|
House Majority Leader McCarthy is making the Sunday Morning Show rounds endorsing the idea of eliminating the legislative filibuster http://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/house-majority-leader-endorses-nuclear-option-n315106 The Senate GOP spent 8 years filibustering everything, now as soon as they have the Senate again there is the push to strip that power so the Dems can't do the same. Raise your hand if you didn't see that coming.
|
#
¿
Mar 1, 2015 19:07
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 15:51 |
|
|
site posted:With the cpac polling on the issue, what are the chances of the Rs co-opting the legalization issue early to outflank the Dems and secure the youth vote? Slim to none, and Slim just left town. Keep in mind that the demographics of who goes to CPAC are very different from who votes in primary elections. CPAC has a large libertarian and College Republican contingent, the primary voters are 80%+ old evangelicals. More to the point, the war on drugs serves a very useful purpose for the established interests of the GOP (and to a lesser extent, the Dems) that they don't want to upend.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 1, 2015 19:10
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:This is a good thing though, because it doesn't change anything while Obama's in office That's exactly what they are trying to change. Not setting the rules at the next session, the House is pushing for McConnell to change them now. That this cannot be done because the Dems won't provide the necessary votes is not accepted by the House, members of which are insisting McConnell do it anyways, and his refusal to do so is weakness. Yes, the House is insisting on something that is contrary to reality. I don't know why anyone would be surprised by that at this point.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 1, 2015 19:50
|
|
|
So in Virginia private citizens can just start rolling around as an armed police force despite not being, you know, cops Like, I can't even enumerate the number of ways this can go wrong. I mean, just starting with the history of armed private citizens deciding to enforce their interpretation of the law in this country. Or color of law civil rights violations. Or just about any other point where we get "oh, you don't meet the standards to be trained as an officer of the law, much less get years of on the job training from the institution proper? Go ahead and pretend you are a policeman anyways, the state will back you up" Jesus
|
|
#
¿
Mar 1, 2015 23:36
|
|
|
Oh, and here: have Ted Cruz's 1992 op-ed in the Daily Princetonian where he questions the president's authority to institute a keg ban.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 1, 2015 23:45
|
|
|
blunt for century posted:What. The. gently caress. hey now, this new bill will require them to have the same level of training as a mall cop! You know, until it gets taken down as part of burdensome government regulation on private enterprise.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 2, 2015 00:16
|
|
|
Gyges posted:Actually, how does the average Israeli feel about Bibi and the Republicans teaming up to turn support for Israel into a partisan thing that pushes Democrats away from the status quo sloppy blow jobs for Israel no matter what? I mean actively antagonizing the President of the United States and his party has to be throwing a monkey wrench in plans somewhere. My understanding is its a fairly partisan split. Likud supporters like it, Labour supports think it is foolish, and the op-eds and talking heads are nattering on with about as much influence as they ever have.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 2, 2015 03:11
|
|
|
JT Jag posted:Anyone actually involved in national security in Israel loving hates what he's doing though, because they know that the US is Israel's sugar daddy and you shouldn't be biting the hand that feeds you like Netanyahu has made a habit of regularly doing. yeah but that's hardly an Israel/Bibi thing. The experts in a given field always have a very different idea of what national policy for that field should look like compared to the political leaders.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 2, 2015 03:22
|
|
|
Randalor posted:Less than mall cops. Mall cops are better trained than these jackoffs. see, I read that as the 40 was less than was required for mall cops, and the 130 was bringing them up to that level. But looking again, you could be right as well. It is not an artfully constructed sentence. Point is, the whole idea is insane. You want private security, ok, but the thing is there is a tight leash on what private security can do. These guys don't have those checks.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 2, 2015 03:24
|
|
|
JT Jag posted:Sometimes it makes you yearn for a technocracy. Not really, a lot of experts aren't that on point outside their wheelhouse. Spending a lifetime getting a full understanding of one problem is nice, except it can leave you deficient in other fields. Really the only solution is to appoint me god emperor of mankind and give me absolute authority. Or barring that, $2 trillion dollars, the power of conscription, and free reign to start up a few dozen Manhatten Project style "develop this technology NOW" endeavors.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 2, 2015 03:28
|
|
|
Happy Noodle Boy posted:Idiocracy's future doesn't look too bad once we figure out the whole not watering plants with sport drinks parrt. Hell, most dystopias would be a massive step up simply because the creator's view of what is terrible is usually "what if white people were treated like the poor in the first world" since they don't realize A) what it is like to be poor in America and B) don't realize what it is like to be poor outside the global rich states. Yeah. Looking right at ya, Verhoeven.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 2, 2015 03:34
|
|
|
JT Jag posted:It wouldn't be a technocracy if just one person was in charge. The practical method to create a technocracy as similar to the American system as possible would be to abolish the Presidency and Congress and make the various bureaucracies the authorities, with what is now cabinet members instead being representatives from the various bureaucracies. as I recall, the American technocracy movement was largely absorbed by the American fascist movement, (because Taylor was an rear end in a top hat, and we've basically spent the last 35 years bringing him back to the fore) but before it went under had all sorts of weird ideas, like moving money to "the energy standard" instead of fiat or gold. As in, $1 got you 1 kwh worth of goods and services. I have no idea how that would even work, and since most histories of the movement are about its fall, I have never found a clear explanation
|
|
#
¿
Mar 2, 2015 03:39
|
|
|
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/03/02/us/justice-department-report-to-fault-police-in-ferguson.html?_r=0&referrer= The DoJ is about to drop the heavy end of the hammer on Ferguson. They only need to show proof of avoidable disparate impact in policing to win, which they have, but they also have the fact that racist "jokes" were being mailed around between city officials.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 2, 2015 04:29
|
|
|
Litany Unheard posted:Elections would take a while if you could only confirm 7 votes a second. On that note, "How Nuts Are Markets When the Most Reasonable Analysis of an Asset Class Pumped by the Great and Good in Tech Is a Parody Sub-Reddit Entitled 'Buttcoin'?" is a real paper published in a real peer reviewed economics journal
|
|
#
¿
Mar 2, 2015 04:34
|
|
|
Zeno-25 posted:It's been a while since I boned up on the subject, but isn't the IAF quite limited in terms of its capabilities as far out as Iran, and wouldn't that necessitate nuclear strikes against the hardened Iranian nuclear facilities in order for an attack to really set them back a good decade? Or have we given Israel some of the latest generation Massive Ordinance Penetrators? Been a while since I looked, but my understanding was that without US provided in-air refueling capabilities, any Israeli jet sent to strike at Iran's facilities will be on a one-way trip. They can't make the circuitous route of not violating the air space of other countries (and trigger a war with them) and fly far enough into Iran to reach their targets and then have enough fuel to make the same round-about way home.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 2, 2015 05:09
|
|
|
Joementum posted:Also, too, such a route doesn't exist. Jordan is the hang up as I recall. The Jordanians won't let them fly through. But like you said the point is academic
|
|
#
¿
Mar 2, 2015 05:20
|
|
|
Ghost of Reagan Past posted:Imagine if you could pick up your smartphone and vote on a proposal that impacted millions. Then imagine your racist uncle being able to do the same thing. Or just look at Switzerland, since it has direct democracy.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 2, 2015 05:22
|
|
|
Joementum posted:Wouldn't be so sure about that one. If Israel is going at it alone with some sort of suicide strike on the facilities? Yeah. But the scenario of a successful strike involves American support for this to provide the in air refueling capability and (in the second stage) to have the Iraqis stand down. At least, those were the assumptions in 2012.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 2, 2015 05:27
|
|
|
CommanderApaul posted:1600km one-way direct flight, going almost directly over Baghdad, violating the airspace of Jordan, Syria and Iraq in the process. They can't even get there direct without tanking. F-16 has a range of 3200+ km dude. Good Citizen posted:My understanding is that Irans nuclear targets are so hardened at this point that any sort of attack from the air would be almost completely ineffective anyway I'd expect so. There were a series of "unfortunate industrial accidents" at one of the sites a few years ago weren't there? What's left or has been rebuilt has to have been hardened against what they could project as a reasonable expectation of force deployed against them.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 2, 2015 05:36
|
|
|
So the SCOTUS is hearing a case today the looks to ban the use of independent districting commissions. The case is Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission. In 2000, voters passed an amendment to the state constitution that set up an independent commission. This prevented the intense gerrymander seen in other states after the 2010 election. So the state Republican Party is suing. Because it is totally because the election clause says the power should lay with the legislature and they live the constitution so much, and not at all because they want to gerrymander the state to hell and back to secure their own power (In 2012 democrats won 5 of the 9 house seats but that is totally unrelated) I for one look forward to our 5-4 decision that further undermines our ability to have good elections.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 2, 2015 15:28
|
|
|
SCOTUS denied very to a case out of Maryland where a suspect was convicted on DNA evidence, with the DNA being collected by swabbing the arm rests of a chair the suspect was sitting in rather that the suspect submitting to a test. The appellate court had ruled this was acceptable so that ruling stands - the state can passively gather and indefinitely retain DNA records Fairly ominous in the big picture.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 2, 2015 18:37
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:If you've been arrested I don't think you can lawfully refuse to give a DNA sample so this ruling just seems to suggest they can get the same through an available means without having to swab you. I flubbed some details - the person eventually arrested was not under arrest at the time. He met with police for questioning, but refused to submit to sampling, as the previous 20+ people interviewed about the crime had. So the police swabbed the seat he had been in. It was a match and this was used to arrest and convict. He challenged this. Maryland's top court ruled 4-3 that leaving DNA behind was akin to a fingerprint, so no invasion of privacy occurred. The dissenters pointed out to how often the body sheds cells and said a probable cause warrant should be needed. EfF agreed and filed an amicus brief, that given how often you leave traces that an unlimited ability to collect and search genetic material could lead to a scenario where DNA could be collected from any person through any number of means at any time, entered into and checked against DNA databases and used for pervasive surveillance Case is Raynor v Maryland
|
|
#
¿
Mar 2, 2015 19:56
|
|
|
greatn posted:I really have no problem with it. I don't know why anyone should be contented about police being able to take DNA samples that are left behind, the same way anything you say can and will be used against you. Because you can remain silent and short of being decked out in a Hazmat suit you can't stop leaving DNA traces? Because he refused to comment on my with a DNA test and they did one anyways?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 2, 2015 20:21
|
|
|
amanasleep posted:Seems like it's self limiting, since if police don't initially have your DNA on file they still have to prove that the DNA collected is yours. Except it now allows them to collect it and have it on file to check any crimes that show up in the future against? You don't see how this leaves a massive loophole to exploitation and abuse?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 2, 2015 20:22
|
|
|
Senator Barbra Mikulski (D-MD) will not seek re-election. She is the longest serving woman in congress in american history, and her hardball style has earned her the title "the meanest senator" by congressional staffers. She is credited with reshaping the role of women in government. Current horse race speculation (with all of 4 hours to go on) is Martin O'Malley will run for her seat *insert Scott brown joke here*
|
|
#
¿
Mar 2, 2015 20:46
|
|
|
He is Risen
|
|
#
¿
Mar 2, 2015 20:48
|
|
|
richardfun posted:And apparently, even if your DNA is not a match in that particular case, they'll keep it on file. You know, just in case.... No, that is exactly the concern. That without laying down rules about when and how it is acceptable to sample DNA and how long they keep it on record it is a wide open invitation to mass surveillance.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 2, 2015 21:00
|
|
|
amanasleep posted:Only if they can prove that it's your DNA. I am generally against mass collection of DNA, and would support legislation to make it inadmissable, but this seems like something the cops have always been able to do, and presents the defense with a lot of avenues to create reasonable doubt that it actually belongs to the accused. You are arguing this specific case when the challenge is on the larger legal principle regarding the situation that you say you are against. You are familiar with the saying "bad cases make bad law"? This is one of them. I'm pretty happy a rapist is behind bars. I'm not happy that the guidelines laid down open the door to massive intrusion because in this very specific scenario we can justify what was done if we squint and imagine some possibilities.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 2, 2015 21:04
|
|
|
So I'm not seeing much in the way of coverage about the latest with DHS funding or the debt limit today, despite them both being on the hot seat shortly. Plenty about the fuckups leading to last weeks 1 week extension for DHS, a bunch of blather in the lead up to the SCOTUS hearing on the ACA, but not much on what is being done with DHS today or what will happen with the debt ceiling. Which is a little troubling. No one is giving these guys the hairy eyeball given how close we have come the other times?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 2, 2015 22:32
|
|
|
DemeaninDemon posted:It's this that's the problem you shits not DNA itself. Another database someone may show up in and get railed by cops with. Bonus points for it not being definite due to butt DNA being from many possible butts. Yep. I'm amazed that people here are having problems grasping the concept of a limiting principle, and why that is something very important to have laid down for things like this.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 3, 2015 00:12
|
|
|
Munkeymon posted:So you're recognizing there's problem behavior but you want to put some arbitrary limit on unrelated behavior in the hope that maybe one will affect the other once in a while. Meanwhile the cops know they're being forced to potentially waste a ton of time re-acquiring information and hey who could be annoyed by that? Are you loving insane?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 3, 2015 00:21
|
|
|
quote:The leader of the free world will be addressing Congress on Tuesday. The American president is doing everything possible to undermine him. quote:Benjamin Netanyahu of course speaks first for Israel, but he speaks also for you and for me, for decency and humaneness, and for vigilance and strength against truly evil adversaries. Congress, by inviting him, is wise. Obama, by opposing him, is horribly wrong. And the civilized world, if it ignores him, will be well-nigh suicidal.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 3, 2015 01:36
|
|
|
DEA warns of stoned rabbits if Utah passes medical marijuana
|
|
#
¿
Mar 3, 2015 06:11
|
|
|
Boehner will allow a vote on a clean DHS funding bill later today, surprising no one.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 3, 2015 15:46
|
|
|
Boot and Rally posted:It looks like it is a post on ft alphaville: http://ftalphaville.ft.com/tag/bitcoinmania/. I got the link through Brad DeLong. Huh, I heard about it from a friend who posted it was a journal article. Jeff lied, posts died. Thanks for the correction. RevKrule posted:Hillary used private email to conduct state business Yeah, it is bullshit that she did this and maybe illegal, but every post watergate politician does it. They have to record and preserve official correspondence so they do their work through unofficial channels so there is less of a record. Palin had her yahoo account hacked because it was one of many she was doing business out of, Jeb Bush's email dump the other week was from his Jeb.org account because he ran some governor business out of there, and there have been so many other that have come out like that the past few years I've lost count. This story has been ready to roll for years though in preparation for when the Clinton campaign for going. Begs the question who benefits from it coming out now. For my part it doesn't do much more than reinforce what I didn't like about the Clintons already, but I still hate the GOP more.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 3, 2015 15:53
|
|
|
Edward Snowden has apparently realized Putin's Russia isn't the free market paradise he hoped for and has announced he is "ready to return to the States" and stand trial, provided it is a "legal and impartial trial" - as in, not tried under the Espionage Act or in any of the secret courts that have sprung up in the last 15 years. So far the US position is they won't seek the death penalty.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 3, 2015 19:34
|
|
|
Rexicon1 posted:I can't believe Snowden went over there thinking that's what it was gonna be like. I get the impression he had an idea of what it was like, but didn't expect the wars, assassinations, and economic crunch that have come to pass since. The view I ascribed to him s one I've seen pitched by similar libertarians though. Not that he was overwhelmed for choices of where to run
|
|
#
¿
Mar 3, 2015 19:39
|
|
|
Gravel Gravy posted:
What are you talking about, he's been in Russia for years. Are you thinking of Assange maybe? http://www.politico.com/story/2015/03/edward-snowden-wants-to-return-us-115697.html Rexicon1 posted:Wait, assassinations?? Boris Nemtsov getting rubbed out on Friday? Gravel Gravy posted:Accidents happen every day. What makes you think it was assassination? He was an opposition leader critical of Putin, the security cameras were all turned off for "maintenance" when it happened, it happened a stones throw away from the Kremlin, his apartment was ransacked immediately after it went down...
|
|
#
¿
Mar 3, 2015 19:48
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:But giving laptops full of classified data to your mistress is only worth probation and a fine. Let's be fair, he didn't give them to his mistress, he gave them to a reporter to get her to be his mistress. Like chocolates or flowers, but for spies and journalists. After that there were no laptops, it was just pillow talk hobbesmaster posted:If Snowden isn't an idiot that honestly thought Russia was freer than the US this is just trying to get some more attention for whatever reason. There is a movie about him being made and he will be speaking (remotely) at SXSW in a few weeks, I think he is set for attention. I expect it is he wants to get the hell out of dodge before Putin really screws him over.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 3, 2015 20:07
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 15:51 |
|
|
zoux posted:I would rather live in Russia than live in American prison. Talmonis posted:Do you really think they're going to send him to a Supermax? It'd make more sense for him to be sent to a minimum security Federal prison. Our minimum security Federal prisons are nightmares so that isn't much comfort.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 3, 2015 20:10
|
|