Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
Indeed. One major problem with everyone carrying is that it becomes impossible to tell the good guys apart from the bad guys until someone starts shooting.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Krugman: Angus Deaton and the Dodd-Frank election
More than half of the dollar amount of political spending in the current election cycle has come from just 158 families. Moreover, the passage of Dodd-Frank marked a massive shift in political spending by the finance industry towards Republicans.
So, yes, it does matter that wealthy people can buy influence, and stopping them is incredibly important for the future of democracy.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"California joins Oregon in approving automatic voter registration
.
- On Saturday, California governor Jerry Brown signed a bill that will start automatically registering adult citizens to vote.
- Starting in 2016, every adult citizen in the state who gets a driver's license, renews a license, gets a state identification card, or fills out a change of address form with the Department of Motor Vehicles will be registered to vote — unless he or she declines to be registered.
- About one-fifth of the state's 38 million people are eligible to vote, but not registered, according to the Los Angeles Times's Patrick Mc Greevy.
Federal laws already allow people across the country the option to register to vote at the DMV. But Oregon and California's laws are pioneering because they do it automatically.
It's hard to overstate how novel this concept is for the US. Throughout much of United States history, governments frequently put up barriers aimed at preventing people from voting, such as property ownership requirements, poll taxes, or literacy tests.
Gradually, many of these barriers have fallen to make it easier for people to register. However, many states, including California, still close off registration weeks to a month before an election — an artificial obstacle that can prevent perfectly qualified people from voting if they simply miss a deadline.
These new proposals remove those obstacles. Oregon's law will register all adult citizens in the DMV's database, while California's law will be implemented more gradually, as people get or renew their licenses or state I Ds, or change their addresses. But both make it the government's responsibility to ensure that all eligible voters are registered.
...
Second, some Republicans have cited concerns about voter fraud — usually about potential registration of unauthorized immigrants. But while California began issuing driver's licenses to unauthorized immigrants this year, these licenses are distinctively marked, and people with them would not be registered to vote automatically. And Oregon requires proof of citizenship for all driver's license applicants.
Meanwhile, national Democrats are increasingly adopting mandatory voter registration as a major cause. In a speech on voting rights this June, Hillary Clinton called on all states to automatically register citizens to vote when they turn 18, unless they choose to opt out. And legislators in 15 other states have introduced bills similar to Oregon's new law.
Not that we didn't know this already, but... Military Intelligence investigator in accuses Benghazi committee of being a partisan effort focused solely on damaging Clinton and says it inappropriately fired him
.
Maj. Bradley Podliska, an intelligence officer in the Air Force Reserve who describes himself as a conservative Republican, told CNN that the committee trained its sights almost exclusively on Clinton after the revelation last March that she used a private email server during her tenure as secretary of state. That new focus flipped a broad-based probe of the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi on September 11, 2012, into what Podliska described as "a partisan investigation."
Podliska, who was fired after nearly 10 months as an investigator for the Republican majority, is now preparing to file a lawsuit against the select committee next month, alleging that he lost his job in part because he resisted pressure to focus his investigative efforts solely on the State Department and Clinton's role surrounding the Benghazi attack. He also alleges he was fired because he took leave from the committee to fulfill his military service obligations, which would be an unlawful firing.
"I knew that we needed to get to the truth to the victims' families. And the victims' families, they deserve the truth — whether or not Hillary Clinton was involved, whether or not other individuals were involved," he told CNN in an exclusive TV interview that aired Sunday on "State of the Union." "The victims' families are not going to get the truth and that's the most unfortunate thing about this."
Podliska told CNN that the committee, which has spent $4.6 million so far and is chaired by Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-South Carolina, pulled resources away from probes of other individuals and agencies to focus almost exclusively on Clinton and the State Department she helmed for four years. Clinton will testify before the committee for the first time Oct. 22, and the committee is set to release the findings of its investigation next year, in the heat of the presidential race.
edited 12th Oct '15 7:51:25 AM by TheWanderer
| Wandering, but not lost. | If people bring so much courage to this world...◊ |Body cam footage clears police in Cleaveland shooting death
. There are basically no downsides to body cams other than cost of buying them, which I think most people would agree is worth it. They're not foolproof, but a very large amount of the time, they provide a clear, objective view of events — which lets us exonerate cops who did everything right, and prosecute ones who don't.
Pretty much literally the only reason to oppose body cams is to protect dirty cops.
Really from Jupiter, but not an alien.
Sometimes (even most of the time), the system works. If that article is accurate, then I agree with both conclusions: that body cams are good, and that those officers acted correctly.
I don't think there are any universal standards for that. Footage is recorded and stored by individual police departments with their own policies. This is an area that can be improved — state- or nation-wide rules (how long should it be stored? what should be done with it when that time period is up? who should have access to it in the meantime?) would be a good idea. In the meantime, of course, rules that apply to any other evidence can be applied to body cam footage — if inconvenient footage "mysteriously" went missing from police records, then they should face consequences the same as if any other evidence "disappeared".
Really from Jupiter, but not an alien.
God I hope he runs. If not than I have to vote for ether one of the Republican clowns in the car, Hillary the 1st of her name of House Clinton, Donald fucking Trump, or a Socialist(Social Democrat) who will probably cut our Military down to Canadian levels of spending in order to help fund his new welfare programs. At least Joe not only has principles, but ones that I agree with, and he knows how to get things done in Congress.
Most problems with it could be solved by strict standards on information availability. For example, only viewing the footage when the "he said, she said" situation actually occurs and the footage is needed as decisive evidence.
Cops aren't just fighting killers, they do other things like solving domestic disputes. I know I sure as hell wouldn't be comfortable cooperating with a cop if I knew anything they see would be watched later that day in a PD popcorn party or something.
On the contrary, I would be on my best behavior. But there is ample empirical evidence that the presence of cameras is almost never a significant factor in the behavior of civilians in a police intervention.
edited 12th Oct '15 11:11:59 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
Wasn't there a study claiming the complaints against LE Os dropped with cops using cameras because not only the cop was "motivated" to behave at his best but the suspects and other bystanders also did behave because they knew they wouldn't get away with being a dipshit or make a false report on a cop?
Hmm, I don't know. I do know that the people on shows like COPS aren't motivated to stop being dipshits because there are cameras pointed at them.
edited 12th Oct '15 11:19:27 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"![]()
![]()
Supposedly COPS throws out a lot of footage because of the camera crew messes up the DRAMA.
But really acting different because of the camera is a good thing, the cop generally would be safer and less difficult arrests as everyone plays the 'I'm being good' act for the camera.
edited 12th Oct '15 11:48:28 AM by Memers
Pretty much. If your life situation requires you interacting with police, you don't always get a choice on how it happens. And vulnerable aspects of your life being up for NYPD Movie Night is an appauling prospect.

On the legal drinking age thing, I'll have to defer to doctors and sociologists — people who've studied cause-and-effect in terms of how early someone starts compared with rates of alcoholism and alcohol-related injury and death.
Speaking for myself, the only way to teach people responsibility is to give it to them, but throwing the entire gamut of adult responsibilities all at once on some teenager who is still run by hormones and peer pressure seems a bit crazy.
edited 12th Oct '15 6:18:39 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"