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.
sebster wrote: I don't think we should look too much at just this primary season, and certainly not too much at just the Republican primary. That thing was weird on so many levels. From the starting field of 17, to dismal performance of a number of establishment candidates, to the bizarre decision made by the collective field to avoid taking on Trump until it was too late (he was the poll leader and a very weak candidate, smashing him was a certain way to differentiate from the field but no-one tried it until late in the campaign).
But it's not just this primary season, it's looking at the general trend of the past few elections. Just look at how Romney, for example, had to campaign on a "look, I'm as much of a raving lunatic as the other guys" platform in the primary then immediately turn around and boast about how moderate and centrist he was. And most of the other candidates did the same, at least when they weren't sincerely raving lunatics. The only real difference in 2016 is that the angry far-right voters that the mainstream party had been pandering finally realized that they don't have to settle for whatever mainstream candidate the party leadership offers, they can take over and nominate someone like Trump.
There's really an underlying structural issue here. Primaries tend to have very low turnout*, so a candidate with a relatively small number of rabid supporters who will show up with 100% turnout will win every time against a mass-appeal candidate that has to settle for the average turnout rate. We'd probably see this more with the democrats except they don't really have any equivalent to the "we'll vote for anyone who hates the same people Jesus hates" or "BURN DOWN THE ENTIRE GOVERNMENT" groups, so the candidates are a little more reasonable. But if you look at Obama you see a candidate who won his primary in large part by making vague promises of "hope and change" and getting a target audience to vote in above-average numbers. It was just fortunate for the democrats that they were almost guaranteed to win no matter who they nominated, so any questions of the relative merits of Obama vs. Clinton were mostly irrelevant.
*For example, in 2008 (the most recent election where both parties had presidential primaries) the primary had only 36% turnout while the general election had 63% turnout. And this was with a closely contested primary race between Obama and Clinton.
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
To be fair, I think Obama actually did believe in hope and change, and he was a bit naive -- much less experienced than Hillary, for example -- and do not understand the extent of opposition the Republicans would put up against any of his proposals.
Also, looking at presidential elections only tells part of the story. There have been some rather amusing cases where far-right candidates challenged mainstream republican incumbents in congress and state-level elections, won the primary by appealing to their fellow extremists, then promptly failed in the general election where turnout is much higher. And we're talking about blatantly unelectable candidates where everyone but the extremists saw a landslide victory for the other side being inevitable, but they still managed to win the primary.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote: To be fair, I think Obama actually did believe in hope and change, and he was a bit naive -- much less experienced than Hillary, for example -- and do not understand the extent of opposition the Republicans would put up against any of his proposals.
Sure, I'm not saying it was a cynical lie to get elected. But if you look back on it in hindsight you see a lot of rather vague optimism and promises about how everything is going to be better, and not nearly as much about the practical realities of policy decisions. And a lot of the high turnout among younger voters that got him the nomination was because of that vague optimism. Take away that high turnout rate and we're finishing the last of Hillary Clinton's second term right now and speculating about Sanders as her successor.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/06/27 08:02:55
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
For anyone who is curious, Texas has long been plagued by those who somehow think that leaving one of the most prosperous nations on the planet would be a good thing (and also have to hear from out of state idiots who think losing one of the largest producers in the nation would also be fine). One of the more well known crazy pants organizations is the Republic of Texas. http://thetexasrepublic.com/ They believe secession is a "very popular" idea. They also believe that Texas never gave up its sovereignty, so they aren't very good with "facts".
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/06/27 13:59:10
Asterios wrote: compared to what I know Hillary will do? yes.
And what exactly is that? What is so terrifying in Hillary's agenda that you'd rather have an incompetent racist whose entire strategy is screaming really loudly about how everyone but rich white men is ruining America in a desperate hope to draw attention away from things like his business fraud and accusations of raping a 13 year old girl?
She voted for Iraq
She pushed for the war in Libya
She pushed for war in Syria
She pushed for a "no Fly Zone" in Syria (which means something called MAJOR WAR WITH RUSSIA).
She sold positions to important posts in the State Depratment to donors.
She toook millions from nations and persons who had interests that the State Department was working on at the time.
She's potentially the most corrupt person ever to get near the Presidency.
On a more serious note I hope the Brexit isnt a sign of things to come in the US. A platform built on fears of outsiders, jigonism and some may even say plain racism spearheadded by the older well off segment of the population, clearly on the Right of the politisphere; sounds uncomfortably similar to a platform being endorsed by a certain overripe orange with a bad case of mold on the top
Anyone who calls it "Texit" is a moron who doesn't know history. The name you call Texas over the issue of Secession is...Texas. We've always wanted to secede. Its in our blood. if we aren't eating barbeque we're trying to secede from someone.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/06/27 14:41:05
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
In a dramatic ruling, the Supreme Court on Monday threw out a Texas abortion access law in a victory to supporters of abortion rights who argued it would have shuttered all but a handful of clinics in the state.
The 5-3 ruling is the most significant decision from the Supreme Court on abortion in two decades and could serve to deter other states from passing so-called "clinic shutdown" laws.
In joining with the liberal justices, perennial swing vote Justice Anthony Kennedy helped deliver a victory to abortion rights activists and signaled the court's majority in their favor could continue regardless of the presidential election and the filling of the empty seat on the bench left by the death of conservative Justice Antonin Scalia.
Justice Stephen Breyer wrote the majority opinion, which was joined in full by Kennedy. Breyer wrote that despite arguments that the restrictions were designed to protect women's health, the reality is that they merely amounted to burdening women who seek abortions.
"There was no significant health-related problem that the new law helped to cure," Breyer wrote. "We agree with the District Court that the surgical-center requirement, like the admitting-privileges requirement, provides few, if any, health benefits for women, poses a substantial obstacle to women seeking abortions, and constitutes an "undue burden" on their constitutional right to do so."
In a dramatic ruling, the Supreme Court on Monday threw out a Texas abortion access law in a victory to supporters of abortion rights who argued it would have shuttered all but a handful of clinics in the state.
The 5-3 ruling is the most significant decision from the Supreme Court on abortion in two decades and could serve to deter other states from passing so-called "clinic shutdown" laws.
In joining with the liberal justices, perennial swing vote Justice Anthony Kennedy helped deliver a victory to abortion rights activists and signaled the court's majority in their favor could continue regardless of the presidential election and the filling of the empty seat on the bench left by the death of conservative Justice Antonin Scalia.
Justice Stephen Breyer wrote the majority opinion, which was joined in full by Kennedy. Breyer wrote that despite arguments that the restrictions were designed to protect women's health, the reality is that they merely amounted to burdening women who seek abortions.
"There was no significant health-related problem that the new law helped to cure," Breyer wrote. "We agree with the District Court that the surgical-center requirement, like the admitting-privileges requirement, provides few, if any, health benefits for women, poses a substantial obstacle to women seeking abortions, and constitutes an "undue burden" on their constitutional right to do so."
Good. Excellent call by the SC.
The Laws of Thermodynamics:
1) You cannot win. 2) You cannot break even. 3) You cannot stop playing the game.
Colonel Flagg wrote:You think you're real smart. But you're not smart; you're dumb. Very dumb. But you've met your match in me.
In a dramatic ruling, the Supreme Court on Monday threw out a Texas abortion access law in a victory to supporters of abortion rights who argued it would have shuttered all but a handful of clinics in the state.
The 5-3 ruling is the most significant decision from the Supreme Court on abortion in two decades and could serve to deter other states from passing so-called "clinic shutdown" laws.
In joining with the liberal justices, perennial swing vote Justice Anthony Kennedy helped deliver a victory to abortion rights activists and signaled the court's majority in their favor could continue regardless of the presidential election and the filling of the empty seat on the bench left by the death of conservative Justice Antonin Scalia.
Justice Stephen Breyer wrote the majority opinion, which was joined in full by Kennedy. Breyer wrote that despite arguments that the restrictions were designed to protect women's health, the reality is that they merely amounted to burdening women who seek abortions.
"There was no significant health-related problem that the new law helped to cure," Breyer wrote. "We agree with the District Court that the surgical-center requirement, like the admitting-privileges requirement, provides few, if any, health benefits for women, poses a substantial obstacle to women seeking abortions, and constitutes an "undue burden" on their constitutional right to do so."
Good. Excellent call by the SC.
Disagree... this is a case of "the end justifies the means" ruling.
The US abortion laws will remain being a 'blight'...
In a dramatic ruling, the Supreme Court on Monday threw out a Texas abortion access law in a victory to supporters of abortion rights who argued it would have shuttered all but a handful of clinics in the state.
The 5-3 ruling is the most significant decision from the Supreme Court on abortion in two decades and could serve to deter other states from passing so-called "clinic shutdown" laws.
In joining with the liberal justices, perennial swing vote Justice Anthony Kennedy helped deliver a victory to abortion rights activists and signaled the court's majority in their favor could continue regardless of the presidential election and the filling of the empty seat on the bench left by the death of conservative Justice Antonin Scalia.
Justice Stephen Breyer wrote the majority opinion, which was joined in full by Kennedy. Breyer wrote that despite arguments that the restrictions were designed to protect women's health, the reality is that they merely amounted to burdening women who seek abortions.
"There was no significant health-related problem that the new law helped to cure," Breyer wrote. "We agree with the District Court that the surgical-center requirement, like the admitting-privileges requirement, provides few, if any, health benefits for women, poses a substantial obstacle to women seeking abortions, and constitutes an "undue burden" on their constitutional right to do so."
Consistent ruling against states' attempts to regulate away rights and choices. States in the Northeast and West Coast try to do the same thing with gun rights and SCotUS rules against that too.
Ustrello wrote: A popular conservative website found a guy that said gun control would not have worked? Noooo....
so are you saying that he was not the former homeland security boss? or are you saying he did not say those things? i'm a bit fuzzy on what you are trying to say.
Thinks Palladium books screwed the pooch on the Robotech project.
Ustrello wrote: A popular conservative website found a guy that said gun control would not have worked? Noooo....
so are you saying that he was not the former homeland security boss? or are you saying he did not say those things? i'm a bit fuzzy on what you are trying to say.
Are you saying they didn't cherry pick him because he fit the narrative?
sebster wrote: I don't think we should look too much at just this primary season, and certainly not too much at just the Republican primary. That thing was weird on so many levels. From the starting field of 17, to dismal performance of a number of establishment candidates, to the bizarre decision made by the collective field to avoid taking on Trump until it was too late (he was the poll leader and a very weak candidate, smashing him was a certain way to differentiate from the field but no-one tried it until late in the campaign).
But it's not just this primary season, it's looking at the general trend of the past few elections. Just look at how Romney, for example, had to campaign on a "look, I'm as much of a raving lunatic as the other guys" platform in the primary then immediately turn around and boast about how moderate and centrist he was. And most of the other candidates did the same, at least when they weren't sincerely raving lunatics. The only real difference in 2016 is that the angry far-right voters that the mainstream party had been pandering finally realized that they don't have to settle for whatever mainstream candidate the party leadership offers, they can take over and nominate someone like Trump.
There's really an underlying structural issue here. Primaries tend to have very low turnout*, so a candidate with a relatively small number of rabid supporters who will show up with 100% turnout will win every time against a mass-appeal candidate that has to settle for the average turnout rate. We'd probably see this more with the democrats except they don't really have any equivalent to the "we'll vote for anyone who hates the same people Jesus hates" or "BURN DOWN THE ENTIRE GOVERNMENT" groups, so the candidates are a little more reasonable. But if you look at Obama you see a candidate who won his primary in large part by making vague promises of "hope and change" and getting a target audience to vote in above-average numbers. It was just fortunate for the democrats that they were almost guaranteed to win no matter who they nominated, so any questions of the relative merits of Obama vs. Clinton were mostly irrelevant.
*For example, in 2008 (the most recent election where both parties had presidential primaries) the primary had only 36% turnout while the general election had 63% turnout. And this was with a closely contested primary race between Obama and Clinton.
I think you're letting your personal political views color your perceptions a bit too much. The candidates you consider to be "raving lunatics" are popular enough to get millions of votes and win nominations. It's a natural byproduct of opening up the primary process to voters. Whether closed or open primaries will have lower turnouts than the general election because even with registered Party members most people don't get involved with politics until the general election. The only way to get more control over candidates is to go back to letting the Party leaders and politicians choose the candidates instead of the people. The whole primary process is set up to let a minority of Party members and interested voters decide who the Party nominates for PotUS. There's no way for the system not to skew towards the extreme base because those are the only people that reliably turn out to vote in primaries. Letting people vote in primaries puts the candidate selection at the mercy of the people willing to show up and vote.
Gosnell and various co-defendant employees were charged with eight counts of murder, 24 felony counts of performing illegal abortions beyond the state of Pennsylvania’s 24-week time limit, and 227 misdemeanor counts of violating the 24-hour informed consent law.
The new laws proposed would do nothing to prevent that as what he was doing was already illegal.
There was no medical benefit to the proposed laws. If anything they would increase the likelihood of things like that happening as poor people who cannot afford to travel hundreds of miles to get an abortion get desperate and turn to illegal providers in unsanitary conditions, just like they did when abortion was illegal.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/06/27 17:13:30
The Laws of Thermodynamics:
1) You cannot win. 2) You cannot break even. 3) You cannot stop playing the game.
Colonel Flagg wrote:You think you're real smart. But you're not smart; you're dumb. Very dumb. But you've met your match in me.
Ustrello wrote: A popular conservative website found a guy that said gun control would not have worked? Noooo....
so are you saying that he was not the former homeland security boss? or are you saying he did not say those things? i'm a bit fuzzy on what you are trying to say.
Are you saying they didn't cherry pick him because he fit the narrative?
I'm saying what does it say when the guy who was in charge of our security says what he said?
Thinks Palladium books screwed the pooch on the Robotech project.
Gosnell and various co-defendant employees were charged with eight counts of murder, 24 felony counts of performing illegal abortions beyond the state of Pennsylvania’s 24-week time limit, and 227 misdemeanor counts of violating the 24-hour informed consent law.
The new laws proposed would do nothing to prevent that as what he was doing was already illegal.
There was no medical benefit to the proposed laws.
Using regulations to shut down legally provided services based on political agendas and subjective personal morals is wrong and not the proper usage of government. That was the problem with the Texas law. The idea that abortion clinics should have stronger relationships with local hospitals and more oversight isn't objectively a bad idea and wouldn't harm anyone. If state governments are going to be responsible for regulating health care then they need to establish and enforce standards of care and operation. The introduction of such standards may have a negative impact on the availablity of services initially as adjustments are made but if the standards are created by knowledgable people in a reasonable manner and the services are still in demand then the standards shouldn't pose much of an obstacle to making them widely available to the public.
How is it desperate? Tom Ridge is quoted in the article as saying that preventing people on the No Fly List or the Terror Watch List wouldn't have prevented the Orlando night club shooting because the person who did the shooting wasn't on either list. That is factually correct.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/06/27 17:27:35
Gosnell and various co-defendant employees were charged with eight counts of murder, 24 felony counts of performing illegal abortions beyond the state of Pennsylvania’s 24-week time limit, and 227 misdemeanor counts of violating the 24-hour informed consent law.
The new laws proposed would do nothing to prevent that as what he was doing was already illegal.
There was no medical benefit to the proposed laws.
Using regulations to shut down legally provided services based on political agendas and subjective personal morals is wrong and not the proper usage of government. That was the problem with the Texas law. The idea that abortion clinics should have stronger relationships with local hospitals and more oversight isn't objectively a bad idea and wouldn't harm anyone. If state governments are going to be responsible for regulating health care then they need to establish and enforce standards of care and operation. The introduction of such standards may have a negative impact on the availablity of services initially as adjustments are made but if the standards are created by knowledgable people in a reasonable manner and the services are still in demand then the standards shouldn't pose much of an obstacle to making them widely available to the public.
How is it desperate? Tom Ridge is quoted in the article as saying that preventing people on the No Fly List or the Terror Watch List wouldn't have prevented the Orlando night club shooting because the person who did the shooting wasn't on either list. That is factually correct.
No law is going to stop a determined terrorist or criminal. I'm not naïve and accept that. But using that logic as reason for the stone walling of sensible Gun Legislation which will work to cut down on legal access to individuals who shouldn't have access...and I'm a gun owner...is pathetic!
Gosnell and various co-defendant employees were charged with eight counts of murder, 24 felony counts of performing illegal abortions beyond the state of Pennsylvania’s 24-week time limit, and 227 misdemeanor counts of violating the 24-hour informed consent law.
The new laws proposed would do nothing to prevent that as what he was doing was already illegal.
There was no medical benefit to the proposed laws.
Using regulations to shut down legally provided services based on political agendas and subjective personal morals is wrong and not the proper usage of government. That was the problem with the Texas law. The idea that abortion clinics should have stronger relationships with local hospitals and more oversight isn't objectively a bad idea and wouldn't harm anyone. If state governments are going to be responsible for regulating health care then they need to establish and enforce standards of care and operation. The introduction of such standards may have a negative impact on the availablity of services initially as adjustments are made but if the standards are created by knowledgable people in a reasonable manner and the services are still in demand then the standards shouldn't pose much of an obstacle to making them widely available to the public.
How is it desperate? Tom Ridge is quoted in the article as saying that preventing people on the No Fly List or the Terror Watch List wouldn't have prevented the Orlando night club shooting because the person who did the shooting wasn't on either list. That is factually correct.
No law is going to stop a determined terrorist or criminal. I'm not naïve and accept that. But using that logic as reason for the stone walling of sensible Gun Legislation which will work to cut down on legal access to individuals who shouldn't have access...and I'm a gun owner...is pathetic!
How is the proposed gun legislation "sensible"? Do you have any data on how many, if any, mass shootings or gun homicides have been commited by anyone on the No Fly List or Terror Watch List? Do you have any data on how a person gets placed onto the No Fly List or Terror Watch List? Do you have any data on how many people on those lists alreadly lawfully own firearms? Do you have any data on how a person can appeal being on either list, if anyone has successfully appealed and how many people have been removed for the list?
Do you think all US citizens are entitled to the right to Due Process?
Are you ok with the US govt not having enough evidence to charge a US citizen with any crime but still labelling that person as "dangerous" and violating their constitional rights?
Gosnell and various co-defendant employees were charged with eight counts of murder, 24 felony counts of performing illegal abortions beyond the state of Pennsylvania’s 24-week time limit, and 227 misdemeanor counts of violating the 24-hour informed consent law.
The new laws proposed would do nothing to prevent that as what he was doing was already illegal.
There was no medical benefit to the proposed laws.
Using regulations to shut down legally provided services based on political agendas and subjective personal morals is wrong and not the proper usage of government. That was the problem with the Texas law. The idea that abortion clinics should have stronger relationships with local hospitals and more oversight isn't objectively a bad idea and wouldn't harm anyone. If state governments are going to be responsible for regulating health care then they need to establish and enforce standards of care and operation. The introduction of such standards may have a negative impact on the availablity of services initially as adjustments are made but if the standards are created by knowledgable people in a reasonable manner and the services are still in demand then the standards shouldn't pose much of an obstacle to making them widely available to the public.
Actually... the distinction is if you believe abortion procedures are synonymous to going to an outpatient podiatrist to take care of your hangnail... sure. That Texas law is odious.
However, if you view these abortive procedures as medically serious... then mandating these clinics to be regulated the same as hospitals and requiring providers to have hospital admit privileges... is fething common sense.
Gosnell and various co-defendant employees were charged with eight counts of murder, 24 felony counts of performing illegal abortions beyond the state of Pennsylvania’s 24-week time limit, and 227 misdemeanor counts of violating the 24-hour informed consent law.
The new laws proposed would do nothing to prevent that as what he was doing was already illegal.
There was no medical benefit to the proposed laws.
Using regulations to shut down legally provided services based on political agendas and subjective personal morals is wrong and not the proper usage of government. That was the problem with the Texas law. The idea that abortion clinics should have stronger relationships with local hospitals and more oversight isn't objectively a bad idea and wouldn't harm anyone. If state governments are going to be responsible for regulating health care then they need to establish and enforce standards of care and operation. The introduction of such standards may have a negative impact on the availablity of services initially as adjustments are made but if the standards are created by knowledgable people in a reasonable manner and the services are still in demand then the standards shouldn't pose much of an obstacle to making them widely available to the public.
How is it desperate? Tom Ridge is quoted in the article as saying that preventing people on the No Fly List or the Terror Watch List wouldn't have prevented the Orlando night club shooting because the person who did the shooting wasn't on either list. That is factually correct.
No law is going to stop a determined terrorist or criminal. I'm not naïve and accept that. But using that logic as reason for the stone walling of sensible Gun Legislation which will work to cut down on legal access to individuals who shouldn't have access...and I'm a gun owner...is pathetic!
How is the proposed gun legislation "sensible"? Do you have any data on how many, if any, mass shootings or gun homicides have been commited by anyone on the No Fly List or Terror Watch List? Do you have any data on how a person gets placed onto the No Fly List or Terror Watch List? Do you have any data on how many people on those lists alreadly lawfully own firearms? Do you have any data on how a person can appeal being on either list, if anyone has successfully appealed and how many people have been removed for the list?
Do you think all US citizens are entitled to the right to Due Process?
Are you ok with the US govt not having enough evidence to charge a US citizen with any crime but still labelling that person as "dangerous" and violating their constitional rights?
You're actually asking how is gun legislation "sensible" when it seeks to prohibit gun ownership to "individuals deemed too dangerous to get on an airplane and a threat to aviation"(No Fly List) or "are suspected of some involvement with terrorism"(Terror Watch List)? Are you kidding? There's an element necessary to understand this concept and it's called common sense.
Here's some stats for you...In a 2010 report, the Government Accountability Office noted that "Membership in a terrorist organization does not prohibit a person from possessing firearms or explosives under current federal law," and individuals on the No Fly List are not barred from purchasing guns. According to GAO data, between 2004 and 2010, people on terrorism watch lists—including the No Fly List as well as other separate lists—attempted to buy guns and explosives more than 1,400 times, and succeeded in 1,321 times (more than 90 percent of cases).
Individuals on the Terrorism Watch List, et al, succeeded in purchasing guns and explosives 1,321 in just the above mentioned 6 year period. Sleep well tonight, pookie.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/06/27 18:02:16
And people who drank water have the ability to buy guns and explosives with no problem as well...
The problem is that there is no accountability for who goes on the terror watch list/no-fly list. There is nothing stopping a Republican administration from abusing it to put people who donate to the ACLU on it, for instance.
I would be in favor of requiring background checks (Not using non-accountable lists though), mental health screening, and mandatory safety training before being allowed to purchase/own a pistol though.
You're actually asking how is gun legislation "sensible" when it seeks to prohibit gun ownership to individuals deemed to dangerous to get on an airplane and a threat to aviation(No Fly List) or are suspected of some involvement with terrorism(Terror Watch List)? Are you kidding?
Here's some stats for you...In a 2010 report, the Government Accountability Office noted that "Membership in a terrorist organization does not prohibit a person from possessing firearms or explosives under current federal law," and individuals on the No Fly List are not barred from purchasing guns. According to GAO data, between 2004 and 2010, people on terrorism watch lists—including the No Fly List as well as other separate lists—attempted to buy guns and explosives more than 1,400 times, and succeeded in 1,321 times (more than 90 percent of cases).
Individuals on the Terrorism Watch List, et al, succeeded in purchasing guns and explosives 1,321 in just the above mentioned 6 year period. Sleep well tonight, pookie.
Republican John Cornyn, was the only one to propose a bill that safeguarded the applicant's Due Process rights. Even then, the Democrats were more interested in the drama to gin up electoral outrage than to work on any supposed 'common sense' laws.
Gosnell and various co-defendant employees were charged with eight counts of murder, 24 felony counts of performing illegal abortions beyond the state of Pennsylvania’s 24-week time limit, and 227 misdemeanor counts of violating the 24-hour informed consent law.
The new laws proposed would do nothing to prevent that as what he was doing was already illegal.
There was no medical benefit to the proposed laws.
Using regulations to shut down legally provided services based on political agendas and subjective personal morals is wrong and not the proper usage of government. That was the problem with the Texas law. The idea that abortion clinics should have stronger relationships with local hospitals and more oversight isn't objectively a bad idea and wouldn't harm anyone. If state governments are going to be responsible for regulating health care then they need to establish and enforce standards of care and operation. The introduction of such standards may have a negative impact on the availablity of services initially as adjustments are made but if the standards are created by knowledgable people in a reasonable manner and the services are still in demand then the standards shouldn't pose much of an obstacle to making them widely available to the public.
How is it desperate? Tom Ridge is quoted in the article as saying that preventing people on the No Fly List or the Terror Watch List wouldn't have prevented the Orlando night club shooting because the person who did the shooting wasn't on either list. That is factually correct.
No law is going to stop a determined terrorist or criminal. I'm not naïve and accept that. But using that logic as reason for the stone walling of sensible Gun Legislation which will work to cut down on legal access to individuals who shouldn't have access...and I'm a gun owner...is pathetic!
How is the proposed gun legislation "sensible"? Do you have any data on how many, if any, mass shootings or gun homicides have been commited by anyone on the No Fly List or Terror Watch List? Do you have any data on how a person gets placed onto the No Fly List or Terror Watch List? Do you have any data on how many people on those lists alreadly lawfully own firearms? Do you have any data on how a person can appeal being on either list, if anyone has successfully appealed and how many people have been removed for the list?
Do you think all US citizens are entitled to the right to Due Process?
Are you ok with the US govt not having enough evidence to charge a US citizen with any crime but still labelling that person as "dangerous" and violating their constitional rights?
You're actually asking how is gun legislation "sensible" when it seeks to prohibit gun ownership to individuals deemed to dangerous to get on an airplane and a threat to aviation(No Fly List) or are suspected of some involvement with terrorism(Terror Watch List)? Are you kidding?
Here's some stats for you...In a 2010 report, the Government Accountability Office noted that "Membership in a terrorist organization does not prohibit a person from possessing firearms or explosives under current federal law," and individuals on the No Fly List are not barred from purchasing guns. According to GAO data, between 2004 and 2010, people on terrorism watch lists—including the No Fly List as well as other separate lists—attempted to buy guns and explosives more than 1,400 times, and succeeded in 1,321 times (more than 90 percent of cases).
Individuals on the Terrorism Watch List, et al, succeeded in purchasing guns and explosives 1,321 in just the above mentioned 6 year period. Sleep well tonight, pookie.
Why wouldn't I sleep well tonight? That information is 6 years out of date and nothing has happened in that intervening time to make me sleep any less well. Again, do you have any data on what is required for the govt to put people on those lists in the first place? If the govt can't find enough evidence to charge anyone on the list with any crimes why are they dangerous? How many acts of terrorism have been committed by US citizens who are on the No Fly List or the Terror Watch List?
If the people on the No Fly List are dangerous why are they allowed on any mass transit at all? They're too dangerous to be allowed on a plane but it's perfectly fine for them to be on buses and trains? Terrorists have killed a lot of people on buses in Israel and on trains in Japan, why are we ok with letting people on the No Fly List get on buses and trains? People on the lists are also free to attend large events, games in huge stadiums, fairs, schools, etc. People on the No Fly List are too "dangerous" to be allowed onto a comercial flight but are "safe" enough to be allowed to do literally everything else that somebody not on the No Fly List can do. If the govt believes them to be safe enough to do all that then I'm fine with them owning guns.
The numbers you posted show that the people on both lists passed a federal background check (NICS) 94.3% of the time so if they're clean enough to pass the background check I'm not going to waste my time being afraid of them. If the people on the list haven't done anything to warrant any criminals charges currently and haven't done anything in the past that would prevent them from passing a NICS check why should I fear them? Because the govt decided to put them on an arbitrary and ineffectual list?
WASHINGTON
A major Democratic donor personally lobbied then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s office for a seat on a sensitive government intelligence board, telling one of her closest aides that if appointed he would make Clinton “look good.”
Rajiv Fernando acknowledged that he may not have the experience to sit on a board that would allow him the highest levels of top secret access, but assured deputy chief of staff Huma Abedin in newly released 2009 emails that he’s talking to two professors who are “getting me up to speed on the academics behind the field.”
Fernando, who contributed to Clinton, her family’s foundation and Barack Obama, described himself as one of “Hillary’s people” and mentioned that he recently sent an ailing Clinton flowers to wish her a speedy recovery.
The emails shed new light on how Fernando got a spot on the International Security Advisory Board. He resigned in 2011, days after his appointment and after his selection was questioned.
The emails were provided to McClatchy by the conservative group Citizens United, which obtained them through a lawsuit filed after its Freedom of Information Act requests went unanswered.
Clinton, now the 2016 presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, continues to face questions about whether she helped the Clinton Foundation collect millions of dollars from questionable countries and organizations when she served as the nation’s top diplomat. Clinton's campaign and Fernando's company did not respond to messages seeking comment.
As a member of the board, Fernando was to advise Clinton on nuclear weapons and other security issues alongside nuclear scientists, former cabinet secretaries and former lawmakers, including former Defense Secretary William Perry, Lt. Gen. Brent Scowcroft, a former National Security Adviser to two presidents; and former Sen. Chuck Robb of Virginia.
In May 2009, Fernando sent an email to Abedin, a longtime aide so close to Clinton she has been described as her “second daughter,” explaining that he had met with another staffer about the board appointment and had written a letter about why he would be a valuable member.
“Everybody on that board is a top level defense expert, yet, I feel like I can add a lot to the group,” he wrote. “I have two professors from Northwestern and one from University of Chicago who are international security experts and are getting me up to speed on the academics behind the field.”
“I know we had you well into our process here,” responded Abedin, who now serves as vice chairman of Clinton’s campaign.
Later in June 2009, Fernando said he recently met with Rep. Mike Quigley, D-Ill., who told him that when he traveled on Air Force One he noticed that the first speed dial button had Clinton’s name on it. “That is very cool! I didn’t know that,” Abedin responded.
Abedin asked if Fernando recently sent Clinton flowers as she was unsure who sent them. When he responds yes, she said “So nice of u.”
Months later, in September 2009, Fernando emailed Abedin again after meeting with another staffer referred to only as Tauscher – presumably Ellen Tauscher, a former congresswoman from California who was undersecretary of state for Arms Control and International Security Affairs. He said Tauscher told him that she may be able to include him as a possible choice for the board.
“They will have their list and Hillary will have hers and at the end of the day as long as they don’t have opposition to any of Hillary’s people, they should get in,” he wrote.
“In addition to my previous experiences listed in my resume, I have been meeting with professors from Northwestern, University of Chicago and Yale for the past 6 months,” he wrote to Abedin. “I know I will be able to hold my own and be valued contributor to this board. I promise I will make the Secretary look good.”
After ABC News contacted the State Department to ask about his qualifications, which included no international security background, Fernando announced that he had stepped down.
In recent weeks, emails obtained by Citizens United show the appointment perplexed the State Department’s professional staff, according to ABC News, and that dozens of State Department officials worked overtime to quickly obtain Fernando's security clearance, according to FOX News.
In September 2012, after ABC News again questioned the State Department about Fernando’s appointment, senior adviser Heather Samuelson sent Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Philippe Reines a response provided to ABC News explaining why he was chosen.
Reines appeared to mock the appointment by responding to Samuelson: “Not the most compelling response I’ve ever seen since it’s such a dense topic the board resolves around. Couldn’t he have landed a spot on the President’s Physical Fitness Council?”
Fernando founded Chopper Trading, a high frequency trading firm that was acquired by the Chicago firm DRW Trading Group in 2015. In an economic speech last year, Clinton criticized high frequency traders. Providence, R.I., sued Chopper Trading and other financial companies for defrauding the city, which managed funds for its employees.
Since 2003, Fernando has contributed more than $650,000 to federal Democratic candidates and organizations, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, which tracks campaign money. That includes Clinton's Senate and presidential campaigns, her leadership political action committee and the group Ready for Hillary, which laid the groundwork for her second presidential run. Employees of Chopper Trading contributed $34,000 to Clinton’s presidential campaigns.
He served as a voluntary fundraiser or bundler for Clinton's first presidential campaign and later for Obama. He also gave $30,000 to a political advocacy group, WomenCount, that has indirectly helped Clinton.
He contributed between $1 million and $5 million to the Clinton Foundation, according to records released by the foundation. Between $100,000 and $250,000 was donated before his board appointment. He once traveled with former President Bill Clinton to Africa.
In July 2015, Clinton attended a fundraiser at Fernando's home for her second presidential campaign. About 170 people each paid $2,700 to get into the event, according to the campaign. Hosts each raised $27,000 or more.
Is this not *proof* that Clinton went out of her way to deliver political favors to those who were funding her foundation???
*FWIW: I totally believe Trump would be just as bad in this regard... still on #TeamJohnson
Mmm and the Democrats push for DA Abuse in their party platform:
Climate Change and Clean Energy: Moving beyond the “all of the above” energy approach in the 2012 platform, the 2016 platform draft re-frames the urgency of climate change as a central challenge of our time, already impacting American communities and calling for generating 50 percent clean electricity within the next ten years. The Committee unanimously adopted a joint proposal from Sanders and Clinton representatives to commit to making America run entirely on clean energy by mid-century, and supporting the ambitious goals put forward by President Obama and the Paris climate agreement. Another joint proposal calling on the Department of Justice to investigate alleged corporate fraud on the part of fossil fuel companies who have reportedly misled shareholders and the public on the scientific reality of climate change was also adopted by unanimous consent.
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
