Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
whembly wrote: (like Hillary and to certain extent Patreous).
And even then, quite a big gap between those two.
Agreed. Hillary's situation is far worse.
Seems so. But I meant, Petraeus has been held accountable and his career is effectively over. Meanwhile, Hillary Clinton is widely regarded as the leading presidential candidate ...
A friend recently told me an old Russian saying about the law: "It's like a spider web. Small flies get stuck. But the big flies buzz right through."
The facts are a little more established with Petraeus, though. No one, not even him, denies knowingly mishandling classified data by handing it over to his mistress.
Breotan wrote: [Fox News posited, in essence, if Albright's unilateral support of women would include Carly Fiorina, the other woman running this election.
In an election which hews so strongly anti-establishment, it's curious that Carly Fiorina isn't doing better. After all, she's a Washington outsider and will remain so for the rest of her life.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/02/08 22:12:26
lord_blackfang wrote: Respect to the guy who subscribed just to post a massive ASCII dong in the chat and immediately get banned.
Flinty wrote: The benefit of slate is that its.actually a.rock with rock like properties. The downside is that it's a rock
Frazzled wrote: Hillary Clinton won't get 50% of the population. She couldn't win a primary in her own party.
Mark it here first. If Clinton runs as the Democratic candidate, unless the Republicans run a baffoon she will lose.
on a more important note, I'd like to throw my hat into the ring.
Wiener Party 2016 candidates:
Frazzled/TBone
"A bone in every bowl!"
Fraz was on point for the Republicans lack of chances due to their own choices right back on page one
Clinton still has massive Super Delegate counts on her side. If she does lose, I think the DNC will try to put a not-Sanders candidate up.
I secretly hope and pray that Sanders wins the majority of delegates but Clinton gets nominated due to the Super Delegates. There is nothing quite as wonderful as a tainted candidate on the opposing side.
2016/02/08 23:03:16
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Ouze wrote: The facts are a little more established with Petraeus, though. No one, not even him, denies knowingly mishandling classified data by handing it over to his mistress.
I saw a fairly recent article in the last week or so, in which Colin Powell has come out in "support" of Hillary over the email scandal. I put the support in quotes because he is pretty much calling this a witch hunt, and calls on the fact that apparently some of the classified emails, were retroactively classified. Which means that a decent number of emails were completely A-OK for her to handle the way she did, because they weren't actually Secret or TS or anything.
I think what I'd be interested in, in regards to Powell's point of retroactivity, is the when question. As in, when were the emails made classified? Because, if they were made such after the investigations started.....
2016/02/08 23:20:02
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
I figure Sanders wins easily, but if Clinton can keep it below double digits, she will be doing well there. On the GOP side:
Trump, but below current predictions.
Kasich, ekes out second place due to Rubio's poor debate.
Third is a crap shoot to me. It might be Rubio, or Cruz. Heck, even Christie might pull it out here.
If Rubio does come in third and below expectations, the race is up fro grabs again. If he does place a strong second, the nomination will be within sight for him due to the media bounce he will likely get. Cruz still has a shot in SC, but it will be an uphill battle for him.
Help me, Rhonda. HA!
2016/02/08 23:36:00
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
(CNN)Michael Bloomberg says he is considering running for president of the United States, a move that would dramatically shake up an already chaotic 2016 race.
In an interview with Financial Times, the media mogul and former New York City mayor said he was "looking at all the options" when asked about a possible bid.
"I'm listening to what candidates are saying and what the primary voters appear to be doing," Bloomberg said, adding that he would need to add his name on ballots by early March in order to stage a serious campaign.
The billionaire also issued his most damning indictment of the current campaigns to date.
"I find the level of discourse and discussion distressingly banal and an outrage and an insult to the voters," Bloomberg told the Financial Times, adding that the public deserved "a lot better."
Bloomberg's interview, which marks the first time the billionaire has confirmed that he is eyeing a presidential bid, took place in London and focused primarily on financial sustainability, a source with knowledge of the interview told CNN.
It wasn't until the end of the interview that the reporter, Oliver Ralph, asked the former mayor if he was considering running for president.
"What Bloomberg told (the Financial Times) is what he's been saying privately for weeks," the source said.
The New York Times reported last month that he was considering a plan to run as an independent because he was troubled by Donald Trump's success on the Republican side, and Hillary Clinton's inability to staunch Bernie Sanders' growth on the Democratic side.
Both Trump and Sanders currently have wide leads over their respective rivals in New Hampshire, which holds the first-in-the-nation primary on Tuesday. Trump and Sanders also had strong second-place showings in the Iowa caucuses last week.
Republican debate: CNN's Reality Check
Bloomberg would run as a moderate promising to bring compromise and business savvy to an election characterized by highly charged disputes and political partisanship.
Bloomberg is seen as a pragmatist and fiscal conservative who has taken liberal positions on issues like gun control and the environment.
Donald Trump: I'd beat Bloomberg'
With a $39 billion fortune, Bloomberg is expected to self-fund his campaign and would likely spend north of $1 billion to do it.
If Trump or Cruz is nominated for GOP candidate...
That's when I can see Bloomberg jumps in...
However, that's bad news for Hillary/Sanders, then Democratic nominee, as Bloomberg will pull more Democrat votes than GOP...
Ouze wrote: The facts are a little more established with Petraeus, though. No one, not even him, denies knowingly mishandling classified data by handing it over to his mistress.
I saw a fairly recent article in the last week or so, in which Colin Powell has come out in "support" of Hillary over the email scandal. I put the support in quotes because he is pretty much calling this a witch hunt, and calls on the fact that apparently some of the classified emails, were retroactively classified. Which means that a decent number of emails were completely A-OK for her to handle the way she did, because they weren't actually Secret or TS or anything.
I think what I'd be interested in, in regards to Powell's point of retroactivity, is the when question. As in, when were the emails made classified? Because, if they were made such after the investigations started.....
Source? I'm interested in seeing that, as Powell (and Rice) were pretty tight-lipped when this story broke out.
Note: "retroactively classified" is a red herring. Dept of States can only retroactively classify documents that were under the DoS' perview. They don't have that ability for classified documents that were "born" from other intelligence department. She had satellite information (from NGA) and TS-SAP (presumably CIA) on her homebrew server. Those were always classified and only the agencies where those information were "born" can declassify them...
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/02/08 23:40:30
Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!
2016/02/08 23:41:24
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Which side of the fence would Bloomberg run on though??
Also... isn't he viewed as a "dirty, gun-grabbing commie liberal" ?? in most right leaning circles (and many other circles aside from the right as well)
2016/02/08 23:45:11
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Also... isn't he viewed as a "dirty, gun-grabbing commie liberal" ?? in most right leaning circles (and many other circles aside from the right as well)
He would have to run as Independent (ala, Perot?).
He's a gun-grabbing, big government statist.
Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!
2016/02/08 23:45:49
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Note: "retroactively classified" is a red herring. Dept of States can only retroactively classify documents that were under the DoS' perview. They don't have that ability for classified documents that were "born" from other intelligence department. She had satellite information (from NGA) and TS-SAP (presumably CIA) on her homebrew server. Those were always classified and only the agencies where those information were "born" can declassify them...
The article I had read was unclear about what exactly was retroactively classified... There are indeed satellite maps that could be unclassified, but later on classified due to operations/decisions made.
I'm well aware of who has control and ability to classify/declassify things. It could be entirely possible that information received from another agency was FOUO when sent to her, but later on classified to Secret or higher. And yeah, that classification wouldn't change the fact that it once was on unclassified systems outside the agency, but outside agencies would still need to treat that information as such. It's not quite a breach of classified, but it certainly is a pain in the arse.
2016/02/08 23:51:53
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Note: "retroactively classified" is a red herring. Dept of States can only retroactively classify documents that were under the DoS' perview. They don't have that ability for classified documents that were "born" from other intelligence department. She had satellite information (from NGA) and TS-SAP (presumably CIA) on her homebrew server. Those were always classified and only the agencies where those information were "born" can declassify them...
The article I had read was unclear about what exactly was retroactively classified... There are indeed satellite maps that could be unclassified, but later on classified due to operations/decisions made.
I'm well aware of who has control and ability to classify/declassify things. It could be entirely possible that information received from another agency was FOUO when sent to her, but later on classified to Secret or higher. And yeah, that classification wouldn't change the fact that it once was on unclassified systems outside the agency, but outside agencies would still need to treat that information as such. It's not quite a breach of classified, but it certainly is a pain in the arse.
That's what the DoS and the Clintonites are trying to spin.
There were no, "hey, it wasn't classified from the getgo and it should, so let's do it now to be kosher".
She had classified information, even TS-SAP, that were never, EVERdeclassified. Here's a good starting point, with information/links galore to be better informed on this subject.
whembly wrote: (like Hillary and to certain extent Patreous).
And even then, quite a big gap between those two.
Agreed. Hillary's situation is far worse.
Seems so. But I meant, Petraeus has been held accountable and his career is effectively over. Meanwhile, Hillary Clinton is widely regarded as the leading presidential candidate ...
A friend recently told me an old Russian saying about the law: "It's like a spider web. Small flies get stuck. But the big flies buzz right through."
Hence my question:
Should we turn a blind eye on whether we have two sets of laws?
One for the highly connect? And...
One for everyone else?
I mean, didn't dakka have a massive thread on that "Afluenza" kid?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/02/08 23:58:38
Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!
2016/02/09 00:50:29
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Of course, I realize none of this will actually matter or even begin to change your mind, but whatever.
d-usa wrote: "When the Internet sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending posters that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing strawmen. They're bringing spam. They're trolls. And some, I assume, are good people."
2016/02/09 00:57:14
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Crimson wrote: Well, that was just bs. Really damaged the prestige of the prize.
I’ve gone through this a lot of times before, but… no, it really didn’t damage the prestige of the prize. The Peace Prize has always been more about encouraging ongoing peace efforts than rewarding people after the fact. And that’s a reasonable approach – in terms of doing good in the world it makes more sense to use the media attention and prestige of the prize to drive towards a final peaceful resolution, than to come in years after the fact when there’s nothing left to achieve.
And the award is also handed to people who’ve done horrible things, but are now trying to do something for peace. It isn’t about saints, but about people doing something really good right now.
All of that means that the award has been handed out to guys like Yassar Arafat. Obama is hardly even the worst US recipient, Henry Kissinger got the award.
So yeah, when the peace prize gave the award to Obama, it had already given it to some seriously gakky people. Whatever the prize’s reputation, it wasn’t changed by giving it to a president before he'd done anything significant for peace or human rights, even when he turned out to do very little for peace or human rights beyond not being Bush.
whembly wrote: It's not his fault... but you can't deny that it was used as a bully pulpit for awhile afterwards.
I can not only deny it, I can state that claim is fairly ridiculous. Throughout the entire peace prize process, Obama talked it down as much as he could. For the simple reason that he, along with almost everyone who wasn’t on the nobel committee, knew the award was pretty silly. Did he ever mention the award once, outside of being directly asked about. And how would he use it as part of a bully pulpit strategy anyway - turn to some combative congressman and shout ‘you should do what I say because not only am I the president, I’m also a nobel prize winner’.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/02/09 01:09:18
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
2016/02/09 01:16:15
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
All I need to know is not once did Obama use willing the Peace Prize as part of his campaign in 2012. Really that should have been the final word on the matter.
whembly wrote: It's not his fault... but you can't deny that it was used as a bully pulpit for awhile afterwards.
I can not only deny it, I can state that claim is fairly ridiculous. Throughout the entire peace prize process, Obama talked it down as much as he could. For the simple reason that he, along with almost everyone who wasn’t on the nobel committee, knew the award was pretty silly. Did he ever mention the award once, outside of being directly asked about. And how would he use it as part of a bully pulpit strategy anyway - turn to some combative congressman and shout ‘you should do what I say because not only am I the president, I’m also a nobel prize winner’.
Not sure why I used that word... I was thinking of 'accolades', which has roundly been viewed as unearned.
But, for a short time, it was used as a badge of honor. I remember this distinctly as most of the chattering class just responded with the equivalent of "eye-rollings". Now? It's barely mentioned.
To be fair... I believe he did donate the prize money itself, so there's one good thing you can say about it.
Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!
2016/02/09 01:19:25
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
whembly wrote: Yeah... still not an advocate of a "theocracy" here.
Of course, which is why I said this:
I realize none of this will actually matter or even begin to change your mind, but whatever.
But thank you for proving me right.
That's the terminology that I'd argue that isn't applicable here...
However, if you think the people he associates with is germane to what you think Cruz would factor into his world view... by all means.
No, I take what he says as indication as what his world view is, something you clearly ignore. He keeps disturbing company, no doubt, and proudly brags about their endorsements.
Just like I indicted Obama for his chummy relationships with folks like Bill Ayers and Reverend Wright (not that you'd care).
Right, because after all this time you believe I'm just some ignorant Obama fanboy despite the fact that I have repeatedly told you that isn't true. I realize that it doesn't matter as you've consistently shown you can care more about what you believe to be true than what is actually true and that's what makes you the perfect right-wing news consumer and voter.
I'm still a Rubio fanboi... if you don't like Cruz, then you'd really REALLY hate Rubio as he's even further right to Cruz.
No, they're pretty much one and same and you'll be a Ted Cruz fanboy in due time I'm sure, just like you were hyping up Fiorina before you moved on to the next person in line.
d-usa wrote: "When the Internet sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending posters that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing strawmen. They're bringing spam. They're trolls. And some, I assume, are good people."
2016/02/09 01:26:25
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
whembly wrote: Yeah... still not an advocate of a "theocracy" here.
Of course, which is why I said this:
I realize none of this will actually matter or even begin to change your mind, but whatever.
But thank you for proving me right.
Hey... if you wanted an echo chamber, hang out at your favorite website "Right Wing Watch".
That's the terminology that I'd argue that isn't applicable here...
However, if you think the people he associates with is germane to what you think Cruz would factor into his world view... by all means.
No, I take what he says as indication as what his world view is, something you clearly ignore. He keeps disturbing company, no doubt, and proudly brags about their endorsements.
k. You'll notice that he's trying to convey that he's taking on the Reagan strategy in mobilizing the evangelical votes. (I don't think it'd work though).
Just like I indicted Obama for his chummy relationships with folks like Bill Ayers and Reverend Wright (not that you'd care).
Right, because after all this time you believe I'm just some ignorant Obama fanboy despite the fact that I have repeatedly told you that isn't true. I realize that it doesn't matter as you've consistently shown you can care more about what you believe to be true than what is actually true and that's what makes you the perfect right-wing news consumer and voter.
You seem to be mistaken of the concepts of 'opinions' vs. 'hard facts'. Don't conflate the two.
See? That indigent response there about you not being an Obama fanboy really puts you in the 'she doth protest too much'. Hence why I don't believe you.
I'm still a Rubio fanboi... if you don't like Cruz, then you'd really REALLY hate Rubio as he's even further right to Cruz.
No, they're pretty much one and same and you'll be a Ted Cruz fanboy in due time I'm sure, just like you were hyping up Fiorina before you moved on to the next person in line.
Rubio is an ultra-hawk foreign policy wise. Cruz is NOT.
But to your point? Hillary vs Cruz? You bet you fething ass I'd be voting for Cruz... not that it really matters as Hillary is pretty much unstoppable after New Hamshire.
Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!
2016/02/09 01:57:30
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
whembly wrote: Hey... if you wanted an echo chamber, hang out at your favorite website "Right Wing Watch".
You clearly didn't read the article written by a conservative political commentator that I linked. Both of those things were the top results from searching "ted cruz theocracy" in Google.
k. You'll notice that he's trying to convey that he's taking on the Reagan strategy in mobilizing the evangelical votes. (I don't think it'd work though).
Sure, Whembly, that's it exactly...
You seem to be mistaken of the concepts of 'opinions' vs. 'hard facts'. Don't conflate the two.
Says the right-wing talking point regurgitation machine who uses those two thing interchangeably.
See? That indigent response there about you not being an Obama fanboy really puts you in the 'she doth protest too much'. Hence why I don't believe you.
Whembly, you can believe what you want all day long, but just remember that it still won't make it true. I frankly don't really care whether you believe me or not, because like all hyper-partisan clowns, your opinion doesn't really matter.
Rubio is an ultra-hawk foreign policy wise. Cruz is NOT.
Rubio is more hawkish now (and recently so), but Cruz will be if he finds that it suits him, but they're both poster boys for chickenhawks everywhere.
But to your point? Hillary vs Cruz? You bet you fething ass I'd be voting for Cruz... not that it really matters as Hillary is pretty much unstoppable after New Hamshire.
Of course, you'll vote for anyone with an (R) next to their name. It's all you know how to do.
d-usa wrote: "When the Internet sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending posters that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing strawmen. They're bringing spam. They're trolls. And some, I assume, are good people."
2016/02/09 02:04:20
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
whembly wrote: But, for a short time, it was used as a badge of honor. I remember this distinctly as most of the chattering class just responded with the equivalent of "eye-rollings". Now? It's barely mentioned.
No, it wasn’t used as a badge of honour, certainly not by Obama. He did the absolute bare minimum needed to avoid appearing ungrateful or rude to the committee giving him the award. But he never raised it himself in any way to advance any of his policies. As LordofHats points out he never used it as part of his 2012 re-election.
The only time it ever gets mentioned is by Republicans having a whinge about…. Obama something something Nobel something something.
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
2016/02/09 02:08:28
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
whembly wrote: Hey... if you wanted an echo chamber, hang out at your favorite website "Right Wing Watch".
You clearly didn't read the article written by a conservative political commentator that I linked. Both of those things were the top results from searching "ted cruz theocracy" in Google.
Have. Thanks.
He comes off as someone who's, ermahgawd, he believes in God so he's going to install a Theocracy here!!!
k. You'll notice that he's trying to convey that he's taking on the Reagan strategy in mobilizing the evangelical votes. (I don't think it'd work though).
Sure, Whembly, that's it exactly...
You seem to be mistaken of the concepts of 'opinions' vs. 'hard facts'. Don't conflate the two.
Says the right-wing talking point regurgitation machine who uses those two thing interchangeably.
See? That indigent response there about you not being an Obama fanboy really puts you in the 'she doth protest too much'. Hence why I don't believe you.
Whembly, you can believe what you want all day long, but just remember that it still won't make it true. I frankly don't really care whether you believe me or not, because like all hyper-partisan clowns, your opinion doesn't really matter.
k.
Rubio is an ultra-hawk foreign policy wise. Cruz is NOT.
Rubio is more hawkish now (and recently so), but Cruz will be if he finds that it suits him, but they're both poster boys for chickenhawks everywhere.
k.
But to your point? Hillary vs Cruz? You bet you fething ass I'd be voting for Cruz... not that it really matters as Hillary is pretty much unstoppable after New Hamshire.
Of course, you'll vote for anyone with an (R) next to their name. It's all you know how to do.
You have no idea what "I'd do", but go ahead believe whatever you will.
Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!
2016/02/09 02:14:51
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Oh look Michigan republicans are ignoring the lead in the water crisis and instead going after gay people. Then again are we really surprised that they are?
Despite the Supreme Court rendering anti-sodomy laws unconstitutional in 2003, Michigan is one of more than a dozen states that still has a sodomy ban on the books. It also has one of the worst – not only does it ban anal and oral sex for gay couples, it also bans the acts between straight partners, and even equates them to bestiality.
A new package of bills designed to keep pets out of the hands of animal abusers includes an update to the text of the ban, but leaves the restriction on consensual sex between humans intact.
Republican Senator Rick Jones’ SB 219 updates the ban to read: “A person who commits the abominable and detestable crime against nature either with mankind or with any animal is guilty of a felony.”
It’s that “with mankind,” that’s with issue, and technically leaves straight and gay couples practicing anal and oral sex at risk of a prison sentence of up to 15 years – or even up to life if the offender is a “sexually delinquent person.” Obviously, that’s all wildly unconstitutional.
whembly wrote: He comes off as someone who's, ermahgawd, he believes in God so he's going to install a Theocracy here!!!
That's why you're impossible to reason with. The man goes on record saying he wants to run the country on his version of Christianity and you sit there and roundly deny it.
No it isn't, but keep on living in your fantasy world.
d-usa wrote: "When the Internet sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending posters that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing strawmen. They're bringing spam. They're trolls. And some, I assume, are good people."
2016/02/09 02:58:04
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Ustrello wrote: Oh look Michigan republicans are ignoring the lead in the water crisis and instead going after gay people. Then again are we really surprised that they are?
Despite the Supreme Court rendering anti-sodomy laws unconstitutional in 2003, Michigan is one of more than a dozen states that still has a sodomy ban on the books. It also has one of the worst – not only does it ban anal and oral sex for gay couples, it also bans the acts between straight partners, and even equates them to bestiality.
A new package of bills designed to keep pets out of the hands of animal abusers includes an update to the text of the ban, but leaves the restriction on consensual sex between humans intact.
Republican Senator Rick Jones’ SB 219 updates the ban to read: “A person who commits the abominable and detestable crime against nature either with mankind or with any animal is guilty of a felony.”
It’s that “with mankind,” that’s with issue, and technically leaves straight and gay couples practicing anal and oral sex at risk of a prison sentence of up to 15 years – or even up to life if the offender is a “sexually delinquent person.” Obviously, that’s all wildly unconstitutional.
One of the problems I've always had with the idea of these kinds of laws is, how the bloody fething hell are they to be enforced? Are they gonna send a DHS "agent" to every house to monitor activity? Do residents need to install security cameras in all rooms of their housing where sexual activity may take place?
2016/02/09 03:02:12
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Ustrello wrote: Oh look Michigan republicans are ignoring the lead in the water crisis and instead going after gay people. Then again are we really surprised that they are?
Despite the Supreme Court rendering anti-sodomy laws unconstitutional in 2003, Michigan is one of more than a dozen states that still has a sodomy ban on the books. It also has one of the worst – not only does it ban anal and oral sex for gay couples, it also bans the acts between straight partners, and even equates them to bestiality.
A new package of bills designed to keep pets out of the hands of animal abusers includes an update to the text of the ban, but leaves the restriction on consensual sex between humans intact.
Republican Senator Rick Jones’ SB 219 updates the ban to read: “A person who commits the abominable and detestable crime against nature either with mankind or with any animal is guilty of a felony.”
It’s that “with mankind,” that’s with issue, and technically leaves straight and gay couples practicing anal and oral sex at risk of a prison sentence of up to 15 years – or even up to life if the offender is a “sexually delinquent person.” Obviously, that’s all wildly unconstitutional.
One of the problems I've always had with the idea of these kinds of laws is, how the bloody fething hell are they to be enforced? Are they gonna send a DHS "agent" to every house to monitor activity? Do residents need to install security cameras in all rooms of their housing where sexual activity may take place?
*knocking at the door* Ya'll gays better not be having gay sex in there unless you want to go to jail.
