Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Duuvian]

Albany (the capital of the state) would still be in the not City, City. I don't live there but when I read things about the state it seems to be Albany is different from City but sometimes related, and when this is the case it makes Upstate and rural parts irritated who otherwise would have more pull if City is on the sidelines.

Also Buffalo is somehow intertwined. It is a mystery.

[scriver]

New York New York New York New York New York

[Rolan7]

Neo York, an enclave within New Amsterdam, a 5-boroughed city in New York, a state of Britain 2.0

[Robsoie]

enclave, wall, states,  sounds like it's shaping up nicely for Escape from New York


Snake, i thought you were dead.

[EuchreJack]

Is there a momevent in state New York yo separate from City New York into two states?

Three states 

[Frumple]

There's separatist/state splitting movements in... most of the states, from what I understand. They're collectively probably somewhat less influential in US politics than flat earthers.

[EuchreJack]

There's separatist/state splitting movements in... most of the states, from what I understand. They're collectively probably somewhat less influential in US politics than flat earthers.

This is 100% accurate.

[EuchreJack]

Someone has to take the blame...

[Thorfinn]

They outlawed gas cars in N.Y.?  Or just new sales? I'm thinking it's probably the latter, like the Wyoming bill in reverse.

I don't know what the NY law was. I thought something sounded wrong about the Wyoming law, and it turns out I was right. They are not banning sale of electric cars. Despite the trolling headline from TechDirt (another thing I expected), the resolution just says it

encourages Wyoming's industries and citizens to limit the sale and purchase of new electric vehicles in Wyoming with a goal of phasing out the sale of new electric vehicles in Wyoming by 2035.

Nothing about banning. That's quite different than California where you will not be able to get a license to sell gasoline vehicles. That's what a ban looks like.

Similar to further down in the story where it says North Carolina

proposed a bill demanding all cities in the state destroy all electric vehicle charging stations state wide.

When you follow the link, you see TechDirt LIED. All it does is say you cannot use government funds to provide "free" electricity if you don't also use state funds to provide "free" gasoline and diesel. If you are going to charge customers who have gas-powered vehicles extra to make up for giving away electricity for electric vehicles, you have to tell them how much the surcharge was, presumably to give them the option to fill up somewhere else. Truth in billing. That is hardly the atrocity TechDirt implies...

[Duuvian]

Well, no, if sales are phased out in 2035, thats a ban on sales (of at least new electrics) in 2035. That's plain reading. Even if it's read as guidance, surely there is liscencing from the state involved in regards to the sale of new vehicles. In this way a guidance law can mutate to become an enforcement law through regulatory bodies, if those liscences were denied based on the guidance under the bill, and such a refusal to issue liscence would be upheld in courts unless it runs afoul of Federal law or is otherwise judged to be in conflict with other law or regulation in the state or found unconstitutional. This is because the regulator in charge would be bound by the guidance to phase out sales by 2035; or at least they would be resistant to suit to prevent such phaseout as the intent of the bill states a goal of phasing out new electric vehicles sales in the state.

[Dostoevsky]

While I've only worked briefly in state legislative !!FUN!!, I can say that (similar to federal politics) state legislatures will often pass non-binding resolutions like this urging various impractical-yet-appealing-to-some things. This can be anything from letting some of the more radical folks blow off some steam without risking any real damage to gauging & building support for a more substantive package down the line. Either way, one would need to know the context more -- though given it's Wyoming, they're one of the most fossil-friendly states out there at the moment.

Anyways, after an all-day search of Biden's Wilmington home today DOJ turned up another 6 classified documents. So this ain't over yet for the Biden folks.

[Duuvian]

Well, I might stand corrected then. I'd have to do more work than just complaining on the internet to be sure. I had thought that legislative guidance could be used in a court as a sort of deflector shield against law suits that are aimed at impeding the administrative decisions done in support of guidance. I didn't see the non-binding part of it; and I'm not sure if that can be used in such a suit without doing some research on that topic. It would have to be discussed in on the internet somewhere (likely on a law school website) that I find through a search engine unless I went to a state college law library. Techdirt did say it does nothing, which would be the non-binding part; I assumed they might be missing the issue of guidance, if I am using that term correctly. I do agree that the techdirt article could have been clearer about this. I do sometimes read bills and such (see bunker thread) but I don't want to have to. In this case I didn't, which was wrong of me, as I assumed that this was worse than it was (assuming it is non-binding and if it can't be used to defend from suits) from the information I did read. What a fool I was to not read the bill before becoming incensed.

[martinuzz]

What I don't get about this documents thing.
With Trump, documents were found after he was no longer president. So yeah, obviously he had no business posessing those.

But Biden is still president. Isn't he in his full right to take his work home?

[Lord Shonus]

But Biden is still president. Isn't he in his full right to take his work home?

Classified documents have very restrictive rules on how you move them around. You can't just stuff them in a briefcase and take them with you.


Note that this is very true of the Trump situation - several of the documents he supposedly had are "the White House is not secure enough for this, it must never leave this special secure facility" level.

[Starver]

There is also that, while Biden is President (in ways the other bloke is not), these ...or at least some of them..? date to his time as VP. Which may have given him the rights to possess them at the time, at least part way up to the similar point of "not even should be left on the desk of the Oval Office, without a suitable guard" level, but would not necessarily cover his subsequent time out of Office (and the documents having been taken out of the 'Whitehouse office').

It would really depend upon what each individual bit of paper is covered by, in rules and regulation terms. Probably some are 'merely' incidental copies that a sensible handling (being actually locked away, having been legitimate take-home summaries of the "real secure documentation", and time-sensitive such that they fulfilled no purpose to anyone much beyond the day they were actually picked off the printer tray) would not justify action, though questions should be asked about others (and will be) that seem to maybe have inadvertently escaped the attentive posession of some serious man with a handcuffed-briefcase from whatever Three Letter Agency the docs normally are locked tight up within. With a sliding scale between.


Perhaps it would be actually useful to have Biden fall on his sword. If a sitting President can be seen to be unable to go against relatively trivial document handling indiscretions, then it wipes out his predecessor's claims that having been President means that he can agregiously flout the rules (probably would say that he could stock the common facilities in Mar A Lago with 'loo-paper' bearing nuclear launch codes, should he so wish) by having appropriated so many 'souvenirs in such a blatent way. (And, for example, where exactly are the documents that were within the empty folder-covers? Handed over to an international 'guest'? Clearly not just forgotten about, in a locked drawer, but at some point conciously handled.)


And I bet the other surviving past-POTUSes are also at least thinking of having a quick check in obscure places, just in case.