Author Topic: Politics '14: Oh crap, it's an (mid term) election year! (Read 7286 times)

Lady Door · « **Reply #25 on:** July 02, 2014, 06:27:48 AM »

The logic behind the decision has a lot to do with consistency, in that the kinds of acknowledgements and concessions made for nonprofits and religious organizations might also need to apply to for-profits, yes?

The greater argument for why this is even a conversation we're having -- whether the <5 majority owners of a corporation can decide what's available to their thousands of employees, despite the law -- ... back to healthcare.

You would think the part where there are two third-parties involved in this process in between companies and employees (insurance and the government), plus the interests of public health, would have some impact on how much control a corporation would have on deciding what can and can't be done.

But you know, this whole thing makes me angry and irrational.

metroid composite · « **Reply #26 on:** July 02, 2014, 04:48:03 PM »

Quote from: Lady Door on July 02, 2014, 06:27:48 AM

The logic behind the decision has a lot to do with consistency, in that the kinds of acknowledgements and concessions made for nonprofits and religious organizations might also need to apply to for-profits, yes?

Oh well...

I go to church sometimes. Can I get tax exemptions now?

Grefter · « **Reply #27 on:** September 18, 2014, 04:51:26 AM »

So I was thinking I would probably throw out the results of the Scotland dealio when it popped up, but this bubbled to the surface on Reddit today.

http://money.cnn.com/2014/09/17/pf/college/occupy-wall-street-student-loan-debt/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

This is exactly the kind of subversive modern counter culture response that I was hoping to see out of Occupy, but it is very differently than I had expected.

So from years ago when it started and people were asking what they hope to achieve? Here is the kind of thing that it is.

Cmdr_King · « **Reply #28 on:** September 26, 2014, 05:45:04 AM »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1oqyrflOQFc

Saw this link, had to unfriend a dude. Like holy shit for starters those two things are not mutually exclusive. Argh. Angry. Grefter come be angry at it for me, can't be angry enough.

Grefter · « **Reply #29 on:** September 26, 2014, 11:27:06 AM »

These are the pooping faces this video made me have.

Allude to well researched data figures. Dismiss them without showing any evidence. Quote personal research without showing figures or showing proof of peer review.

Clearly this data I haven't presented and first wave feminism shows that there is nothing socially pressuring or trending women towards roles that are lower paying or under appreciated. Also lol but otherwise why would capitalism?

.?.? The invisible hand would make everyone hire females because it 100% ignores personal biases and hiring patterns. #merica #landofthefee #youcannevertakemyfeifdom #thisishowmyFreedomWorks

Cmdr_King · « **Reply #30 on:** September 26, 2014, 08:41:48 PM »

Quote from: Grefter on September 26, 2014, 11:27:06 AM

Also lol but otherwise why would capitalism?.?.? The invisible hand would make everyone hire females because it 100% ignores personal biases and hiring patterns.

It's been a while but I think that did happen too! Like, when the unemployment numbers started to fall again after their peak in 2010, most of the people who didn't get jobs again were dudes.

NotMiki · « **Reply #31 on:** September 26, 2014, 09:36:52 PM »

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/09/supreme-court-pregnancy-discrimination-peggy-young-ups

More evidence of feminism's final victory. Don't make me talk about it. It makes me angry.

Luther Lansfeld · « **Reply #32 on:** October 06, 2014, 09:31:29 PM »

http://www.okcfox.com/story/26714783/oklahoma-county-waiting-on-official-mandate-for-same-sex-marriage

Welp. We'll see what happens!

SnowFire · « **Reply #33 on:** October 07, 2014, 02:54:15 PM »

http://newsok.com/same-sex-marriage-now-legal-in-oklahoma/article/5349007

And thus did Oklahoma & Utah get gay marriage before Michigan. The US is weird sometimes.

superaielman · « **Reply #34 on:** October 07, 2014, 03:35:47 PM »

Virginia's governors are not covering themselves in glory, but seriously now. What did people expect from Terry fuckin Mcauliffe?

metroid composite · « **Reply #35 on:** October 18, 2014, 11:08:58 PM »

So...this editorial does border on "crazy liberal" at points, especially in the second half, but the part about the civil war issues bleeding into the reconstruction are pretty interesting.

http://weeklysift.com/2014/08/11/not-a-tea-party-a-confederate-party/

metroid composite · « **Reply #36 on:** November 25, 2014, 04:25:37 AM »

So...Ferguson.

They have decided not to press charges; there will not be a trial against the police officer.

Meanwhile, people donated $400k to the police officer.

http://www.khou.com/story/news/2014/08/27/nearly-400k-raised-online-for-ferguson-cop-who-fatally-shot-teen/14667573/

EDIT: and apparently it's pretty rare for a grand jury to do what it did in this case (refuse to bring a case to trial)

http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/ferguson-michael-brown-indictment-darren-wilson/

Lady Door · « **Reply #37 on:** November 25, 2014, 05:56:31 PM »

It's very strange not to bring charges against him. Even reading his testimony, it seems like there's enough to question to warrant bringing the question to trial.

He's still under investigation at the federal level, however, and I can only hope they can be impartial enough to escape state/local politics and move forward with the formal trial.

I do, of course, acknowledge that I know next to nothing about the case at hand. I've read the transcripts of yesterday's proceedings as well as the medical reports, but I don't know nearly enough to parse it with any certainty.

I do know that I'm getting really annoyed with the partisan politics drawing a straight line between conservatives and liberals on issues of race, guns, and the police force. It's especially alarming how many people who self-identify as conservative are crowing about the victory and the police officer being judged innocent which... just... I don't even.

Dhyerwolf · « **Reply #38 on:** November 25, 2014, 06:42:15 PM »

Yeah. This was just a horribly disappointing (but completely predictable) outcome. Been feeling a lot of burn out on political stuff lately myself because it just seems like no real good anywhere lately.

ETA: Really dislike the "Prosecutor" in this case. There's a reason that 70,000 people in the area surrounding Ferguson signed a petition asking him to recuse himself. Just based on his own familial history should have been enough of a disqualifier, but there so many questionable things he said that made it clear whom he was really fighting for.

Lady Door · « **Reply #39 on:** November 25, 2014, 10:43:14 PM »

This is why I am hoping (in vain) that federal inquiry can make headway where local courts can't.

I would dearly like to know what inside interpretations came about to mean that conflicting medical reports and inconsistent witness testimony don't qualify for indictment.

Dhyerwolf · « **Reply #40 on:** November 26, 2014, 02:01:48 AM »

Yeah, hoping against hope that the DOJ doesn't fail yet again, but man they have a horrendous track record overall.

Luther Lansfeld · « **Reply #41 on:** December 14, 2014, 09:51:10 PM »

http://www.swoknews.com/local/questions-raised-after-jail-inmates-death

My friend from high school posted on Facebook about her cousin being tasered (and subsequently dying) while singing traditional Native hymns in a jail cell in the local jail. The lying Lawton police of course say nothing of the sort happened.

Grefter · « **Reply #42 on:** December 14, 2014, 11:51:42 PM »

Welcome to club of killing natives in custody via abuse! Locally we stick to less technological methods though, less tazers and more beatings.

Shale · « **Reply #43 on:** December 15, 2014, 03:23:53 AM »

Let's distract ourselves from the utter horribleness of the American "intelligence" and "law enforcement" communities with the knowledge that Ted Cruz is still a whiny little baby.

Short version: He couldn't handle the fact that the budget Congress passed over the weekend doesn't block Obama's dastardly plan to not deport millions of people, and refused to let the vote proceed on an expedited schedule (which requires consent from the entire Senate, without objection). That forced them to stay in DC for an extra day before adjourning for the rest of 2014, in order to go through the full list of procedural votes necessary to pass a major spending bill. Harry Reid decided that as long as they were in town, the Democrats might as well pass a bunch of Obama's nominees that they hadn't had time for in the past few weeks. Nominees that the Republicans were planning to block once they took over the Senate in January. Whoops.

And of course he still couldn't attach a single word on immigration. Dipshit.

metroid composite · « **Reply #44 on:** December 19, 2014, 08:10:59 AM »

http://www.buzzfeed.com/chrisgeidner/justice-department-announces-reversal-on-litigating-transgen?utm_term=.huEXWgzqM#.jjvLneA9W

Now you can fire people for being LGBT. One down.

Dhyerwolf · « **Reply #45 on:** December 20, 2014, 02:11:18 AM »

Quote from: Dhyerwolf on November 25, 2014, 06:42:15 PM

Yeah. This was just a horribly disappointing (but completely predictable) outcome. Been feeling a lot of burn out on political stuff lately myself because it just seems like no real good anywhere lately.

ETA: Really dislike the "Prosecutor" in this case. There's a reason that 70,000 people in the area surrounding Ferguson signed a petition asking him to recuse himself. Just based on his own familial history should have been enough of a disqualifier, but there so many questionable things he said that made it clear whom he was really fighting for.

And let's follow up with today's facepalming news. Witness number 40 (aka the super racist one that was the big backer of the cop's testimony) has been revealed to have been a complete fraud. This was known prior to her testifying (twice!). The super questionable DA is saying that he is not planning on pressing charges at the moment.

"McCulloch said that he wanted "anyone who claimed to have witnessed anything... presented to the grand jury," and that he didn't have regrets about calling non-credible witnesses, according to the St. Louis Post-Dispatch."

This seems like it just be slam dunk for the DOJ (I'm...would also think that this at this point seems like a really obvious disbarment for McCulloch? A prosecutor calling a witness that is known to have completely lied and whose testimony hurts the side that he is supposed to be working on? I would hope that given everything else, it's would be blatantly clear that this attorney is actually working against his elected purpose).

NotMiki · « **Reply #46 on:** December 20, 2014, 03:48:31 AM »

It's very, very rare for anyone to be prosecuted for perjury, and frankly, it's just as well. Eyewitness testimony is inherently very unreliable, and prosecuting someone for giving an account that is obviously wrong could have a serious chilling effect on witnesses, especially in a high profile case like this one. Even a person who actually witnessed an event could be convinced by reading intervening news accounts that it had played out differently than what they had thought.

What has bothered me about McCulloch from the start isn't his personal bias - it's that he has completely abdicated his job. He didn't want to prosecute. Well that's his call to make. So he should have just made it, and taken his lumps. Let the state appoint a special prosecutor over his objections, if they don't like his decision. And if they don't have the political will to do so, well, too bad. Instead, he decided he'd cover his own ass, inflamed the situation, and gave the whole world a front row seat to a biased process.

Dhyerwolf · « **Reply #47 on:** December 20, 2014, 06:33:42 AM »

I certainly disagree with the fact the perjury should not be prosecuted. Certainly the line should be drawn at this point (claiming to have seen something, been in a complete separate location, actually saw literally nothing, made a fake journal to attempt to prove that she was actually there). The key with the other eyewitnesses was that they were actually witnesses. If someone's testimony is 100% complete and utter fabrication (which this was), they should not be let off the hook.

I agree that McCulloch is the bigger problem, but juror 40 has done extreme amounts of damage.

NotMiki · « **Reply #48 on:** December 21, 2014, 01:58:38 AM »

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2014/12/16/witness_40_michael_brown_football_player_witness_unreliability_history_of.html

Looking at how Witness 40 was treated, the damage is in shaping the Fox News account of the shooting, probably not the grand jury's. But it certainly may have had some impact.

That said, I'm particularly hesitant about prosecuting for perjury in this instance, because this person really, really should not have been called in front of the grand jury in the first place. Once it became clear that this person had not seen the incident, was not remotely credible (and, possibly, has untreated bipolar disorder), and could only serve to inflame the situation or prejudice the process, McCulloch should have smiled and nodded and sent her on her way. He knew all that in advance of bringing her before the grand jury to testify under oath, of course. Prosecuting her would have the whiff of entrapment.

Of course, this reinforces my complaint about McCulloch's abdication of his job.

SnowFire · « **Reply #49 on:** December 21, 2014, 07:55:10 AM »

I'm with NotMiki here. Prosecution for perjury should be uber-rare. Since prosecutors control who gets prosecuted, if perjury was prosecuted a lot, it'd likely be for defense witnesses anyway. Think of all the cases where one plucky side said something that seemed totally crazy at the time, and they were proven right 10-20 years later by new evidence. Let's not make people worry overmuch that they'll be prosecuted for saying what sounds false but is their genuine recollection that might get someone off, for the cases where rather than a police officer on trial, it's the reverse.

I'm down for perjury prosecution in the extremely rare case where there's clear evidence of a conspiracy to frame someone, or otherwise "I'm gonna lie in court" level stuff.

News:

Author Topic: Politics '14: Oh crap, it's an (mid term) election year! (Read 7286 times)