@Balrog99 given that this assembly was purely advisory, presumably you wouldn't be happy for ordinary people to be involved in something that really counts (like jury service for instance - or even voting ).
Well, each party's counselor and the judge both get to have a say in who sits on the jury from the random assortment of ordinary people who are called to serve
Ideally I do believe just that for voting. I know that wouldn't work in a true democracy, however. Juries are a little different in that there are 12 people 'not' randomly selected and that seems to work fairly well most of the time.
In the UK people aged 18-75 are randomly selected for jury service from the electoral register (which I accept means a small amount of non-randomness) and then randomly distributed to trials by the court clerk. There is a right to challenge jurors, for instance on the grounds that they are related to a party, but the cause of any bias has to be clearly demonstrated and challenges are very rarely made (I think that's somewhat different in the US).
As an aside, if this an 'advisory assembly' you're only going to get people showing up who want something out of it. In other words, agitated people are more likely to appear, and satisfied or uninterested people won't be there. That would make these meetings also 'non-representative' by nature (think local PTA meetings, most people couldn't care less, so don't go). The only way this might work if you could get everybody in the community to show up for the meeting. How to do that without infringing on people's right to not give a Damn is the rub...
I agree there will be people that don't want to take part, but I don't think it's necessary for the assembly to be a perfect statistical representation. My local council has experimented with this type of idea when asking people what level of council tax and services should be provided. We've found lots of people do want to take part and find it a positive experience (as was the case in Ireland).
In the UK people aged 18-75 are randomly selected for jury service from the electoral register (which I accept means a small amount of non-randomness) and then randomly distributed to trials by the court clerk. There is a right to challenge jurors, for instance on the grounds that they are related to a party, but the cause of any bias has to be clearly demonstrated and challenges are very rarely made (I think that's somewhat different in the US).
It differs from state to state, but it's extremely common for the prosecution and defense to challenge jurors on the grounds of bias--which can be all kinds of biases. Lawyers have a vested interest in winning their cases and work hard to make sure the jury is as biased towards their side, and as biased against the other side, as possible. Ideally, the lawyers on both sides will cancel out each other's attempts to influence the makeup of the jury, but if one side is more skilled at analyzing potential jurors, they'll be able to get a jury that's biased in their favor.
Republicans are scare mongering about Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy retiring this summer. Why? They think it might get people out to vote conservative because they are realizing they are going to get clobbered for supporting a personally awful Trump and his awful agendas.
Republicans are the fake news party - they offer nothing but fear mongering, hate mongering and straight up lies for example the "Middle class tax cut" where 88% of the benefits go to the top 1%. They don't serve you, all they do is for the Koch brothers and multinational corporations. Only things they get done are things for the rich.
Finally, Trump has thrown us all into a trade war over 1 House of Representatives campaign. He's going to campaign in Pennsylvania this weekend where he'll pretend he cares about all those (non-existent) Pennsylvania steel worker jobs that vanished 70 years ago. He doesn't have "American" interests at heart. Just after whatever benefits him while we all bear the cost of his greed.
Republicans are scare mongering about Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy retiring this summer.
He's hired 4 law clerks for the 2018 term, so he's probably retiring next summer. Either way, Heller's point is right. If the Republicans lose a seat in the Senate they might not be able to confirm a strong justice if the Democrats stonewall.
Frankly, it does get people out to vote (and it should). I know many people who voted for Trump based solely on his promise to listen to the Federalist Society's suggestions for SCOTUS and Circuit court nominations (it seems that Sessions has his ear for District Courts unfortunately). While I didn't vote for Trump, I absolutely love the Gorsuch appointment. It is still not enough to win my vote in light of his other actions, but judicial nominations are a big deal for many conservatives and libertarians.
Milo Yiannopoulos' lawsuit against Simon and Schuster for dropping his book Dangerous has fallen through.
Martin Shkreli has been sentenced to prison for 7 years for fraud.
Katherine Mangu-Ward has complained about the partisan divide and the acrimonious debates that plague online political debate, though her only proposed solution is "Don't feed the trolls."
How would you guys make online political discussion more civil?
Republicans are scare mongering about Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy retiring this summer.
He's hired 4 law clerks for the 2018 term, so he's probably retiring next summer. Either way, Heller's point is right. If the Republicans lose a seat in the Senate they might not be able to confirm a strong justice if the Democrats stonewall.
Frankly, it does get people out to vote (and it should). I know many people who voted for Trump based solely on his promise to listen to the Federalist Society's suggestions for SCOTUS and Circuit court nominations (it seems that Sessions has his ear for District Courts unfortunately). While I didn't vote for Trump, I absolutely love the Gorsuch appointment. It is still not enough to win my vote in light of his other actions, but judicial nominations are a big deal for many conservatives and libertarians.
Strong justice? How about a non crazy one please. With Trump take a look at his cabinet choices and revolving door administration.
He absolutely needs to be checked hard on his awful appointments. He has nominate guys for a judgeship who had never tried cases and are ghost hunters and conspiracy theorists. The USA needs better than that. Trump needs to be checked so he doesn't appoint more unqualified people.
Accounts I've seen of Gorsuch are that he's an obnoxious ass who thinks he knows more than he does.
I'm not sure what there is to like about him, it seems like reality does not match the stories told by conservative propaganda. The reality is a guy with interpersonal and abrasive personality traits whose only concern seems to be serving corporate interests. And of course he is ethnically compromised like everyone else in Trumps orbit. if you hadn't heard of it look up the ice road trucker case and Gorsuch.
Milo Yiannopoulos' lawsuit against Simon and Schuster for dropping his book Dangerous has fallen through.
Martin Shkreli has been sentenced to prison for 7 years for fraud.
Katherine Mangu-Ward has complained about the partisan divide and the acrimonious debates that plague online political debate, though her only proposed solution is "Don't feed the trolls."
How would you guys make online political discussion more civil?
Bar human beings from participating and limit it to more trustworthy creatures like rats and jackals.
More and more this entire North Korea story is looking like a single-afternoon dog and pony show to get Stormy Daniels off the front-page of the newspaper. For one thing, this Administration STILL does not have an ambassador to South Korea. There is no Undersecretary for Arms Control. There is no permanent head of East Asian and Pacific affairs. Basically, there is no functioning State Department.
Moreover, Sarah Sanders today said the meeting will not take place until Kim Jong Un takes concrete action to curb his nuclear program. That is not going to happen. Why would he give up his the biggest card in his hand before the game even starts?? Thus, there will be no talks, because the preconditions will never be met in the first place. Unless, of course, as per usual at this White House, the right hand doesn't know what the left hand (or left foot, or right ear) is doing at any given hour of the day. Today they the demands are a dismantling of their nuclear program. Tomorrow it may be that Kim Jong Un has sex with a pig on live television like in the debut episode of "Black Mirror". It may be that Trump, who can't resist a good military parade, just wants to head on over for fun. Maybe Dennis Rodman can replace Tillerson in the State Department, since Tillerson seems to have had no clue this announcement was going to be made even 12 hours before it happened.
Calling a national political figure an ass strikes me as reasonably civil in the context of an online political discussion.
But really, is there anything in particular to like about Gorsuch? I've been thoroughly unimpressed by what I've seen of his writing, but that has been a small and probably not representative sample.
More and more this entire North Korea story is looking like a single-afternoon dog and pony show to get Stormy Daniels off the front-page of the newspaper. For one thing, this Administration STILL does not have an ambassador to South Korea. There is no Undersecretary for Arms Control. There is no permanent head of East Asian and Pacific affairs. Basically, there is no functioning State Department.
Moreover, Sarah Sanders today said the meeting will not take place until Kim Jong Un takes concrete action to curb his nuclear program. That is not going to happen. Why would he give up his the biggest card in his hand before the game even starts?? Thus, there will be no talks, because the preconditions will never be met in the first place. Unless, of course, as per usual at this White House, the right hand doesn't know what the left hand (or left foot, or right ear) is doing at any given hour of the day. Today they the demands are a dismantling of their nuclear program. Tomorrow it may be that Kim Jong Un has sex with a pig on live television like in the debut episode of "Black Mirror". It may be that Trump, who can't resist a good military parade, just wants to head on over for fun. Maybe Dennis Rodman can replace Tillerson in the State Department, since Tillerson seems to have had no clue this announcement was going to be made even 12 hours before it happened.
It doesn't even matter. Trump can't even make friends with the UK, France and Australia and countries that have been our friends for decades. He's going to solve North Korea?
As you said he hasn't even bothered to appoint the Ambassador to South Korea. What's he said about this? He said something along the lines of 'it doesn't matter because I'm the only one who counts' . On one hand that may be true because people in his administration keep resigning or getting fired or he just leaves positions empty. On the other hand he flip flops around and he won't be president for life (or possibly very much longer depending on Mueller or other factors) so what he says doesn't matter either.
NRA sues Florida government against its new gun laws passed in the wake of the scool shooting.
They claim that the law is unconstitutional because of the age restriction set on purchasing rifles and doesn't allow young women to arm themselves.
It should be noted that the age ban is only for rifles and not handguns.
I desperately hope Florida does not back down from this lawsuit as IMO seems extremely frivolous and can start a standard for potential gun control in the U.S.
Something needs to be done, hopefully this is a first step to a compromise everyone can love with.
Wait, I wouldn't mug a woman carrying an AR-15. I'm sure there are softer targets.
That's tongue-in-cheek btw. I doubt many people are going to lug around assault rifles to protect themselves from thieves and rapists...
Ask yourself how often you've ever seen ANYONE open-carrying a gun in public. Again, I grew up in rural America 101. I never saw anyone actually carrying their guns around (in deer hunting season some kids would have them in the back of their pick-up trucks, which was as close as it got). So no, you're not going to ever see a woman carrying an AR-15 get mugged. You're also likely never going to see a woman (or anyone) actually carrying one going about their daily chores at the grocery store or laundromat. Because 90% of people aren't nearly that paranoid. The fact is, in most situations, if you are someone who feels scared enough to carry a gun around at all times, you are going to see the "if all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail" theory come into effect. Eventually, you are going to be actively searching for any reason to use that gun, simply to justify your own paranoia to yourself. After a couple months or years of being on high alert 24/7, you'll invent the danger.
I was watching an old clip of Dale getting killed and ripped apart by a walker on Youtube last night, and something has always bothered me about this show. These zombies weigh essentially nothing and have no actual muscle mass at all, yet are constantly able to physically overpower strong, living human beings with no effort at all. They also seem to have teeth and hands that become 5-10x sharper once they turn, making them capable of ripping off entire layers of human skin with a single bite. Frankly, the most ridiculous thing about this show (aside from the fact that it's getting worse every year because they have no idea where the story is going) is the idea that these zombies are that big of a threat. They are slow and (should be) weak. Assuming you have some agility and the ability to run, surviving in this world from a zombie perspective shouldn't be all that damn difficult. Also, since they haven't seemed to have left the general vicinity of Georgia/Virginia since it started, wouldn't these various groups of people have killed off most of the walker population by this point??
I was watching an old clip of Dale getting killed and ripped apart by a walker on Youtube last night, and something has always bothered me about this show. These zombies weigh essentially nothing and have no actual muscle mass at all, yet are constantly able to physically overpower strong, living human beings with no effort at all. They also seem to have teeth and hands that become 5-10x sharper once they turn, making them capable of ripping off entire layers of human skin with a single bite. Frankly, the most ridiculous thing about this show (aside from the fact that it's getting worse every year because they have no idea where the story is going) is the idea that these zombies are that big of a threat. They are slow and (should be) weak. Assuming you have some agility and the ability to run, surviving in this world from a zombie perspective shouldn't be all that damn difficult. Also, since they haven't seemed to have left the general vicinity of Georgia/Virginia since it started, wouldn't these various groups of people have killed off most of the walker population by this point??
I just think of it that there's likely millions if not more of the undead and only hundreds or maybe thousands of regular folks. Not everybody is a Rick or a Darryl. Most of the time lately a single walker or even two or three of them have no chance against a human. It's only when they herd that they're a threat. The rogue humans are FAR more dangerous than the zombies...
A zombie apocalypse would never be a serious threat. Even IF the dead were reanimated somehow, they would fall apart after a couple days due to rot and decomposition. They would also be incredibly weak before that, due to having no muscle mass.
A zombie apocalypse would never be a serious threat. Even IF the dead were reanimated somehow, they would fall apart after a couple days due to rot and decomposition. They would also be incredibly weak before that, due to having no muscle mass.
There's definitely some logistics problems with zombies.
So like the zombies are always shown eating the heck out of the living yet the zombies usually don't appear eaten up themselves just dead.
And how do zombies power themselves? They convert dead flesh into energy? How would you ever find enough dead flesh to get energy to get around? Living people usually eat three meals a day, right.
Do zombies poop? If so can they eat it and get energy? Is there no end to it a self sustainable food source then.
A zombie apocalypse would never be a serious threat. Even IF the dead were reanimated somehow, they would fall apart after a couple days due to rot and decomposition. They would also be incredibly weak before that, due to having no muscle mass.
There's definitely some logistics problems with zombies.
So like the zombies are always shown eating the heck out of the living yet the zombies usually don't appear eaten up themselves just dead.
And how do zombies power themselves? They convert dead flesh into energy? How would you ever find enough dead flesh to get energy to get around? Living people usually eat three meals a day, right.
Do zombies poop? If so can they eat it and get energy? Is there no end to it a self sustainable food source then.
This is getting off-topic, but I'm a little shocked at just how pervasive the zombie apocalypse scenario has become. There are usually no less than 4 or 5 BIG video games a year that deal with this subject. Even a game like "The Last of Us" which has movie-quality character interaction can't manage to get away from this tired setting. "Night of the Living Dead" and "Dawn of the Dead" stand out to this day because there is serious social commentary right on the surface of both of those movies (the African-American hero, having survived the night against impossible odds, only to be shot in the head without thought or care by a group of redneck cops, and in the sequel, the zombies instinctively flocking to the symbol of consumer culture, the shopping mall). I'm not sure what the appeal is anymore. "World War Z" took it to the extreme where they gained super-speed and seemed to function as a hive-mind, and that movie still sucked. Do people just secretly crave the end of the world?? The MOST interesting part of any of these movies or shows is always the very beginning, when they show the society falling apart (and this part is usually far too short, though the first couple episodes of "Fear the Walking Dead" are quite good at this). Just how quickly would humans resort to the savage behavior portrayed in a now infinite loop on "The Walking Dead"?? Honestly, my favorite end of society scenario has always been the Captain Trips portion of Stephen King's book "The Stand" (honestly, once it gets to the God vs. the Devil mumbo jumbo it falls off a cliff). But there is a very good chapter in this book that might as well be called "No great loss", in which a bunch of people who survived because of their immunity are shown dying anyway despite winning this cosmic lottery in horribly mundane and stupid ways.
The best way to explain zombies is 'supernatural'. Any mundane explanation breaks down fast. At least TWD doesn't try to explain it so it's left without explanation. Apocalyptic beliefs are prevalent in all societies and religions, thus the appeal. I find it great entertainment in a psychological sense...
Comments
I agree there will be people that don't want to take part, but I don't think it's necessary for the assembly to be a perfect statistical representation. My local council has experimented with this type of idea when asking people what level of council tax and services should be provided. We've found lots of people do want to take part and find it a positive experience (as was the case in Ireland).
Republicans are the fake news party - they offer nothing but fear mongering, hate mongering and straight up lies for example the "Middle class tax cut" where 88% of the benefits go to the top 1%. They don't serve you, all they do is for the Koch brothers and multinational corporations. Only things they get done are things for the rich.
Finally, Trump has thrown us all into a trade war over 1 House of Representatives campaign. He's going to campaign in Pennsylvania this weekend where he'll pretend he cares about all those (non-existent) Pennsylvania steel worker jobs that vanished 70 years ago. He doesn't have "American" interests at heart. Just after whatever benefits him while we all bear the cost of his greed.
Frankly, it does get people out to vote (and it should). I know many people who voted for Trump based solely on his promise to listen to the Federalist Society's suggestions for SCOTUS and Circuit court nominations (it seems that Sessions has his ear for District Courts unfortunately). While I didn't vote for Trump, I absolutely love the Gorsuch appointment. It is still not enough to win my vote in light of his other actions, but judicial nominations are a big deal for many conservatives and libertarians.
Martin Shkreli has been sentenced to prison for 7 years for fraud.
Katherine Mangu-Ward has complained about the partisan divide and the acrimonious debates that plague online political debate, though her only proposed solution is "Don't feed the trolls."
How would you guys make online political discussion more civil?
He absolutely needs to be checked hard on his awful appointments. He has nominate guys for a judgeship who had never tried cases and are ghost hunters and conspiracy theorists. The USA needs better than that. Trump needs to be checked so he doesn't appoint more unqualified people.
Accounts I've seen of Gorsuch are that he's an obnoxious ass who thinks he knows more than he does.
I'm not sure what there is to like about him, it seems like reality does not match the stories told by conservative propaganda. The reality is a guy with interpersonal and abrasive personality traits whose only concern seems to be serving corporate interests. And of course he is ethnically compromised like everyone else in Trumps orbit. if you hadn't heard of it look up the ice road trucker case and Gorsuch.
https://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/how-badly-is-neil-gorsuch-annoying-the-other-supreme-court-justices/amp
By not doing this
Moreover, Sarah Sanders today said the meeting will not take place until Kim Jong Un takes concrete action to curb his nuclear program. That is not going to happen. Why would he give up his the biggest card in his hand before the game even starts?? Thus, there will be no talks, because the preconditions will never be met in the first place. Unless, of course, as per usual at this White House, the right hand doesn't know what the left hand (or left foot, or right ear) is doing at any given hour of the day. Today they the demands are a dismantling of their nuclear program. Tomorrow it may be that Kim Jong Un has sex with a pig on live television like in the debut episode of "Black Mirror". It may be that Trump, who can't resist a good military parade, just wants to head on over for fun. Maybe Dennis Rodman can replace Tillerson in the State Department, since Tillerson seems to have had no clue this announcement was going to be made even 12 hours before it happened.
Like Indy's dad, I never would have made it to the Knight's tomb in the catacombs of Venice.
But really, is there anything in particular to like about Gorsuch? I've been thoroughly unimpressed by what I've seen of his writing, but that has been a small and probably not representative sample.
As you said he hasn't even bothered to appoint the Ambassador to South Korea. What's he said about this? He said something along the lines of 'it doesn't matter because I'm the only one who counts' . On one hand that may be true because people in his administration keep resigning or getting fired or he just leaves positions empty. On the other hand he flip flops around and he won't be president for life (or possibly very much longer depending on Mueller or other factors) so what he says doesn't matter either.
They claim that the law is unconstitutional because of the age restriction set on purchasing rifles and doesn't allow young women to arm themselves.
It should be noted that the age ban is only for rifles and not handguns.
I desperately hope Florida does not back down from this lawsuit as IMO seems extremely frivolous and can start a standard for potential gun control in the U.S.
Something needs to be done, hopefully this is a first step to a compromise everyone can love with.
That's tongue-in-cheek btw. I doubt many people are going to lug around assault rifles to protect themselves from thieves and rapists...
Soft target? I think not!
Good protection against zombies anyway...
So like the zombies are always shown eating the heck out of the living yet the zombies usually don't appear eaten up themselves just dead.
And how do zombies power themselves? They convert dead flesh into energy? How would you ever find enough dead flesh to get energy to get around? Living people usually eat three meals a day, right.
Do zombies poop? If so can they eat it and get energy? Is there no end to it a self sustainable food source then.