If nothing else, the Trump presidency has thoroughly unmasked some of the pretensions of the American conservative movement. The idea that anybody reveres the Constitution and also supports Trump is impossible for me to believe.
If nothing else, the Trump presidency has thoroughly unmasked some of the pretensions of the American conservative movement. The idea that anybody reveres the Constitution and also supports Trump is impossible for me to believe.
It makes more sense when you realize that the definition of the constitution, patriotism and conservatism itself is now totally malleable and changes (sometimes as quickly as within 24 hours) to bend to whatever reality Trump needs to project that day to manipulate a news cycle. The constitution, the flag, the blaring of Lee Greenwood before every rally. Those are just totems of movement that isn't remotely interested in policy anymore, but only domination by any means necessary.
This has been in the works for decades, and Trump is just the endgame, the perfect vessel of what they were feeding their voters since Nixon started talking about the silent majority. The breaking point was when they were told for months Mitt Romney would win easily on FOX, and Romney still got crushed by the Kenyan Usurper. Trump waltzed in and started saying out loud what used to be communicated by underhanded surrogates and dirty tricksters like Roger Stone. They were on a constant doses of methadone, and Trump descended an escalator carrying bricks of pure Vietnamese heroin.
But to the point about Twitter, what Trump is suggesting to do to Twitter is of course the EXACT thing he is accusing Twitter of doing (which they aren't even capable of based on the First Amendment). You can have a nice philosophical discussion about freedom of expression as a concept in regards to Twitter, Youtube, Facebook and Google (and I'd argue that two of these platforms bend over backwards to placate conservative whining), but it doesn't have jack-shit to do with what free speech means in relation to the Constitution. But Trump, as the LEADER of the American government, threatening Twitter, is, of course, a direct assault on the First Amendment. But this is either a.) lost on the free speech absolutists or b.) they know it's a BS argument, but they make it anyway because it sounds good.
Trump's tweets getting deleted would probably be a bad thing. Its almost entirely how he communicates with the country. As the President, his words being scrubbed would raise a major red flag for me. Besides, its a lot easier to point out the insanity when the evidence is still up there for everyone to see.
The problem with the Cummings situation continued to be highlighted today. Johnson happened to be being quizzed by a Commons Committee (for the first time since he became PM) and was given a pretty hard time. That was partly because today also saw the launch of the Test & Trace programme, which will be a major part of the strategy for getting out of lockdown.
Johnson and other government ministers have been repeatedly asked today whether it will be mandatory for those informed they've been in contact with a Covid-19 case to immediately isolate themselves. It's pretty obvious they would like to say, yes. However, that would simply highlight that Cummings did not do that - so instead their answers have been yes, but there may be special situations where that is not appropriate.
That seems like a dangerous dilution of the message at a time when arrangements will naturally be less clear-cut than a national lockdown anyway. Personally, I can't see that the potential that brings for higher future infection rates is worth anyone's job - but Johnson clearly thinks otherwise ...
It makes more sense when you realize that the definition of the constitution, patriotism and conservatism itself is now totally malleable and changes (sometimes as quickly as within 24 hours) to bend to whatever reality Trump needs to project that day to manipulate a news cycle. The constitution, the flag, the blaring of Lee Greenwood before every rally. Those are just totems of movement that isn't remotely interested in policy anymore, but only domination by any means necessary.
One thing that gives me an iota of hope is that there seems to be a fair number of prominent, public conservatives who have more or less announced they are not voting for the Republican party in the near term. We'll see if this translates into a significant numbers in November. I'm optimistic though, as both polls and the 2018 results seem to indicate that this is the case.
This is after China threatened damaged relations between the two countries if Meng wasn't released. This is after the Chinese government has already arrested Canadians abroad and blocked agricultural imports.
Meng's defense was that since Canada doesn't have sanctions against Iran, it isn't a crime in Canada and thus she should be released. The judge ruled against that stating, "Ms. Meng's approach to the double criminality analysis would seriously limit Canada's ability to fulfill its international obligations in the extradition context for fraud and other economic crimes."
Trudeau weighed in yesterday saying Canada shouldn't have to apologize for it's independent justice system and is ready to defend the outcome from any hostility (either by China, or if Meng won, the US).
It's far from over I think as Meng maybe able to bring it to our Supreme Court not quite sure. This just broke and her defense team hasn't released a statement yet.
This is after China threatened damaged relations between the two countries if Meng wasn't released. This is after the Chinese government has already arrested Canadians abroad and blocked agricultural imports.
Meng's defense was that since Canada doesn't have sanctions against Iran, it isn't a crime in Canada and thus she should be released. The judge ruled against that stating, "Ms. Meng's approach to the double criminality analysis would seriously limit Canada's ability to fulfill its international obligations in the extradition context for fraud and other economic crimes."
Trudeau weighed in yesterday saying Canada shouldn't have to apologize for it's independent justice system and is ready to defend the outcome from any hostility (either by China, or if Meng won, the US).
It's far from over I think as Meng maybe able to bring it to our Supreme Court not quite sure. This just broke and her defense team hasn't released a statement yet.
The decision just made is only a step on the path to extradition. As you say, in Canada extradition is only possible if the crime complained of is classed as a crime there. Meng wanted to dismiss the case on the grounds Canada didn't have sanctions against Iran and therefore there could be no crime. The judge decided to apply a broader context to this and concluded the double criminality test was met. That decision means that the case continues in order to assess whether there's sufficient evidence a crime was in fact committed to justify the extradition.
It's obviously only wrong if he doesn't warrant it.
I swear 2020 is going to be the weirdest election ever since I've been alive. Nothing would surprise me at this point. Trump wins, Biden wins, Biden has a stroke and Cuomo wins, Trump has a stroke and Pence wins, an alien appears on October 20th and runs against both of them in a write-in camoaign and wins. Who the fuck knows at this point...
Trump is apparently signing some kind of executive order tomorrow with some sort of implied threat to social media companies. He has no such authority to compel them to do anything. His statement will have as much legal heft as a paperweight.
He is now focusing 100% on distractions. His economy has collapsed. We've sped right by 100,000 deaths and are well on the way to 110,000. Rasmussen (which is a polling firm that exists simply to make Republicans feel better) has Trump at 42-57 approval/disapproval. If Rasmussen has him that low, he is in deep, deep shit. He has nothing to run on. Every plank besides culture war bullshit has been bombed to smithereens. If polling is correct, he is now underwater double-digits with senior citizens, when he was double-digits above water with them in 2016. Even if we JUST focus on that, IF those numbers are even remotely accurate, then the election is over before it starts. He can't possibly shrug off a 10-15 point swing to Biden among 65+, who haven't voted for a Democrat as a demographic group since Clinton in '92. If Trump loses, the push to convince old people to sacrifice themselves for the economy will be the main reason.
I've talked for years about the ever-present eliminationist rhetoric you see online from conservative comment sections. Now we not only have the President of the United States retweeting a video in which a New Mexico Republican says "the only good Democrat is a dead Democrat" (said he didn't mean it in the "physical" sense, whatever the hell that is supposed to mean) and now we also have this happening in Pennsylvania. Utter disregard for the lives of the other party in the legislature. They don't just want to beat liberals, or keep us out of power. They don't want us to exist at all. Thread:
In the meantime, some windows at the 3rd Precinct police station in Minneapolis were broken last night. Some pretty great reactions on Twitter. We could do this all day:
I heard that the window was delinquent in paying its rent in 1989.
The window looked intimidating.
Look at this picture of the window smoking weed. There is more to this story. All lives matter.
Going to wait for more information before I make any judgements about the nature of the interaction, but I will say that this, the window was no angel.
I saw the precinct jogging through a construction site.
But what about glass on glass crime??
Glass confirmed to have preexisting health condition that made event unavoidable.
Being Aerie, I'm not allowed to give my political opinions. I imagine I would get in all sorts of troubles from Beamdog and the powers that be. I could even be removed from the game!
Party members should NOT be silenced. But as I could face consequences (removed from BG2 etc) it's in my best interests to stay quite.
Looks like we're getting applications for mail in ballots in my neck of Kansas too. Good. This really only saves me an email "I always vote by mail," but a bunch of other people would otherwise risk themselves and their families to go out and vote.
Looks like we're getting applications for mail in ballots in my neck of Kansas too. Good. This really only saves me an email "I always vote by mail," but a bunch of other people would otherwise risk themselves and their families to go out and vote.
Got mine back in the mail today after sending in application. It's made VERY clear what the penalties are for voting illegally. Not only does it come with an envelope that would require a ridiculous amount of effort to counterfeit (and that the ballot HAS to be sent back in), but it ALSO comes with a second, even thicker brown envelope that you have to put the FIRST envelope inside. The idea any run of the mill citizen would have the means to cheat this system on any level that would make even a scintilla of difference is plain lunacy.
The idea that someone could take these down to Kinko's and make copies isn't even a realistic option. The material is of a specific thickness. The envelopes likewise. It would require a professional printing operation to even get started.
Looks like we're getting applications for mail in ballots in my neck of Kansas too. Good. This really only saves me an email "I always vote by mail," but a bunch of other people would otherwise risk themselves and their families to go out and vote.
It would require a professional printing operation to even get started.
George Soros has one of those in his basement.
.
.
.
.
Looks like we're getting applications for mail in ballots in my neck of Kansas too. Good. This really only saves me an email "I always vote by mail," but a bunch of other people would otherwise risk themselves and their families to go out and vote.
It would require a professional printing operation to even get started.
George Soros has one of those in his basement.
.
.
.
.
(Well, that's what I heard...) ?
Yeah, but he'd have to stop flying protesters into Minneapolis to focus on the counterfeit ballot scheme.
We have video from mutiple angles of the entire incident which shows a cop cutting off the circulation of blood to the head of a man ALREADY HANDCUFFED and laying prone against asphalt for somwhere between 7-10 minutes. What do they want, a confession?? ANYONE else would have been arrested 72 hours ago:
The American left doesn't believe at all in free speech, and is happy to support corporate censorship, to say nothing of violence and arbitrary prosecutions, in all forms as long as it is applied to those they dislike. I wouldn't expect them to do anything to help a conservative or moderate if they were on fire and a bucket of water was in their lap.
That being said, Trump is doing this because of the fact that social media sites are meddling with his timeline and now he is Extremely Mad Online. Like everything with him, it is entirely motivated by selfish reasons and I expect his actions will backfire.
And this would be hilarious if it wasn't just sad. If you call the police and the police kill someone, you can be held responsible. This is just ridiculous on so many levels and goes to show how this nation thinks only in terms of media headlines and has no sense of perspective anymore.
If the police can't be trusted to not turn ordinary interactions into life threatening situations, that is the fault of the police, not the ones who call them. The ones who call bear no responsibility for the aggressive and unnecessary actions they so often demonstrate. This is passing the buck in the worst way. People should reasonably be able to trust the police to not randomly kill people, and especially innocent people.
Swatting, which is briefly mentioned in the article, should be taken more seriously and actually has criminal intent, but this is not the primary justification for this bill.
The American left doesn't believe at all in free speech, and is happy to support corporate censorship, to say nothing of violence and arbitrary prosecutions, in all forms as long as it is applied to those they dislike.
The American left doesn't believe at all in free speech, and is happy to support corporate censorship, to say nothing of violence and arbitrary prosecutions, in all forms as long as it is applied to those they dislike.
Pretty much the only thing I hear in defense of the corporate strangehold that exists over the modern day public square. It's been debated many times in here.
It's hard to take any sort of constitutional fundamentalism seriously when subjects such as eliminating the electoral college are bandied about. Clearly the constitution is a document all parties involved shred where we want to and where we hide behind if neccesary.
Trump's Twitter timeline isn't "his" anymore than this thread is "mine". He is responding to a SINGLE addendum to one of his tweets with the full power of the Executive Branch of the United States. That anyone would think Twitter is the scary thing here is madness.
As for the "social media stranglehold" against conservatives, give me a break. At this point Mark Zuckerberg is giving Trump a perpetual reach around. They banned a totally accurate ad by the Never Trump group of former Republican strategists less than a week ago when he whined about it. One of their fact-checking sources is The Daily Caller. It's nothing but more aggrievement performance art. It's all they have left.
And this would be hilarious if it wasn't just sad. If you call the police and the police kill someone, you can be held responsible. This is just ridiculous on so many levels and goes to show how this nation thinks only in terms of media headlines and has no sense of perspective anymore.
If the police can't be trusted to not turn ordinary interactions into life threatening situations, that is the fault of the police, not the ones who call them. The ones who call bear no responsibility for the aggressive and unnecessary actions they so often demonstrate. This is passing the buck in the worst way. People should reasonably be able to trust the police to not randomly kill people, and especially innocent people.
Swatting, which is briefly mentioned in the article, should be taken more seriously and actually has criminal intent, but this is not the primary justification for this bill.
Did you see the video of this woman? She knew she was lying. It was filing a false police report.
This isn’t the same as calling the cops about a person moving furniture out of a house thinking they are robbing it.
Most calls to police are anonymous (and should always remain that way) anyway.
~
The left always believes in free speech. It is different than what you and Trump are actually describing.
It is actually Twitter’s free speech to add separate links to things that Trump has posted on their site that they feel is misleading and needs to be clarified. As long as they don’t edit what he actually said, he is not being censored.
The posts can be deleted outright still if they break Twitter’s TOS, but I doubt they’d actually do that.
No one is forcing anyone to use these social media companies, and others, like gab.com are starting to pop up to attract the people who think Twitter and Facebook are censoring them too much.
And the constitution has already been shredded from the founding father’s wishes. One I pointed out recently is the Senate should be appointed by the State governors and not elected. That was changed in I think 1912, without changing the role of the senate and why the constitution had them appointed instead of elected was never taken into consideration.
The American left doesn't believe at all in free speech, and is happy to support corporate censorship, to say nothing of violence and arbitrary prosecutions, in all forms as long as it is applied to those they dislike.
Pretty much the only thing I hear in defense of the corporate strangehold that exists over the modern day public square. It's been debated many times in here.
It's hard to take any sort of constitutional fundamentalism seriously when subjects such as eliminating the electoral college are bandied about. Clearly the constitution is a document all parties involved shred where we want to and where we hide behind if neccesary.
There is no stranglehold on free speech by Twitter. Or social media companies generally. Saying as much, imo, reveals alot more about the speaker than it does about the state of world. There is no shortage of means for broadcasting your point of view in today's world outside of using a social media platform. Nor is there even much true censorship on these platforms in the first place. Trump's remarks were not censored.
Shifting the conversation from the first amendment to the electoral college is also an interesting move. Not something one would make if they felt their initial argument about speech was ironclad.
I wonder how long this is going to stay up with the “end of the Republican Party” in it...
He kinda said the quiet thing out loud... in all caps...
His Press Secretary, like Trump himself, has voted by mail 11 times in the last 10 years. This is nothing but a.) trying to suppress the vote like they always do and b.) laying the groundwork for refusing to accept any potential loss.
The American left doesn't believe at all in free speech, and is happy to support corporate censorship, to say nothing of violence and arbitrary prosecutions, in all forms as long as it is applied to those they dislike.
Pretty much the only thing I hear in defense of the corporate strangehold that exists over the modern day public square. It's been debated many times in here.
It's hard to take any sort of constitutional fundamentalism seriously when subjects such as eliminating the electoral college are bandied about. Clearly the constitution is a document all parties involved shred where we want to and where we hide behind if neccesary.
I thought it might be worth considering what the constitution actually says on this matter - the First Amendment states: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
On the face of it, that seems clear enough - it's only about laws Congress makes. However, the legal interpretation of the Constitution is not always what it seems to be about on the face of it. Take the Second Amendment for instance: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
In that case the interpretation in recent years is to disregard the first half of the sentence, so could something similar be done for the First Amendment? Thinking about it, that's not quite inconceivable. It's more difficult because you don't get a meaningful sentence if you simply remove the opening words, but I think it would be possible to argue that "abridging the freedom of speech" refers to a universal provision rather than simply government action. The corollary of that would then be that Congress has a duty not only to avoid abridging the freedom of speech itself, but a duty to actively support it, i.e. prevent others from abridging it.
Trump's Executive Order doesn't change the law itself of course, but asks for various things to be reviewed (see this article). Any changes to the law that result in the government defining what constitutes free speech are all too likely to be self-defeating, but that's not really the point of course. Trump's position on free speech has always been that he should be able to say whatever he wants, but others should not. Whether he actually needs to change the law or just threaten to do so in order to persuade others to toe the line, that's the position he wants to get to. With an election looming and his own position looking precarious though, I suspect he will find he's too short of time and influence to push something as controversial as this through.
I wonder how long this is going to stay up with the “end of the Republican Party” in it...
He kinda said the quiet thing out loud... in all caps...
His Press Secretary, like Trump himself, has voted by mail 11 times in the last 10 years. This is nothing but a.) trying to suppress the vote like they always do and b.) laying the groundwork for refusing to accept any potential loss.
There is a difference here though.
She voted by mail because she was not in the state of Florida for the times that she voted. She was either in school, or in Washington. She was absent from her state and applied for the absentee ballot. Those are the laws that Florida has laid out for requesting a mail-in ballot.
Now if one can prove she also voted where she went to school as well as the absentee ballot that is a different story.
They just want to restrict people who are currently in state for the election from receiving a mail-in ballot and they think the 'coronavirus scare,' even with 100,000 dead, isn't a justification enough to expand who gets to vote by mail.
But each state outlines who is allowed to vote by mail. States themselves can put any type of restriction for absentee ballots as Texas has done in the case that their supreme court held up. Fear of the coronavirus isn't a disability so it doesn't count. However, I think people may still be able to get away with voting by mail in Texas with the word "confined" in the definition. People are 'confined' to their homes due to medical recommendations to self isolate.
Trump and the Federal government have zero rights in telling States who should be able to vote by mail. Voting illegally (that nice little racist whistle he's been blowing before he got elected) has never been proven the way that they are claiming, and it's main reason is voter suppression, and to keep the republican party in power which he stated in all caps in his last tweet.
Another video showing the murder in Minneapolis, this one probably even more damning than the others. Nothing in ANY of them show even the slightest hint of an explanation as to why George Floyd was treated the way he was and ended up dead. The officials in Minnesota are displaying cowardice because they are piss their pants scared of crossing the police union. This officer has had EIGHTEEN complaints filed against him in recent years. Many citizens of Minneapolis have correctly concluded that the wheels of justice do not turn for people like them. And when justice falls so completely as it is currently doing here, then order falls as well. From Martin Luther King himself:
…I think America must see that riots do not develop out of thin air. Certain conditions continue to exist in our society which must be condemned as vigorously as we condemn riots. But in the final analysis, a riot is the language of the unheard. And what is it that America has failed to hear? It has failed to hear that the plight of the Negro poor has worsened over the last few years. It has failed to hear that the promises of freedom and justice have not been met. And it has failed to hear that large segments of white society are more concerned about tranquility and the status quo than about justice, equality, and humanity. And so in a real sense our nation’s summers of riots are caused by our nation’s winters of delay. And as long as America postpones justice, we stand in the position of having these recurrences of violence and riots over and over again. Social justice and progress are the absolute guarantors of riot prevention.
I post this because the 3rd Precinct in MPLS has been set on fire. The bill is coming due on this never-ending assault on African-American lives by the police in this country. None of this happens if you arrest the guy who is in plain sight murdering someone over a 10 minute period on camera. But we can't do that, because that would require accountability for a police officer. Well, alright. Just like with Rodney King, we'll do this instead.
Comments
It makes more sense when you realize that the definition of the constitution, patriotism and conservatism itself is now totally malleable and changes (sometimes as quickly as within 24 hours) to bend to whatever reality Trump needs to project that day to manipulate a news cycle. The constitution, the flag, the blaring of Lee Greenwood before every rally. Those are just totems of movement that isn't remotely interested in policy anymore, but only domination by any means necessary.
This has been in the works for decades, and Trump is just the endgame, the perfect vessel of what they were feeding their voters since Nixon started talking about the silent majority. The breaking point was when they were told for months Mitt Romney would win easily on FOX, and Romney still got crushed by the Kenyan Usurper. Trump waltzed in and started saying out loud what used to be communicated by underhanded surrogates and dirty tricksters like Roger Stone. They were on a constant doses of methadone, and Trump descended an escalator carrying bricks of pure Vietnamese heroin.
But to the point about Twitter, what Trump is suggesting to do to Twitter is of course the EXACT thing he is accusing Twitter of doing (which they aren't even capable of based on the First Amendment). You can have a nice philosophical discussion about freedom of expression as a concept in regards to Twitter, Youtube, Facebook and Google (and I'd argue that two of these platforms bend over backwards to placate conservative whining), but it doesn't have jack-shit to do with what free speech means in relation to the Constitution. But Trump, as the LEADER of the American government, threatening Twitter, is, of course, a direct assault on the First Amendment. But this is either a.) lost on the free speech absolutists or b.) they know it's a BS argument, but they make it anyway because it sounds good.
Johnson and other government ministers have been repeatedly asked today whether it will be mandatory for those informed they've been in contact with a Covid-19 case to immediately isolate themselves. It's pretty obvious they would like to say, yes. However, that would simply highlight that Cummings did not do that - so instead their answers have been yes, but there may be special situations where that is not appropriate.
That seems like a dangerous dilution of the message at a time when arrangements will naturally be less clear-cut than a national lockdown anyway. Personally, I can't see that the potential that brings for higher future infection rates is worth anyone's job - but Johnson clearly thinks otherwise ...
One thing that gives me an iota of hope is that there seems to be a fair number of prominent, public conservatives who have more or less announced they are not voting for the Republican party in the near term. We'll see if this translates into a significant numbers in November. I'm optimistic though, as both polls and the 2018 results seem to indicate that this is the case.
After 542 days, mostly under house arrest, Huawei CFO, Meng Wanzhou lost her court case today against being extradited to the states for breaking sanctions with Iran.
This is after China threatened damaged relations between the two countries if Meng wasn't released. This is after the Chinese government has already arrested Canadians abroad and blocked agricultural imports.
Meng's defense was that since Canada doesn't have sanctions against Iran, it isn't a crime in Canada and thus she should be released. The judge ruled against that stating, "Ms. Meng's approach to the double criminality analysis would seriously limit Canada's ability to fulfill its international obligations in the extradition context for fraud and other economic crimes."
Trudeau weighed in yesterday saying Canada shouldn't have to apologize for it's independent justice system and is ready to defend the outcome from any hostility (either by China, or if Meng won, the US).
It's far from over I think as Meng maybe able to bring it to our Supreme Court not quite sure. This just broke and her defense team hasn't released a statement yet.
The decision just made is only a step on the path to extradition. As you say, in Canada extradition is only possible if the crime complained of is classed as a crime there. Meng wanted to dismiss the case on the grounds Canada didn't have sanctions against Iran and therefore there could be no crime. The judge decided to apply a broader context to this and concluded the double criminality test was met. That decision means that the case continues in order to assess whether there's sufficient evidence a crime was in fact committed to justify the extradition.
It’s wrong if used against his allies. Anyone else is fair game.
I swear 2020 is going to be the weirdest election ever since I've been alive. Nothing would surprise me at this point. Trump wins, Biden wins, Biden has a stroke and Cuomo wins, Trump has a stroke and Pence wins, an alien appears on October 20th and runs against both of them in a write-in camoaign and wins. Who the fuck knows at this point...
He is now focusing 100% on distractions. His economy has collapsed. We've sped right by 100,000 deaths and are well on the way to 110,000. Rasmussen (which is a polling firm that exists simply to make Republicans feel better) has Trump at 42-57 approval/disapproval. If Rasmussen has him that low, he is in deep, deep shit. He has nothing to run on. Every plank besides culture war bullshit has been bombed to smithereens. If polling is correct, he is now underwater double-digits with senior citizens, when he was double-digits above water with them in 2016. Even if we JUST focus on that, IF those numbers are even remotely accurate, then the election is over before it starts. He can't possibly shrug off a 10-15 point swing to Biden among 65+, who haven't voted for a Democrat as a demographic group since Clinton in '92. If Trump loses, the push to convince old people to sacrifice themselves for the economy will be the main reason.
And then there is this. As has been said countless time, this isn't a political philosophy, it's bottomless nihilism:
In the meantime, some windows at the 3rd Precinct police station in Minneapolis were broken last night. Some pretty great reactions on Twitter. We could do this all day:
I heard that the window was delinquent in paying its rent in 1989.
The window looked intimidating.
Look at this picture of the window smoking weed. There is more to this story. All lives matter.
Going to wait for more information before I make any judgements about the nature of the interaction, but I will say that this, the window was no angel.
I saw the precinct jogging through a construction site.
But what about glass on glass crime??
Glass confirmed to have preexisting health condition that made event unavoidable.
Party members should NOT be silenced. But as I could face consequences (removed from BG2 etc) it's in my best interests to stay quite.
Got mine back in the mail today after sending in application. It's made VERY clear what the penalties are for voting illegally. Not only does it come with an envelope that would require a ridiculous amount of effort to counterfeit (and that the ballot HAS to be sent back in), but it ALSO comes with a second, even thicker brown envelope that you have to put the FIRST envelope inside. The idea any run of the mill citizen would have the means to cheat this system on any level that would make even a scintilla of difference is plain lunacy.
The idea that someone could take these down to Kinko's and make copies isn't even a realistic option. The material is of a specific thickness. The envelopes likewise. It would require a professional printing operation to even get started.
George Soros has one of those in his basement.
.
.
.
.
(Well, that's what I heard...) ?
Yeah, but he'd have to stop flying protesters into Minneapolis to focus on the counterfeit ballot scheme.
That being said, Trump is doing this because of the fact that social media sites are meddling with his timeline and now he is Extremely Mad Online. Like everything with him, it is entirely motivated by selfish reasons and I expect his actions will backfire.
If the police can't be trusted to not turn ordinary interactions into life threatening situations, that is the fault of the police, not the ones who call them. The ones who call bear no responsibility for the aggressive and unnecessary actions they so often demonstrate. This is passing the buck in the worst way. People should reasonably be able to trust the police to not randomly kill people, and especially innocent people.
Swatting, which is briefly mentioned in the article, should be taken more seriously and actually has criminal intent, but this is not the primary justification for this bill.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/public-outrage-legislation-follow-white-womans-call-to-police-about-black-man-in-central-park/2020/05/27/94b219a6-a049-11ea-9590-1858a893bd59_story.html#click=https://t.co/HCkWp3ZQX5
Pretty much the only thing I hear in defense of the corporate strangehold that exists over the modern day public square. It's been debated many times in here.
It's hard to take any sort of constitutional fundamentalism seriously when subjects such as eliminating the electoral college are bandied about. Clearly the constitution is a document all parties involved shred where we want to and where we hide behind if neccesary.
As for the "social media stranglehold" against conservatives, give me a break. At this point Mark Zuckerberg is giving Trump a perpetual reach around. They banned a totally accurate ad by the Never Trump group of former Republican strategists less than a week ago when he whined about it. One of their fact-checking sources is The Daily Caller. It's nothing but more aggrievement performance art. It's all they have left.
Did you see the video of this woman? She knew she was lying. It was filing a false police report.
This isn’t the same as calling the cops about a person moving furniture out of a house thinking they are robbing it.
Most calls to police are anonymous (and should always remain that way) anyway.
~
The left always believes in free speech. It is different than what you and Trump are actually describing.
It is actually Twitter’s free speech to add separate links to things that Trump has posted on their site that they feel is misleading and needs to be clarified. As long as they don’t edit what he actually said, he is not being censored.
The posts can be deleted outright still if they break Twitter’s TOS, but I doubt they’d actually do that.
No one is forcing anyone to use these social media companies, and others, like gab.com are starting to pop up to attract the people who think Twitter and Facebook are censoring them too much.
And the constitution has already been shredded from the founding father’s wishes. One I pointed out recently is the Senate should be appointed by the State governors and not elected. That was changed in I think 1912, without changing the role of the senate and why the constitution had them appointed instead of elected was never taken into consideration.
There is no stranglehold on free speech by Twitter. Or social media companies generally. Saying as much, imo, reveals alot more about the speaker than it does about the state of world. There is no shortage of means for broadcasting your point of view in today's world outside of using a social media platform. Nor is there even much true censorship on these platforms in the first place. Trump's remarks were not censored.
Shifting the conversation from the first amendment to the electoral college is also an interesting move. Not something one would make if they felt their initial argument about speech was ironclad.
I wonder how long this is going to stay up with the “end of the Republican Party” in it...
He kinda said the quiet thing out loud... in all caps...
His Press Secretary, like Trump himself, has voted by mail 11 times in the last 10 years. This is nothing but a.) trying to suppress the vote like they always do and b.) laying the groundwork for refusing to accept any potential loss.
I thought it might be worth considering what the constitution actually says on this matter - the First Amendment states:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
On the face of it, that seems clear enough - it's only about laws Congress makes. However, the legal interpretation of the Constitution is not always what it seems to be about on the face of it. Take the Second Amendment for instance:
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
In that case the interpretation in recent years is to disregard the first half of the sentence, so could something similar be done for the First Amendment? Thinking about it, that's not quite inconceivable. It's more difficult because you don't get a meaningful sentence if you simply remove the opening words, but I think it would be possible to argue that "abridging the freedom of speech" refers to a universal provision rather than simply government action. The corollary of that would then be that Congress has a duty not only to avoid abridging the freedom of speech itself, but a duty to actively support it, i.e. prevent others from abridging it.
Trump's Executive Order doesn't change the law itself of course, but asks for various things to be reviewed (see this article). Any changes to the law that result in the government defining what constitutes free speech are all too likely to be self-defeating, but that's not really the point of course. Trump's position on free speech has always been that he should be able to say whatever he wants, but others should not. Whether he actually needs to change the law or just threaten to do so in order to persuade others to toe the line, that's the position he wants to get to. With an election looming and his own position looking precarious though, I suspect he will find he's too short of time and influence to push something as controversial as this through.
There is a difference here though.
She voted by mail because she was not in the state of Florida for the times that she voted. She was either in school, or in Washington. She was absent from her state and applied for the absentee ballot. Those are the laws that Florida has laid out for requesting a mail-in ballot.
Now if one can prove she also voted where she went to school as well as the absentee ballot that is a different story.
They just want to restrict people who are currently in state for the election from receiving a mail-in ballot and they think the 'coronavirus scare,' even with 100,000 dead, isn't a justification enough to expand who gets to vote by mail.
But each state outlines who is allowed to vote by mail. States themselves can put any type of restriction for absentee ballots as Texas has done in the case that their supreme court held up. Fear of the coronavirus isn't a disability so it doesn't count. However, I think people may still be able to get away with voting by mail in Texas with the word "confined" in the definition. People are 'confined' to their homes due to medical recommendations to self isolate.
Trump and the Federal government have zero rights in telling States who should be able to vote by mail. Voting illegally (that nice little racist whistle he's been blowing before he got elected) has never been proven the way that they are claiming, and it's main reason is voter suppression, and to keep the republican party in power which he stated in all caps in his last tweet.
…I think America must see that riots do not develop out of thin air. Certain conditions continue to exist in our society which must be condemned as vigorously as we condemn riots. But in the final analysis, a riot is the language of the unheard. And what is it that America has failed to hear? It has failed to hear that the plight of the Negro poor has worsened over the last few years. It has failed to hear that the promises of freedom and justice have not been met. And it has failed to hear that large segments of white society are more concerned about tranquility and the status quo than about justice, equality, and humanity. And so in a real sense our nation’s summers of riots are caused by our nation’s winters of delay. And as long as America postpones justice, we stand in the position of having these recurrences of violence and riots over and over again. Social justice and progress are the absolute guarantors of riot prevention.
I post this because the 3rd Precinct in MPLS has been set on fire. The bill is coming due on this never-ending assault on African-American lives by the police in this country. None of this happens if you arrest the guy who is in plain sight murdering someone over a 10 minute period on camera. But we can't do that, because that would require accountability for a police officer. Well, alright. Just like with Rodney King, we'll do this instead.