So, before we go solely blaming the two guards who apparently fell asleep for 3 hours, read the second article which was posted over a YEAR before this happened about the effects of the hiring freeze on federal employees and SPECIFICALLY the BOP and how it might have played into this:
So, while people continue to crow about #ClintonBodyCount without a single person offering a theory as to how exactly that might have been pulled off, we have a perfectly logical series of events that caused this. The Trump Administration put the wholly conservative idea of a federal pay freeze into the effect(because beating up on federal workers may not be good policy, but it is good politics in right-wing circles) and watch as they can't hire the necessary people, and one day in August of 2019, one of them is exhausted and the other is inexperienced or not qualified, and this happens. Much like 9/11, there was no "conspiracy" to bring down the towers. That could be tied simply to straight up incompetence in the Bush Administration. You can tie Epstein's death directly to the federal pay freeze. It is entirely likely that they would have had guards on duty that were NOT overworked and/or qualified for their job if it had not been in effect. This is a result of the "do more with less" corporate mantra being exported to federal jobs. You do less with less. In this case, less checking on a highly important prisoner. If people want to plant their flag in a grassy knoll, this is where you should start. There were staffing shortages. They were not addressed and, in effect, made worse. This is what you get.
Instead, it gets turned into "Day of the Jackal". I honestly hope I get a chance to talk about this in casual conversation sometime. The moment someone mentions that the Clintons had him murdered, I'll say "Ok great, how do you imagine that went down?? What series of events took place?? There hasn't been a Clinton in charge of the federal prison system in 19 years. In fact, it is actually Trump and Bill Barr who are in charge of it. Are you saying they are running such a loose ship that two 70-year old former politicians are able to pull off an elaborate assassination attempt??" At which point I'll get a non-sequiter and they'll drop the conversation entirely.
The justice system isn't supposed to be a net producer of wealth for the government. Nor should that ever be its goal. That creates all kinds of perverse incentives.
The NRA would not hesitate to throw a Republican under the bus who votes for any sort of gun-control legislation, regardless of how lax or strict it might be. The first thing they would do is back some other Republican for that seat.
And democrats rather see taxpayer money being wasted into making an family father who owned an unregistered firearm being sodomized in prison, while his family starve to death than allowing people to commit the """terrible""" crime of owning an firearm(an crime with ZERO victims)
I must have missed the "sodomize owners of unregistered firearms while their families starve to death" part of the Democratic platform. Can you point me to that section?
What do you think that happens when you put someone who his family depends on his work in jail?
Happens all the time in the US, and in a lot of cases these people receive disproportionately long sentences when compared to other demographics.
Or is it only when someone might be arrested for owning a gun illegally that you care about this? Even though no one has promoted any such policy so far?
The justice system isn't supposed to be a net producer of wealth for the government. Nor should that ever be its goal. That creates all kinds of perverse incentives.
What is the justice in punishing victmiless crimes mainly when the family of the """"criminal""" have to endure consequences?
The NRA would not hesitate to throw a Republican under the bus who votes for any sort of gun-control legislation, regardless of how lax or strict it might be. The first thing they would do is back some other Republican for that seat.
And democrats rather see taxpayer money being wasted into making an family father who owned an unregistered firearm being sodomized in prison, while his family starve to death than allowing people to commit the """terrible""" crime of owning an firearm(an crime with ZERO victims)
I must have missed the "sodomize owners of unregistered firearms while their families starve to death" part of the Democratic platform. Can you point me to that section?
What do you think that happens when you put someone who his family depends on his work in jail?
Happens all the time in the US, and in a lot of cases these people receive disproportionately long sentences when compared to other demographics.
Or is it only when someone might be arrested for owning a gun illegally that you care about this? Even though no one has promoted any such policy so far?
There are an bias towards white man in justice, at the same way that there are an bias towards woman. Woman receive less sentences
The justice system isn't supposed to be a net producer of wealth for the government. Nor should that ever be its goal. That creates all kinds of perverse incentives.
What is the justice in punishing victmiless crimes mainly when the family of the """"criminal""" have to endure consequences?
The NRA would not hesitate to throw a Republican under the bus who votes for any sort of gun-control legislation, regardless of how lax or strict it might be. The first thing they would do is back some other Republican for that seat.
And democrats rather see taxpayer money being wasted into making an family father who owned an unregistered firearm being sodomized in prison, while his family starve to death than allowing people to commit the """terrible""" crime of owning an firearm(an crime with ZERO victims)
I must have missed the "sodomize owners of unregistered firearms while their families starve to death" part of the Democratic platform. Can you point me to that section?
What do you think that happens when you put someone who his family depends on his work in jail?
Happens all the time in the US, and in a lot of cases these people receive disproportionately long sentences when compared to other demographics.
Or is it only when someone might be arrested for owning a gun illegally that you care about this? Even though no one has promoted any such policy so far?
There are an bias towards white man in justice, at the same way that there are an bias towards woman. Woman receive less sentences
I'm starting to think this crap should be treated somewhat like 'swatting'. At least start charging these dufuses money for wasting policemens' time. The Arkansas woman should probably go to jail as well...
I'm starting to think this crap should be treated somewhat like 'swatting'. At least start charging these dufuses money for wasting policemens' time. The Arkansas woman should probably go to jail as well...
This is interesting, because I just read a Twitter thread from a NYT writer who focuses on racism. She said she recieved a call while in an airplane from the Sheriff's office that there were gunshots at her house. Her son was home alone. There were no gunshots. It was apparently only the most recent attempt at swatting her home. The only reason the cops called her first is because she'd specifically warned them it was happening. Swatting should be treated as nothing less than attempted murder, because that's what it effectively is.
The justice system isn't supposed to be a net producer of wealth for the government. Nor should that ever be its goal. That creates all kinds of perverse incentives.
Yeah because that might result in rich people being harassed more than poor people. I thought that's what liberals wanted?
The justice system isn't supposed to be a net producer of wealth for the government. Nor should that ever be its goal. That creates all kinds of perverse incentives.
Yeah because that might result in rich people being harassed more than poor people. I thought that's what liberals wanted?
Slightly tongue-in-cheek (but not totally)
Ironically the justice system is often used to harass poor people in this manner. In fact, while the particular shooting of Brown in Ferguson, Missouri wasn't criminal, the federal justice department found that the police systematically harassed its black community in order to levy fines and in order to procure money for itself.
For just one story reporting on the issue. Though you can google for yourself if you want to find more. Poor people will always be disadvantaged by these systems and I think it's just not spending enough time researching this stuff that might lead one to conclude otherwise.
I just want to stress that I think it's incredibly short-sighted to think of incarceration for serious crimes in a simple "it costs this much to incarcerate this prisoner for this long". A justice system that adequately investigates and punishes serious crimes does untold work for the economy and society in the long term. There is nothing wrong with it having a cost to the taxpayer!
If you want to talk about money wasted on prosecuting drugs... sure, I'm all ears. But since all this came out of the Epstein case, I'm sorry, serious crime deserves serious punishment, imo. And there are long term benefits, even in dollars from this. People think they're being "practical" on this issue but they aren't. They're being myopic, I'd say.
The lack of criminal justice causes immeasurable economic damage -- intergenerational damage -- in poorer countries.
Another assault-gun related incident. I think this is a perfect example of somebody who would get an AK-47 despite any assault-gun law. How does somebody with this history continue to be allowed to go free?
Trump has moved to gut the endangered species act. Now, profits should be considered in determining whether a species should be protected (!). This act saved the North American Bald Eagle and Trump is basically throwing it out in order to poison the environment and allow more oil and gas drilling.
Ken Cuccinelli, the acting director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, is facing calls to leave the Trump administration following his controversial remarks on migrants and the Statue of Liberty.
Cuccinelli made headlines after he provided an altered version of the poem The New Colossus (the one that is on the Statue of Liberty) . A line from the original poem reads: "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free."
During an interview on NPR, the UCIS director suggested those lines should be rewritten to say: "Give me your tired and your poor who can stand on their own two feet and who will not become a public charge."
Cuccinelli doubled down on the statement during an appearance on CNN, stating that the Statue of Liberty poem "was referring back to people coming from Europe."
I'm starting to think this crap should be treated somewhat like 'swatting'. At least start charging these dufuses money for wasting policemens' time. The Arkansas woman should probably go to jail as well...
OK, the key line in the first story is:
"After asking that a police supervisor be called as he was questioned and held by at least two police officers.."
So this guy escalated it. He wasn't being "held" for a half hour. He was making a scene for a half hour, which is right to do. But once again, I side with the cops here, "what are we suppose to do, not show up?"
If he just said, "No officer, I am meeting my girl friend for dinner at this establishment, am I being charged with a crime or am I free to go?" The officers would prolly say you're free to go, roll up to the white vechile and say "how is he a threat?" roll their eyes at the response and leave.
~~
The second one is thank god she was charged. I hope she gets convicted and has her precious guns taken away because she is now a convict. You don't do shit like that.
I don't think that the school should stop the door to door tickets just because of one crazy lady. That's just hurting the kids more than anything.
Ken Cuccinelli, the acting director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, is facing calls to leave the Trump administration following his controversial remarks on migrants and the Statue of Liberty.
Cuccinelli made headlines after he provided an altered version of the poem The New Colossus (the one that is on the Statue of Liberty) . A line from the original poem reads: "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free."
During an interview on NPR, the UCIS director suggested those lines should be rewritten to say: "Give me your tired and your poor who can stand on their own two feet and who will not become a public charge."
Cuccinelli doubled down on the statement during an appearance on CNN, stating that the Statue of Liberty poem "was referring back to people coming from Europe."
I imagine that statement was deliberately designed to create controversy as a way of steering the conversation away from a serious discussion of the proposal that underpinned it, i.e. the attack on legal migration. There's been far more comment in this thread about illegal migration, even though that's a relatively small part of total migration in the US. Trump though has always had both legal and illegal migration in his sights.
The new policy is a major redefinition of the 'public charge' test. This test is designed to prevent granting permanent residency to those likely to be a burden on the state. At present the test considers whether applicants are relying on or likely to rely on government assistance for more than half their cash income by looking at three main sets of benefits — TANF (or traditional cash welfare), Supplemental Security Income and a Medicaid program that pays for long-term care. The existing policy's recognition that applicants should be able to receive some support takes into account that immigrants often take low-paid jobs that US citizens are unwilling to consider.
The new definition applying from October hugely extends that test. Factors that can count against a green-card applicant in future will include having “a medical condition” that will interfere with work or school; not having enough money to cover “any reasonably foreseeable medical costs” related to such a medical condition; having “financial liabilities”; having been approved to receive a public benefit, even if the individual has not actually received the benefit; having a low credit score; the absence of private health insurance; the absence of a college degree; not having the English-language skills “sufficient to enter the job market;” or having a sponsor who is “unlikely” to provide financial support.
There is no guidance or points system applying to these tests, i.e. it is up to the discretion of immigration officials how they are applied. Given how broad something like "having a medical condition" is, that could in principle apply to almost anyone. Estimates I've seen from several sources suggest that these tests could result in between half and two-thirds of applications being turned down in future. The new system though entirely ignores the fact that immigrants pay taxes - a pretty important omission given that the net contribution of immigrant families (taxes less benefits) is actually higher than that of the native-born population.
It might be argued that such a major change should have been made through Congress, rather than an administrative change. Trump of course would have welcomed that, but couldn't get his proposals through Congress even when the Republicans controlled both chambers ...
The ethics commissioner (don't you wish you had something like this U.S.?) "concluded that Trudeau’s attempts to influence Wilson-Raybould on the matter contravened section 9 of the act, which prohibits public office holders from using their position to try to influence a decision that would improperly further the private interests of a third party."
With an election right around the corner, this is heavy bombshell that the Liberals are going to have to maneuver as it will change as much as it did when Trudeau was found to break ethic rules the first time... nothing.There is no consequences for breaking ethics rules and as long as the Liberals run fear tactics that electing the PC government will be like electing Trump in the US (far, far, far from) most voters are just going to shrug and hand the Liberals another majority.
Welcome to our world where the President goes to his own clubs every weekend and has charged taxpayers over $100 million dollars for that - directly profiting from corruption.
He appoints his children and cronies to the government. And his officials never recuse themselves from investments they've previously made or investigations that they have conflicts of interest even when they say they will.
Whatever minor ethics problem Trudeau has, it is nothing to the corruption you get with a conservative government and they are right in fearmongering about a PC government.
=Conservative priorities are to loot the treasury and poison the environment all over the world. Look at Boris Johnson in the UK lying about Brexit. Fear mongering is justified. Now, here's what you do with Trudeau - you let him know you are unhappy and replace him with another liberal if necessary.
Welcome to our world where the President goes to his own clubs every weekend and has charged taxpayers over $100 million dollars for that - directly profiting from corruption.
He appoints his children and cronies to the government. And his officials never recuse themselves from investments they've previously made or investigations that they have conflicts of interest even when they say they will.
Whatever minor ethics problem Trudeau has, it is nothing to the corruption you get with a conservative government and they are right in fearmongering about a PC government.
=Conservative priorities are to loot the treasury and poison the environment all over the world. Look at Boris Johnson in the UK lying about Brexit. Fear mongering is justified. Now, here's what you do with Trudeau - you let him know you are unhappy and replace him with another liberal if necessary.
Ya no.
It’s opposite in Canada. The conservatives are usually fiscal responsible.
Senate Scandal:
Their scandals were about making a senator repay what could be perceived as inappropriate expenses, and when he couldn’t/wouldn’t paid for him. All three senators were found not guilty of these charges and iirc, are back in the senate.
To prevent the same thing from happening, one of the first things Trudeau did when becoming prime minister was to kick all the liberal senators out of Caucus. He disowned them, not for anything that they did, but what their future actions might do to the Liberal brand name.
Robo-call Scandal:
It was determined, though an inquiry that a lone bottom-rung volunteer for a single riding set up the robo-calls to misdirect voters on voting day after he was explicitly told not to. He was the only one charged. A lot of people like to point out that he was probably the coverup goat, but IMO, it really doesn’t make sense for an elected official to do anything to lose the trust of the people they represent.
In and Out:
Literally caused a snap election (these happen in Canada) where the Conservative party won again. It was an election spending loop hole that other parties had used in the past.
These aren’t even close to what Trump, or past Liberal governments have done yet they get labeled as ‘corrupt’ and ‘both sides’ argument.
Trudeau was elected over Harper because Trudeau was more Charismatic than Harper. It was populism. He’s now turned out to be a fraud like Trump but fear tactics and using Trump and a lesser extent Doug Ford in Ontario, as examples of what will happen if you vote “conservative” in the next election.
This will give the Liberals a mandate to do worse as their is no repercussions to their actions.
Welcome to our world where the President goes to his own clubs every weekend and has charged taxpayers over $100 million dollars for that - directly profiting from corruption.
He appoints his children and cronies to the government. And his officials never recuse themselves from investments they've previously made or investigations that they have conflicts of interest even when they say they will.
Whatever minor ethics problem Trudeau has, it is nothing to the corruption you get with a conservative government and they are right in fearmongering about a PC government.
=Conservative priorities are to loot the treasury and poison the environment all over the world. Look at Boris Johnson in the UK lying about Brexit. Fear mongering is justified. Now, here's what you do with Trudeau - you let him know you are unhappy and replace him with another liberal if necessary.
Ya no.
It’s opposite in Canada. The conservatives are usually fiscal responsible.
They claim that same thing here but they're lying. They use a lot of words then do the opposite. Marketing. They say they are fiscally responsible then they act to b;ow up the budget every single time down here while restricting rights and giving away everything to private industry.
Welcome to our world where the President goes to his own clubs every weekend and has charged taxpayers over $100 million dollars for that - directly profiting from corruption.
He appoints his children and cronies to the government. And his officials never recuse themselves from investments they've previously made or investigations that they have conflicts of interest even when they say they will.
Whatever minor ethics problem Trudeau has, it is nothing to the corruption you get with a conservative government and they are right in fearmongering about a PC government.
=Conservative priorities are to loot the treasury and poison the environment all over the world. Look at Boris Johnson in the UK lying about Brexit. Fear mongering is justified. Now, here's what you do with Trudeau - you let him know you are unhappy and replace him with another liberal if necessary.
Ya no.
It’s opposite in Canada. The conservatives are usually fiscal responsible.
They claim that same thing here but they're lying. They use a lot of words then do the opposite. Marketing. They say they are fiscally responsible then they act to b;ow up the budget every single time down here while restricting rights and giving away everything to private industry.
Did you even read the link I posted?
One of the scandals was Tony Clement using funds for a G8 meeting in his riding to improve the local infrastructure instead of paying a conservative law/marketing firm to give “consultation.”
Sure the federal money should not have been spent on what amounts to municipal costs but it is far from the corruption shown in the Lavalin case, or anything the Ontario Liberals did for over a decade.
Stephen Harper balanced the budgets and I will give credit to both Chrétien and Martin (both Liberal prime ministers before him) for getting it there to begin with.
Trudeau tan on a campaign promise to bring the country into debt and still won so.
I read them and take your word for it. I let you know our experience with conservatives here - not a comment on specifics nitty gritty derails of yours up there. If they are more honest up there great but down here they use marketing terms like "fiscal conservative" and "constitutional originalist" then do the opposite and are worse for the economy always.
At least 6 police officers have been shot in Philadelphia.
So much for the good guy with a gun theory once and for all.
He was barricaded inside an apartment--there was no opportunity for anyone else to respond. Of course, Mr. Hill had a criminal record which would prevent him from legally obtaining guns but it appears that he managed to obtain guns, anyway. Really? A criminal managed to get his hands on guns? But I thought there were laws against such things? How did that happen? Shouldn't those laws have stopped him?
Oh, that's right, I forgot--criminals don't obey laws.
So much for the "more laws will stop shooting events" theory once and for all.
It gets even better--at least one of the weapons he used is a "ghost gun", meaning he bought the parts online, without serial numbers, and assembled the weapon himself (or had someone do it for him--putting a gun together is not difficult). There is no background check needed whatsoever for ordering parts online. If you know where to look--and I will not tell anyone where to look--you can still find the schematic files for those 3D pistols online, as well.
We have laws against drunk driving. Despite those laws, people still do drive drunk and do kill people. I have never once heard anyone argue that this is a reason to get rid of drunk driving laws and blood alcohol limits. The same logic applies. Law-abiding people are getting an Uber. The ones breaking the law are getting into their cars. The question is HOW MANY of those who are getting an Uber are doing it because they are worried or scared about the CONSEQUENCES of not doing so.
At least 6 police officers have been shot in Philadelphia.
So much for the good guy with a gun theory once and for all.
He was barricaded inside an apartment--there was no opportunity for anyone else to respond. Of course, Mr. Hill had a criminal record which would prevent him from legally obtaining guns but it appears that he managed to obtain guns, anyway. Really? A criminal managed to get his hands on guns? But I thought there were laws against such things? How did that happen? Shouldn't those laws have stopped him?
Oh, that's right, I forgot--criminals don't obey laws.
So much for the "more laws will stop shooting events" theory once and for all.
It gets even better--at least one of the weapons he used is a "ghost gun", meaning he bought the parts online, without serial numbers, and assembled the weapon himself (or had someone do it for him--putting a gun together is not difficult). There is no background check needed whatsoever for ordering parts online. If you know where to look--and I will not tell anyone where to look--you can still find the schematic files for those 3D pistols online, as well.
Irregardless of that, good guys with guns didn't do anything to stop bad guys with a gun again.
Your argument that banning stuff doesn't work because people are going to get what they want anyway is an interesting one and could apply to a lot of topics like say abortion.
I've been thinking today about what to say about Trump basically pushing the current powers that be in Israel to ban Rashida Tlaib and Ilhan Omar from entering the country. In the end, nothing I can come up with sounds right, so I'll repost this from Josh Marshall:
Israel is supposedly doing this because the two support BDS. As it happens, I’m not even sure this is entirely true. Tlaib, who is Palestinian American and has relatives in the territories, does. Omar has actually made contradictory or equivocal comments about BDS. Regardless, it simply doesn’t matter. They are elected members of the United States Congress. They are part of the US government and their treatment bears directly on the respect accorded our system of government or interference with our democratic system. The idea that a government which has long benefited from US protection and aid would do such a thing is outrageous.
Even more outrageous is that President Trump has encouraged this decision. This had only been reported through unnamed sources until now. But this morning he went on Twitter and said as much.
This betrays an established and dangerous pattern with Donald Trump: his personal alliances always come before allegiance to country, law and Constitution. This is not surprising and it is of a piece with his collusion and tacit alliance with Russia during the 2016 election.
What you think about Omar and Tlaib is irrelevant. I have criticized Omar when I think it is merited. All that matters here is that they are elected representatives. Punishing or excluding them is a strike against our democratic system. An ally should never do such a thing.
One final, important point. This does not even make sense from the point of view of narrow Israeli self-interest – not in Israeli or Zionist terms. The US has two major parties and they frequently rotate in power. Omar and to a lesser extent Tlaib are controversial in US politics but they have many ardent supporters in the Democratic Party. They are both women of color. The Israeli government under Netanyahu has increasingly identified itself with the GOP and actively worked with the GOP against Democrats as the GOP has become more associated with white nationalism. Democrats will be back in power again. The party is increasingly based on a multiracial political coalition. Sowing antagonism at a level so deep and visceral is obvious folly.
The truth is that this isn’t Israeli policy or even precisely Netanyahu policy. This is an electoral gambit. Israel has an election next month and Netanyahu is in a fight for his political life. He may even be in a fight for his freedom since remaining in office is his best play to delay or quash corruption charges. This is an effort to juice outrage and support from the Israeli far right.
The last two paragraphs are the most important. I will never in my life again support a single DIME going to a government in any way associated with Netanyahu and the Likud Party. And there are increasing numbers of people who are fed up with the BILLIONS of dollars we just hand an obviously corrupt regime with no strings, their clear alliance with American far-right politics, and the insinuation in this country that not supporting these things is tantamount to betrayal of the United States itself. It's time to turn off this faucet once and for all. If Israel wants to continue overseeing an apartheid state, they can do so without my goddamn tax dollars and pay for it themselves. If they want to ban these two from a routine fact-finding mission, then send back Michigan and Minnesota's share of the defense boondoggle we handed you.
There are reports that Trump is asking people about trying to buy Greenland from Denmark (It's not clear how serious this is). On one hand, that sounds kind of neat. I wouldnt necessarily be opposed to something like that.
On the other hand, I have absolutely no faith in our country not royally f**King Greenland up. I bet within a generation, we'd stripmine/frack the hell out of the place. The USA also has an absolute horrible track record with respecting Inuit people, and I suspect this would continue in Greenland as a territory. It might be better for the world and Greenland if Denmark holds onto it...
There are reports that Trump is asking people about trying to buy Greenland from Denmark (It's not clear how serious this is). On one hand, that sounds kind of neat. I wouldnt necessarily be opposed to something like that.
On the other hand, I have absolutely no faith in our country not royally f**King Greenland up. I bet within a generation, we'd stripmine/frack the hell out of the place. The USA also has an absolute horrible track record with respecting Inuit people, and I suspect this would continue in Greenland as a territory. It might be better for the world and Greenland if Denmark holds onto it...
The idea of "buying" land people are already on is kind of repulsive on it's face. The last country in the world I would want in charge of respecting the rights of indigenous people is the United States. How is it possible in 2019 that anyone "owns" Greenland other than the people who live there?? They shouldn't be treated like pieces on a geopolitical chessboard. Would the people of Greenland have any say in this whatsoever?? And if not, how is that remotely ok in modern times?? I admit I am wholly ignorant as to how Denmark came into what I can only assume is possession of the country, but the idea that they and the US would be in negotiations about purchasing it seems so wrong on so many levels.
The idea of "buying" land people are already on is kind of repulsive on it's face. The last country in the world I would want in charge of respecting the rights of indigenous people is the United States. How is it possible in 2019 that anyone "owns" Greenland other than the people who live there?? They shouldn't be treated like pieces on a geopolitical chessboard. Would the people of Greenland have any say in this whatsoever?? And if not, how is that remotely ok in modern times?? I admit I am wholly ignorant as the how Denmark came into what I can only assume is possession of the country, but the idea that they and the US would be in negotiations about purchasing it seems so wrong on so many levels.
Well, first and foremost - I would assume the people of Greenland would be allowed a plebiscite to decide their future in this event. In the event that they did vote to become a territory of the USA, I dont really see it as being all that repulsive.
There are definitely some interesting ethical considerations though since I think a significant percentage of the people in Greenland are Inuit, and I'm not really sure how feasible it is to conduct a honest and effective plebiscite with them (Truthfully, I dont know a lot about the situation of the people living in Greenland). Presumably, they'd also be similarly semi-autonomous as they are now.
Historically - I think Denmark's suzerainty over Greenland comes from the colonial period in which Denmark-Norway (When those two kingdoms were in a personal union, ruled by the King of Denmark) charted and colonized the land. I believe Greenland obtained its semi-autonomous nature during Denmark's occupation during WW2 (Actually - if I am not mistaken, Denmark handed Greenland over to the USA during that period of time. Interestingly, we were the "caretakers" of Greenland for a while).
As I said - I also dont have a particularly high opinion of the USA's ability to deal with indigenous peoples.
At least 6 police officers have been shot in Philadelphia.
So much for the good guy with a gun theory once and for all.
He was barricaded inside an apartment--there was no opportunity for anyone else to respond. Of course, Mr. Hill had a criminal record which would prevent him from legally obtaining guns but it appears that he managed to obtain guns, anyway. Really? A criminal managed to get his hands on guns? But I thought there were laws against such things? How did that happen? Shouldn't those laws have stopped him?
Oh, that's right, I forgot--criminals don't obey laws.
So much for the "more laws will stop shooting events" theory once and for all.
It gets even better--at least one of the weapons he used is a "ghost gun", meaning he bought the parts online, without serial numbers, and assembled the weapon himself (or had someone do it for him--putting a gun together is not difficult). There is no background check needed whatsoever for ordering parts online. If you know where to look--and I will not tell anyone where to look--you can still find the schematic files for those 3D pistols online, as well.
The vast majority of guns used in shooting sprees were legally obtained. An instance of someone using guns he obtained illegally isn't a demonstration that gun control would be useless.
It's like using the arson in Japan as proof that mass shooters would just turn to arson to do their killing when that's simply not the case anywhere effective gun control has been in place. Or claiming they'd switch to knives, even though in the attempts at mass stabbing we've seen they tend to have significantly smaller body counts.
There are reports that Trump is asking people about trying to buy Greenland from Denmark (It's not clear how serious this is). On one hand, that sounds kind of neat. I wouldnt necessarily be opposed to something like that.
On the other hand, I have absolutely no faith in our country not royally f**King Greenland up. I bet within a generation, we'd stripmine/frack the hell out of the place. The USA also has an absolute horrible track record with respecting Inuit people, and I suspect this would continue in Greenland as a territory. It might be better for the world and Greenland if Denmark holds onto it...
The idea of "buying" land people are already on is kind of repulsive on it's face. The last country in the world I would want in charge of respecting the rights of indigenous people is the United States. How is it possible in 2019 that anyone "owns" Greenland other than the people who live there?? They shouldn't be treated like pieces on a geopolitical chessboard. Would the people of Greenland have any say in this whatsoever?? And if not, how is that remotely ok in modern times?? I admit I am wholly ignorant as to how Denmark came into what I can only assume is possession of the country, but the idea that they and the US would be in negotiations about purchasing it seems so wrong on so many levels.
No I wouldn't trust the United States especially the Trump administration that just gutted the endangered species act.
Puerto Rico would confirm for us that the US has a bad track record of treating autonomous islands like shit.
Now if Greenland was added as a state that would be better than just being a territory. But anyway, yeah no the US would frack and destroy Greenland. Same thing they're doing to the mainland.
Comments
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/guards-epstein-asleep-cover-up-death
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/federal-prison-bureau-trump_n_5b2bf738e4b00295f15a990a
So, while people continue to crow about #ClintonBodyCount without a single person offering a theory as to how exactly that might have been pulled off, we have a perfectly logical series of events that caused this. The Trump Administration put the wholly conservative idea of a federal pay freeze into the effect(because beating up on federal workers may not be good policy, but it is good politics in right-wing circles) and watch as they can't hire the necessary people, and one day in August of 2019, one of them is exhausted and the other is inexperienced or not qualified, and this happens. Much like 9/11, there was no "conspiracy" to bring down the towers. That could be tied simply to straight up incompetence in the Bush Administration. You can tie Epstein's death directly to the federal pay freeze. It is entirely likely that they would have had guards on duty that were NOT overworked and/or qualified for their job if it had not been in effect. This is a result of the "do more with less" corporate mantra being exported to federal jobs. You do less with less. In this case, less checking on a highly important prisoner. If people want to plant their flag in a grassy knoll, this is where you should start. There were staffing shortages. They were not addressed and, in effect, made worse. This is what you get.
Instead, it gets turned into "Day of the Jackal". I honestly hope I get a chance to talk about this in casual conversation sometime. The moment someone mentions that the Clintons had him murdered, I'll say "Ok great, how do you imagine that went down?? What series of events took place?? There hasn't been a Clinton in charge of the federal prison system in 19 years. In fact, it is actually Trump and Bill Barr who are in charge of it. Are you saying they are running such a loose ship that two 70-year old former politicians are able to pull off an elaborate assassination attempt??" At which point I'll get a non-sequiter and they'll drop the conversation entirely.
Happens all the time in the US, and in a lot of cases these people receive disproportionately long sentences when compared to other demographics.
Or is it only when someone might be arrested for owning a gun illegally that you care about this? Even though no one has promoted any such policy so far?
What is the justice in punishing victmiless crimes mainly when the family of the """"criminal""" have to endure consequences?
There are an bias towards white man in justice, at the same way that there are an bias towards woman. Woman receive less sentences
Men Sentenced To Longer Prison Terms Than Women For Same Crimes, Study Says
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/men-women-prison-sentence-length-gender-gap_n_1874742
Wow. That's not 'fair'. Grab the picket signs...
https://heavy.com/news/2019/08/oyal-oak-police-video-devin-myers/
And one from Arkansas (not as surprising).
https://heavy.com/news/2019/08/jerri-kelly/
I'm starting to think this crap should be treated somewhat like 'swatting'. At least start charging these dufuses money for wasting policemens' time. The Arkansas woman should probably go to jail as well...
This is interesting, because I just read a Twitter thread from a NYT writer who focuses on racism. She said she recieved a call while in an airplane from the Sheriff's office that there were gunshots at her house. Her son was home alone. There were no gunshots. It was apparently only the most recent attempt at swatting her home. The only reason the cops called her first is because she'd specifically warned them it was happening. Swatting should be treated as nothing less than attempted murder, because that's what it effectively is.
Yeah because that might result in rich people being harassed more than poor people. I thought that's what liberals wanted?
Slightly tongue-in-cheek (but not totally)
Ironically the justice system is often used to harass poor people in this manner. In fact, while the particular shooting of Brown in Ferguson, Missouri wasn't criminal, the federal justice department found that the police systematically harassed its black community in order to levy fines and in order to procure money for itself.
https://www.businessinsider.com/the-justice-departments-report-on-ferguson-is-scathing-2015-3
For just one story reporting on the issue. Though you can google for yourself if you want to find more. Poor people will always be disadvantaged by these systems and I think it's just not spending enough time researching this stuff that might lead one to conclude otherwise.
I just want to stress that I think it's incredibly short-sighted to think of incarceration for serious crimes in a simple "it costs this much to incarcerate this prisoner for this long". A justice system that adequately investigates and punishes serious crimes does untold work for the economy and society in the long term. There is nothing wrong with it having a cost to the taxpayer!
If you want to talk about money wasted on prosecuting drugs... sure, I'm all ears. But since all this came out of the Epstein case, I'm sorry, serious crime deserves serious punishment, imo. And there are long term benefits, even in dollars from this. People think they're being "practical" on this issue but they aren't. They're being myopic, I'd say.
The lack of criminal justice causes immeasurable economic damage -- intergenerational damage -- in poorer countries.
https://heavy.com/news/2019/08/maurice-hill/
Trump has moved to gut the endangered species act. Now, profits should be considered in determining whether a species should be protected (!). This act saved the North American Bald Eagle and Trump is basically throwing it out in order to poison the environment and allow more oil and gas drilling.
https://www.cnn.com/2019/08/12/politics/endangered-species-act/index.html
Economy is tanking due to Trump recession worries.
Stock Markets, Jolted by Economic Worry, Suffer 2nd Worst Drop of 2019
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/14/business/stock-market-today-bond-market.html
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/global-stocks-routed-oil-sinks-030558367.html
Trump temporarily halted his tariff taxes on American consumers of Chinese goods until closer to Christmas. It is seen that he is acknowledging that this is a tax on Americans by doing this.
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/footwear-distributors-retailers-america-trump-delay-tariffs-211032604.html
Cuccinelli made headlines after he provided an altered version of the poem The New Colossus (the one that is on the Statue of Liberty) . A line from the original poem reads: "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free."
During an interview on NPR, the UCIS director suggested those lines should be rewritten to say: "Give me your tired and your poor who can stand on their own two feet and who will not become a public charge."
Cuccinelli doubled down on the statement during an appearance on CNN, stating that the Statue of Liberty poem "was referring back to people coming from Europe."
https://www.newsweek.com/cuccinelli-resign-trends-twitter-after-immigration-comments-1454282
U.S. Rep. Steve King (R) made an impassioned plea for rape and incest saying:
If not for rape and incest, 'would there be any population left?'
https://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/politics/2019/08/14/steve-king-abortion-rape-incest-westside-conservative-iowa-representative-birth-iowa-civilization/2007230001/
At least 6 police officers have been shot in Philadelphia.
So much for the good guy with a gun theory once and for all.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/nicetown-philadelphia-shooting-today-live-updates-police-officers-shot-standoff-facebook-livestream-2019-08-14/
Remember the 600 people arrested in the ICE raid last week?
300 have been released. Oopsie daisy. Sorry about that kids.
https://www.npr.org/2019/08/09/749638655/some-300-arrested-in-mississippi-immigration-raids-have-been-released-officials
OK, the key line in the first story is:
"After asking that a police supervisor be called as he was questioned and held by at least two police officers.."
So this guy escalated it. He wasn't being "held" for a half hour. He was making a scene for a half hour, which is right to do. But once again, I side with the cops here, "what are we suppose to do, not show up?"
If he just said, "No officer, I am meeting my girl friend for dinner at this establishment, am I being charged with a crime or am I free to go?" The officers would prolly say you're free to go, roll up to the white vechile and say "how is he a threat?" roll their eyes at the response and leave.
~~
The second one is thank god she was charged. I hope she gets convicted and has her precious guns taken away because she is now a convict. You don't do shit like that.
I don't think that the school should stop the door to door tickets just because of one crazy lady. That's just hurting the kids more than anything.
I imagine that statement was deliberately designed to create controversy as a way of steering the conversation away from a serious discussion of the proposal that underpinned it, i.e. the attack on legal migration. There's been far more comment in this thread about illegal migration, even though that's a relatively small part of total migration in the US. Trump though has always had both legal and illegal migration in his sights.
The new policy is a major redefinition of the 'public charge' test. This test is designed to prevent granting permanent residency to those likely to be a burden on the state. At present the test considers whether applicants are relying on or likely to rely on government assistance for more than half their cash income by looking at three main sets of benefits — TANF (or traditional cash welfare), Supplemental Security Income and a Medicaid program that pays for long-term care. The existing policy's recognition that applicants should be able to receive some support takes into account that immigrants often take low-paid jobs that US citizens are unwilling to consider.
The new definition applying from October hugely extends that test. Factors that can count against a green-card applicant in future will include having “a medical condition” that will interfere with work or school; not having enough money to cover “any reasonably foreseeable medical costs” related to such a medical condition; having “financial liabilities”; having been approved to receive a public benefit, even if the individual has not actually received the benefit; having a low credit score; the absence of private health insurance; the absence of a college degree; not having the English-language skills “sufficient to enter the job market;” or having a sponsor who is “unlikely” to provide financial support.
There is no guidance or points system applying to these tests, i.e. it is up to the discretion of immigration officials how they are applied. Given how broad something like "having a medical condition" is, that could in principle apply to almost anyone. Estimates I've seen from several sources suggest that these tests could result in between half and two-thirds of applications being turned down in future. The new system though entirely ignores the fact that immigrants pay taxes - a pretty important omission given that the net contribution of immigrant families (taxes less benefits) is actually higher than that of the native-born population.
It might be argued that such a major change should have been made through Congress, rather than an administrative change. Trump of course would have welcomed that, but couldn't get his proposals through Congress even when the Republicans controlled both chambers ...
Here are a couple of articles about the change:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/immigration/trump-administration-aims-to-make-citizenship-more-difficult-for-immigrants-who-rely-on-public-assistance/2019/08/12/fe3f8162-b565-11e9-8949-5f36ff92706e_story.html
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-49323324
Justin Trudeau was found to have breached Federal Ethic Rules based off of the SNC-Lavalin case I mentioned a couple months back.
The ethics commissioner (don't you wish you had something like this U.S.?) "concluded that Trudeau’s attempts to influence Wilson-Raybould on the matter contravened section 9 of the act, which prohibits public office holders from using their position to try to influence a decision that would improperly further the private interests of a third party."
With an election right around the corner, this is heavy bombshell that the Liberals are going to have to maneuver as it will change as much as it did when Trudeau was found to break ethic rules the first time... nothing. There is no consequences for breaking ethics rules and as long as the Liberals run fear tactics that electing the PC government will be like electing Trump in the US (far, far, far from) most voters are just going to shrug and hand the Liberals another majority.
He appoints his children and cronies to the government. And his officials never recuse themselves from investments they've previously made or investigations that they have conflicts of interest even when they say they will.
Whatever minor ethics problem Trudeau has, it is nothing to the corruption you get with a conservative government and they are right in fearmongering about a PC government.
=Conservative priorities are to loot the treasury and poison the environment all over the world. Look at Boris Johnson in the UK lying about Brexit. Fear mongering is justified. Now, here's what you do with Trudeau - you let him know you are unhappy and replace him with another liberal if necessary.
Ya no.
It’s opposite in Canada. The conservatives are usually fiscal responsible.
Here is an article listing all of the Harper’s government scandals:
https://www.thestar.com/news/federal-election/2015/08/14/a-conservative-collection-of-harper-government-scandals.html
Senate Scandal:
Their scandals were about making a senator repay what could be perceived as inappropriate expenses, and when he couldn’t/wouldn’t paid for him. All three senators were found not guilty of these charges and iirc, are back in the senate.
To prevent the same thing from happening, one of the first things Trudeau did when becoming prime minister was to kick all the liberal senators out of Caucus. He disowned them, not for anything that they did, but what their future actions might do to the Liberal brand name.
Robo-call Scandal:
It was determined, though an inquiry that a lone bottom-rung volunteer for a single riding set up the robo-calls to misdirect voters on voting day after he was explicitly told not to. He was the only one charged. A lot of people like to point out that he was probably the coverup goat, but IMO, it really doesn’t make sense for an elected official to do anything to lose the trust of the people they represent.
In and Out:
Literally caused a snap election (these happen in Canada) where the Conservative party won again. It was an election spending loop hole that other parties had used in the past.
These aren’t even close to what Trump, or past Liberal governments have done yet they get labeled as ‘corrupt’ and ‘both sides’ argument.
Trudeau was elected over Harper because Trudeau was more Charismatic than Harper. It was populism. He’s now turned out to be a fraud like Trump but fear tactics and using Trump and a lesser extent Doug Ford in Ontario, as examples of what will happen if you vote “conservative” in the next election.
This will give the Liberals a mandate to do worse as their is no repercussions to their actions.
They claim that same thing here but they're lying. They use a lot of words then do the opposite. Marketing. They say they are fiscally responsible then they act to b;ow up the budget every single time down here while restricting rights and giving away everything to private industry.
Did you even read the link I posted?
One of the scandals was Tony Clement using funds for a G8 meeting in his riding to improve the local infrastructure instead of paying a conservative law/marketing firm to give “consultation.”
Sure the federal money should not have been spent on what amounts to municipal costs but it is far from the corruption shown in the Lavalin case, or anything the Ontario Liberals did for over a decade.
Stephen Harper balanced the budgets and I will give credit to both Chrétien and Martin (both Liberal prime ministers before him) for getting it there to begin with.
Trudeau tan on a campaign promise to bring the country into debt and still won so.
He was barricaded inside an apartment--there was no opportunity for anyone else to respond. Of course, Mr. Hill had a criminal record which would prevent him from legally obtaining guns but it appears that he managed to obtain guns, anyway. Really? A criminal managed to get his hands on guns? But I thought there were laws against such things? How did that happen? Shouldn't those laws have stopped him?
Oh, that's right, I forgot--criminals don't obey laws.
So much for the "more laws will stop shooting events" theory once and for all.
It gets even better--at least one of the weapons he used is a "ghost gun", meaning he bought the parts online, without serial numbers, and assembled the weapon himself (or had someone do it for him--putting a gun together is not difficult). There is no background check needed whatsoever for ordering parts online. If you know where to look--and I will not tell anyone where to look--you can still find the schematic files for those 3D pistols online, as well.
Irregardless of that, good guys with guns didn't do anything to stop bad guys with a gun again.
Your argument that banning stuff doesn't work because people are going to get what they want anyway is an interesting one and could apply to a lot of topics like say abortion.
Israel is supposedly doing this because the two support BDS. As it happens, I’m not even sure this is entirely true. Tlaib, who is Palestinian American and has relatives in the territories, does. Omar has actually made contradictory or equivocal comments about BDS. Regardless, it simply doesn’t matter. They are elected members of the United States Congress. They are part of the US government and their treatment bears directly on the respect accorded our system of government or interference with our democratic system. The idea that a government which has long benefited from US protection and aid would do such a thing is outrageous.
Even more outrageous is that President Trump has encouraged this decision. This had only been reported through unnamed sources until now. But this morning he went on Twitter and said as much.
This betrays an established and dangerous pattern with Donald Trump: his personal alliances always come before allegiance to country, law and Constitution. This is not surprising and it is of a piece with his collusion and tacit alliance with Russia during the 2016 election.
What you think about Omar and Tlaib is irrelevant. I have criticized Omar when I think it is merited. All that matters here is that they are elected representatives. Punishing or excluding them is a strike against our democratic system. An ally should never do such a thing.
One final, important point. This does not even make sense from the point of view of narrow Israeli self-interest – not in Israeli or Zionist terms. The US has two major parties and they frequently rotate in power. Omar and to a lesser extent Tlaib are controversial in US politics but they have many ardent supporters in the Democratic Party. They are both women of color. The Israeli government under Netanyahu has increasingly identified itself with the GOP and actively worked with the GOP against Democrats as the GOP has become more associated with white nationalism. Democrats will be back in power again. The party is increasingly based on a multiracial political coalition. Sowing antagonism at a level so deep and visceral is obvious folly.
The truth is that this isn’t Israeli policy or even precisely Netanyahu policy. This is an electoral gambit. Israel has an election next month and Netanyahu is in a fight for his political life. He may even be in a fight for his freedom since remaining in office is his best play to delay or quash corruption charges. This is an effort to juice outrage and support from the Israeli far right.
The last two paragraphs are the most important. I will never in my life again support a single DIME going to a government in any way associated with Netanyahu and the Likud Party. And there are increasing numbers of people who are fed up with the BILLIONS of dollars we just hand an obviously corrupt regime with no strings, their clear alliance with American far-right politics, and the insinuation in this country that not supporting these things is tantamount to betrayal of the United States itself. It's time to turn off this faucet once and for all. If Israel wants to continue overseeing an apartheid state, they can do so without my goddamn tax dollars and pay for it themselves. If they want to ban these two from a routine fact-finding mission, then send back Michigan and Minnesota's share of the defense boondoggle we handed you.
On the other hand, I have absolutely no faith in our country not royally f**King Greenland up. I bet within a generation, we'd stripmine/frack the hell out of the place. The USA also has an absolute horrible track record with respecting Inuit people, and I suspect this would continue in Greenland as a territory. It might be better for the world and Greenland if Denmark holds onto it...
The idea of "buying" land people are already on is kind of repulsive on it's face. The last country in the world I would want in charge of respecting the rights of indigenous people is the United States. How is it possible in 2019 that anyone "owns" Greenland other than the people who live there?? They shouldn't be treated like pieces on a geopolitical chessboard. Would the people of Greenland have any say in this whatsoever?? And if not, how is that remotely ok in modern times?? I admit I am wholly ignorant as to how Denmark came into what I can only assume is possession of the country, but the idea that they and the US would be in negotiations about purchasing it seems so wrong on so many levels.
Well, first and foremost - I would assume the people of Greenland would be allowed a plebiscite to decide their future in this event. In the event that they did vote to become a territory of the USA, I dont really see it as being all that repulsive.
There are definitely some interesting ethical considerations though since I think a significant percentage of the people in Greenland are Inuit, and I'm not really sure how feasible it is to conduct a honest and effective plebiscite with them (Truthfully, I dont know a lot about the situation of the people living in Greenland). Presumably, they'd also be similarly semi-autonomous as they are now.
Historically - I think Denmark's suzerainty over Greenland comes from the colonial period in which Denmark-Norway (When those two kingdoms were in a personal union, ruled by the King of Denmark) charted and colonized the land. I believe Greenland obtained its semi-autonomous nature during Denmark's occupation during WW2 (Actually - if I am not mistaken, Denmark handed Greenland over to the USA during that period of time. Interestingly, we were the "caretakers" of Greenland for a while).
As I said - I also dont have a particularly high opinion of the USA's ability to deal with indigenous peoples.
The vast majority of guns used in shooting sprees were legally obtained. An instance of someone using guns he obtained illegally isn't a demonstration that gun control would be useless.
It's like using the arson in Japan as proof that mass shooters would just turn to arson to do their killing when that's simply not the case anywhere effective gun control has been in place. Or claiming they'd switch to knives, even though in the attempts at mass stabbing we've seen they tend to have significantly smaller body counts.
No I wouldn't trust the United States especially the Trump administration that just gutted the endangered species act.
Puerto Rico would confirm for us that the US has a bad track record of treating autonomous islands like shit.
Now if Greenland was added as a state that would be better than just being a territory. But anyway, yeah no the US would frack and destroy Greenland. Same thing they're doing to the mainland.