Board 8 > Politics Containment Topic 259: Raucous Caucus Robots

(+) Yeah! (+)

LordoftheMorons posted...

https://twitter.com/mkraju/status/1217535138151780353

I shouldn't be surprised but what the fuck

Good lord this woman is awful

LordoftheMorons posted...

https://twitter.com/mkraju/status/1217535138151780353

I shouldn't be surprised but what the fuck

In America we have a cherished principle which establishes that everyone is considered innocent until they are proven guilty. We also have a 5th Amendment that says that people may not be forced to present evidence against themselves.

The House has asserted that because impeachment is not a criminal prosecution, the normal rules don't necessarily have to apply. But the Senate sits in judgment of impeachment, so of course it can decide that the rules do apply.

We also have a somewhat less cherished principle that is still applied daily across the land - the principle that incriminating evidence needs to be disclosed to both sides well in advance of trial so that the defense has an opportunity to rebut it. You can't just bring in new evidence on the eve of trial. If you aren't ready to try the case, don't proceed to trial until you are. If you know the defense wants a quick trial, don't file the charges until you are ready!

---

Repost:

Everyone should read this short story from 2003 regarding the impact of automation called Manna:
http://marshallbrain.com/manna1.htm

It's only 8 chapters and should take less than an hour.

Yes, it's fiction. Yes it's dramatized. But I can't help but feel resolve when reading it knowing that the crux of the story is relevant. We have the opportunity to strive towards a society that is engineered to allow everyone to benefit from the fruits of technological advancement or we have the potential to stay the course in our system that will, be design, benefit fewer and fewer people as resources continue to consolidate

---

Virginia ratifies the ERA!

...but of course the Trump administration will do everything it can to make sure it doesn't become an amendment. Including abiding by some old stupid deadline.

---

https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/939b3y/virginia-declares-state-of-emergency-after-armed-militias-threaten-to-storm-the-capitol

This probably isn't as bad as it sounds, but I'm glad to see Virginia's government seems to have learned from Charlottesville.
---

Dancedreamer posted...

Virginia ratifies the ERA!

...but of course the Trump administration will do everything it can to make sure it doesn't become an amendment. Including abiding by some old stupid deadline.

The deadline is an essential component of the ERA. If Virginia "ratified" a version of the ERA without the deadline then it ratified something completely different from what the other states ratified.

---

Xeybozn posted...

https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/939b3y/virginia-declares-state-of-emergency-after-armed-militias-threaten-to-storm-the-capitol

This probably isn't as bad as it sounds, but I'm glad to see Virginia's government seems to have learned from Charlottesville.

Those nazi fuckers arent welcome in VA. Fuck all of them.

---

I not sure that this is good lawyering, but...

https://twitter.com/jesserodriguez/status/1217521475458097152?s=21

---

Yang - 16
Warren - 11
Buttigieg - 11
Klobuchar - 11
Steyer - 10
Biden - 9
Bloomberg - 9
Gabbard - 8
Sanders - 6

That's odd because Sanders is legitimately my number 2 choice. He's just far enough to the left to put many of his stances in a different category.

Also everyone needs to wake the hell up on nuclear energy. It's incredibly safe and it's a necessary resource if we're going to transition to fully renewable.

---

Sanders - 11
Yang - 10
Gabbard - 9
Bloomberg - 7
Warren - 7
Biden - 6
Buttigieg - 6
Steyer - 5
Klobuchar - 4

I knew I liked Bernie and Tulsi, it's good to see that it seems to be based mostly on policy and not just personality.

---

Robert Hyde previously violated a restraining order by stalking another woman:

https://twitter.com/natashabertrand/status/1217519408907739136?s=21

It also seems quite likely that he is mentally ill:

https://twitter.com/funder/status/1217518958192091143?s=21

---

Warren 14
Sanders 12
Yang 10
Steyer 10
Klobuchar 7
Buttigieg 6
Bloomberg 5
Gabbard 5
Biden 4

Total: 73

Forceful_Dragon posted...

Also everyone needs to wake the hell up on nuclear energy. It's incredibly safe and it's a necessary resource if we're going to transition to fully renewable.

It's kind of embarrassing that only Yang is on board with it.

---

AFAIK the main actual issue with nuclear is that building plants is extremely expensive (to the point where its not economically viable in a lot of places). But theres certainly no reason that we should be closing down existing plants that are still safely operating.

---

Sanders16
Warren14
Yang9
Steyer8
Gabbard7
Buttigieg6
Klobuchar4
Biden3
Bloomberg3

My biggest disagreement with Sanders and Warren is on nuclear power production. I am 100% for getting off fossil fuels and using renewable energy, but modern nuclear reactors have no emissions, are very efficient, are designed in such a way that they are incredibly safe, and don't produce waste that can be converted into nuclear weapons grade materials. It astounds me that they want to eliminate fossil fuels while also phasing out the easiest thing to replace that lost production with.

---

LordoftheMorons posted...

AFAIK the main actual issue with nuclear is that building plants is extremely expensive (to the point where its not economically viable in a lot of places). But theres certainly no reason that we should be closing down existing plants that are still safely operating.

Yeah this, the time frame, and the political issues are what make me skeptical of nuclear. But that doesn't mean America should stop using it! I didn't like the nuclear question either for that reason - we should be utilizing it more during the transition but I think it's difficult to accept as a permanent solution and I'm open to focusing on the alternatives.

---

LordoftheMorons posted...

AFAIK the main actual issue with nuclear is that building plants is extremely expensive (to the point where its not economically viable in a lot of places). But theres certainly no reason that we should be closing down existing plants that are still safely operating.

I actually didn't know this, thank you for the info.

But yeah as you said it's not a reason to abandon nuclear completely.

---

Putin changing the rules to stay in power past when hes legally allowed to for the... third or fourth time I believe?

https://twitter.com/nbcnews/status/1217479578114981888?s=21

---

Klobuchar 14
Biden 13
Bloomberg 13
Buttigieg 13
Yang 13
Steyer 13
Warren 10
Gabbard 08
Sanders 04

Disappointed that Yang's the only one who is pro-nuclear.
---

LordoftheMorons posted...

I not sure that this is good lawyering, but...

https://twitter.com/jesserodriguez/status/1217521475458097152?s=21

It doesn't sound like Lev Parnas is remaining loyal to Trump and Giuliani. He says they knew everything he was doing and he was acting at their direction.

---

Parnas alleges that Barr was in on it:

https://twitter.com/JoyceWhiteVance/status/1217614332013481984

---

LordoftheMorons posted...

Parnas alleges that Barr was in on it:

https://twitter.com/JoyceWhiteVance/status/1217614332013481984

I feel like we've known this already, even disregarding the fact that Barr was actively covering shit up

yeah good ok
---

Reg posted...

I feel like we've known this already, even disregarding the fact that Barr was actively covering shit up

Iirc Barr was mentioned on The Perfect Phone Call, but Im not sure there other evidence that he had followed through with being looped in

---

Yeah, he was mentioned in the call readout. Not sure about after that because there's been so much news everywhere, including Barr sending dudes out on international trips to chase debunked conspiracy theories.

---

Some concrete evidence that John Solomon (the journalist who published opinion pieces for The Hill early last year alleging that Biden was committing corrupt acts in Ukraine) was directly involved in Rudys conspiracy:

https://twitter.com/klasfeldreports/status/1217625191376998401?s=21

---

Parnas time

---

LordoftheMorons posted...

Some concrete evidence that John Solomon (the journalist who published opinion pieces for The Hill early last year alleging that Biden was committing corrupt acts in Ukraine) was directly involved in Rudys conspiracy:

https://twitter.com/klasfeldreports/status/1217625191376998401?s=21

Well, we already know he was talking with Giuliani at the time from the call log the House released a while back (the one with Individual -1) though yeah this is more concrete and shows what was being discussed instead of merely that they were talking.

---

Oh yeah forgot about that connection. I did remember that it came out that he was being represented by diGenova and Toensing (who are also directly involved).

---

Ooh, ooh, a numbers thing!

Warren 15
Yang 12
Sanders 11
Steyer 9
Buttigieg 8
Klobuchar 7
Bloomberg 6
Gabbard 6
Biden 4

Agreeing with Yang so much is kinda funny, but so it goes. I ended up breaking rank with Warren/Sanders on free college (I think the costs should be very significantly subsidized and large amounts of debt canceled, but I don't want to jump to a fully-free program right away - that might be worth doing in the future, but I think there are potentially unforeseen consequences) and on the TPP (mixed feelings about continually accepting all of China's cheap goods like this when I think we should be dialing back manufacturing a bit, but, economically speaking I don't really get why progressives are against this)

Oh and I broke rank on nuclear power, which I'm pro on. I don't think we should use nuclear power forever, but we need it in the current century.

I've always found it very strange that it seems like there's a fairly large group of progressive left people who support nuclear power, but no candidate really breaks along these lines except for kinda Yang.

https://twitter.com/natashabertrand/status/1217632534483345408?s=21

---

Paratroopa1 posted...

Oh and I broke rank on nuclear power, which I'm pro on. I don't think we should use nuclear power forever, but we need it in the current century.

I've always found it very strange that it seems like there's a fairly large group of progressive left people who support nuclear power, but no candidate really breaks along these lines except for kinda Yang.

I actually picked "pause" on nuclear power (I don't remember who supported that, but I know it wasn't Bernie). Until we've got something better to do with nuclear waste than "bury it in concrete and pour water on it", at which point I'm all for it.

---

Nuclear waste is a problem, but it's a problem that seems so much more manageable compared to how bad climate change is gonna fuck us.

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

I actually picked "pause" on nuclear power (I don't remember who supported that, but I know it wasn't Bernie). Until we've got something better to do with nuclear waste than "bury it in concrete and pour water on it", at which point I'm all for it.

Scientifically we know exactly what to do with nuclear waste. The problems with it are all political (e.g. Nevada politicians blocking waste being buried in Yucca Mountain even though its safe).

---

Parnas implicates Pence (who has been trying desperately to look like he didnt understand the implications of his involvement):

https://twitter.com/kylegriffin1/status/1217632661231095809?s=21

---

Unsurprising but extremely disgusting Trump quote defending wifebeater Rob Porter:

https://twitter.com/mattgertz/status/1217493148705927174?s=21

---

Nuclear waste is a smaller issue than other climate issues and potential uses can eventually be found. It's totally a problem but it's a problem with clear answers and factors. Less than 100 plants power a fifth of the country, you could drastically reduce coal, fracking, and oil with that with less damage and ultimately fewer costs.

---

Dancedreamer posted...

I don't see why anyone would object to prisoners who've completed their sentences to be allowed to vote. Then again, I don't see why people object to prisoners currently in prison being allowed to vote so that's probably just me.

For me it depends on the crime, though i can understand the argument of when they're out. Inside, nah, you're in prison. You're removed from society and chose to break the law in a severe way so you shouldn't have a say on it while you're there.

But stuff like drug offenses, absolutely should get them back. It's when we hit murder I hesitate, though can still understand if there's proof of rehabilitation. Rape is notorious on rehabilitation problems so I don't know there. However if you go to the more extreme versions of both - mass murderers, child rapists - I hit a firm wall of never giving any voting rights again. And am not convinced they're ever acceptable in society at large.

---

Another quid pro quo:

https://twitter.com/joycewhitevance/status/1217639486542241793?s=21

---

I don't understand why any crime, not matter how horrifying, should ever strip you of your right to vote. It's a non-sequitur. Giving a murderer or a rapist the right to vote on who represents them doesn't harm any of us in any way - it's not like the prisoners are all going to band together and vote for a president who loves crime and will release all the criminals. And, of course, we elected a criminal president who releases criminals WITHOUT the prisoner vote in 2016.

And that's not to mention all of the people who are in there for lesser offenses, or who might have possibly been innocent of the crime they were jailed for. These people should absolutely be voting. Yes, from prison. They need to have a voice in the process that detained them unfairly.

I am a very hard-liner on this. I think it's absurd to restrict anyone's right to vote no matter how bad their crime.

Anyway, I'm super late to the quiz party but here we go:

Warren - 15
Yang - 12
Sanders - 11
Steyer - 10
Buttigieg - 8
Klobuchar - 7
Bloomberg - 6
Gabbard - 6
Biden - 4

Total - 79

lol Biden

I will note that if you dig into the weeds on some of these I know you can move some of the numbers around. Take UBI for instance, I said yes but if you went deeper I'd say I oppose Yang's implementation but obviously it counts as a point for him here. Lots of that across the board on different questions.

---

Devin Nunes apparently threatened a frivolous lawsuit even against a fellow House member:

https://twitter.com/tedlieu/status/1217645011703160832?s=21

---

I go hard in the opposite direction, hell it doesn't even make logistical sense for the vast majority of instances - what district, the prison's even though they've nothing to do with the community and may not even be residents of that state? Though I also just do not see a reason to allow it: if government is a representation of the people's will and you've actively gone against it in such a way that it's been proven that you've harmed others in a way that violated their rights, you've proven your inability to work in it. Bear in mind, we're talking felonies, not misdemeanours, and I'm in the camp that favors decriminalization of drug offenses that don't hurt anyone else.

---

xp1337 posted...

Anyway, I'm super late to the quiz party but here we go:

Warren - 15
Yang - 12
Sanders - 11
Steyer - 10
Buttigieg - 8
Klobuchar - 7
Bloomberg - 6
Gabbard - 6
Biden - 4

Total - 79

lol Biden

I will note that if you dig into the weeds on some of these I know you can move some of the numbers around. Take UBI for instance, I said yes but if you went deeper I'd say I oppose Yang's implementation but obviously it counts as a point for him here. Lots of that across the board on different questions.

How did we get almost the exact same totals but with you having +1 on Steyer?

Also yeah I agree on the UBI thing - I said "yes" to "we should CONSIDER it" but had the wording of the question been different I might have said no

If politicians will continue to use prison sites and the prisoners within in the apportionment of political representation when drawing districts rather than their actual residence they should have a voice IMO.

---

Kinglicious posted...

I go hard in the opposite direction, hell it doesn't even make logistical sense for the vast majority of instances - what district, the prison's even though they've nothing to do with the community and may not even be residents of that state? Though I also just do not see a reason to allow it: if government is a representation of the people's will and you've actively gone against it in such a way that it's been proven that you've harmed others in a way that violated their rights, you've proven your inability to work in it. Bear in mind, we're talking felonies, not misdemeanours, and I'm in the camp that favors decriminalization of drug offenses that don't hurt anyone else.

I thought about mentioning the district thing, since prisons have a tendency to relocate people out of neighborhood, district, or even state, but I think this problem is solvable by simply having people vote as per their last home address. There are logistical consequences to this, since it could lead to people voting for someone in an area that they haven't lived in a very long time, if they're in prison for life or whatnot. But at the VERY least they should be allowed to vote in federal and probably state elections, in my opinion. And they should be able to vote on positions that directly affect them, such as judges.

As for whether or not people have proven that they can or cannot work within the community, I think that's awfully questionable. We vote on who gets to say what the difference between a felony and a misdemeanor even is in the first place. We have situations in this country where horrible criminals go free every day while others get locked up for crimes that weren't that serious or they may not have committed at all. Restricting their rights to vote is just arbitrary - it takes away the right only from the people who we caught, who committed crimes that we determined to be worth stripping your vote from.

This maybe isn't a reason not to allow current prisoners to vote, but I do worry about how one would ensure that their votes aren't being unduly influenced.

I can't see any good reason not to allow former prisoners to vote in all cases, though.

---

xp1337 posted...

If politicians will continue to use prison sites and the prisoners within in the apportionment of political representation when drawing districts rather than their actual residence they should have a voice IMO.

It's really worth keeping in mind that this is a thing that goes back to slavery, by the way

The slave states in the south were none too happy about the idea of their slaves not counting towards the number of electoral votes they received, and fought hard to make sure that non-voting populations counted towards apportionment

There is a straight line that can be drawn from this to our current situation of prisoners counting for apportionment but not being able to vote (in most places)

LordoftheMorons posted...

This maybe isn't a reason not to allow current prisoners to vote, but I do worry about how one would ensure that their votes aren't being unduly influenced.

I can't see any good reason not to allow former prisoners to vote in all cases, though.

I mean, fully possible that prisoners will be intimidated into voting in a certain way, which would just pile onto all of the other fucking illegal things that law enforcement does to people, but I don't think that's a reason to not let them vote