Board 8 > Politics Containment Topic 375: Joe Bidin' his time

(+) Yeah! (+)

h3h3 is terribly not funny and i am perpetually baffled as to his popularity. even something that should be hilarious like JTRHNBR falls flat

---

If not keeping up with YouTube drama channels makes me out of touch, I have a new respect for people who watch reality television that would say the same thing.

Unless these are the same people.
---

Sam Seder is good people.

---

Maniac64 posted...

I can honestly say I did not know any of these people or h3h3.

What big drama were they part of?

Im sure youve seen Crowder before even if you dont recognize him

Hes the guy sitting at a table in the meme
[Controversial Statement]
Change My Mind
---

Ok yes I have seen that meme.

---

NFUN posted...

h3h3 is terribly not funny and i am perpetually baffled as to his popularity. even something that should be hilarious like JTRHNBR falls flat

i think some of his early videos were pretty funny but yeah, his various podcasts have made it clear that irl he's not a funny person at all.

---

Am I the only one who feels like the pandemic is some form of Gaia's Vengeance?

Not to mention a reflection of how fragile the world's globally connected, hyper-capitalist economy is.

---

LinkMarioSamus posted...

Am I the only one who feels like the pandemic is some form of Gaia's Vengeance?

Not to mention a reflection of how fragile the world's globally connected, hyper-capitalist economy is.

Of course you're not the only one to think that, because the only thoughts you have are cliched trite you've absorbed from dozens of other people

---

https://twitter.com/h3h3productions/status/1407448000658513921?s=21

Incredible. Ben Shapiros Dailywire wrote a post saying it proved you shouldnt engage with Debate Me Bros.

Meanwhile, Stephen Crowders entire shtick is setting up a table and getting college students to fucking debate him, lmao

---

Ben Shapiro is the fucking king of Debate Me Bros

The motion to proceed to debate the For the People Act has been filibustered in the Senate. Not the actual bill simply beginning debate on voting rights. 50-50 party line.

Also, Pelosi announced she will create a select committee to investigate 1/6 (dunno why it took this long after the Senate vote failed but whatever, good that it's finally happening.)

---

xp1337 posted...

dunno why it took this long after the Senate vote failed but whatever, good that it's finally happening.)

Not really a mystery, our government is designed so everything is as slow as possible.

https://twitter.com/washingtonpost/status/1407341500342706184?s=21

L O L

---

Leafeon13N posted...

Not really a mystery, our government is designed so everything is as slow as possible.

as someone who has repeatedly stressed this when people have asked why X isn't getting done immediately this doesn't really apply. pelosi could have announced this at any time after the vote failed lol. the actual formation of the select committee might take some time but just announcing that's the plan could have been done a while ago.

I was sure it was the plan so I wasn't that concerned but the radio silence was annoying.

---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

https://twitter.com/washingtonpost/status/1407341500342706184?s=21

L O L

Is there a link to the transcript? Because he wasn't quoted as saying what the headline says.

That is indeed a LOL-worthy headline. Because we live in a shit timeline and absolutely require Manchin's support saying his compromise is unacceptable is basically saying the idea of getting anything done is unacceptable.

Fucking sucks that Manchin is reducing the scale of it but if he is going to make that part of the price for his vote we have to eat that shit sandwich if we want anything done on voting rights.

---

If you keep eating shit sandwichs it doesn't make them stop putting in shit. You get used to the shit taste which allows them to continue to increase the amount of shit till it's completely shit.

great plan we'll write off manchin then be unable to pass anything on voting rights because now there are 51 votes minimum in opposition and watch as voter suppression and gerrymandering across the country entrenches republicans in power as a minority party and try again with a better bill when we've lost congress

---

Joe Biden has a phone and he has a pen, doesnt he?

The idea that we get to watch the country slooooowly careen off a cliff because Dems are too tied up in losing legislative battles at snail speed is just absurd, lol.

The people mocking the idea of telling Manchin to fuck off have another plan? Because catering to Republicans has yet to workmaybe next time!

---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

Joe Biden has a phone and he has a pen, doesnt he?

He talked with Manchin and Sinema like... yesterday? Has repeatedly said he supports For the People... including like... yesterday?

who is he going to call or write to? the avengers?

---

Leafeon13N posted...

Is there a link to the transcript? Because he wasn't quoted as saying what the headline says.

He didnt say the words endorse? Lol yeah of course, but read the actual quotes of what he said in that article and tell me he doesnt?

xp1337 posted...

He talked with Manchin and Sinema like... yesterday? Has repeatedly said he supports For the People... including like... yesterday?

who is he going to call or write to? the avengers?

You must have missed the famous Obama quote (which I had backwards):

---

Could someone explain for a non-American? Whats in the original act and whats in Manchins compromise?

---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

He didnt say the words endorse? Lol yeah of course, but read the actual quotes of what he said in that article and tell me he doesnt?

There is a difference, yes.

Lightning Strikes posted...

Could someone explain for a non-American? Whats in the original act and whats in Manchins compromise?

This is a summarized version so I may be missing a few components or losing some nuance, but...

For The People Act / HR 1/ S 1:

Guarantee protections for voters against restrictive laws with things like: automatic voter registration for federal elections, guarantee the right for those with disabilities to vote absentee, restore the right to votes to felons who have completed their sentence, limiting voter roll purges, require same-day registration, and require at least two weeks of early voting.

It would outlaw partisan gerrymandering and requiring redistricting to be done by an independent commission comprised of equal parts Democrat, Republican, and Independent.

It would increase transparency into political donations by requiring groups that make large donations to reveal their donor lists (as of now you can donate to a Super PAC who can then donate to candidate(s) while keeping those who donated to the PAC itself hidden which has predictably led to massive amounts of dark money flooding elections.) There's also moves towards public financing of elections by having matching donations for small donors and revamping contribution limits.

Finally it would provide funds to states to perform audits and other election security things.

~~~

Manchin balked at the public financing of elections bits and bans against Voter ID laws. He also scales back absentee ballot access somewhat wrt to For the People.

He retains/adds things like: Election Day to be a public holiday, at least 15 days of early voting, including two weekends, still bans gerrymandering but leaves redistricting to computer models.

Manchin would also implement National Voter ID with some allowance of alternatives (IIRC like a utility bill, etc.)


---

i have a correction to a previous post

reporters now clarifying that pelosi announced she'll announce whether she'll start a select committee on 1/6 within a week.

i hate life

---

Leafeon13N posted...

There is a difference, yes.

Lol oh my god the difference is pedantic, who cares

---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

Lol oh my god the difference is pedantic, who cares

The difference is actually meaningful in this context. You are choosing to ignore it.

---

xp1337 posted...

i have a correction to a previous post

reporters now clarifying that pelosi announced she'll announce whether she'll start a select committee on 1/6 within a week.

i hate life

The politics version of a teaser of a teaser trailer

---

xp1337 posted...

i have a correction to a previous post

reporters now clarifying that pelosi announced she'll announce whether she'll start a select committee on 1/6 within a week.

i hate life

Clarification on this.

Pelosi is now announcing whether shell announce if shes announcing if shell start a select committee.

---

More SCOTUS decisions today.

First decision is a unanimous ruling that pursuing someone who committed a misdemeanor does not categorically give the police warrantless entry into a home.

Specifics of the case were that a California man was playing loud music and honking his horn when passing by a cop car. Cop followed and turned on his lights to signal him to pull over. Guy didn't stop but drove to his nearby house and parked inside his garage. Cop followed him and put him through sobriety tests and would find that his BAC was above the legal limit and he was charged with driving under the influence. He countered that the cop had no right to enter his house without a warrant and that all evidence obtained after he did so (so the sobriety stuff) had to be tossed. State countered that by ignoring the cop's signal to pull over they had probable cause to arrest him for the misdemeanor of failing to obey a police signal and thus the pursuit qualified for the allowed exceptions to requiring a warrant and he couldn't dodge it by just fleeing to his house.

SCOTUS ruled that the mere pursuit of someone for a misdemeanor doesn't give the cops the automatic right to ignore a warrant requirement - it's requires a case-by-case analysis of whether it's justifiable to perform a warrantless home entry and while some instances may fulfill an urgent/emergency type situation where it may be justified to do so, it's not automatic as the state claimed.

Though the judgment of the court is unanimous, Roberts writes a concurrence that basically reads as a dissent where he complains that the logic of the Court is wrong and that the act of flight itself justifies warrantless entry and that they're wrong for saying the underlying offense is relevant. Alito joins this concurrence. Thomas writes a concurrence on similar lines but is much less cranky about it. Kavanaugh joins part of this while adding his own where he basically goes "I mean, I assume most flights from police will involve circumstances that justify a search so I don't really think there's much difference between the official ruling and Robert's complaining and this is just academic."

~~~

Another ruling that basically strikes down a law that was preventing Biden from firing a Trump appointment - the appointment in question was the Federal Housing Finance Agency director who was trying to deregulate Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

~~~

Yet another regarding how/if schools can regulate student's off-campus speech. The ruling was 8-1 (Thomas dissents) that while there may exist some cases where a school has a special interest in regulating off-campus speech, it'd be a pretty high bar to clear the student's First Amendment Rights. They give examples of severe bullying and harassment among others as hypothetical cases where the school would maintain a special interest to restrict/discipline off-campus behavior.

Specifics were a highschool student failed to make the varsity cheerleading squad and posted "vulgar language and gestures" on Snapchat in frustration of the school and squad. In response, the school suspended her from JV cheerleading for the year. (Also lol at dry legalese describing the posts. She posted a picture with her flipping off the camera and saying fuck a few times. Actual excerpt from the opinion: "The caption also contained an upside-down smiley-face emoji.")

Anyway, the ruling was this falls under First Amendment protection and the school had no right to discipline her for it given it was off-campus.

---

Florida and DeSantis challenging Texas/Abbott in the race to the bottom.

https://www.axios.com/desantis-law-college-survey-beliefs-6cd57c6a-bd76-4241-8dd9-3c74ffbc38ef.html

DeSantis just signed a law that requires public colleges and universities to conduct an annual survey of student, faculty, and staff about their beliefs.

The legislation doesn't say why or what the results will be used for, but DeSantis said that any colleges found to "indoctrinate" students aren't "worth tax dollars" and "not something we're going to be supporting going forward." Again, none of that being defined by the legislation so presumably "indoctrination" will be defined as he personally wants it to.

Goes into effect July 1.

---

And to think, there's a strong possibility DeSantis could be the next President...

---

Ron DeSantis is the next Scott Walker

well that's blatantly unconstitutional

---

is it finally infrastructure week

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/06/24/infrastructure-deal-talks-biden-invites-bipartisan-senators-to-white-house.html

---

it's always infrastructure week

---

Chauvin's sentencing hearing is going on and boy there are some quotes here. I'll not collect them because there are a bunch but yikes.

Chauvin's defense recommended he serve probation because, among other things, "he's the product of a broken system," and "[He] was unaware that he was even committing a crime." Judge denied his request for a new trial. Prosecution asking for 30 years.

Judge sentenced him to 22.5 years.

---

That's an encouraging sentence tbh.

---

xp1337 posted...

Chauvin's defense recommended he serve probation because, among other things, "he's the product of a broken system," and "[He] was unaware that he was even committing a crime."

lmao

Get fucked, Chauvin!

---

"Policing is a broken system so you can't punish the broken police" is some universe brain shit

---

HeroDelTiempo17 posted...

"Policing is a broken system so you can't punish the broken police" is some universe brain shit

I think its correct in a way. My guess is there are 10,000s of police officers who should get identical sentences that havent been caught through the years. He was just the one unlucky enough to get filmed. The randomness of justice has always bothered me.

I mean they all should get 20 year sentences, but I dont think he is wrong in arguing its kind of BS that everyone else gets away with it.

---

hey xp check this out

https://lawandcrime.com/supreme-court/scotus-rules-against-plaintiffs-branded-by-credit-agencies-with-scarlet- letter-of-our-time-thomas-joins-liberals-to-dissent

---

NFUN posted...

hey xp check this out

https://lawandcrime.com/supreme-court/scotus-rules-against-plaintiffs-branded-by-credit-agencies-with-scarlet- letter-of-our-time-thomas-joins-liberals-to-dissent

I actually agree with this ruling. Needing damages to sue seems completely sensible. Our justice system is already sue happy as it is.

---

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/salvadorhernandez/colorado-good-samaritan-killed-by-police

Even when theres a good guy with a gun the police dont care.
---

masterplum posted...

I actually agree with this ruling. Needing damages to sue seems completely sensible. Our justice system is already sue happy as it is.

that idea is terrible in principle as it requires people to get shafted and slowly work their way through the court system while plenty of other people are in the same distress and terrible in specific because the court argued being denied loans and the other issues of being falsely redlined doesn't count as standing which is crazy

---

Jakyl25 posted...

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/salvadorhernandez/colorado-good-samaritan-killed-by-police

Even when theres a good guy with a gun the police dont care.

Moral of the story here definitely seems to be "if someone is actively killing police, just let them"

---

NFUN posted...

hey xp check this out

https://lawandcrime.com/supreme-court/scotus-rules-against-plaintiffs-branded-by-credit-agencies-with-scarlet- letter-of-our-time-thomas-joins-liberals-to-dissent

Well, let's see. That article certainly makes the decision seem insane so let me flip through the opinion and dissents...

All right, the article mostly summarizes the specifics of the case, but I'll add my own for those who don't want to read it: We've got a class-action lawsuit against TransUnion by 8185 people. TransUnion being a credit reporting agency they adopted an add-on module for companies that used them for credit screening that beyond the standard credit check would also match the first and last names against government list of terrorists, drug traffickers, and serious criminals. Literally that was it, just a first + last name check and if it was a hit it flagged them as a potential match.

Now 1853 of the people in the lawsuit, including the lead plantiff (a guy who was denied a car loan by the dealership who was told in front of his family he was a match for a potential terrorist and his wife had to buy the car and take the loan out in her name) had this "potential match" flag sent out to third-party businesses. The remaining 6332 did not have proof that info was sent out (but would be listed as such in TransUnion's system.)

There's also three prongs to the class lawsuit but I'll focus on the first one: Whether or not the members of the class action have standing and suffered harm. Kavanaugh and the majority reach the conclusion that despite Congress passing a law to grant a cause to sue for consumers (via regulation requirements on credit reporting companies) that... simply doesn't matter. They allege that Congress doing so is a separation-of-powers violation of all things. In spite of the Court previously ruling that it is instructive to look to Congress and the laws they enact in such case to glean intent.

Like, on its face, the ruling of "Okay the 1853 people who had that info distributed to a third-party have sufficiently demonstrated harm but the other 6332 people who couldn't prove it have not" may not sound super unreasonable (and indeed at first glance reading the opinion nothing immediately pinged me as insane) but the way the court gets there seems like it could (and knowing corporations, probably will) have really bad consequences.

Thomas's dissent (joined by the 3 liberals) gets into this where he points out that historically there's been a distinction between an individual suing on the basis of a personal right vs. suing on behalf of a right that belong to the community courts have treated them differently. In the former only a violation of the right needs to be proven (he uses an example of trespassing; the plaintiff would only need to demonstrate the violation of the right happened) while in the latter (he uses the example of overgrazing on public lands) you need to prove the violation and damage (so like a GameStop employee probably would lack standing to sue someone for overgrazing on public lands unless they also happened to be a farmer or something.)

Essentially, the dissent argues that the violation of a private right itself constitutes harm. And that for the first time in history, they've found that an injury-in-law is inherently insufficient to attain standing as well as constitutionally prevent legislatures from creating legal rights that are enforceable in federal court. He also points out that even putting aside all these bigger picture issues, the majority boils down the case to a rhetorical [paraphrased] "Who could possibly think a person is harmed when they request and sent an incomplete credit report, a notice they may be a drug trafficker or terrorist and NOT sent any information on how to remove the inaccurate flag?" as if the answer is an obvious "no one, how silly lol" to which he answers (factually): "Congress, the President, the jury, the District Court, the Ninth Circuit, and four Members of this Court."

Kagan, joined by Sotomayor and Breyer, also file a separate dissent where she points out that what the majority has done here is transform the idea of standing/case-or-controversy from a limit on the power of a court (by preventing them from just weighing in on the actions of the executive or legislature and making rulings when no one with stakes has asked them to) to an expansion of the power of the judiciary by ruling that actually it should be read to mean the judiciary decides what qualifies as harm, and the legislature can fuck off if it passes a law stating that individuals should be granted legal rights and a means to pursue redress if they are violated.

She also dunks on the majority's view that the risk of TransUnion distributing the information of the ~6000 who did not demonstrate it was "too speculative" when TransUnion is literally a company in the business of distributing said information to companies and that putting that aside, there's already a 25% rate of them clearly fucking up so how is that percentage not sufficient to give the others sufficient ground to be at legally sufficient risk of harm? She notes she differs on Thomas's opinion in only one regard and that she suspects it would not even be applicable in all but the most unusual of cases wrt Congress's authority in such cases and that in the vast majority of cases they (she and Thomas) would end up at the same place regardless of their different views on it.

tl;dr: Bad ruling. Probably even worse than I imagine because I can't fully comprehend the consequences that can spiral out of this. The dissent makes the far more compelling argument here and exposes the majority opinion as just... really bad, even if may perhaps come off as more benign than that.

masterplum posted...

I actually agree with this ruling. Needing damages to sue seems completely sensible. Our justice system is already sue happy as it is.

Not really the issue at hand in this case! It's more a matter of this opinion just overturning precedent on what qualifies as harm... and then stripping legislatures of its power to identify and define harms as well as create rights. Even the dissents point out that they're not opening up to "anyone can sue anyone for hypotheticals" just that the way the majority has ruled has overturned centuries of legal precedent and enshrined a concept that didn't even exist for them until 50 years ago as the new standard and thereby seized the power from the other two branches for themselves.

---

Jakyl25 posted...

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/salvadorhernandez/colorado-good-samaritan-killed-by-police

Even when theres a good guy with a gun the police dont care.

This is literally why "good guy with a gun" is a fantasy. If police roll up on an active shooter scene, they're certainly not going to "Excuse us, would all the good guys with guns please raise your hand? If you're a bad guy with a gun, ignore this order, thanks."

---

https://twitter.com/bernietovest/status/1409214187700621316?s=21

---