The US Election 2016, Part IV

[Gromnir]

@Pidesco, I'm at work and can't give a full answer but just let me point out that in the US a privately owned vehicle is afforded the same 4th Amendment protections as a home or any other private property. 

no

[Guard Dog]

 

@Pidesco, I'm at work and can't give a full answer but just let me point out that in the US a privately owned vehicle is afforded the same 4th Amendment protections as a home or any other private property. 

no

 

My understanding is they can stop the car, order the driver out and search the driver and may apply the "plain sight" rule to the car but it stops there. Anything else needs either a search warrant, consent of the owner, or a hell of a probable cause.

 

On that note let me ask you a question. One of the exceptions that grants probable cause is what the police call a "protection search" for weapons. In Tennessee we have a "duty to notify" rule that compels us to inform the police we are dealing with if we are carrying a concealed weapon, if they ask. So if I'm carrying (I do have a permit) and inform them I am does that give them the cause for the protection search? 

[HoonDing]

Guess it depends on whether you're white or not.

[Wrath of Dagon]

 Oh I'm not suggesting they "ordered" any of them killed. But damn there is just so MANY. It's hard to believe they are all just coincidences.

Could be just the four degrees of separation thing.

 

Edit: Also remember the Clintons are connected to many more people than an average person. Just Bill's mistresses have to be in the thousands.

Edited August 10, 2016 by Wrath of Dagon

[Gromnir]

 

 

@Pidesco, I'm at work and can't give a full answer but just let me point out that in the US a privately owned vehicle is afforded the same 4th Amendment protections as a home or any other private property. 

no

 

My understanding is they can stop the car, order the driver out and search the driver and may apply the "plain sight" rule to the car but it stops there. Anything else needs either a search warrant, consent of the owner, or a hell of a probable cause.

 

On that note let me ask you a question. One of the exceptions that grants probable cause is what the police call a "protection search" for weapons. In Tennessee we have a "duty to notify" rule that compels us to inform the police we are dealing with if we are carrying a concealed weapon, if they ask. So if I'm carrying (I do have a permit) and inform them I am does that give them the cause for the protection search? 

 

homes get a different level o' scrutiny.  this is the reason why mobile homes has occupied a considerable amount o' space in judicial decisions.  we could explain just how wrong you is, but would probable just be easier for you to check for your self.  regardless, homes is different. so, "no." sorry.  is as simple as that. 

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Amentep]

Having looked it up earlier, my understanding is that the rule on searching vehicles comes from prohibition and the idea that if the police officer stops a vehicle it believes to be carrying contraband.

 

Because vehicles can be moved from the jurisdiction during the time used in getting a warrent it was deemed permissible to search for contraband. There were then a bunch of refinements and mobile homes deemed to be more vehicles than home.

[Enoch]

 

 Oh I'm not suggesting they "ordered" any of them killed. But damn there is just so MANY. It's hard to believe they are all just coincidences.

Could be just the four degrees of separation thing.

 

Edit: Also remember the Clintons are connected to many more people than an average person. Just Bill's mistresses have to be in the thousands.

 

 

Most people also don't have an army of conspiracy theorists and hack-journalist enablers desperate to tie them to any and all potentially nefarious conduct that happens within a sparrow's flight of any building they once walked into. 

 

The playbook is simple-- the public will laugh off the occasional ridiculous accusation, but if you throw an endless stream of ridiculous accusations at the wall for 30+ years, folks who aren't paying very close attention will start to wonder whether there's fire behind all that smoke.

Edited August 10, 2016 by Enoch

[Bartimaeus]

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/aug/09/trump-gun-owners-clinton-judges-second-amendment

 

"Trump hints at assassination of Hillary Clinton by gun rights supporters"

[Guard Dog]

 

 

 Oh I'm not suggesting they "ordered" any of them killed. But damn there is just so MANY. It's hard to believe they are all just coincidences.

Could be just the four degrees of separation thing.

 

Edit: Also remember the Clintons are connected to many more people than an average person. Just Bill's mistresses have to be in the thousands.

 

 

Most people also don't have an army of conspiracy theorists and hack-journalist enablers desperate to tie them to any and all potentially nefarious conduct that happens within a sparrow's flight of any building they once walked into. 

 

The playbook is simple-- the public will laugh off the occasional ridiculous accusation, but if you throw an endless stream of ridiculous accusations at the wall for 30+ years, folks who aren't paying very close attention will start to wonder whether there's fire behind all that smoke.

 

Well most of them are pretty easy to dismiss. But the one he was having an affair with who committed suicide by shooting herself in the back of the head with a rifle is a little hard to overlook. The rest might be just smoke the the Susan Coleman case has a little orange light coming from it.

[Wrath of Dagon]

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/aug/09/trump-gun-owners-clinton-judges-second-amendment

 

"Trump hints at assassination of Hillary Clinton by gun rights supporters"

Hilzilla herself had said something far worse than that: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/24/us/politics/24clinton.html?_r=1

 

If it was any issue other than the Second Amendment, no one would've jumped to the conclusion he's talking about an assassination. Having said that his remark was rather cryptic, so more ammunition for the media to attack him with.

[HoonDing]

Still pretty dumb in a country where a politician got shot after some retarted Tea Partier released pictures with crosshairs on her face.

[Meshugger]

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/aug/09/trump-gun-owners-clinton-judges-second-amendment

 

"Trump hints at assassination of Hillary Clinton by gun rights supporters"

 

Elegant. The media took the bait and will now talk about him for another week with frothing expert opinions.

[Chilloutman]

 

 

I just want self driving cars. I should be able to just tell my car where to go so I can focus on important stuff like debating on forums. Holding a steering wheel is for peasants.

Teacher giving up independence, sad

This is stupid. The independence to sit in traffic? To drive in a straight line on a freeway? Oh noes, my liberty!

 

I love when people try to justify doing menial tasks by calling it independence. I have a dishwasher in my house too, I really give up the freedom to hand wash everything.

 

 

What can I say, if you are comparing ability to travel whenever you want without interference of anybody else with dish washing I really can't argue that. Besides don't you have this ability to not drive by yourself already? Its called bus.

[Bartimaeus]

And where do you live, exactly? Unless you live in the middle of a legit city, buses are very often either not a realistic and/or timely method of transportation for way too many people. Given that Hurlshot mentioned driving on a freeway, I would guess he does not live in the middle of a real city, otherwise he would not need to drive on a freeway to begin with. I also personally despise being in a bus, so the point is rather irrelevant to begin with.

[Pidesco]

And where do you live, exactly? Unless you live in the middle of a legit city, buses are very often either not a realistic and/or timely method of transportation for way too many people. Given that Hurlshot mentioned driving on a freeway, I would guess he does not live in the middle of a real city, otherwise he would not need to drive on a freeway to begin with. I also personally despise being in a bus, so the point is rather irrelevant to begin with.

 

That's America for you, where the car industry did their best and succeeded to wreck public transportation. The wondrous invisible hand of the free market at work.

[Chilloutman]

And where do you live, exactly? Unless you live in the middle of a legit city, buses are very often either not a realistic and/or timely method of transportation for way too many people. Given that Hurlshot mentioned driving on a freeway, I would guess he does not live in the middle of a real city, otherwise he would not need to drive on a freeway to begin with. I also personally despise being in a bus, so the point is rather irrelevant to begin with.

 

Not sure what point you are trying to make, I live in suburbs in country with probably best public transport in a word but I still prefer to drive my car. Point I was trying to make is that you already have options to give up on driving if you wish so

[Bartimaeus]

A great many people do not have the options that you have to realistically give up having to drive their own vehicle. Furthermore, as Hurlshot's posts were evidence enough of, there is obviously going to be some overlap between the people who cannot realistically stop driving their own vehicle and people who do not like to drive (or at least do not like to drive in some circumstances). Consequently, you can see how there might be a desire for self-driving vehicles.

 

 

 

That's America for you, where the car industry did their best and succeeded to wreck public transportation. The wondrous invisible hand of the free market at work.

 

I'm not aware of the American car industry's attempts at destroying public transportation. I mean that literally: I am ignorant of the subject. Do you have any links so I can see how that came to be? Public transportation over such a ridiculously large landmass was always going to be a struggle...so I'm curious as to how it was deliberately made worse.

Edited August 10, 2016 by Bartimaeus

[Chilloutman]

A great many people do not have the options that you have to realistically give up having to drive their own vehicle. Furthermore, as Hurlshot's posts were evidence enough of, there is obviously going to be some overlap between the people who cannot realistically stop driving their own vehicle and people who do not like to drive (or at least do not like to drive in some circumstances). Consequently, you can see how there might be a desire for self-driving vehicles.

I don't denying it, I am just pointing out that you are by that giving up a part of your independence. In EU is desire to supply resources from cheapest source, but by that we are giving part of our independence to hands of few who control such sources. Far fetched comparsion but still relevant i think

[Meshugger]

A blast from the past, Clinton and assassinations:

 

https://twitter.com/JaredWyand/status/763249251182780416

[Bartimaeus]

 

A great many people do not have the options that you have to realistically give up having to drive their own vehicle. Furthermore, as Hurlshot's posts were evidence enough of, there is obviously going to be some overlap between the people who cannot realistically stop driving their own vehicle and people who do not like to drive (or at least do not like to drive in some circumstances). Consequently, you can see how there might be a desire for self-driving vehicles.

I don't denying it, I am just pointing out that you are by that giving up a part of your independence. In EU is desire to supply resources from cheapest source, but by that we are giving part of our independence to hands of few who control such sources. Far fetched comparsion but still relevant i think

 

 

You never actually established how it's "giving up your independence" in the first place, though. As far as I'm concerned, the ability to have self-driving vehicles will increase independence, not decrease - people who do not enjoy actively driving will now be able to avoid doing so the vast majority of the time while still being able to use their own vehicle that they can direct at their whim, as opposed to having to currently use public transportation that they do not control...public transportation that is woefully lacking throughout most of the U.S. Laws will still require that the person sitting in the driver's seat have a valid driver's license and be able to start driving at any moment, and self-driving vehicles have a manual override...so what exactly are you seeing as a "loss of independence" here?

Edited August 10, 2016 by Bartimaeus

[Chilloutman]

You never actually established how it's "giving up your independence" in the first place, though. As far as I'm concerned, the ability to have self-driving vehicles will increase independence, not decrease - people who do not enjoy actively driving will now be able to avoid doing so the vast majority of the time while still being able to use their own vehicle that they can direct at their whim, as opposed to having to currently use public transportation that they do not control...public transportation that is woefully lacking throughout most of the U.S. Laws will still require that the person sitting in the driver's seat have a valid driver's license and be able to start driving at any moment, and self-driving vehicles have a manual override...so what exactly are you seeing as a "loss of independence" here?

You actually put it down in your post. That notion that you DO control self-driving vehicle is false. Of course you can't start control your car at any moment, what point of self-driving it have if you still have to be ready at any second to take control of it?

[Pidesco]

A great many people do not have the options that you have to realistically give up having to drive their own vehicle. Furthermore, as Hurlshot's posts were evidence enough of, there is obviously going to be some overlap between the people who cannot realistically stop driving their own vehicle and people who do not like to drive (or at least do not like to drive in some circumstances). Consequently, you can see how there might be a desire for self-driving vehicles.

 

 

 

That's America for you, where the car industry did their best and succeeded to wreck public transportation. The wondrous invisible hand of the free market at work.

 

I'm not aware of the American car industry's attempts at destroying public transportation. I mean that literally: I am ignorant of the subject. Do you have any links so I can see how that came to be? Public transportation over such a ridiculously large landmass was always going to be a struggle...so I'm curious as to how it was deliberately made worse.

 

What I've read before was that GM bought up public transportation companies in California(in LA, I think) so that they could dismantle them.  Looking for it now on Google gave me a wikipedia link that states it's mostly conspiracy theory and/or exaggeration.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_streetcar_conspiracy

 

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/the-gm-trolley-conspiracy-what-really-happened/

 

http://moderntransit.org/ctc/ctc06.html

[Guard Dog]

Well that foot has been swallowed: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-second-amendment-people-could-do-something-about-clinton-judge-choices/

 

I don't take this as a call to violence. But it was a pretty stupid thing to say even by his standards. Of course the reaction, particularly the pro-Hillary media has been over the top. MSNBC started off their election coverage last night be saying, and I quote "Donald Trump Calls for Assassination of Hillary Clinton".

[Meshugger]

Wikileaks claims that Clinton's aide, Huma had access and used Clinton's private email account:

 

https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/763112662142164992

[Pidesco]

Closed for length and continued here.