Board 8 > Politics Containment Topic 235: Autopsy-Turvy

(+) Yeah! (+)

Reg posted...

btw did I miss people here mentioning that Hickenlooper has announced a run for Senate?

Still a shame about Bullock refusing to do so though

Yeah, this is the problem Ive had with a lot of the moderates, running for president out of reasonably purple states. They would be SO much more useful running for the senate and ensuring that the president isnt a lame duck from day one.
---

Reg posted...

btw did I miss people here mentioning that Hickenlooper has announced a run for Senate?

Still a shame about Bullock refusing to do so though

HICKENLOOPER

Anyone wouldve won in Colorado but I like Hickenlooper and am excited to see Gardner embarrassed by 15 points.

And yeah Ive said it again but Bullock being so stubborn about this is tremendously disappointing when he could absolutely make that a difficult seat for republicans to defend in a way literally no one else can. He has to be delusional to think his presidential campaign has any shot so it just doesnt make sense.
---

The right likes to call for a bipartisan solution on immigration but I just don't see it. The parties' viewpoints on this are diametrically opposed, even putting aside ethical considerations. The Trump admin wants to deport or deny entry to everyone they possibly can. They want to streamline things to make it easier to do this. The left wants to streamline things and clear the system by making it easier for people to enter. The simplest compromise that's also relatively cheap is catch and release (for eventual trial and deportation under a Trump immigration policy), and as you guys demonstrated, that's a complete non-starter. Deporting everyone to clear the camps, again ethics aside, is also not a solution as people will just continue to attempt to enter illegally.

So what is this magical compromise that the right demands but doesn't propose? Ethnic quotas???
---

https://twitter.com/18millionrising/status/1163833929436139523

An undocumented Chinese restaurant worker has been fighting for backpay to the tune of $200K. Then ICE arrested him while giving a deposition in a lawsuit.

More evidence that ICE is being used as a weapon by employers to avoid accountability. https://t.co/x2SqeWuJSS

Your reminder that the right is fine with employing undocumented workers, only for as long as they agree to be abused by the system.
---

To be fair, if you were a fugitive for any other crime you could be arrested if you came to court for a civil case....

He can still win the case and 200k will go a long way in China.
---

Looks like no one has posted this, which might be important: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/elections/faithless-elector-court-ruling-just-changed-how-we-pick-our-n1044961
---

MetalmindStats posted...

Looks like no one has posted this, which might be important: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/elections/faithless-elector-court-ruling-just-changed-how-we-pick-our-n1044961

Honestly isnt that how the founders intended it to work?

EDIT: This is not me defending the concept of the Electoral College

---

Jakyl25 posted...

Honestly isnt that how the founders intended it to work?

EDIT: This is not me defending the concept of the Electoral College

Yeah it seems like its the correct legal decision, but the fact that thats intended behavior is fucking bananas and should be changed with a constitutional amendment (preferably abolishing the electoral college, but at minimum binding a states EVs to its popular vote winner).

---

Yeah the only reason to actually tie electoral votes to actual people who have to cast those votes is to give them some degree of autonomy.

Otherwise its a pointless extra step in the process done purely for tradition, which is the worst reason to do anything for.

---

Great! That's exactly how it was intended to work.

The Maine elector who was unconstitutionally forced to replace his Bernie Sanders vote with a vote for Hillary Clinton should sue next. We should be able to get Hillary's electoral vote count down to 225.
---

LordoftheMorons posted...

Jakyl25 posted...

Honestly isnt that how the founders intended it to work?

EDIT: This is not me defending the concept of the Electoral College

Yeah it seems like its the correct legal decision, but the fact that thats intended behavior is fucking bananas and should be changed with a constitutional amendment (preferably abolishing the electoral college, but at minimum binding a states EVs to its popular vote winner).

The only popular vote winner in a presidential election is a slate of electors. If you don't like how they vote, you can vote for different electors.
---

LordoftheMorons posted...

Jakyl25 posted...

Honestly isnt that how the founders intended it to work?

EDIT: This is not me defending the concept of the Electoral College

Yeah it seems like its the correct legal decision, but the fact that thats intended behavior is fucking bananas and should be changed with a constitutional amendment (preferably abolishing the electoral college, but at minimum binding a states EVs to its popular vote winner).

I truly dont understand how this makes sense.

How do we vote for electors when theyre not on the ballot? Whats the point in voting if an unelected elector can just pick whomever they want?
---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

LordoftheMorons posted...

Jakyl25 posted...

Honestly isnt that how the founders intended it to work?

EDIT: This is not me defending the concept of the Electoral College

Yeah it seems like its the correct legal decision, but the fact that thats intended behavior is fucking bananas and should be changed with a constitutional amendment (preferably abolishing the electoral college, but at minimum binding a states EVs to its popular vote winner).

I truly dont understand how this makes sense.

How do we vote for electors when theyre not on the ballot? Whats the point in voting if an unelected elector can just pick whomever they want?

You are voting for a party's slate of electors. If you don't like any of them, you can make your own party and nominate your own slate of electors.

In this case, what happened was the Democratic Party picks its electors at caucuses, and some of them didn't want to vote for Hillary. Some voted for Bernie. Others tried to vote for a moderate Republican to try to pull in Republican electors away from Trump.
---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

How do we vote for electors when theyre not on the ballot? Whats the point in voting if an unelected elector can just pick whomever they want?

The founders were notoriously afraid of direct democracy. This is "intended" behavior in the sense that they saw it as the final check against the "mob" electing someone crazy and unfit by allowing the electors a last second emergency brake.
---

xp1337 posted...

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

How do we vote for electors when theyre not on the ballot? Whats the point in voting if an unelected elector can just pick whomever they want?

The founders were notoriously afraid of direct democracy. This is "intended" behavior in the sense that they saw it as the final check against the "mob" electing someone crazy and unfit by allowing the electors a last second emergency brake.

Yup, and judging by the number of defections away from Hillary, it works!
---

The only sensible electoral college reform: remove the presidential nominee from the ballot and instead list the electors, and make sure electors run PR campaigns in addition to the candidates so that voters are familiar with them and their preferences.
---

The liberals were so enthusiastic about elector choice when it was their last chance to stop Trump. Hypocrites!
---

xp1337 posted...

The founders were notoriously afraid of direct democracy. This is "intended" behavior in the sense that they saw it as the final check against the "mob" electing someone crazy and unfit by allowing the electors a last second emergency brake.

Whoops!

---

https://politics.theonion.com/trump-attempts-to-ease-tensions-with-jewish-community-b-1837444067

---

Since we were talking about immigration judges last night/this morning, this seems timely: https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/hamedaleaziz/justice-department-immigration-judges-white-nationalist

DOJ sent Immigration Judges a white nationalist blog post with anti-semitic attacks against the judges themselves.

Also since we were talking about due process and it affecting citizens: https://twitter.com/ACLU/status/1164613476599435270

A US citizen - despite carrying a US passport, driver's license, and social security card - was detained for four days. Sheriff's office said they had a policy of detaining all Latinx people for immigration review.
---

xp1337 posted...

Since we were talking about immigration judges last night/this morning, this seems timely: https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/hamedaleaziz/justice-department-immigration-judges-white-nationalist

DOJ sent Immigration Judges a white nationalist blog post with anti-semitic attacks against the judges themselves.

Also since we were talking about due process and it affecting citizens: https://twitter.com/ACLU/status/1164613476599435270

A US citizen - despite carrying a US passport, driver's license, and social security card - was detained for four days. Sheriff's office said they had a policy of detaining all Latinx people for immigration review.

Really stupid sheriff, admitting that's their policy. That lawsuit will be easy for the ACLU.
---

xp1337 posted...

Also since we were talking about due process and it affecting citizens: https://twitter.com/ACLU/status/1164613476599435270

A US citizen - despite carrying a US passport, driver's license, and social security card - was detained for four days. Sheriff's office said they had a policy of detaining all Latinx people for immigration review.

So this is all sorts of illegal, the ACLU will win the lawsuit and... nothing will come of it except a taxpayer-funded settlement, probably.

Meanwhile the Sheriff and his associates will still have jobs in law enforcement where they can continue promoting/doing racist and white supremacist shit like this, and Trump supporters will literally support this.

Reg posted...

xp1337 posted...

Also since we were talking about due process and it affecting citizens: https://twitter.com/ACLU/status/1164613476599435270

A US citizen - despite carrying a US passport, driver's license, and social security card - was detained for four days. Sheriff's office said they had a policy of detaining all Latinx people for immigration review.

So this is all sorts of illegal, the ACLU will win the lawsuit and... nothing will come of it except a taxpayer-funded settlement, probably.

Meanwhile the Sheriff and his associates will still have jobs in law enforcement where they can continue promoting/doing racist and white supremacist shit like this, and Trump supporters will literally support this.

Yep.
---

man you guys are reallllly overusing the term "white supremacist"

I guess it's interchangeable with "racist" now?
---

White supremacist and racist are like squares and rectangles.

White supremacists are all racist, but not all racists are white supremacists.
---

Why would someone who believes in climate change invest $15 million in real estate on an island?
---

SmartMuffin posted...

Why would someone who believes in climate change invest $15 million in real estate on an island?

What's the elevation like on the island? Some islands have extensive high ground on them.
---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

White supremacists are all racist, but not all racists are white supremacists.

Well yeah. It just seems odd to describe a sheriff, who may not even be white, as a "white supremacist" because he was racially profiling.
---

It's sort of like when people call a groper a rapist. Sort of takes away the nuance of language, which is a terrible crime in itself.
---

Nelson_Mandela posted...

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

White supremacists are all racist, but not all racists are white supremacists.

Well yeah. It just seems odd to describe a sheriff, who may not even be white, as a "white supremacist" because he was racially profiling.

Where was this sheriff called a white supremacist? Am I missing posts?
---

Are you confusing the sheriff story with the "DoJ sent judges a link to an article from a white nationalist news website" story?

Those are separate things
---

Reg posted...

continue promoting/doing racist and white supremacist shit like this,

Nevermind I found it!

Fair, next.

Racist? Yes, textbook racism. But not inherently white supremacist in nature.
---

White supremacy can be institutional as well so it's a fair call
---

Forceful_Dragon posted...

Reg posted...

continue promoting/doing racist and white supremacist shit like this,

Nevermind I found it!

Fair, next.

Racist? Yes, textbook racism. But not inherently white supremacist in nature.

To be fair I sort of went off into a general statement on law enforcement in general after the word racist there <_<

Didn't come across that way which was my bad, but if you don't think (or are actively ignoring) all of the reports out of the FBI and such that white supremacists are actively infiltrating law enforcement and have been for decades at ths point, you're silly. Whether the label applies to this specific sheriff? Can't say. Wouldn't be surprised if it did given the trend and what he did, but strictly speaking you can't with just the information available

Well that's true. In the straight white male secret meetings I attend we definitely have been encouraging members to take root in law enforcement.
---

Reg posted...

all of the reports out of the FBI and such that white supremacists are actively infiltrating law enforcement and have been for decades at ths point

Here's one source on this specific claim by the way, an FBI release from 2006

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3439212-FBI-White-Supremacist-Infiltration-of-Law.htm

There is a long history of white supremacists systematically working to become law enforcement officers.

Yes, systematically. Of course.
---

By the way, one of the Washington Democratic electors made it very clear before the election that he would not vote for Hillary under any circumstances. And he didn't. That's honoring a campaign promise IMO.
---

SmartMuffin posted...

Why would someone who believes in climate change invest $15 million in real estate on an island?

Because the goal is to stop climate change?

Why would someone who believes in the patriarchy have a baby girl?? Checkmate liberals

---

SmartMuffin posted...

Why would someone who believes in climate change invest $15 million in real estate on an island?

whats the appropriate amount to invest in island real estate as a believer in climate change

---

Lmao Bernie's Green New Deal plan aims to end nuclear power usage

What a fucking joke:

Phase out the use of non-sustainable sources. This plan will stop the building of new nuclear power plants and find a real solution to our existing nuclear waste problem. It will also enact a moratorium on nuclear power plant license renewals in the United States to protect surrounding communities. We know that the toxic waste byproducts of nuclear plants are not worth the risks of the technologys benefit, especially in light of lessons learned from the Fukushima meltdown and the Chernobyl disaster. To get to our goal of 100 percent sustainable energy, we will not rely on any false solutions like nuclear, geoengineering, carbon capture and sequestration, or trash incinerators.

---

Is there anyone campaigning on more nuclear power? Cause that might earn my support at this point. I hate how much it gets vilified on bad reasoning.
---

From my ten minutes of googling:

Expand: Bennet, Biden, Booker, Delaney, Klobuchar, Moulton, Ryan, Yang
No new plants: Bullock, Buttigieg, Castro, de Blasio, Sestak
Eliminate: Gabbard, Messam, Sanders, Williamson
???: Gillibrand, Harris, ORourke, Warren

Possible some of that's wrong; saw some conflicting info

---

LordoftheMorons posted...

Lmao Bernie's Green New Deal plan aims to end nuclear power usage and rejects carbon capture as a "false solution"

What a f***ing joke:

Maybe people will start realizing that Bernie is one of the dumbest people in politics now
---

I live near Fukushima, and I have to buy all of the water I use for ANYTHING from plastic bottles because my water is not only irradiated but even filtered tastes like the worst thing I have ever tasted in my life. And I have licked crushed up MDMA!

Besides that, it takes a long time to implement nuclear power plants. We don't have that kind of time. We should absolutely move away from Nuclear energy.

---

Why exactly are people advocating to eliminate nuclear power? Is the generated waste the issue?
---

David Koch died. Can someone else supply a link or article sourcing this?
---

Espeon posted...

David Koch died. Can someone else supply a link or article sourcing this?

https://www.cnn.com/2019/08/23/politics/david-koch-dead/index.html ?

Anyway as usual with Bernie he is going bold with his vision, and I like it. I am not off hand anti-nuclear power personally, I don't know enough about the subject to be informed, but it sounds like Bernie is simply doing his usual "no half measures" approach.
---

Thank you, Chris.
---

LordoftheMorons posted...

Lmao Bernie's Green New Deal plan aims to end nuclear power usage and rejects carbon capture as a "false solution"

What a fucking joke:

So I also support nuclear and think the pushback is way overblown, but I will defend him on this for one reason:

Bernie's plan is crazy ambitious and has by far the biggest goal of any candidate (yeah even counting Inslee) which is 100% renewable energy by 2030. The standard plan, the bwre minimum that has to be done, is 50% emissions by 2030, net-zero by 2050.

Nuclear power isn't completely renewable, it's main value is as a transition energy. So if you truly believe that you can make an incredibly rapid transition to sustainable energy in 10-15 years...there honestly isn't any reason to waste time and money on intermediate energy tech.

Whether his goals are realistic is another conversation that I can't really speak to but it's nice to see plans going beyond that bare minimum.
---