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
Pretty much: it costs society less. <_< It's one of those counter-intuitive things we've only started to get to grips with in social psychology. Macro-behaviours: so often making the "common sense" micro ones look inadequate.
On paper, stopping corruption and going for transparency in all things seems like a grand idea — after all, somebody is always going to get the thin end of the wedge, and if they have little involvement in or notice of what happens to them, it's decidedly unfair. But... in the macro... push-me-pull-me interactions means somebody is always going to get the sticky end of anything done. The trick is to limit the fallout as much as possible. Which... needs compromise and back-scratching. Because we're apes — we have these instincts in place which are there to be social glue for a reason. -_-
So, well, keeping "corruption" aka "social grease" to a reasonable level is always a fine idea, at the very least — too much is as bad as too little. The problem is when you get "reasonable level" wrong.
edited 22nd Jun '16 6:54:09 AM by Euodiachloris
Which is why the Byzantine network of Congressional ethics rules and federal corruption laws exists: to help sort out corrupt influence from the everyday functions of governance.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"The Supreme Court dealt a devastating blow to the 4th Amendment.
Basically, police can now stop you for no reason and run you up to see if there any outstanding warrants, and if so the police get off scot-free for the illegal stop.
The guy who reported the alleged chair-throwing is an asshole, and I'm glad he's fired.
edited 22nd Jun '16 7:59:45 AM by TheHandle
Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.![]()
![]()
Police have generally been required to have a prima facie reason to detain and question any person as part of their Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable search and seizure. That the Supreme Court would dismiss this is troubling.
![]()
His fucking tweets scream bias too. That behaviour is unbecoming of a journalist.
Skewed Priorities indeed!
Important news: the mass killing wasn't an act of Islamic terrorism.
It was an act of revenge by a man who went Looking for Love in All the Wrong Places and was used for sex by unethical sluts.
I kinda saw something like that coming after he was declared a regular, but I didn't feel comfortable speaking up against the whole characterisation of a nightclub as a place of LOVE. Partly because Due to the Dead, partly because of the political climate.
This is going to derail a lot of narratives, for better or for worse.
edited 22nd Jun '16 8:01:14 AM by TheHandle
Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.@Fighteer: The necessity of a certain degree of insider wheeling and dealing wasn't what I was specifically opposed to in the article posted by Jack. My big issue was the dismissive attitude towards the angry masses. I'd argue that public attitudes and unrest are (at the minimum) every bit as important to the political process as insider dealings.
![]()
Are you really implying that the Orlando shooting was in any way justified?
I think it's more that the article is biased, I likewise have seen evidence that the chair throwing didn't happen. As the new organisation that he worked for redacted the story?
Oh and that source on that Orlando bit seems questionable, and even then I fail to see how anything in the article suggests that the guy was used by anyone at the club.
edited 22nd Jun '16 8:08:05 AM by Silasw
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ CyranNo, I'm not. I'm kind of insulted that you'd even remotely think that I am, after all these years we've known each other. Seriously, what the fuckhell.
It's been mentioned several times on this thread, but the fucking meme stuck.
edited 22nd Jun '16 8:15:43 AM by TheHandle
Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.![]()
Face Palm. Is this more, "Bernie could have won if the media hadn't been against him," crap?
Well, what you wrote was a bit ambiguous in that regard. Watch your use of language.
edited 22nd Jun '16 8:14:18 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"![]()
No, I was legitimately wondering because, whether it was mentioned here or not, I'd never seen it and it was the first I'd heard of the incident being fake.
I do wonder if it impacted his chances, since I remember the sudden surge of Sanders-vitriol that hit the forums following that and Sanders "it was bad but it was everyone else's fault it happened" response. On the other hand, unless I have the timing wrong it was late enough in the primary that it probably wouldn't have been enough to affect the ultimate outcome either way.
Been skimming that to learn more, since the original article struck me as a tad too biased to take at face value.
edited 22nd Jun '16 8:21:45 AM by sgamer82
If he hadn't had a warrant, then the search would have been illegal because the stop broke the fourth amendment. However, since he already had a warrant, the arrest was kosher even if the stop was not — and because the arrest was kosher, the search was.
Basically, the ruling is that the fourth amendment does not shield you from an arrest warrant being served.
Really from Jupiter, but not an alien.Hmm, that's kind of grey. If a police officer recognizes your face from a wanted poster and detains you on that basis alone, it's entirely legal. But if the police officer detains you unconstitutionally and then determines that there is a legitimate reason to do so, it would seem to create an issue similar to the dismissal of illegally collected evidence in a trial.
The case itself could proceed, but any tainted evidence could not be used unless it was reintroduced via a legal path.
I don't suppose that the issue of serving a warrant could work in the same way, though, since the police can detain you upon recognition of your warrant regardless of any other circumstances; the two events are entirely independent. Even if the case were tossed on the basis of the unconstitutional detention, they could simply wait for you to exit the courtroom and then re-arrest you.
But the door opened by this SCOTUS decision is a world in which police could set up checkpoints where every person has to stop and be checked for outstanding warrants, something that is antithetical to our principles.
edited 22nd Jun '16 8:35:13 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"@Fighteer: I don't think that, under any circumstances, "some of those people used this person for sex" implies "it was okay for him to go Carrie on them and the entire scene". Not to mention then top it off by hiding behind half-baked religious motives, almost causing a political fallout of epic proportions, which might have indirectly led to much more death and suffering.
edited 22nd Jun '16 8:27:03 AM by TheHandle
Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.The use of the phrasing "unethical sluts" and "speaking up against the characterization of a nightclub as a 'place of love'" carries the implication that Mateen might not have killed people had he been treated better by the gays.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"@Fighteer: The former is not "justifying" in any remote sense of the word, obviously. If every person who was used for sex was entitled to murder, the world would be barren. The second is because I compromised my intellectual integrity in the name of civility, decorum, and political allegiance. Some people value these things differently than others, but I for one feel guilty and ashamed and cowardly.
edited 22nd Jun '16 8:40:26 AM by TheHandle
Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.

Umm, I guess? You can't completely remove outside influence — after all, Jane Smith from Podunk, Ohio asking her Congressman to help fund their school's autism support program is an "interest group". It's politicians' jobs to advance the interests of people who elect them, while also serving the best interests of the country.
The issue with interest groups is when money buys access: that is, your voice gets more weight because you donated more money to a campaign, or sent the congressman on a nice vacation, or hired his nephew at your firm, or have a cushy job waiting for the congressman when he gets out of office. If the Rockefellers get a bigger share of Mr. Jones' ear than the Klampetts because the Rockefellers are richer, that's a problem.
edited 22nd Jun '16 6:50:29 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"