Print

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

[Neonivek]

FUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUDGE!!!

Dang it FCC leave the internet alone! Well... NOW we are getting into "abandon the USA" territory... but I didn't think it would be this way.

[Frumple]

Republicans are usually not known to be outraged by the concept of cutting or restricting (nonmilitary) governmental programs.

Yeah, but what I'm talking about tends to go further than just restricting government programs. Sometimes quite a bit more. Primarily conservative efforts to screw over the homeless in particular trend towards that, from what I've seen.

That said, the latest round actually did have a fair bit of rage about regulation restricting government programs, near as I noticed. Mostly as part of the general deregulation thing, but also for certain agencies in particular.

Still, point was the general trend has been for conservatives to get in a tizzy and a half when you put in regulation to stop business excesses, but curiously supportive when you're pushing for stuff outside of that. Lack of outrage is the exact observation, heh.

[PTTG??]

The thing is, we can't really say that Trump is doing anything different. The ideals he's spouting -- blatant racism, xenophobia, jingoism, corporate cronyism, and virulent disdain for poverty and the environment -- are long-standing American traditions.

That's what makes it so hard to be a liberal in this country. You're fighting against inertia every day.

[Neonivek]

Actually, the issue here is that the FCC IS leaving the internet alone. They're adopting the policy of "No oversight is best oversight".

Because when it comes to price gouging, monopolies and so on, attempting to stop it is a bad idea.

OHHH whoops, the double negative confused me.

Denounced Mistake

[palsch]

Trump on anti-Semitic attacks; "sometimes it's the reverse".

I think he is trying to call it a false flag, but he makes it sound like there are regular Jewish attacks on skinhead cemeteries and community centres.


Minor conflict of interest here?

Last week, Donald Trump's company sealed its first big post-inaugural real estate transaction, selling a $15.8 million penthouse to a Chinese-American business executive who runs a company that touts its ability to exploit connections with powerful people to broker business deals in China.
...
"As counselors in consummating the right relationships—quite simply—we provide access," the company's website claims. "Establishing a network of credible and proprietary relationships, known by the Chinese as 'ghanxi,' is the single most important aspect of initiating and sustaining a successful business venture in China." A connection with Trump—even a fleeting one—could only help in the ghanxi department.

[Neonivek]

Doesn't Trump believe that conflict of interest is a presidential benefit? As in he OUTRIGHT said that?

[Dunamisdeos]

Why do we even ask him questions he just responds with literal word salad.

[Puzzlemaker]

Why do we even ask him questions he just responds with literal word salad.

Habit I suppose.

[palsch]

Sessions has been laying out the DoJ priorities;

Crackdown on cannabis, go light on civil liberties.


Trump doesn't seem to have any intention of filling those vacant positions.

Doesn't Trump believe that conflict of interest is a presidential benefit? As in he OUTRIGHT said that?

I can't find it, but believe the statement was that presidents don't have conflicts of interest, which was read as meaning they don't have to abide by any rules. Another line of defence has been that people knew he was a businessman when he was elected and they are getting what they voted for.

[Zanzetkuken The Great]

Looks like we managed to have this thread get 200 posts in the default ppp within a single month.  I wonder if things will slow down, or speed up.

[Descan]

Sometimes I wonder what kind of President and legacy Bush would have had, if he hadn't have Dick shoved so far up his ass that it's a wonder Don't Ask Don't Tell took so long to get repealed.

[palsch]

I like how the writer tries to turn a crackdown on gun crime into some kind of anti-pot thing with a crafty 'for example'.

Sessions said he will encourage federal prosecutors to bring charges when crimes are committed using guns. Referring local drug violations that involve the use of a firearm, for example, to federal court can result is often a stiffer sentence than would be imposed by state courts.

That's because that is a very real thing.

Federal law requires lengthy 5-, 7-, 10-, and 30-year mandatory minimum sentences for possessing, brandishing, or discharging a gun in the course of a drug trafficking crime or a crime of violence (18 U.S.C. § 924(c)). There are also mandatory minimum sentences of 25 years for each subsequent conviction. The law requires that these mandatory prison terms be served back-to-back (i.e., consecutively, not concurrently) with each other and with any other punishment the person receives for the underlying offense. This is known as “stacking,” and it can result in absurdly lengthy sentences (see the story of Weldon Angelos below, a nonviolent, small-time pot seller serving a 55-year mandatory minimum sentence). The § 924(c) law is also often applied to nonviolent gun owners who do not actually harm or injure anyone. Additionally, the law applies even to legally purchased and registered guns and rifles found in the person’s home, even if the guns were not present or used during the actual offense. All too often, a nonviolent or addicted drug offender selling drugs in their home can find themselves serving an extra five years in prison just because they also had a gun in the home — even if the gun was never used during a drug sale.

Obama commuted a significant number of these sentences (and got attacked for it by the right) alongside the primary non-violent drug offences that sent the people to jail in the first place. You get a short sentence for a drug crime then a 5 year mandatory minimum because you had a gun in the house or (reportedly) on your person. 55 years for $350 worth of pot...



Trump just ordered this rule revoked.

The establishment of this rule was put forth by the EPA and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to protect streams and wetlands that belong to the nation's water resources. Since the U.S. Supreme Court decisions in 2001 and 2006, protection of the nation’s waterways has been unclear. The Clean Water Rule would ensure the rules of The Clean Water Act more precisely defined.

    Provides a clear definition of regulatory safeguards, in relation to nearby waters.

The rule extend safeguard protection to neighboring rivers and lakes and their tributaries, because of the scientifically-proven ecological connection to the health of downstream rivers.

    Protects US regional water treasures

Specific watersheds have been scientifically proven to impact downstream water health. The rule protects Texas coastal prairie wetlands, Carolina and Assawoman bays, western vernal pools in California, pocosins, and other prairie potholes, when impacting downstream waterways.

    Focuses on streams, instead of ditches and drainages.

The clean water rule limits safeguards to ditches that are man made out of streams or function like streams and can carry pollution further downstream, making streams that flow only at times of precipitation are not covered.

    Reduces the use of analyzing waters on a case-by-case basis.

Before the rule, almost any water could be put through an analysis that remained case-specific, even if it would not be covered under the Clean Water Act. The rule limits use of case-specific analysis by providing certainty and clarity of protected vs non-protected water.

    Maintains statuses of waters within Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems.

The Clean Water Rule does not affect how these waters are treated, and still encourages green infrastructural practices.

Bold original, italics mine. A lot of what the rule did was clarify the CWA and make it so the EPA and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers could do their job without uncertainty about what they were legally supposed to be protecting.

By law they now need to go through the rule creating process again. This takes years for a functional EPA.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

When crimes are committed using guns (so, not 'I just had one in my house legally while I was out buying weed'), the sentencing should reflect that. Painting that as a crackdown on pot is editorializing at best.

How fortunate that what you want is the status quo, then. Which Trump is now altering to crush people who happen to own both guns and weed.

[Sergarr]

When crimes are committed using guns (so, not 'I just had one in my house legally while I was out buying weed'), the sentencing should reflect that. Painting that as a crackdown on pot is editorializing at best.

How fortunate that what you want is the status quo, then. Which Trump is now altering to crush people who happen to own both guns and weed.

This seems like a good way to actually start enforcing gun control in USA. In my opinion, drug and alcohol users should not have access to something as dangerous to themselves and everyone around them as guns, in the first place.

[smjjames]

When crimes are committed using guns (so, not 'I just had one in my house legally while I was out buying weed'), the sentencing should reflect that. Painting that as a crackdown on pot is editorializing at best.

How fortunate that what you want is the status quo, then. Which Trump is now altering to crush people who happen to own both guns and weed.

This seems like a good way to actually start enforcing gun control in USA. In my opinion, drug and alcohol users should not have access to something as dangerous to themselves and everyone around them as guns, in the first place.

I don't see that as being enforceable, besides, it dumps unneccesary charges on top of the original charge. We need to decrease the prision population problem, not increase it.