves with at least a little decorum, and in accordance with Dakka's few rules.
I would have thought the cooking thread would have redeemed it. There's some serious awesome sauce there.
In actual political news, I'm seeing from numerous sources that the DeVos confirmation hearings aren't going so well for her... Many senators who are in favor of strong public schools are hammering her.... this is good news.
She schooled Sanders though. That was nice.
Source? And DeVos is literally the worst person they could've picked for the job. Well, at least we'll no longer have corrupt politicians, now we'll just have businessmen masquerading as politicians.
Oh man, I've always wanted to go to a military parade, goose steppping in real life is probably a more impressive sight to behold as opposed to historical footage. So should we be calling him Premier Trump, or Chairman Trump, or Dear Leader Trump now?
WrentheFaceless wrote: I was under the impression that a dishonorable discharge pretty much boned you for life in of itself?
You can petition to have your discharge changed. Depending on time and other factors, it is possible to get a dishonorable or bad conduct discharge upgraded to a general or even honorable discharge. You generally don't have to disclose information about your discharge to an employer but it will show up on a background check should one be done.
WrentheFaceless wrote: Oh man, I've always wanted to go to a military parade, goose steppping in real life is probably a more impressive sight to behold as opposed to historical footage. So should we be calling him Premier Trump, or Chairman Trump, or Dear Leader Trump now?
Jebus x.x
I haven't done a goose step, but I have done both the electric slide and the duck walk.
WrentheFaceless wrote: Oh man, I've always wanted to go to a military parade, goose steppping in real life is probably a more impressive sight to behold as opposed to historical footage. So should we be calling him Premier Trump, or Chairman Trump, or Dear Leader Trump now?
WrentheFaceless wrote: I was under the impression that a dishonorable discharge pretty much boned you for life in of itself?
Inmate Manning who will now transition(ahem) into being Felon Manning and will probably be a quasi celebrity in some circles until people move on to their next passion project. Manning will be alright, as long as help is given for the appropriate mental issues.
I know a few folks that have Dishonorable Discharges and they're doing alright. It used to be a bigger deal, but from what I can see, personally, most employers are so insulated from anything related to military service that they don't even know what a DD entails.
If they do a background check then that should pop up in the same way a felony conviction would with all the same alarm bells. Some people can do just fine with felony convictions or DD's on their record, but not usually in the corporate world, though I'd suspect that you're probably right and if Manning were to end up doing anything it'd be some sort of "quasi-celebrity" advocacy thing where that's not really an issue and people would specifically be seeking Manning out.
On another note, I think a lot of the emotion bound up in the thing has to do with the culture war aspect being fueled by Manning's identity issues and people either wanting to use that as an advocacy issue in a really hamfisted way, or to alternatively "stick it" to someone they can set up as the embodiment of the "america-hating liberal" or somesuch. The commutation doesn't bother me too much personally. Manning is a person with obvious deep issues one way or the other, and did something stupid, and now has already spent as much or more time behind bars as most people who leaked information have, having gone through the court system and admitted wrongdoing. I just wish all sides had toned down the rhetoric surrounding the whole affair.
Janthkin wrote: Last chance, folks. There's debate on closing the thread permanently, and some voices in favor of closing the OT forum permanently. Kindly conduct yourselves with at least a little decorum, and in accordance with Dakka's few rules.
I would have thought the cooking thread would have redeemed it. There's some serious awesome sauce there.
WrentheFaceless wrote: I was under the impression that a dishonorable discharge pretty much boned you for life in of itself?
Inmate Manning who will now transition(ahem) into being Felon Manning and will probably be a quasi celebrity in some circles until people move on to their next passion project. Manning will be alright, as long as help is given for the appropriate mental issues.
I know a few folks that have Dishonorable Discharges and they're doing alright. It used to be a bigger deal, but from what I can see, personally, most employers are so insulated from anything related to military service that they don't even know what a DD entails.
If they do a background check then that should pop up in the same way a felony conviction would with all the same alarm bells. Some people can do just fine with felony convictions or DD's on their record, but not usually in the corporate world, though I'd suspect that you're probably right and if Manning were to end up doing anything it'd be some sort of "quasi-celebrity" advocacy thing where that's not really an issue and people would specifically be seeking Manning out.
On another note, I think a lot of the emotion bound up in the thing has to do with the culture war aspect being fueled by Manning's identity issues and people either wanting to use that as an advocacy issue in a really hamfisted way, or to alternatively "stick it" to someone they can set up as the embodiment of the "america-hating liberal" or somesuch. The commutation doesn't bother me too much personally. Manning is a person with obvious deep issues one way or the other, and did something stupid, and now has already spent as much or more time behind bars as most people who leaked information have, having gone through the court system and admitted wrongdoing. I just wish all sides had toned down the rhetoric surrounding the whole affair.
Good post. And even handed as well.
Manning's crimes are complex IMO. But whatever your view, and I know some people regard Manning as a traitor, but I think Manning has repaid her debt to society with time already served, so I broadly support Obama's decision on this.
Snowden, on the other hand, is different in my book. Anybody who reveals that the American constitution was violated on such a scale, is a hero in my book. A patriot for defending the constitution from unlawful attacks.
The counter argument is that he should have consulted the proper channels, but when the Obama administration is actively pursuing whistleblowers on a scale never before seen, who can blame Snowden for getting out? Not I.
Like I said it's strange when men who actively sought to destroy the Union (Lee and Jackson) and who actively contributed to the deaths of thousands of Americans, get High Schools named after them, but a man who defends the constitution* against an enemy, this time a DOMESTIC enemy, is branded a traitor.
I strongly disagree mate.... The reason Manning was tried and convicted in the first place was because of the massive stack of paperwork showing behavioral issues. Manning's actions are very clearly a childish lashing out at her leadership and military service.
She was tried and convicted because she embarrassed the US armed forces by for example revealing videos of helicopters strafing vans full of civilians. That Obama chose now to commute her sentence proves that throwing her into solitary was only ever done out of political expediency.
"If he knew about it, it could very well be a violation of the law," Schumer told CNN. "Now they say there's a broker, it's kind of strange that this broker would pick this stock totally independently of him introducing legislation that's so narrow and specific to this company."
Schumer also called for an investigation of Price after CNN reported that Price bought up to $15,000 worth of stock in Zimmer Biomet -- a medical device maker -- and then introduced a measure that would have directly benefited the company. One week after Price bought the stock, he put in a measure that would have delayed a new regulation that would have harmed the company.
First on CNN: Trump's Cabinet pick invested in company, then introduced a bill to help it
"This is a very narrow, specific company that dealt with implants—hip and knee—and the legislation specifically affects implants. He puts it in a week after he buys the stock? That cries out for an investigation," Schumer told CNN.
Update to this ordeal... CNN is accused of journalistic malpractice:
However, CNN decided to leave out key facts:
Importantly, Price played no role in the decision to purchase the stock, which was executed under a broker-directed account by Morgan Stanley, according to a source with direct knowledge on the issue. The stock purchase was by his brokerage firm during a regular rebalancing of accounts.
The congressman — who for two decades was an orthopedic surgeon — also went on record opposing the CMS regulation six months before the stock selection had been made.
On Sept. 21, 2015 Price joined 60 Democrats and Republicans who questioned the Obama administration’s new, controversial Medicare reimbursement policy. In the letter, the group asked Andy Slavitt, the CMS acting administrator, to delay the regulation.
Further, Price introduced his legislation before he knew of the stock purchase. He was the chief sponsor of the HIP Act and he introduced it on March 23, 2016, according to House records. But Morgan Stanley did not inform Price of the Zimmer Biomet stock until April 14, according to House financial disclosure forms on the Georgia congressman’s transactions.
How big was the stock transaction that would have allowed Price to clean up? It was 26 shares, amounting to a little less than $2,700.
I strongly disagree mate.... The reason Manning was tried and convicted in the first place was because of the massive stack of paperwork showing behavioral issues. Manning's actions are very clearly a childish lashing out at her leadership and military service.
She was tried and convicted because she embarrassed the US armed forces by for example revealing videos of helicopters strafing vans full of civilians. That Obama chose now to commute her sentence proves that throwing her into solitary was only ever done out of political expediency.
She very clearly broke the law in an egregious manner.
Don't forget, that Al qaeda used the leak for their propaganda and these documents were found in Bin Laden's compound.
If she had any interest in whistle-blowing over a specific case or instances of what she viewed as misconduct in Iraq... there were ample channels available for her to take that up the chain or reached out to the IG for whistle-blower status. If, however, she received no satisfaction there... she could of pulled out the specific videos, instances and communications and then went to press, asking for anonymity from the reporter. She'd still be breaking the law, but at least she'd have a case...
However, she was accordingly tried and convicted by a military tribunal.
If there were issues with dealing with her dysphoria, it's incumbent to the incarceration system to deal with it appropriately... not to be used as a 'get out of jail' card.
If anything, Snowden's actions seemed more like a 'whistle-blower' act compared to what she did...
That manning clearly broke the law isn't disqualifying. Kinda the point o a pardon.
Serious question.... Man in let out active info on what we were doing and had done. What exactly, besides processes, did Snowden leak?
Oh, and considering the topics discussed i think everyone on the thread has been awesome. The mods are being way too prickly. I bet that criticism will be enough to get the thread closed.
WrentheFaceless wrote: Oh man, I've always wanted to go to a military parade, goose steppping in real life is probably a more impressive sight to behold as opposed to historical footage. So should we be calling him Premier Trump, or Chairman Trump, or Dear Leader Trump now?
I'm a fan of "Il Douche"
Pronounced, of course, to sound rather like "Il Duce", but juuuuust enough like "douche" for people to know its an insult.
ender502 wrote: The mods are being way too prickly. I bet that criticism will be enough to get the thread closed.
Uh, some of the replies on this thread, like most OT, have been pushing the line of Rule #1, if not damn sprinting up to the edge of it.
Not even close IMO. If the people involved with the thread don't mind then I don't see a problem.
Also, the mods have an incredible bias toward certain viewpoints. From conversations with others I has become abundantly clear that liberals are suspended for being "rude" and conservatives are not. Personally, I'd rather see that addressed.
Btw, can anyone help me out with what Snowden let out?
BigWaaagh wrote: Point of order as some comments on the matter are getting sloppy with the terminology. Manning received clemency, not a pardon. Big difference.
Yep. Refusing to use correct gender pronouns and not noticing the difference between clemency and a pardon shows this topic is about feelings, not facts.
Is the US really going forward with Trump "divesting" control of his companies to his kids? That seems an insufficient level of insulation between the PotUS and his conflicts of interest.
BigWaaagh wrote: Point of order as some comments on the matter are getting sloppy with the terminology. Manning received clemency, not a pardon. Big difference.
Yep. Refusing to use correct gender pronouns and not noticing the difference between clemency and a pardon shows this topic is about feelings, not facts.
Is the US really going forward with Trump "divesting" control of his companies to his kids? That seems an insufficient level of insulation between the PotUS and his conflicts of interest.
One would think...but ah...who's gonna do something about it? He's head of the executive branch and as president he gets to ostensibly be in charge of the Republican party as well, which happens to control both houses of congress, and he's got an open supreme court spot to fill that will break the current makeup with a court split 50/50 down ideological lines in his favor.
Also, the mods have an incredible bias toward certain viewpoints. From conversations with others I has become abundantly clear that liberals are suspended for being "rude" and conservatives are not. Personally, I'd rather see that addressed.
This thread is not the place to debate forum policy, but as someone who has been banned by the mods for being rude I can say I totally deserved it each and every time, and I know they have banned conservative members for doing the same.
Btw, can anyone help me out with what Snowden let out?
Snowden in 2013 released classified files to The Guardian and The Washington Post pertaining to the NSA's PRISM program.
BigWaaagh wrote: Point of order as some comments on the matter are getting sloppy with the terminology. Manning received clemency, not a pardon. Big difference.
Yep. Refusing to use correct gender pronouns and not noticing the difference between clemency and a pardon shows this topic is about feelings, not facts.
Is the US really going forward with Trump "divesting" control of his companies to his kids? That seems an insufficient level of insulation between the PotUS and his conflicts of interest.
No, you don't understand. Trump's spent his life building his brand. It's the most important thing he's ever been entrusted with. You can't expect him to turn it over to some competent stranger just so he can do some piffling little job like being President.
It's absolutely insufficient, but the GOP's going to let it go ahead anyway, I'm sure.
ender502 wrote: Also, the mods have an incredible bias toward certain viewpoints. From conversations with others I has become abundantly clear that liberals are suspended for being "rude" and conservatives are not. Personally, I'd rather see that addressed.
I've heard the exact same complaint from the Conservative side too. So the Mods must be doing something right.
whembly wrote: So the question remains... why should her gender dysphoria have any bearings to the merits of her commutation?
Because it's related to her poor treatment in prison. If she was receiving proper treatment (as a woman) for it in prison then it wouldn't be relevant, and the merits of the commutation would be entirely the fact that her sentence was a disproportionate act of revenge.
Obama is the Commander in Chief, if he thought Manning wasn't receiving proper treatment in prison then he could easily rectify that by issuing orders through the chain of command. The only reason to commute Manning's sentence would be if Obama had doubts regarding her guilt or the appropriateness of her sentence. Commuting her sentence because of poor treatment in prison is an admission by Obama that as Commander in Chief he can't control the conduct of the personnel in charge of military prisons. There's no excuse for the military to mistreat prisoners but there's no excuse for the President not to be able to put a stop to it either.
BigWaaagh wrote: Point of order as some comments on the matter are getting sloppy with the terminology. Manning received clemency, not a pardon. Big difference.
Yep. Refusing to use correct gender pronouns and not noticing the difference between clemency and a pardon shows this topic is about feelings, not facts.
Is the US really going forward with Trump "divesting" control of his companies to his kids? That seems an insufficient level of insulation between the PotUS and his conflicts of interest.
One would think...but ah...who's gonna do something about it? He's head of the executive branch and as president he gets to ostensibly be in charge of the Republican party as well, which happens to control both houses of congress, and he's got an open supreme court spot to fill that will break the current makeup with a court split 50/50 down ideological lines in his favor.
Yay!
Filling Scalia's vacant seat with a "conservative" justice would simply retain the same "conservative":"liberal" ratio the court had under Obama. Isn't divesting himself from his companies' operations and investment the same thing every president does? It's always been explained to me as every POTUS has their investments hidden out of their reach while they're in office.
ender502 wrote: Also, the mods have an incredible bias toward certain viewpoints. From conversations with others I has become abundantly clear that liberals are suspended for being "rude" and conservatives are not. Personally, I'd rather see that addressed.
I've heard the exact same complaint from the Conservative side too. So the Mods must be doing something right.
Yeah it's almost as if.... both sides are equally bad.
...
“Due to the Snowden leaks and other disclosures, terrorists also have a great understanding of how we seek to conduct surveillance including our methods, our tactics and the scope and scale of our efforts. They’ve altered the ways in which they communicate and this has led to a decrease in collection,” Mr. Rasmussen said at a February 12 hearing of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence.
“We have specific examples which I believe we have shared with the committee and the committee staff in classified session — specific examples of terrorists who have adopted greater security measures such as using various new types of encryption, terrorists who have dropped or changed email addresses, and terrorists who have simply stopped communicating in ways they had before, in part because they understand how we collected,” he said.
...
Also, the mods have an incredible bias toward certain viewpoints. From conversations with others I has become abundantly clear that liberals are suspended for being "rude" and conservatives are not. Personally, I'd rather see that addressed.
This thread is not the place to debate forum policy, but as someone who has been banned by the mods for being rude I can say I totally deserved it each and every time, and I know they have banned conservative members for doing the same.
Btw, can anyone help me out with what Snowden let out?
Snowden in 2013 released classified files to The Guardian and The Washington Post pertaining to the NSA's PRISM program.
EDIT: lol, putting links in quote boxes XD
Thats sorta what I figured I was less "a met with b" and more "this system is doing XYZ" in that case I would give Snowden a pass before Manning. Though, when Manning dis give info to WikiLeaks at least they seemed to actual audit the material rather than just a straight dump.
that guy".
Good thing I neither advocated or threatened as such...
Non-event.
Uh, some of the replies on this thread, like most