Jump to content


Getting an "Insecure Connection" warning for Exisle? No worry

Details in this thread

What are the Republicans up to now?


  • Please log in to reply
73 replies to this topic

#61 sierraleone

sierraleone

    All things Great and Mischievous

  • Islander
  • 8,807 posts

Posted 24 February 2017 - 11:38 PM

Passed in the Arizona state senate, and now onto the Arizona state house, to be able to arrest and seize asset of people involved in the planning or participating in protests, if the protests turn violent. Even if the specific person(s) they arrest, or seize assets of, did not break any other laws themselves (as in they were not violent or damaging property). Really?. So, if one plans or participates in protest peacefully, but some smuck ostensibly for one's cause, someone from a concurrent counter protest, a random anarchist, or an agent provocateur (which is now going to be incentivized further) messes up one's peaceful protest, the peaceful one risks getting charge/arrested and risk having their property seized? (If you are wondering about why property would be seized, this is basically an expansion/extension of anti-rackerting laws aimed at organized crime).

Doesn't this also means even if a peaceful protester is the victim of an assault at the protest that they could be arrested or have their assets seized?

http://azcapitoltime...wn-on-protests/
http://www.slate.com...ate_senate.html

ETA: Here is the proposed bill, and the relevant section:

Quote

13-2903.  Riot; classification
A.  A person commits riot if, with two or more other persons acting together, such person recklessly uses force or violence or threatens to use force or violence, if such threat is accompanied by immediate power of execution, which EITHER disturbs the public peace OR RESULTS IN DAMAGE TO THE PROPERTY OF ANOTHER PERSON.

That may seem reasonable on the surface, but two things:

1) Obviously "threatens" to use force or violence is very open to interpretation, and it therefor fairly exploitable. Protests often have chanting or shouting that could feel threatening to someone or other...

2) The term reckless I assume is not casually in there. Reckless is actually a legal term regarding mens rea. As I understand it, Recklessness would not describe criminal *intent* but there is still criminal liability (as they should have known better and not been criminally reckless). Recklessness shows less criminal culpability than intention, but more criminal culpability than negligence. So, again, interpretation. Could a good lawyer show that the organizers/participants in a protest been reckless, either just holding a protest because of what it is about (great….), or how they went about planning and putting together their protest, or how the protest was managed (or not) during the actual protest? Or could a corrupt system, or bias/prejudice, just railroad people as having been reckless for their peaceful planning/participating in a protest? With the happenings in N. Dakota that I have been following, I have no doubt. If that is the wish of TPTB it will happen.

Edited by sierraleone, 25 February 2017 - 12:16 AM.

Rules for surviving an Autocracy:

Rule#1: Believe the Autocrat.
Rule#2: Do not be taken in by small signs of normality.
Rule#3: Institutions will not save you.
Rule#4: Be outraged.
Rule#5: Don't make compromises.
Rule#6: Remember the future.
- Masha Gessen
Source: http://www2.nybooks....r-survival.html

#62 gsmonks

gsmonks

    Tree Psychiatrist

  • Islander
  • 4,829 posts

Posted 25 February 2017 - 02:59 PM

Muhammad Ali's son & mother were detained at an airport because of his name, and he was questioned about his religion.

That can't be legal.

This is now Trump and his minions are "keeping America safe".

Morons.

Edited by gsmonks, 25 February 2017 - 03:01 PM.

Capitalism is a pyramid scheme run by the 1%.

#63 sierraleone

sierraleone

    All things Great and Mischievous

  • Islander
  • 8,807 posts

Posted 27 April 2017 - 05:54 PM

The Texas house has tentatively passed a bill to ban sanctuary cities in Texas. The state of Texas doesn't threaten those communities with withholding funding, but with the full weight of the law. They have created a state law that will be penalty to city law enforcement/peace officers for doing less than fully co-operating with federal ICE/immigration laws, and requests from ICE offices/officers, is what it sounds like to me.

https://www.texastri...uary-city-bill/

Quote

After more than 16 hours of debate, the Texas House of Representatives early Thursday morning tentatively gave a nod to the latest version of a Senate bill that would ban “sanctuary” jurisdictions in Texas.

The 93-54 vote fell along party lines and came after one of the slowest moving but most emotional legislative days at the state Capitol.
...
Members voted on the bill after adding back a controversial provision that extends the scope of the bill and allows local peace officers to question the immigration status of people they legally detain. The original House version of the bill only allowed officers to inquire about status during a lawful arrest.
...
The intent of bill is “getting dangerous criminals off the street. That's the mission. Shouldn't be any more than that," Cook said.

The bill keeps a provision that makes sheriffs, constables and police chiefs subject to a Class A misdemeanor for failing to cooperate with federal authorities and honor requests from immigration agents to hold noncitizen inmates subject to removal. It also keeps civil penalties for entities in violation of the provision that begin at $1,000 for a first offense and swell to as high as $25,500 for each subsequent infraction."
...
Democrats also offered myriad amendments that sought to shield people at certain places from being subject to the provisions of the bill. Those include domestic violence shelters, homeless shelters, pre-kindergarten schools, and public school events such as football games. All failed along party-line votes.

Rules for surviving an Autocracy:

Rule#1: Believe the Autocrat.
Rule#2: Do not be taken in by small signs of normality.
Rule#3: Institutions will not save you.
Rule#4: Be outraged.
Rule#5: Don't make compromises.
Rule#6: Remember the future.
- Masha Gessen
Source: http://www2.nybooks....r-survival.html

#64 sierraleone

sierraleone

    All things Great and Mischievous

  • Islander
  • 8,807 posts

Posted 26 May 2017 - 05:18 PM

Some in government keeps taking up all the oxygen in the media….

Here are two stories about the crazy things non-Federal-executive GOPers are up to.

In Iowa 4 of 12 health clinics of Planet Parenthoods are closing due to a new appropriations bill signed in to law.

It did two things, it discontinues IFPN, Iowa's family planning network, waiver, which allows people who don't qualify for Medicaid to receive coverage for reproductive health care. And it establishes a new state-funded program that prevents funding from going to abortion clinics. This will displace 14,600 patients, with other local health centres struggling to figure out how to close the gapping holes with these Planned Parenthood closures.

Quote

Boesen said it’s his mission to make sure those patients find care elsewhere, but he added that Planned Parenthood offers a “unique brand” of care. “We’re gonna do our level best to replace it, but there’s some dimension of that that isn’t replaceable.”
...
One of his main concerns is increasing the clinics’ contraceptive capabilities. Occasionally, he said, his clinics actually refer patients looking for the more expensive, long-acting reversible contraceptives to Planned Parenthood. Those methods, which include things like implants and IUDs, “have historically been a financial issue for community health centers,” he said.

Another worry is that Planned Parenthood’s patients might be reluctant to seek out another provider. “Will people go without care?” Kemp asked, worrying that some will, “not because the capacity won’t be there but because we haven’t developed those relationships as providers.”
  
Many of Planned Parenthood’s patients are young people who visit their health centers, sometimes in a crisis, to get information in a safe, confidential environment. Richards, the Siouxland representative, said he’s concerned about replicating that: “They don’t want to go somewhere where they might run into their neighbor from down the street or their family member,” Richards said. “It would be tough, just losing that choice and that place that’s maybe more comforting and quieter to go to.
​…
“I feel like [Republicans] have taken away my choice,” Rucinski said. “I’m still responsible for figuring this out, but they’ve made it harder for me to make a responsible choice.”



First of all, since I haven't mentioned it elsewhere on here, I give some politicians, presumably some Republicans, kudos. It has been a profound joy seeing some states taking down statues and monuments glorying the Cult of the Lost Cause. However it appears Alabama is taking another tact.

It's Now Illegal in Alabama to Remove Confederate Monuments.

The Governor just signed a new bill into law protecting them.

Quote

The Alabama Memorial Preservation Act of 2017 disallows removing or renaming any memorial streets or buildings on public property that have been in place for 40 or more years.
...
In an impassioned speech last week, New Orleans Mayor Mitch Landrieu (D) made the case against keeping Confederate monuments.

Another friend asked me to consider these four monuments from the perspective of an African American mother or father trying to explain to their fifth-grade daughter who Robert E. Lee is and why he stands atop of our beautiful city. Can you do it? Can you look into that young girl’s eyes and convince her that Robert E. Lee is there to encourage her? Do you think she will feel inspired and hopeful by that story? Do these monuments help her see a future with limitless potential?

Edited by sierraleone, 26 May 2017 - 05:19 PM.

Rules for surviving an Autocracy:

Rule#1: Believe the Autocrat.
Rule#2: Do not be taken in by small signs of normality.
Rule#3: Institutions will not save you.
Rule#4: Be outraged.
Rule#5: Don't make compromises.
Rule#6: Remember the future.
- Masha Gessen
Source: http://www2.nybooks....r-survival.html

#65 sierraleone

sierraleone

    All things Great and Mischievous

  • Islander
  • 8,807 posts

Posted 30 May 2017 - 04:13 PM

Back to Texas and sanctuary cities. WaPo: A Texan Republican called ICE on protestors. Then lawmakers started to scuffle.

Quote

“We were just on the floor talking about the SB4 protests, and [state Rep.] Matt Rinaldi came up to us and made it a point to say, ‘I called (ICE) on all of them,’ ” state Rep. Philip Cortez (D) said. “And this is completely unacceptable. We will not be intimidated. We will not be disrespected.”

This reminds me (though many things do) of this quote/meme I came across on the internets that paralleled how certain people acts about their and others relative "positions". It is as follows:

Sometimes people use "respect" to mean
"treating someone like a person"
and sometimes they use "respect" to mean
"treating someone like an authority"

and sometimes people who are used to being treated like an authority say
"if you won't respect me I won't respect you"
and they mean
"if you won't treat me like an authority I won't treat you like a person"

and they think they're being fair
but they aren't,
and it's not okay.

Edited by sierraleone, 30 May 2017 - 06:35 PM.

Rules for surviving an Autocracy:

Rule#1: Believe the Autocrat.
Rule#2: Do not be taken in by small signs of normality.
Rule#3: Institutions will not save you.
Rule#4: Be outraged.
Rule#5: Don't make compromises.
Rule#6: Remember the future.
- Masha Gessen
Source: http://www2.nybooks....r-survival.html

#66 yadda yadda

yadda yadda
  • Islander
  • 1,447 posts

Posted 21 June 2017 - 02:35 PM

Well, the Republicans were up to winning two special elections last night, one in Georgia's 6th CD and another in South Carolina's 5th. These special elections were called to fill the House seats vacated when 45 nominated incumbents Rep. Tom Price and Mick Mulvaney to Cabinet posts. The most reported upon contest, in Georgia's 6th Congressional district, was heavily financed by Democratic groups outside the district in the hopes of blunting 45's political capital by electing Jon Ossof. The race was largely considered a referendum on 45's policies and his level of support.

Ossof lost to Karen Handel, a Republican, by a 52% - 48% margin, disappointing to progressives since Ossof had been considered to be running neck and neck in election polling, perhaps even a very slight favorite. Plus, the huge amount of campaign spending and effort by Democrats seemingly was a waste. In the other special election over in South Carolina, little national attention was paid and little Dem cash spent, yet the Republican candidate's margin of victory was even tighter than Georgia 6th's, only 51%- 48%.

What's interesting and undoubtedly most significant to note, in both of the 2016 elections in these two districts, the Republican incumbents kept their seats with winning electoral margins over 20%, Mulvaney in South Carolina at that number and Price in Georgia at 23%. Despite losing these races, the reduction of margin of previous victories just eight months ago and five months of 45 occupance of office from 23% to 4%, and 20% to 3% respectively, cannot inspire confidence in Republican office holders, especially those in more politically vulnerable districts where the margin of victory was not so substantial. And there are at least 24 of those sort of districts up for grabs in the upcoming 2018 midterm election. What's that cable tv show? "Flip That House"?  :)

Edited by yadda yadda, 21 June 2017 - 02:38 PM.


#67 yadda yadda

yadda yadda
  • Islander
  • 1,447 posts

Posted 21 June 2017 - 04:18 PM

Well, no sooner than I had revived this slumbering topic, another Republican distraction shenanigan has popped up on the screen. Likely to provide cover and screening for media criticism of tomorrow's revelation of the Senate health care fiasco, Chuck Grassley has let Fox "News" know that the Republican controlled State Dept. is going to have an investigation of Hillary Clinton's e-mail server again, in an apparent ongoing attempt to continue beating that dead horse into horseburger and take away her security clearance. This despite no particular rush to investigate or revoke Jared Kushner's or Jeff Sessions' security clearances, despite them both lying on their security clearance applications? Or how about Mike Flynn's security clearance? Has that been investigated or revoked yet?

Interesting that it's the State Dept. going to be conducting the investigation into Hillary. I didn't know anybody worked there anymore besides Tillerson. Is he going to be doing the investigating in between important meetings with his buddy Putin about getting rid of those job killing sanctions keeping Exxon from drilling out a few trillion dollars worth of oil in the Russian Arctic?

Edited by yadda yadda, 21 June 2017 - 04:20 PM.


#68 sierraleone

sierraleone

    All things Great and Mischievous

  • Islander
  • 8,807 posts

Posted 24 June 2017 - 05:50 AM

Missouri is one step closer to disqualifying your for jobs [or housing] because you take birth control

The Missouri house has passed a bill, SB 5, and now it is before the Senate.

It would allow Employers, or Landlords, to ask women about their reproductive choices, and would allow them to discriminate against women based on those choices.

For some reason, they specify employers can discriminate for using birth control or having had an abortion, and landlords for the same plus for tenants being/been pregnant out-of-wedlock.

So basically landlords and employers can essentially impose a celibacy requirement on their female tenants/employees or she risks eviction/firing, or has to just keep having babies (though female tenants can't be single and have babies and be assured no eviction). Or be a lesbian, sterile, or past menopause?

99% of women use birth control at some time in their lives. *shakes head*

Edited by sierraleone, 24 June 2017 - 01:55 PM.

Rules for surviving an Autocracy:

Rule#1: Believe the Autocrat.
Rule#2: Do not be taken in by small signs of normality.
Rule#3: Institutions will not save you.
Rule#4: Be outraged.
Rule#5: Don't make compromises.
Rule#6: Remember the future.
- Masha Gessen
Source: http://www2.nybooks....r-survival.html

#69 yadda yadda

yadda yadda
  • Islander
  • 1,447 posts

Posted 03 July 2017 - 08:48 AM

There's a picture circulating on tv causing great outrage, of Chris Christie lounging on a beach he had closed to the public in his state of New Jersey. Does anyone know why Christie closed the beach? Was it because of sewage, sharks, or because he wanted to enjoy it privately?  MSNBC is concentrating on the outrage and not delivering the facts.


ETA:  OK, I checked online. He closed the beaches because there's evidently a state government shutdown in New Jersey due to budget impasse. I still don't get it, really. If they tried to close the beaches on a hot summer weekend here in California because of a governmental budget shutdown does anyone really think people would stay off the beaches? Are these beaches you can't get to except through a parking lot?

If New Jersey doesn't have the money to pay life guards,  trash collectors, and the guys who drive those sand-sifting tractors in the morning to serve the public on beaches are they going to have money to pay police or the national guard to park at and patrol hundreds of miles of coastline to arrest or order people off public beaches? A beach isn't like lanes on a bridge you can close off with orange traffic cones.

Edited by yadda yadda, 03 July 2017 - 09:13 AM.


#70 sierraleone

sierraleone

    All things Great and Mischievous

  • Islander
  • 8,807 posts

Posted 06 July 2017 - 05:38 PM

St Louis MO minimum wages is set to be rolled back by the state of MO. I heard this happening in another city & state to, I can't recall which one.

NYT: Blue Cities Want to Make Their Own Rules. Red States Won't Let them.

Quote

At a time when Democrats are locked out of power from the White House, both chambers of Congress, the majority of governor’s offices and three-fifths of the country’s state houses, their ideas at least have one reliable outlet. Democrats still control most of the country’s biggest cities.

Even that power center, though, is increasingly under attack.

In the last few years, Republican-controlled state legislatures have intensified the use of what are known as pre-emption laws, to block towns and cities from adopting measures favored by the left. The states aren’t merely overruling local laws; they’ve walled off whole new realms where local governments aren’t allowed to govern at all.
...
As standoffs between red states and blue cities grow more rancorous, the tactics of pre-emption laws have become personal and punitive: Several states are now threatening to withhold resources from communities that defy them and to hold their elected officials legally and financially liable.

“There are all sorts of legitimate ways we can divide power,” said Nestor Davidson, a law professor at Fordham. But if local officials risk personal fines, lawsuits and lost wealth for their communities over policy disagreements, he said, that changes the rules of the game. “That has the potential to change what it means to be a government official, to change what it means to elect people.”

States have banned local ordinances on minimum wage increases, paid sick days and lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender rights. They’vebannedsanctuary cities.” They’ve even banned a number of bans (it’s now illegal for Michigan cities to ban plastic bags, for Texas towns to ban fracking).

I thought conservatives were for local rights? So why can't cities, where the cost of living is often higher than the country, make their minimum wage higher, in response to local needs? Or do other reasonable things that their citizens are asking for?

My previous post, about MO creating legislation to make it legal to discriminate against women based on their reproductive choices? That was in response to a city trying to protect women's choices from discrimination.

Edited by sierraleone, 06 July 2017 - 05:45 PM.

Rules for surviving an Autocracy:

Rule#1: Believe the Autocrat.
Rule#2: Do not be taken in by small signs of normality.
Rule#3: Institutions will not save you.
Rule#4: Be outraged.
Rule#5: Don't make compromises.
Rule#6: Remember the future.
- Masha Gessen
Source: http://www2.nybooks....r-survival.html

#71 Omega

Omega

    Nous sommes tous Franšais

  • Moderator
  • 3,985 posts

Posted 06 July 2017 - 09:00 PM

Republicans don't actually support any of the things they claim to. It's slogans all the way down.

#72 gsmonks

gsmonks

    Tree Psychiatrist

  • Islander
  • 4,829 posts

Posted 06 July 2017 - 10:15 PM

View PostOmega, on 06 July 2017 - 09:00 PM, said:

Republicans don't actually support any of the things they claim to. It's slogans all the way down.

I was just wondering about that but don't have any hard info to back it up.
Capitalism is a pyramid scheme run by the 1%.

#73 Omega

Omega

    Nous sommes tous Franšais

  • Moderator
  • 3,985 posts

Posted 07 July 2017 - 09:51 PM

^To be clear, I mean "Republicans" as the institution. Individuals who call themselves Republicans are a large group of people, and as such any broad statement about the whole group is inherently false.

#74 sierraleone

sierraleone

    All things Great and Mischievous

  • Islander
  • 8,807 posts

Posted 12 July 2017 - 04:23 PM

AR has a new abortion law, disguised as a human remains law, to get around SCOTUS precedents disallowing requirements to get permission for abortion. Signed by the Governor Mar 23, 2017, it is to go into effect at the end of this month.

Basically, the amended their 2009 AR Final Dispositions Rights Act, which requires family members to agree on what to do with a deceased person's body, and they are treating the fetal remains the same way. So a woman who is pregnant, and contemplating an abortion, regardless of the circumstances of her pregnancy and her relationship to the father, must discuss this with him and come to an agreement on how the fetal remains will be disposed of…. Minors have to involved their parents (but not the father's parents it appears).

So it is basically forced notification. What happens if an agreement on how to dispose of the fetal remains can't be made? Could that uphold an abortion? (which assumes the conversation regarding that the woman plans to move forward with an abortion went civilly and amenably in the first place). Are they going to perform paternity tests to ensure that the woman did not lie and find someone she knew would co-operate with her wishes? Even if neither party states they do *not* want testing on the remains? (some religions are against that).

ALCU has a hearing July 13 to try to block it.
Rules for surviving an Autocracy:

Rule#1: Believe the Autocrat.
Rule#2: Do not be taken in by small signs of normality.
Rule#3: Institutions will not save you.
Rule#4: Be outraged.
Rule#5: Don't make compromises.
Rule#6: Remember the future.
- Masha Gessen
Source: http://www2.nybooks....r-survival.html


0 user(s) are browsing this forum

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users