Gas Bandit's Political Thread V: The Vampire Likes Bats

The governor of California signed net neutrality into state law.

But now California is going to be made an example by the Justice Dept which plans to sue California and block the law.

Because State rights, freedom, will of the people, etc. -_-
 

figmentPez

Staff member
Alt + Right takes you backwards. True in web browsers; true in politics.

EDIT: Damn my dyslexia!
 
Last edited:

figmentPez

Staff member
And Kanye West is tweeting about how he wants to abolish the 13th amendment....

A black man is supporting MAGA by declaring that he wants to get rid of the amendment that made slavery illegal.

WTF?
 
And Kanye West is tweeting about how he wants to abolish the 13th amendment....

A black man is supporting MAGA by declaring that he wants to get rid of the amendment that made slavery illegal.

WTF?
Kanye is special. The 13th ammendment also allows the use of prisoners as labor, which is apparently what Kanye has an issue with, but is too crazy to properly convey.
 
Kanye is special. The 13th ammendment also allows the use of prisoners as labor, which is apparently what Kanye has an issue with, but is too crazy to properly convey.
Yeah, he really ought to just be using his platform and popularity to promote 13th and knowledge of that prisoner clause and get that portion re-amended - not call for the abolition of the abolition of slavery.
 
He’s not wrong about the slave labor of prisoners, but he’s an idiot for not realizing Trump doesn’t give a shit, nor do the other MAGA followers.
 

figmentPez

Staff member
He’s not wrong about the slave labor of prisoners, but he’s an idiot for not realizing Trump doesn’t give a shit, nor do the other MAGA followers.
To be fair, Kanye may not care, either. It's entirely possible this is all just for attention, and he knows damn well what he's saying appeals to right wing nutjobs for all the wrong reasons, and doesn't care because he thinks it'll sell albums. Get in on some of the sales that Willie Nelson is losing out on.
 
To be fair, Kanye may not care, either. It's entirely possible this is all just for attention, and he knows damn well what he's saying appeals to right wing nutjobs for all the wrong reasons, and doesn't care because he thinks it'll sell albums. Get in on some of the sales that Willie Nelson is losing out on.
Yikes, that’s depressing. But what isn’t these days.
 
Really? Cuz to me it doesn’t feel like we’re trying to exclude a country, it feels more like we’re punishing a country for daring to send gay diplomats, like their rationale is that getting gay diplomats says they are deliberately not taking us seriously.

...which I mean they totally aren’t, but that’s for different reasons.

—Patrick
 

figmentPez

Staff member
Really? Cuz to me it doesn’t feel like we’re trying to exclude a country, it feels more like we’re punishing a country for daring to send gay diplomats, like their rationale is that getting gay diplomats says they are deliberately not taking us seriously.

...which I mean they totally aren’t, but that’s for different reasons.
Ah, but you're forgetting that officials can "bend the rules" to curry favor, or promote hostility between two countries that are getting unequal treatment. "Well, it's not usually our policy to grant a visa for this purpose, but we can provide a visa for other reasons, because you're representing a nation that has such a valued relationship with the United States."
 

figmentPez

Staff member
Does the US issue visas for heterosexual but unmarried partners of diplomats?
Good question.

"Unmarried heterosexual partners were not awarded the same conditions; heterosexual marriage is legal and widely available around the world." (source)

Basically, in 2009, then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton issued a decision that, because there were diplomats who could not get married but had long term partners, they would be granted visas for people who were de facto spouses. What's changed since then is that the US started recognizing same-sex marriages, and that's the justification for denying that these relationships are, in effect, marriages in everything but legal acknowledgement.
 
Good question.

"Unmarried heterosexual partners were not awarded the same conditions; heterosexual marriage is legal and widely available around the world." (source)

Basically, in 2009, then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton issued a decision that, because there were diplomats who could not get married but had long term partners, they would be granted visas for people who were de facto spouses. What's changed since then is that the US started recognizing same-sex marriages, and that's the justification for denying that these relationships are, in effect, marriages in everything but legal acknowledgement.
Which, of course, is just an excuse. Many nations still don’t recognize or allow gay marriage, and the U.S. doing so doesn’t change that. It’s assanine and intentional.
 
KUTV: Pregnant bystander mauled by police dog denied by judge in federal lawsuit
Excerpts said:
U.S. District Court Judge Tanya Walton Pratt found last week that while Mara Mancini suffered "horrendous injuries" in the July 2015 attack, she was an "unintended bystander" and no force was intentionally directed at her, so there was no violation of her Fourth Amendment rights, The Indianapolis Star reported.

(..) Little said surgeons have told his client that the nerve damage to her arm, which has severely impaired its function, is irreparable. He said Mancini will likely have to declare bankruptcy to pay her medical bills without the police department or the city being held responsible for the incident or her damages.
I find the general idea of deferring to a government actor's intent to determine that your rights were not violated to be a thoroughly disgusting idea. That ought to be a one way street for them--intent can turn their otherwise-lawful acts into fucky ones, but not the other way around.
 

GasBandit

Staff member
KUTV: Pregnant bystander mauled by police dog denied by judge in federal lawsuit

I find the general idea of deferring to a government actor's intent to determine that your rights were not violated to be a thoroughly disgusting idea. That ought to be a one way street for them--intent can turn their otherwise-lawful acts into fucky ones, but not the other way around.
How is this different from a stray bullet? If a cop accidentally shoots an innocent bystander, that's very much the government's responsibility, even if it's not a fault, isn't it?
 
How is this different from a stray bullet? If a cop accidentally shoots an innocent bystander, that's very much the government's responsibility, even if it's not a fault, isn't it?
You think cops around here are held responsible for their stray bullets? They tossed a fucking flashbang grenade into an infant's crib during a no-knock drug raid a few years back and weren't held responsible for that (the target of the raid wasn't home, it wasn't actually a major "drug den," and the officer who applied for the warrant lied about the severity in order to obtain said warrant) why would one woman with a mangled arm matter to them?
 
You think cops around here are held responsible for their stray bullets? They tossed a fucking flashbang grenade into an infant's crib during a no-knock drug raid a few years back and weren't held responsible for that (the target of the raid wasn't home, it wasn't actually a major "drug den," and the officer who applied for the warrant lied about the severity in order to obtain said warrant) why would one woman with a mangled arm matter to them?
To be fair, in that case the government taxpayers settled in court for $3.6M after 2 years of litigation. In this case she doesn't seem to be getting any financial remedy.
 
...which is why when these bullets injure/kill people, sometimes it is the suspect who gets that blame.

--Patrick
Yep, I had a buddy who did 17 years for a failed pot heist - not because of the heist itself, but because the cops were "forced" to fire blindly into a residential neighborhood on the other side of the green space they were hiding in and he was charged for a count of reckless endangerment for each home in the neighborhood.
 
Yep, I had a buddy who did 17 years for a failed pot heist - not because of the heist itself, but because the cops were "forced" to fire blindly into a residential neighborhood on the other side of the green space they were hiding in and he was charged for a count of reckless endangerment for each home in the neighborhood.
CURSE YOUUU FOR FORCING US TO DO THIS *bang* *bang*

--Patrick
 
CURSE YOUUU FOR FORCING US TO DO THIS *bang* *bang*

--Patrick
The whole thing gets even more convoluted - the reason they were hiding in that specific green space is because that was where the CBP chopper dropped the weed that he was trying to steal from the CBP officer's nephew.
 
Flake and Collins are yes. Maybe we'll get lucky and some republicans get in a fatal car crash tonight but otherwise kavanaugh will be confirmed
 
Look, I know they are people, but what they have done here leaves me thinking there isn't anyone left with ethics on the Republican side of the aisle. Looks like any conscience the GOP had died with McCain.
 
Look, I know they are people, but what they have done here leaves me thinking there isn't anyone left with ethics on the Republican side of the aisle. Looks like any conscience the GOP had died with McCain.
McCain talked the talk but most of the time didn't walk the walk, so ehhhhhhh.
 
McCain talked the talk but most of the time didn't walk the walk, so ehhhhhhh.
I agree with that, too. I'm not saying he was a paragon of virtue. I'm saying there really is no one left who will not tow the party line anymore, no matter how despicable the action.
 
Top