U.S. Politics Inaguration Sensation: Be Prepared

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

15 minutes ago, Fragile Bird said:

Surely that's a law that will be struck down? There are some things you can't make legal.

What is the Constitutional basis for the Federal government to force States to keep vehicular homicide illegal?  Congress could tie it to the spending power and block grantes like keeping the drinking age 21.  But, would this Congress do that?

[Fragile Bird]

1 hour ago, Altherion said:

Actually, you can. It would have been amusing, but it seems that this story about Perry just isn't true. As the article points out, Perry's reaction statement to his appointment was:

More generally, there don't appear to be any sources whatsoever for the New York Times article. They should have stuck to Perry forgetting the DoE during the debate; as it is, this is just more fake news.

Uh, wait a second here. If Perry was so knowledgeable about the DoE, why did he call for the department to be eliminated when he was running for the Republican nomination?

Why, in his confirmation hearing, did he apologize for what he said? Why, when he was asked about the rest of the Republicans who called for the DoE being eliminated pressing him in his role to eliminate the DoE, did he say he hoped those people would also forget what they had said about shutting down the department?

What McKenna said seems fairly unambiguous: McKenna told the Times, “If you asked him on that first day he said yes, he would have said, ‘I want to be an advocate for energy,'” The energy lobbyist added, “If you asked him now, he’d say, ‘I’m serious about the challenges facing the nuclear complex.’ It’s been a learning curve.”

Methinks there's more than a little Republican spinning going on here.

[Fragile Bird]

5 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

What is the Constitutional basis for the Federal government to force States to keep vehicular homicide illegal?  Congress could tie it to the spending power and block grantes like keeping the drinking age 21.  But, would this Congress do that?

This is a quote from the bill in the story:

"A driver of a motor vehicle who negligently causes injury or death to an individual obstructing vehicular traffic on a public road, street, or highway may not be held liable for any damages," the bill reads. "A driver of a motor vehicle who  unintentionally causes injury or death to an individual obstructing vehicular traffic on a public road, street, or highway is not guilty of an offense."

Do you think that the US SC would agree that a state could make a negligent act that leads to bodily harm or death of a person immune from damages for harm caused? That a state could be so stupid they allow citizens to run over protestors with no criminal consequences is one thing, but can you legislate away responsibility for negligence? In a contract, yes, you can deny liability for ordinary negligence, but not gross negligence. But here's no contractual relationship between a protester and the driver of such a motor vehicle.  And I think any reasonably competent lawyer could argue that anyone who runs over a protester is guilty of more than ordinary negligence in any event.

Note that for the criminal liability they use the word 'unintentionally'. If you are on a highway and there are protesters on the road and you keep driving and run over people, intention seems pretty apparent.

[ThinkerX]

Things are looking grim in DC.  Anybody here in the middle of this mess?  Is this supposed to be 'inauguration ceremony' or an 'inauguration riot?'

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/police-protestors-clash-outside-press-club-building-in-dc/ar-AAm2AhJ?li=BBnb7Kz&ocid=msnclassic

 

Washington's Metropolitan Police Department clashed with anti-Donald Trump protestors Thursday night outside of the National Press Club building.

According to the eye witnesses, the police deployed tear gas in an attempt to disperse the protestors. A reporter for NBC4 said protestors also set off smoke devices, contributing to the atmosphere of chaos ahead of Friday's ceremonies.

Police have reportedly made several arrests.

The group Refuse Fascism organized the protest outside of the DeploraBall, the LA Times reported, an event that gathered many of the white nationalist "alt-right" movement to celebrate the inauguration.

[all swedes are racist]

8 minutes ago, Fragile Bird said:

This is a quote from the bill in the story:

"A driver of a motor vehicle who negligently causes injury or death to an individual obstructing vehicular traffic on a public road, street, or highway may not be held liable for any damages," the bill reads. "A driver of a motor vehicle who  unintentionally causes injury or death to an individual obstructing vehicular traffic on a public road, street, or highway is not guilty of an offense."

Do you think that the US SC would agree that a state could make a negligent act that leads to bodily harm or death of a person immune from damages for harm caused? That a state could be so stupid they allow citizens to run over protestors with no criminal consequences is one thing, but can you legislate away responsibility for negligence? In a contract, yes, you can deny liability for ordinary negligence, but not gross negligence. But here's no contractual relationship between a protester and the driver of such a motor vehicle.  And I think any reasonably competent lawyer could argue that anyone who runs over a protester is guilty of more than ordinary negligence in any event.

Note that for the criminal liability they use the word 'unintentionally'. If you are on a highway and there are protesters on the road and you keep driving and run over people, intention seems pretty apparent.

hah. from the intercept article I posted in the protest thread:

Although the bill ostensibly requires drivers to have acted “negligently” or accidentally in killing a protestor, the bill’s co-sponsor, Republican state Rep. Keith Kempenich, has said that some accidents might occur if motorists “punched the accelerator rather than the brakes,” according to the Bismarck Tribune.

[ThinkerX]

From South Dakota to Indiana  (or was it North Dakota) :

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/indiana-bill-would-allow-police-to-shut-down-protests-by-any-means-necessary/ar-AAm07tr?li=BBnbcA1&ocid=msnclassic

Quote

A bill that would require public officials in Indiana to dispatch law enforcement swiftly to remove any protesters blocking traffic by “any means necessary” prompted uproar on Wednesday.

Opponents of the bill, introduced by a Republican state senator, rushed to the general assembly in Indianapolis on Wednesday afternoon to attend a hearing for the legislation, arguing that it could give a green light to the police to shut down protests harshly “even to the point of costing lives”.[/quote]

Guy that introduced it seems to be a bit of a nutcase -

Quote

The legislation was introduced by Republican senator Jim Tomes, who is known for his conservative agenda. His efforts have included making it

easier for drunk drivers to get a gun license and a proposal to jail transgender people for up to a year if they are caught using public bathrooms matching their gender identity instead of the gender on their birth certificate.

This could go national, given the republican majorities ... and the nastier provisions of the Patriot Act.

 

 

[Altherion]

2 minutes ago, Fragile Bird said:

Uh, wait a second here. If Perry was so knowledgeable about the DoE, why did he call for the department to be eliminated when he was running for the Republican nomination?

Why, in his confirmation hearing, did he apologize for what he said? Why, when he was asked about the rest of the Republicans who called for the DoE being eliminated pressing him in his role to eliminate the DoE, did he say he hoped those people would also forget what they had said about shutting down the department.

To the first question, presumably because he wanted to shift control of nuclear matters to the DoD. To the second, because obviously he wants this job now and having argued for the elimination of the department he is to lead is not a point in his favor.

12 minutes ago, Fragile Bird said:

What McKenna said seems fairly unambiguous: McKenna told the Times, “If you asked him on that first day he said yes, he would have said, ‘I want to be an advocate for energy,'” The energy lobbyist added, “If you asked him now, he’d say, ‘I’m serious about the challenges facing the nuclear complex.’ It’s been a learning curve.”

McKenna had stepped down from the leadership of the DoE transition team long before Perry had been selected so it's hard to see how he can know what Perry would have said. We have the first thing that Perry did publicly say and it's pretty far from what the NYT article claims. We also have evidence that Perry worked with more than just gas and coal during his time as Governor of Texas. What Perry was thinking on the first day is unknowable except to himself, but given the things we actually have evidence of, the NYT article is not plausible.

[BloodRider]

1 hour ago, Squab said:

In relation to state laws, I see republican lawmakers in North Dakota have proposed a law that could turn roads into life size bowling alleys. I see no reason why this wouldn't pass, none whatsoever.

I'm going driving all around the Bundy ranch if this gets passed, and they protest again.  Gonna get me a bus like Clint had in "Gauntlet".

[Martell Spy]

Quote

Fox doesn't seem to think they are overestimating the number of people who like to hear from a former vice president and former House speaker who was convicted of a crime on the politics of a formerly current one.

I didn't post that.

[Martell Spy]

Quote

 

 In a detailed account of intra-Republican wrangling over the future of Obamacare, Yuval Levin reports that “the conservative health-care universe, including some people on Trump’s own team, quickly concluded that the separate administration plan he described was entirely a figment of Trump’s imagination.”

Considering it doesn’t exist, Trump’s imaginary health care proposal has accomplished a great deal. For one, it has tempered the enthusiasm of congressional Republicans for unraveling Obamacare too quickly. It’s reminded them that the road to replacing Obamacare is fraught with peril for the GOP, and that “insurance for everybody” is a message that appeals not just to Democrats but to a growing number of Republicans.

 

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2017/01/the_genius_of_donald_trump_s_nonexistent_plan_to_replace_obamacare.html

Donald Trump’s Plan to Replace Obamacare Does Not Exist

And yet, somehow, the president-elect’s proposed health care fix has already been a success.

 

http://www.vox.com/new-money/2017/1/19/14329138/mnuchin-trump-3-percent

Trump’s economic team is making a promise that might haunt them

Jeb Bush said he could do 4 percent. Is this guy saying Trump is inferior to Jeb?

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

49 minutes ago, Fragile Bird said:

This is a quote from the bill in the story:

"A driver of a motor vehicle who negligently causes injury or death to an individual obstructing vehicular traffic on a public road, street, or highway may not be held liable for any damages," the bill reads. "A driver of a motor vehicle who  unintentionally causes injury or death to an individual obstructing vehicular traffic on a public road, street, or highway is not guilty of an offense."

Do you think that the US SC would agree that a state could make a negligent act that leads to bodily harm or death of a person immune from damages for harm caused? That a state could be so stupid they allow citizens to run over protestors with no criminal consequences is one thing, but can you legislate away responsibility for negligence? In a contract, yes, you can deny liability for ordinary negligence, but not gross negligence. But here's no contractual relationship between a protester and the driver of such a motor vehicle.  And I think any reasonably competent lawyer could argue that anyone who runs over a protester is guilty of more than ordinary negligence in any event.

Note that for the criminal liability they use the word 'unintentionally'. If you are on a highway and there are protesters on the road and you keep driving and run over people, intention seems pretty apparent.

If attacked the best line would be "substantive due process" unde the 14th amendment.  No resident of the United States may be deprived of "Life, Liberty, or Property" without "due process of law".  Allowing people to ride down protesters is a deprivation of life without due process.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

1 hour ago, DunderMifflin said:

Anyone think Obama and Trumps campaign slogans seem to fit each other better.

Make America Great Again - I'd argue that many areas were returned to great status during Obama's  terms

Change We Need - a lot of change has already happened before Trump even takes office.

Or perhaps...

https://ih0.redbubble.net/image.147009240.9765/flat,800x800,070,f.u1.jpg

[Fragile Bird]

A parting thought as I go to bed, courtesy of Don Lemon on CNN: eight years ago tonight Barack Obama held a pre-inauguration dinner party for John McCain, where he called him an American hero and thanked him for his service to the nation.

Something not done this year.

[karaddin]

3 hours ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Legalizing murder.  That's sound government right there.

Well you can't expect them to take care of all the protesters just with the heavy military weapons they've got at the DAPL protests after all, especially when the anti-drone missile battery isn't loaded - its just cheaper to use than binoculars or some other dedicated surveillance unit.

[Altherion]

With only hours now from Trump taking office, here is a Time article with some possible actions for his first day:

Quote

Behind in the polls in late October, Donald Trump ventured to Gettysburg, Pennsylvania, to give American voters a “contract” detailing what he would achieve during his first day in office. Beneath a list of 18 major actions was the flourish of Trump’s familiar signature and a blank space for voters to sign.

...

A look at 10 of the key promises Trump made for his first day as President:

—Introduce a constitutional amendment for congressional term limits.

—Freeze hiring for the federal government to reduce payrolls, although the military, public safety and public health agencies would be exempt.

—Ban White House and congressional officials from becoming lobbyists for five years after they leave the government.

—Announce plans to renegotiate the North American Free Trade Agreement with Canada and Mexico or withdraw from the deal.

—Formally withdraw from the Trans-Pacific Partnership.

—Lift restrictions on mining coal and drilling for oil and natural gas.

—Remove any Obama-era roadblocks to energy projects such as the Keystone XL pipeline.

—Cancel U.S. payments to U.N. climate change programs and redirect the money to U.S. water and environmental infrastructure.

—Stop all federal funding to “sanctuary cities,” places where local officials don’t arrest or detain immigrants living in the country illegally for federal authorities.

—Suspend immigration from regions associated with terrorism where vetting is difficult.

It will be interesting to see which of these he chooses to focus on and which ones he'll quietly drop or weasel out of.

[Kalbear]

4 hours ago, Rippounet said:

Ouch. That's really bad. First the Washington Post, now the New York Times. At a time when such papers should be very careful to be exemplary.

Edit: though, to be fair, "mischaracterization" can mean many things... But they still shouldn't have used McKenna's quote as a headline. Worst-case scenario, they might even have been tricked.

If you read Rick Perry's and the great again statement it's not nearly as mischaracterizing as Altherion makes it out to be. In about 500 words both Trump and Perry mention nuclear issues in any form precisely once - in that sentence that was quoted. 

His hearing - where he had to apologize for saying he wanted to eliminate the department as his first statement, and apologize again for forgetting the department even existed - doesn't make it much better, either. 

ETA: mixed up random conservative Trump supporters

[Kalbear]

The actual NYTimes article isn't nice to Perry, but it's also not lying either. One person reported on the record that Perry didn't know what the department was about - and there's no particular indication that Perry knew what it was about at any point to any large degree. It also goes on to state that Perry is somewhat qualified given his record as governor. 

Now, what's even better is that during Perry's actual hearing, Perry had no fucking clue that Trump and sources had announced massive cutting of the department that he was supposedly going to run, saying that you shouldn't believe everything on the internet, and that perhaps they'll just forget it. 

Of the cabinet so far Perry was one of the more impressive candidates I've heard or read reports on. (Admittedly not a high bar). He actually knew what the department does, knew why they do it, could illustrate good examples of basically every single aspect of it, and spoke of the needs it had and the challenges it faced. I believe him when he said he'd support renewables, because he did so previously in Texas. I believe him when he said he'd support R&D, because he saw the benefits in Texas and added to them.

However, it's also clear that he appears to be significantly out of the loop with respect to planning and authority, and it's not particularly clear how he's going to save those budgets. 

[Altherion]

7 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

The actual NYTimes article isn't nice to Perry, but it's also not lying either. One person reported on the record that Perry didn't know what the department was about - and there's no particular indication that Perry knew what it was about at any point to any large degree.

If you mean McKenna, then he claims that they misinterpreted him:

Quote

The New York Times interpreted a quote from a former Trump transition official to mean that Rick Perry, President-elect Donald Trump’s pick for secretary of energy, didn’t fully grasp the role of the Department of Energy.

That former transition official, Michael McKenna, told The Daily Caller Wednesday that the Times misinterpreted him and Perry “of course” understood that a key role of the Department of Energy is caring for the nation’s nuclear arsenal.

...

McKenna, though, told TheDC that the “headline” and lede of the story “don’t really reflect what I said.” He added that “of course” Perry understood the role of the Department of Energy when he was offered the job. Two-thirds of the DOE’s budget is devoted to maintaining the nation’s nuclear stockpiles. The nation’s primary site for the assembly and disassembly of  nuclear weapons is located in Amarillo, Texas, a state Perry was governor of for 14 years.

You're not going to win this one -- that NYT story just isn't true (although the NYT now appears to be claiming some unnamed highly placed officials as references).

[Martell Spy]

LGBTQ Protesters Threw a Huge Dance Party in Front of Mike Pence’s House Wednesday Night

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2017/01/19/lgbtq_dance_party_outside_of_mike_pence_s_house.html

[drawkcabi]

All this week I've been having nightmares about Trump's presidency. This is totally true.

In one dream I dreamt after Friday there was huge weather crisis causing breakdown of all governmental systems, oil shortages, food shortages, energy shortages.

In another I dreamt that terrorists had created a biological weapon, these insects that looked like horses the size of grasshoppers and released them in the U.S. Millions of them would swarm over people killing them. In that dream I remember going to Trump and saying "I didn't vote for you, I have no faith in you, but I wish you all the luck in dealing with this mess". Then I turned to Pence and said "I wish you luck too when you're President in a few weeks."

In another weird dream I dreamt that my father had become President in a campaign just like Trump did. Now it was up to ME to keep him straight on matters. Like in real life I'm always reminding him to take his medicine, turn off his space heater, turn off lights, things like that. In the dream I go and see my dad walking around with no secret service. I call and say "What kind of organization are you running?!! There's no one here watching over my dad!" and I learn that most of the competent Secret Service resigned/retired after Obama left office. I finally get a security agent to watch him, but then my dad wanders to a different part of the house and I have to go find that agent and ask why he isn't being followed and the agent replies "You mean I got follow him around too?!!"