Lets Get Political

[smjjames]

I guess he might have a good chance at a cabinet or something within the adminstration, wouldn't be the first time a presidential candidacy was a launch pad for an admin position. He hasn't exactly been able to shine in the debates yet, whether that's just pure inexperience or a consequence of the large field.

Williamson needs to dial down the hippy love a notch or two.... though I'm not sure how much of that is subconscious bias and how much of it is that she really needs to dial it down. I mean, even a guy who was laying it as thickly as she was would still need to dial it down a bit to get taken seriously.

Pretty much everybody else except Biden did reasonably well and didn't do too terribly. That half-hearted hand raise at an obvious softball question shows how badly he's doing IMO.

4 minutes ago, Gromnir said:

am not doubting they had him labeled as a tech guy. we were multitasking, so were audio only for the debate. is a bit weird though, no? started as corporate lawyer but his signature "job" is venture for america, which is a nonprofit which helps recent graduates become entrepreneurs themselves. ny based.

HA! Good Fun!

 

That's just what he identifies as I guess? Kamala Harris embraces the prosecutor/lawyer label and it hasn't hurt her as far as I can tell, so, just calling yourself a lawyer isn't as toxic as it might sound (yes, I'm saying this while speaking to a (retired? I think you or someone said you were retired in a recent post? If not, my bad) lawyer XD )

Edited June 28, 2019 by smjjames

[Gromnir]

https://www.google.com/search?q=andrew+yang+tech+executive&rlz=1C1CHFX_enUS699US699&ei=CJ4VXcKnBoHr9APc9a-gBA&start=0&sa=N&ved=0ahUKEwjCy_zUsYvjAhWBNX0KHdz6C0Q4FBDy0wMIfA&biw=1722&bih=865

am seeing the label everywhere.

https://www.bloomberg.com/research/stocks/private/snapshot.asp?privcapId=53702871

looks like for a time, yang were a vice president (exec?) at mmf. four years, after which he became a ceo for the test prep we mentioned.

well, mystery solved... sorta.

am suspecting gd just about burst a blood vessel when harris declared she would executive order the second amendment to its knees. 'cours ms. harris knows better. executive orders is not magical wish granting genies, and even if they were...

executive order can kinda fill in the gaps between Congressional Legislation, but cannot replace or repeal. sadly for harris, there is already fed legislation on background checks with black-letter and clear-defined exceptions for registration requirements. 

is easy to make impossible promises when running for President. this one is a doozy though. 

HA! Good Fun!

Edited June 28, 2019 by Gromnir
avoid double-post

[Guard Dog]

6 hours ago, Gromnir said:

 

am suspecting gd just about burst a blood vessel when harris declared she would executive order the second amendment to its knees. 'cours ms. harris knows better. executive orders is not magical wish granting genies, and even if they were...

HA! Good Fun!

LOL! I was JUST coming here to rant about that! And about her quip about protecting illegal immigrants in the military. She obviously does not know the first thing about the military or it's enlistment process. Suffice it to say there is nothing, NOTHING about you they do not know before you ever get to Boot Camp/Basic Training.

 

I used to get more stressed about gun control.  I don't anymore. I am much more stressed about 5th Amendment and Takings Clause abuses but even that got dealt with by the SCOTUS twice in the last term. In the case of Gun Control Heller and McDonald were pretty conclusive. But you know the final say in all of this really is ours. At the end of the day if some onerous gun restriction are passed I'd just disobey them. Thoreau is one of my heroes after all. Only I would not practice "civil" disobedience in the case of confiscation if it ever came to that. 

 

Since you are also a fan of Shakespeare: "Come thou no more for ransom my firearms, gentle herald. They shall have none, I swear, but these my joints, Which, if they have, as I will leave 'em them, Shall yield them little. Tell the constable President."

[ktchong]

The confused old man walked in the wrong party and got gangbanged for an hour straight.

I loved every minute of it.

Edited June 28, 2019 by ktchong

[Gromnir]

@Guard Dog 

am not certain why the candidates aim so low on what amounts to fantasy offerings. would get more mileage if they claimed, if elected, every US family would get a free robot butler/supercomputer with drone capability... 'cause some folks like drones. tell people the robot could be leased out to companies so that an individual would not need go to work anymore if they did not wish to. or why not offer every american a personalized executive order grant?  end income tax. abolish Congress. compel journalists to be unbiased. why limit to possible when is obvious that fantasy is an option? heck, could say you would give hbo 100 days to start filming a better season 8 for got and if that don't happen, harris would then use executive order to make'em do so.  am betting harris woulda' gotten better feedback with our GoT option.

wasted opportunities. 

HA! Good Fun!

[213374U]

13 hours ago, Gorth said:

I have a lot of faith in 'self-styled "Christian" groups' to be completely devoid of morals and ethics. It's the hypocrisy and lack of balls of the guy that bothers me. If he had been a Christian, he should have been familiar with the idea of do onto others what you wish them to do to you. You are a discriminating bigot, expect people to take offense at it.

 

I doubt the guy is more Christian than my little toe though, and Zoraptor hit the nail in the head. It's all about money and how he could get out of his current arrangement with his wallet lined with a new shiny layer of dollar bills while looking for more profitable organizations. He just isn't man enough to say so and get off the Island, the sooner the better really.

I asked specifically because I didn't understand the 19th century remark. I think we can all agree that pond scum should be allowed to sue for whatever. Doesn't mean the courts can't immediately throw out lawsuits due to lack of merit, and slap plaintiffs down as frivolous litigants if they persist.

I guess the issue is how he's going to frame the complaint. If he's claiming that he was wrongfully terminated as a result of religious discrimination, he'll have to meet whatever threshold of evidence the law prescribes for that. That would probably require finding other instances of discrimination against other overtly Christian players. On the other hand if he's simply suing for breach of contract and he hasn't done anything illegal, well... it's a matter of contract law between two private entities, isn't it? Maybe FA will learn something from it.

In either case, it seems to me that this is just one occurrence of some guy being a waste of oxygen, rather than a problem with Australia. Unless what you are worried about is the amount of support  he gets from "Christians" across Australian society -- hence my question.

[Zoraptor]

His stated position near word for word is "wrongfully terminated as a result of religious discrimination", though whether that's actually what he goes for in court... as previous, the intimation from his lawyers is that they will go for simple breach of contract due to Rugby Australia not having an enforceable social media clause in their contract. He's more than capable of claiming to do the first to get funding from fundies and paint himself as a victim while actually going for the second, as previous he is really not a sympathetic figure unless you're the sort of hard line christian who prefers to fund a multi millionaire rugby player on GoFundMe instead of children with cancer.

[213374U]

take a seat young Skywalker

 

 

[Guard Dog]

This man is an absolute and inexcusable f-----g fool! He goes to Miami and quotes Che Guevara to the relatives and friends of relatives of people Guevara literally tortured and murdered. https://www.cnn.com/2019/06/27/politics/bill-de-blasio-apologizes-che-miami/index.html

 

Edit: Turns out he is not a fool. He is a goddamned liar. He took his honeymoon in Cuba and was an avid supporter of Daniel Ortega and the Sandinista government in Nicaragua in the '70's. It seems he would know who Guevara was and was already OK with torture and mass murder for a good cause (as he sees it). I guess he'll fit right in with the Bernie Sanders crowd after all

https://newyork.cbslocal.com/2013/09/24/lhota-de-blasio-needs-to-explain-himself-over-cuba-honeymoon-sandinista-support/

 

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/deblasio-nicaragua-warren-wilhelm/

Edited June 29, 2019 by Guard Dog

[Guard Dog]

22 hours ago, Gromnir said:

@Guard Dog 

am not certain why the candidates aim so low on what amounts to fantasy offerings. would get more mileage if they claimed, if elected, every US family would get a free robot butler/supercomputer with drone capability... 'cause some folks like drones. tell people the robot could be leased out to companies so that an individual would not need go to work anymore if they did not wish to. or why not offer every american a personalized executive order grant?  end income tax. abolish Congress. compel journalists to be unbiased. why limit to possible when is obvious that fantasy is an option? heck, could say you would give hbo 100 days to start filming a better season 8 for got and if that don't happen, harris would then use executive order to make'em do so.  am betting harris woulda' gotten better feedback with our GoT option.

wasted opportunities. 

HA! Good Fun!

Speaking of making fantasy promises how do you like this little gem: https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/450800-bernie-sanders-says-he-would-move-to-rotate-supreme-court-justices-if

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

Being ok with torture and mass murder for "a good cause" is a requirement for holding office in the US.

[smjjames]

57 minutes ago, Guard Dog said:

Speaking of making fantasy promises how do you like this little gem: https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/450800-bernie-sanders-says-he-would-move-to-rotate-supreme-court-justices-if

Theres lots of SCOTUS reform ideas flying around atm, from packing the court, to term limits, to that, and everything in between. Really should get aired out in a debate at some point.

[ktchong]

 

 

Edited June 29, 2019 by ktchong

[ktchong]

 

Quote

Backstory for context: Michael Picard was protesting near a police DUI checkpoint in West Hartford when John Barone, a state police trooper, approached him under the pretext of public complaints and confiscated his legally-carried pistol and pistol permit.  The trooper then claimed that filming the police is illegal and took Picard's camera.  Unbeknownst to Trooper Barone, the camera was still on and recording when Barone brought it back to the police cruiser where his fellow state police troopers, Patrick Torneo and John Jacobi, were waiting. 

With the camera rolling, the officers proceeded to:  call a Hartford police officer to see if he or she had any "grudges" against Picard; open an investigation of him in the police database; and discuss a separate protest that he had organized at the state capitol.  Trooper Barone can be heard saying "we gotta cover our ass," and another trooper stated, "let's give him something," and the three settled on fabricating two criminal infraction tickets that they issued to Picard.  Trooper Torneo drove away with Picard's camera on top of his cruiser, upon which the camera fell onto the hood of the car, Torneo stopped, and Jaboi returned the camera to Picard. 

In July 2015, the criminal charges against Picard were dismissed in Connecticut Superior Court.  The ACLU-CT has filed a lawsuit on Picard's behalf contends that the troopers violated Picard's First Amendment right to free speech and Fourth Amendment right against warrantless seizure of his property.

THE REASON WHY HE WAS PROTESTING NEAR A DUI CHECKPOINT:  Statistics have proven that DUI checkpoints are ineffective and cost a money to yield very few results. The numbers speak for themselves.  Over 1 million vehicles pass through California's 1,500 sobriety checkpoints every year.  Police arrest just one-third of 1 percent of those motorists for drunken driving.  It costs the average department $5,000 every time they set up a checkpoint.  Instead of inefficiently stopping every car on the road in the elusive hunt for drunken drivers, roving patrols stand a better chance at getting dangerous drivers — be they distracted or drunk — off the streets.  Roving, or saturation, patrols consist of police officers driving around to actively seek out drunken and dangerous drivers instead of passively waiting at a roadblock for drunken drivers to come to them.  Patrols are up to 10 times more effective than checkpoints.

 

Edited June 30, 2019 by ktchong

[ShadySands]

Interesting, I always thought checkpoints were meant as deterrents not as the most effective way of actually catching drunk drivers

[Guard Dog]

1 hour ago, ktchong said:

With the camera rolling, the officers proceeded to:  call a Hartford police officer to see if he or she had any "grudges" against Picard; open an investigation of him in the police database; and discuss a separate protest that he had organized at the state capitol.  Trooper Barone can be heard saying "we gotta cover our ass," and another trooper stated, "let's give him something," and the three settled on fabricating two criminal infraction tickets that they issued to Picard.  Trooper Torneo drove away with Picard's camera on top of his cruiser, upon which the camera fell onto the hood of the car, Torneo stopped, and Jaboi returned the camera to Picard. 

 

You should be applauding the cops ktchong. You seem to want big and intrusive government.  You seem to be in favor of the nanny state. This is what it looks like. This IS government. Armed thugs in uniform throwing their weight around. Dismissive or, worse, ignorant of the laws they are supposed to enforce they charge whomever they like with whatever they like. That is what you are asking for when you ask for more government. State cops, IRS agents, BATF agents, Homeland Security agents, more, more, more all of them get raises and promotions when people get arrested. And when no one is doing anything wrong, arrest them anyway and make something up. After all, as one Miami-Dade cop told me long ago, everyone is guilty of something.

You want "social justice"? You want "economic justice"? You ask the "state" to provide these things and in the end you get men with guns and jobs that place them over you are apart from you. You can't have the dragon without the flame. 

[Maedhros]

I live in a "big government" country - the cops here aren't even armed. Big governments are fine as long as you have fair political elections, and a relatively educated population. I think it's also important to have laws that prevent politicians from enrichening themselves, which seems to be the case over there.

 

It's fully possible to have a larger degree of social and economic justice from the state without losing any "freedom".

[BruceVC]

4 hours ago, ktchong said:

 

 

THE REASON WHY HE WAS PROTESTING NEAR A DUI CHECKPOINT:  Statistics have proven that DUI checkpoints are ineffective and cost a money to yield very few results. The numbers speak for themselves.  Over 1 million vehicles pass through California's 1,500 sobriety checkpoints every year.  Police arrest just one-third of 1 percent of those motorists for drunken driving.  It costs the average department $5,000 every time they set up a checkpoint.  Instead of inefficiently stopping every car on the road in the elusive hunt for drunken drivers, roving patrols stand a better chance at getting dangerous drivers — be they distracted or drunk — off the streets.  Roving, or saturation, patrols consist of police officers driving around to actively seek out drunken and dangerous drivers instead of passively waiting at a roadblock for drunken drivers to come to them.  Patrols are up to 10 times more effective than checkpoints.

I call those statistics  nonsense and  lacking in real analysis on outcomes, DUI checkpoints really work and are both a deterrent and a way to enforce the law

I live in a country where we see real carnage on the roads and drunk driving is a major contributor towards this. I speak directly from my own experience and many people I know, about 10 years ago it was normal to drink and drive...not inebriated but still over the limit. We dont do that anymore and now use Uber to go to social functions or stay over at friends houses if we drinking

Roadblocks are the main reason for this as they have been implemented in many places strictly and also we want to be better citizens

So the guy protesting the DUI roadblock is just wasting everyone's time with some pointless and counter productive social justice experiment when the real question he should be asking is " is this a deterrent to drunk driving " and it is 

 

 

Edited June 30, 2019 by BruceVC

[Gorth]

On 6/29/2019 at 12:35 AM, 213374U said:

I asked specifically because I didn't understand the 19th century remark. I think we can all agree that pond scum should be allowed to sue for whatever. Doesn't mean the courts can't immediately throw out lawsuits due to lack of merit, and slap plaintiffs down as frivolous litigants if they persist.

Maybe I should have been more specific and generalized a bit more

The guy is just waste of oxygen, trying to blackmail a sports organization. That bit was more an observation of Australian society in general, that religious groups like the ACF not only exists, but wield as much power as they do. Christian churches here in general, seems to consider themselves above the law and don't have to answer to secular legislation, to the point of actively trying to dismantle or obstruct legislation that makes it illegal to cover up their crimes.

 

The hypocrisy remark was aimed at the attitude, homosexuality is bad unless you're just raping little boys, in which case it's perfectly fine and nobody else business. Yeah, stop discriminating us indeed, just because we're "Christians" and so go pester someone else.

 

 That was also the point of my remark about maybe just allow the Muslims to enforce Shari'a law too, if heading down that pathway.

 

Insert Monty Python skit with stoning of people he say 'Jehova' here.

 

[Gromnir]

4 hours ago, Maedhros said:

I live in a "big government" country - the cops here aren't even armed.

am not thinking armed cops is the indicator you believe it to be.  the reason we tend to have armed cops is 'cause we got an armed populace. if only the cops went unarmed, it would be passing strange, and am suspecting it would be difficult to find individuals willing to work as cops if everytime they faced a situation likely to result in a suspect producing a handgun or shotgun, the cops were limited to wielding pepper spray. our cops is armed 'not 'cause o' big or small government, but 'cause o' simple pragmatism. 

speaking o' big government, the US doesn't have cops. what we mean is, there is no national police force. am knowing we showed a map o' st. louis when there were all that excitement in ferguson a few years past, yes? st. louis county has 88 different municipalities.

a few o' those municipalities kinda go cooperative on police and fire n' such, but you still got a whole bunch o' different police forces, each with their own rules and procedures. potential 88 different police force, plus state cops, all operating in one county in the US, and each o' the police departments with their own rules and regulations and procedures with no real federal oversight possible.

and when people ask why The government, doesn't do something, anything, 'bout police problems across the nation, there is a simple answer: one o' the things the Constitution specific denies power to the Federal government is police power. b!tch and moan 'bout government indifference or ineptitude or racism is, in this singular case, complete misguided. the fed government literal cannot do anything save most oblique efforts 'bout police behaviour in chautauqua, ny or ferguson, missouri.

regardless, big or small government ain't a factor insofar as arming cops is concerned. single biggest factor as to why our cops is so heavily armed is fact our populace is so heavily armed, particular with handguns. almost every traffic stop is gonna result in cop adrenaline peaking 'cause any driver might have a glock tucked under their leg or in the glove box.  contrary to narrative o' democrat candidates, assault weapons (*snort*) is producing the equivalent o' a rounding error insofar as homicides in a given year for the US. handguns, on the other hand...

...

the thing is, even democrats ain't gonna try and take away handguns from americans and is handguns which result in thousands o' homicides per year and results in all those local cop forces deciding to similar arm their police forces. 

aside

Oregon GOP Senators Return To Capitol After Dems Agree To Kill Climate Bill

and so, as predictable as a season o' buffy the vampire slayer, the democratic apocalypse were thwarted in the nick o' time. a good thing too 'cause a few o' our boardies were shivering themselves to pieces... poor dears.

now if only The Government would do something 'bout those opinionated and vile journalists, eh?

HA! Good Fun!

[Guard Dog]

When it comes to abusive and intrusive government it is hardly limited to leviathan-on-the-Potomac. In fact it is far more likely to come from state capitals, county seats, and city halls. Unfortunately they get away with far worse and far more because much of it goes unnoticed by the press. It's a far bigger story when it comes from DC because it affects everyone. And they tend to get away with less because of that. Small wonder they (the press) are the enemies of one side or the other (or none depending on where you stand). But the real villains go unnoticed because despite a heavier hand  they have a shorter grasp. 

Edited June 30, 2019 by Guard Dog
Clarification

[213374U]

5 hours ago, Gorth said:

That bit was more an observation of Australian society in general, that religious groups like the ACF not only exists, but wield as much power as they do. Christian churches here in general, seems to consider themselves above the law and don't have to answer to secular legislation, to the point of actively trying to dismantle or obstruct legislation that makes it illegal to cover up their crimes.

The hypocrisy remark was aimed at the attitude, homosexuality is bad unless you're just raping little boys, in which case it's perfectly fine and nobody else business. Yeah, stop discriminating us indeed, just because we're "Christians" and so go pester someone else.

Yeah, that's what I was asking about. Coming from a place where the Church also holds disproportionate power and influence, my perspective on what other countries view as normal regarding the weight of religious sentiment is skewed.

I get the feeling that with the general erosion of confidence in the current social contract as a result of rising inequality, corruption and sociopolitical polarization comes the threat of a weakening of support for the -⁠secular- framework that allows a degree of peaceful coexistence in Western societies.

I don't think you can stop religious groups (or any other group that nurtures their own myths about the "common good") from resisting secular law from time to time. The anomaly is that secular magistrates aren't coming down on them like a ton of bricks. Can you guess what happens if instead of some picayune issue like, oh, sexual abuse of minors, an organization starts routinely resisting taxation on moral grounds? The cries of discrimination in this context are yet another example of idpol being rubbish.

Edited June 30, 2019 by 213374U
¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[Skarpen]

On 6/29/2019 at 3:01 PM, KaineParker said:

Being ok with torture and mass murder for "a good cause" is a requirement for holding office in the US.

Isn't that the case in every country ever?

10 hours ago, ShadySands said:

Interesting, I always thought checkpoints were meant as deterrents not as the most effective way of actually catching drunk drivers

Those things are implemented to make money. Case in point numerous local administrations in Poland had stationary speed radars removed because they weren't making enough money, because (and here's the kicker) drivers knew there were there and weren't speeding. 

9 hours ago, Guard Dog said:

You should be applauding the cops ktchong. You seem to want big and intrusive government.  You seem to be in favor of the nanny state. This is what it looks like. This IS government. Armed thugs in uniform throwing their weight around. Dismissive or, worse, ignorant of the laws they are supposed to enforce they charge whomever they like with whatever they like. That is what you are asking for when you ask for more government. State cops, IRS agents, BATF agents, Homeland Security agents, more, more, more all of them get raises and promotions when people get arrested. And when no one is doing anything wrong, arrest them anyway and make something up. After all, as one Miami-Dade cop told me long ago, everyone is guilty of something.

You want "social justice"? You want "economic justice"? You ask the "state" to provide these things and in the end you get men with guns and jobs that place them over you are apart from you. You can't have the dragon without the flame. 

Couldn't agree more. The more power in the executive branch the less "serve and protect", more "obey and keep quiet".

7 hours ago, Maedhros said:

I live in a "big government" country - the cops here aren't even armed. Big governments are fine as long as you have fair political elections, and a relatively educated population. I think it's also important to have laws that prevent politicians from enrichening themselves, which seems to be the case over there.

 

It's fully possible to have a larger degree of social and economic justice from the state without losing any "freedom".

How's that Barnevernet doing this days?

6 hours ago, Gorth said:

Maybe I should have been more specific and generalized a bit more

The guy is just waste of oxygen, trying to blackmail a sports organization. That bit was more an observation of Australian society in general, that religious groups like the ACF not only exists, but wield as much power as they do. Christian churches here in general, seems to consider themselves above the law and don't have to answer to secular legislation, to the point of actively trying to dismantle or obstruct legislation that makes it illegal to cover up their crimes.

The hypocrisy remark was aimed at the attitude, homosexuality is bad unless you're just raping little boys, in which case it's perfectly fine and nobody else business. Yeah, stop discriminating us indeed, just because we're "Christians" and so go pester someone else.

 That was also the point of my remark about maybe just allow the Muslims to enforce Shari'a law too, if heading down that pathway.

Insert Monty Python skit with stoning of people he say 'Jehova' here.

 

Sorry, mate. But it seems to me you have more objection to the guys being Christian than anything else that has to do with the story, 

Christians are already the most persecuted group in the world no need to add to it.

[213374U]

2 hours ago, Skarpen said:

Sorry, mate. But it seems to me you have more objection to the guys being Christian than anything else that has to do with the story, 

Christians are already the most persecuted group in the world no need to add to it.

This in spite of the fact that he specifically and repeatedly mentioned that it could be a problem with Muslims pushing for Sharia as well? What an odd assumption to make.

And I'm pretty sure that Christians aren't victims of any persecution worth noting in Australia. Context and ****.

[Skarpen]

52 minutes ago, 213374U said:

This in spite of the fact that he specifically and repeatedly mentioned that it could be a problem with Muslims pushing for Sharia as well? What an odd assumption to make.

And I'm pretty sure that Christians aren't victims of any persecution worth noting in Australia. Context and ****.

Might be wrong, it's just a vibe I got from comment.

I agree Australia is not jeopardy for Christians despite some claims in recent years. No excuse for bashing them though.

Edited June 30, 2019 by Skarpen