US Politics 2

Fed up talking videogames? Why?
User avatar
Dangerblade
Member
Joined in 2008
Location: Bristol

PostRe: US Politics 2
by Dangerblade » Thu Jan 10, 2019 9:56 pm



the strawberry float

User avatar
Alvin Flummux
Member
Joined in 2008
Location: Wilmington, OH, USA
Contact:

PostRe: US Politics 2
by Alvin Flummux » Fri Jan 11, 2019 3:20 am

That is gold. It should receive top billing at the Democratic Convention at the next election.

User avatar
Dual
Member
Joined in 2008
AKA: Stool Bloke

PostRe: US Politics 2
by Dual » Fri Jan 11, 2019 7:04 am

It's even got an alt-right rally with tiki torches!

User avatar
KK
Moderator
Joined in 2008
Location: Botswana
Contact:

PostRe: US Politics 2
by KK » Fri Jan 11, 2019 9:32 pm

Looking at the shutdown on social media and it really reveals just how many employees are living almost paycheque to paycheque, many either now forced to go to foodbanks or selling their possessions on Craigslist and eBay to pay the bills. Just seems to be an overall complete lack of savings.

Image
User avatar
Alvin Flummux
Member
Joined in 2008
Location: Wilmington, OH, USA
Contact:

PostRe: US Politics 2
by Alvin Flummux » Fri Jan 11, 2019 9:56 pm

KK wrote:Looking at the shutdown on social media and it really reveals just how many employees are living almost paycheque to paycheque, many either now forced to go to foodbanks or selling their possessions on Craigslist and eBay to pay the bills. Just seems to be an overall complete lack of savings.


People don't make enough to save.

User avatar
Garth
Emeritus
Joined in 2008
Location: Norn Iron

PostRe: US Politics 2
by Garth » Fri Jan 11, 2019 11:02 pm


:lol:

User avatar
Peter Crisp
Member
Joined in 2008

PostRe: US Politics 2
by Peter Crisp » Fri Jan 11, 2019 11:16 pm

KK wrote:Looking at the shutdown on social media and it really reveals just how many employees are living almost paycheque to paycheque, many either now forced to go to foodbanks or selling their possessions on Craigslist and eBay to pay the bills. Just seems to be an overall complete lack of savings.


This also shows just how little Trump voters give a gooseberry fool about fellow Americans who're being directly affected.
They honestly don't care if federal workers are financially ruined as all that matters is they get to win a political argument.

jiggles wrote:Nobody with a VR headset is going to be using it regularly this time next year, let alone in 4 years time.


Posted 16th March 2016. Let's see.
User avatar
Errkal
Social Sec.
Joined in 2011
Location: Hastings
Contact:

PostRe: US Politics 2
by Errkal » Sat Jan 12, 2019 7:39 am

Alvin Flummux wrote:
KK wrote:Looking at the shutdown on social media and it really reveals just how many employees are living almost paycheque to paycheque, many either now forced to go to foodbanks or selling their possessions on Craigslist and eBay to pay the bills. Just seems to be an overall complete lack of savings.


People don't make enough to save.


This, it’s the same in the UK people had enough save a little but with everything going up in price and pay not doing that it’s just meant more and more people living month to month.

User avatar
Squinty
Member
Joined in 2009
Location: Norn Oirland

PostRe: US Politics 2
by Squinty » Sat Jan 12, 2019 8:26 am

Garth wrote:
:lol:


:lol:

User avatar
Moggy
"Special"
Joined in 2008

PostRe: US Politics 2
by Moggy » Sat Jan 12, 2019 8:34 am

Garth wrote:
:lol:


Did Trump start the GoFundMe? :lol:

User avatar
Monkey Man
Member
Joined in 2008

PostRe: US Politics 2
by Monkey Man » Sat Jan 12, 2019 11:05 am


Image
User avatar
Monkey Man
Member
Joined in 2008

PostRe: US Politics 2
by Monkey Man » Sun Jan 13, 2019 1:30 am



President Trump has gone to extraordinary lengths to conceal details of his conversations with Russian President Vladimir Putin, including on at least one occasion taking possession of the notes of his own interpreter and instructing the linguist not to discuss what had transpired with other administration officials, current and former U.S. officials said.

Trump did so after a meeting with Putin in 2017 in Hamburg that was also attended by then-Secretary of State Rex Tillerson. U.S. officials learned of Trump’s actions when a White House adviser and a senior State Department official sought information from the interpreter beyond a readout shared by Tillerson.

The constraints that Trump imposed are part of a broader pattern by the president of shielding his communications with Putin from public scrutiny and preventing even high-ranking officials in his own administration from fully knowing what he has told one of the United States’ main adversaries.

As a result, U.S. officials said there is no detailed record, even in classified files, of Trump’s face-to-face interactions with the Russian leader at five locations over the past two years. Such a gap would be unusual in any presidency, let alone one that Russia sought to install through what U.S. intelligence agencies have described as an unprecedented campaign of election interference.

It is not clear whether Trump has taken notes from interpreters on other occasions, but several officials said they were never able to get a reliable readout of the president’s two-hour meeting in Helsinki. Unlike in Hamburg, Trump allowed no Cabinet officials or any aides to be in the room for that conversation.

Image
User avatar
Harry Ola
Member
Joined in 2008

PostRe: US Politics 2
by Harry Ola » Sun Jan 13, 2019 7:53 am


Image
User avatar
Harry Ola
Member
Joined in 2008

PostRe: US Politics 2
by Harry Ola » Sun Jan 13, 2019 7:54 am



:fp: :fp: :fp: :fp: :fp: :fp: :fp: :fp: :fp:

Image
User avatar
Moggy
"Special"
Joined in 2008

PostRe: US Politics 2
by Moggy » Sun Jan 13, 2019 8:07 am

Monkey Man wrote:

President Trump has gone to extraordinary lengths to conceal details of his conversations with Russian President Vladimir Putin, including on at least one occasion taking possession of the notes of his own interpreter and instructing the linguist not to discuss what had transpired with other administration officials, current and former U.S. officials said.

Trump did so after a meeting with Putin in 2017 in Hamburg that was also attended by then-Secretary of State Rex Tillerson. U.S. officials learned of Trump’s actions when a White House adviser and a senior State Department official sought information from the interpreter beyond a readout shared by Tillerson.

The constraints that Trump imposed are part of a broader pattern by the president of shielding his communications with Putin from public scrutiny and preventing even high-ranking officials in his own administration from fully knowing what he has told one of the United States’ main adversaries.

As a result, U.S. officials said there is no detailed record, even in classified files, of Trump’s face-to-face interactions with the Russian leader at five locations over the past two years. Such a gap would be unusual in any presidency, let alone one that Russia sought to install through what U.S. intelligence agencies have described as an unprecedented campaign of election interference.

It is not clear whether Trump has taken notes from interpreters on other occasions, but several officials said they were never able to get a reliable readout of the president’s two-hour meeting in Helsinki. Unlike in Hamburg, Trump allowed no Cabinet officials or any aides to be in the room for that conversation.


It definitely sounds the the actions of a man that hasn’t colluded.

User avatar
Ad7
Member
Joined in 2009

PostRe: US Politics 2
by Ad7 » Sun Jan 13, 2019 8:47 am

TOTALLY CLEARS THE PRESIDENT THANK YOU!

Image
User avatar
KK
Moderator
Joined in 2008
Location: Botswana
Contact:

PostRe: US Politics 2
by KK » Sun Jan 13, 2019 6:22 pm

WASHINGTON, NY Times — Like lots of Americans, Robert Frese is not shy about expressing his views on the internet. Last year, in a comment on a newspaper’s Facebook page, he said a New Hampshire police officer who had given him a traffic citation was “a dirty cop.” The police chief, Mr. Frese added, was a coward who had covered up the matter.

The police officers might have looked the other way. They might have responded, explaining their positions and letting readers decide who was right. They might have filed a civil suit for libel, seeking money from Mr. Frese.

Instead, they did a fourth thing, one that seems at odds with the American commitment to free expression, particularly where criticism of government officials is concerned. They arrested Mr. Frese, saying he had committed criminal libel.

About half of states have laws making libel a crime, and prosecutions are not uncommon. About 25 people were charged with violating New Hampshire’s law from 2009 to 2017, according to a lawsuit filed last month on behalf of Mr. Frese by the American Civil Liberties Union. Nationwide, according to a preliminary count by Eugene Volokh, a law professor at the University of California, Los Angeles, “it appears that they happen about 20 times per year, and often lead to convictions.”

Mr. Frese himself has faced two prosecutions. The first, in Hudson, N.H., was prompted by his negative statements about a life coaching business. It ended in a guilty plea and a $1,488 fine, with $1,116 of it suspended.

The second, in Exeter, N.H., concerned his recent statements about the police there. It was dismissed after the state attorney general’s office expressed doubts about the constitutionality of the prosecution.

The New Hampshire law is fairly typical. It makes it a misdemeanor for anyone to say or write something “he knows to be false and knows will tend to expose any other living person to public hatred, contempt or ridicule.”

Brian Hauss, an A.C.L.U. lawyer, said the New Hampshire law and others like it violated the First Amendment.

“The fundamental defect of criminal libel statutes is that they’re unconstitutionally vague,” he said. “The practical result of that is that police departments, like the police department in Exeter, get to choose when they want to go after speech that is arguably defamatory.”

The defendant in the case is Gordon MacDonald, New Hampshire’s attorney general. A spokeswoman for his office declined to comment, but a memorandum on Mr. Frese’s case from a lawyer in his office appears to set out his basic position.

The lawyer, Elizabeth A. Lahey, said the state’s criminal libel law was constitutional, as it required prosecutors to prove that Mr. Frese knew he was saying something false in criticizing the police chief. (That is an even higher bar than the one required in civil libel cases brought by public officials. Under the Supreme Court’s 1964 decision in New York Times v. Sullivan, they must prove “actual malice” — that the defendant knew what he said was false or acted with reckless disregard as to the statement’s truth.)

The problem with the prosecution of Mr. Frese, Ms. Lahey wrote, was that the authorities had no reason to think he believed his statements were false. The Exeter Police Department dropped the prosecution after getting Ms. Lahey’s memo.

Letting government officials prosecute their critics for supposed misstatements is a dangerous business. But not every criminal libel prosecution concerns official conduct, and people who have studied the matter say criminal libel prosecutions may have a role to play in vindicating damaged reputations.

Professor Volokh, an authority on the First Amendment, said narrowly written criminal libel laws were constitutional. A 1964 Supreme Court decision, Garrison v. Louisiana, struck down a state criminal libel law, but only because it did not require proof of actual malice in cases concerning public officials. The majority opinion, from Justice William J. Brennan Jr., suggested that criminal laws that included an actual malice requirement were permissible.

Mr. Hauss, the A.C.L.U. lawyer, said the Garrison decision did not address the argument that criminal libel laws are unconstitutionally vague.

I asked Professor Volokh whether criminal libel laws were good policy.

“That’s hard to tell,” he said. “On one hand, they can certainly be abused for political purposes, and they can deter even true statements, if the speaker is worried that a prosecutor and a jury will think the statements are false.”

A spotlight on the people reshaping our politics. A conversation with voters across the country. And a guiding hand through the endless news cycle, telling you what you really need to know.

On the other hand, he said, civil lawsuits seeking money may do nothing to deter or punish someone who has no money. “Without the possibility of criminal libel law,” he said, “there may be no real protection against many libels, especially now that the internet has substantially democratized mass communication — both for good and for ill.”

Mr. Hauss said the nature of internet discourse was a reason to do away with criminal libel laws. “Every day, there are millions of posts that are arguably defamatory online,” he said. “But disproportionately, when criminal libel prosecutions are brought, they’re brought by law enforcement and public officials to go after their critics.”

The fact that some people are too poor to pay civil libel awards is not a reason to allow prosecutions, Mr. Hauss added. “If someone cannot afford to pay a civil judgment, they also probably lack the resources to hire a criminal defense lawyer,” he said. “Without the aid of counsel, a criminal defendant will almost certainly plead guilty or be convicted at trial, regardless of whether their speech was actually defamatory.”


Despite the loss of crucial loans, payments and other services, threatening their livelihoods, many farmers, including David Nunnery, 59, of Pike County, Miss., have stayed loyal to Mr. Trump and his demand for $5.7 billion for a border wall. “I may lose the farm, but I strongly feel we need some border security,” Mr. Nunnery said.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/13/us/g ... e=Homepage

Image
User avatar
Peter Crisp
Member
Joined in 2008

PostRe: US Politics 2
by Peter Crisp » Sun Jan 13, 2019 11:48 pm

I honestly feel that Trumps core supporters are at a point where there's nothing he can do that will make them see Trump as anything other than amazing.

jiggles wrote:Nobody with a VR headset is going to be using it regularly this time next year, let alone in 4 years time.


Posted 16th March 2016. Let's see.
User avatar
Alvin Flummux
Member
Joined in 2008
Location: Wilmington, OH, USA
Contact:

PostRe: US Politics 2
by Alvin Flummux » Mon Jan 14, 2019 12:02 am

If they're deluded enough to support Trump despite the harm he's doing them, they deserve to lose their livelihoods. One day they'll understand that border wall support won't feed their families.

User avatar
Peter Crisp
Member
Joined in 2008

PostRe: US Politics 2
by Peter Crisp » Mon Jan 14, 2019 12:15 am

My main problem with the whole thing is the republicans won't stop even if they get the wall.
They will use any crime by anyone visiting the US to create fear and ask for more restrictive powers and the supporters will follow them and claim anyone who disagrees is a dangerous liberal who loves criminals.
It's the same tactic they use with taxation. No matter how many tax breaks they give the super rich and big business they can always argue it's not enough and even when those tax breaks mean the government doesn't have enough money to pay for decent roads or schools republican voters agree with them so they aren't seen as at all liberal.

jiggles wrote:Nobody with a VR headset is going to be using it regularly this time next year, let alone in 4 years time.


Posted 16th March 2016. Let's see.

Return to “Stuff”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bunni, Denster, Errkal, Frank, Heskimo, Hulohot, Meep, Oblomov Boblomov, Peter Crisp and 65 guests