U.S. Politics - knowing me knowing you, a-haaa

[thecryptile]

What's your "gut feeling" on Cuccinelli's involvement with Star Scientific?

Friends give each other presents all the time. Cuccinelli just forgot to disclose all of them. The sums are really negligible. Cuccinelli's been very forthcoming with investigators. It's not like he's stonewalling.

[DanteGabriel]

Friends give each other presents all the time. Cuccinelli just forgot to disclose all of them. The sums are really negligible. Cuccinelli's been very forthcoming with investigators. It's not like he's stonewalling.

Heh, a sitting state Attorney General "forgets" to disclose lavish gifts from a "friend" who also happens to run a company that sued the state in 2011... And suddenly remembers he should maybe have disclosed them as his campaign for Governor heats up. And yeah, $18K in gifts is totally negligible. Okay. Sounds like a normal friendship to me.

[Mlle. Zabzie]

To an outsider both candidates sound pretty shady, actually. Awesome, you go, Virginia.

[DanteGabriel]

To an outsider both candidates sound pretty shady, actually. Awesome, you go, Virginia.

I had vague memories of fairly strong antipathy for McAuliffe, dating back to his days as one of Clinton's minions in the 2008 primaries. So he's not a shining star either.

[emberling]

And also curious, why don't the social issues for Cuccinelli bother you? Forget about the sodomy thing not passing muster at SCOTUS, do you not find it troubling that a sitting AG would make the disingenous consitutional arguments he is making regarding the validity of a statute?

Let's not forget, it's not just the sodomy laws - there's also his attempt to gut non-discrimination policies in Virginia colleges, where he argues that state universities don't have the legal right to protect sexual orientation and gender identity, on what sounds to me like nonexistent legal ground. It's not a matter of a quaint puritan futilely trying to reenact an outdated law - it's a matter of a man who thinks gays are icky and is willing to do what it takes to drive their ickiness out of Virginia.

Particularly eye-roll-inducing is this quote (not Cuccinelli himself, just a supporter):

I find it hard to believe that this would be the final straw in whether or not someone's going to come to Virginia's universities. They are some of the best universities in the country. I think they can stand on their own without this policy.

Sure. If by someone you mean someone who is not LGBT. Say I were planning on transitioning during college - no way in hell I'd go to a school that hadn't pledged to support that, if I had any choice in the matter.

[thecryptile]

emberling: I disagree, I think Cuccinelli is trying to protect the [First Amendment Rights] of religious students who disapprove of homosexuality on moral/religious grounds. He's not saying that gays shouldn't be allowed to go to college.

ETA: Current "anti-discrimination" policies could be used to expel a student for reading a Bible passage.

And yeah, $18K in gifts is totally negligible.

The amount that was undisclosed was around $7000 IIRC. Chump change really.

Okay. Sounds like a normal friendship to me.

Ken just has richer friends than you. Proportionate to income, it's like my buddy loaning me $20 for gas.

[Mlle. Zabzie]

emberling: I disagree, I think Cuccinelli is trying to protect the Freedom of Speech of religious students who disapprove of homosexuality on moral/religious grounds. He's not saying that gays shouldn't be allowed to go to college. The amount that was undisclosed was around $7000 IIRC. Chump change really. Ken just has richer friends than you. Proportionate to income, it's like my buddy loaning me $20 bucks for gas.

Actually, according to the wapo, he actually might be saying just that. From the article emberling linked:

"Colleges that have included such language in policies that govern university hiring and admissions -- which include all of Virginia's largest schools -- have done so "without proper authority" and should "take appropriate actions to bring their policies in conformance with the law and public policy of Virginia," Cuccinelli wrote." [bolded language added].

These are public universities we are talking about.

[Fez]

To an outsider both candidates sound pretty shady, actually. Awesome, you go, Virginia.

On the upside, with such material to work with, the debates, ads, stump speeches, etc. from both sides have been just mudslingingly brutal; which is kind of fun.

I suspect turnout will be rather low though; even lower than odd-year state elections usually are.

[Inigima]

The amount that was undisclosed was around $7000 IIRC. Chump change really. Ken just has richer friends than you. Proportionate to income, it's like my buddy loaning me $20 for gas.

It's really not.

[Shryke]

It remains possible to argue, at least at a semantic level, that the government is not engaged in domestic spying. We have been told time and again that there are safe-guards that require that one party to the communications be outside the United States. If we chose to trust the government that these safe-guards are applied consistently, then it is possible to still maintain that the there is no domestic spying.

I have several problems with this.

One, it requires trusting on government to be honest about matters it can shove under the heading of national security. Post 9/11 history would strongly suggest that its perfectly reasonable to assume that the government, if not out-right lying to us about National Security matters, is acting in a deceptive and misleading manner.

Two, there is not transparency. We are not actually able to verify that the government is applying the rules its says it operates under.

Three, what has been revealed by Snowden and others strongly suggests that these rules are regularly being disregarded.

Basically, rather there is a systematic program of domestic spying or not, the government is in a position that it can gather whatever information it wants on whoever it wants and then slap some form of legal justification on it if it actually takes action based off that information. If it helps you sleep better at night to believe that, based off the information we have, that the government is not engaged in domestic spying, you maybe still technically correct. To me though, we have reached a point where those fine distinctions have been blurred to the point that they no longer matter.

I think that's a good summation of the differences here. There's some lack of transparency going on here, but at the same time some of it is necessary. But mostly I've found little that indicates the government is stepping out of bounds on it's spying jobs to any consistent or systematic degree. I simply don't agree with your assessment of what we should assume about the US government's actions outside of the evidence we have.

Exactly. Harping on about the abscence of an official domestic surveilance program is missing the fact that given the way surveilance is carried out there is no difference between foreign and domestic.

"Harping on" is a rather funny way to describe "talking about the actual topic of discussion".

And from everything we've seen in the leaks and the official responses, there's a rather large difference between foreign and domestic communication here.

[Mlle. Zabzie]

On the upside, with such material to work with, the debates, ads, stump speeches, etc. from both sides have been just mudslingingly brutal; which is kind of fun.

I suspect turnout will be rather low though; even lower than odd-year state elections usually are.

Fair enough. On the other hand, I think the NYC circus (that I'm more involved in, cause I live there) is going to increase turnout.

[DanteGabriel]

Ken just has richer friends than you. Proportionate to income, it's like my buddy loaning me $20 for gas.

And I'm sure if it was a Democratic AG getting gifts like this, you'd feel the same...

[emberling]

emberling: I disagree, I think Cuccinelli is trying to protect the [First Amendment Rights] of religious students who disapprove of homosexuality on moral/religious grounds. He's not saying that gays shouldn't be allowed to go to college.

How does one [student's] safety and equal access to school services affect [any other student's] first amendment rights? Not one bit.

If you tried arguing that it's protecting the first amendment right of school teachers and staff to deny service to LGBT people, then you might have a point. But then you torpedo the argument that it probably won't matter because the schools probably won't discriminate anyway.

ETA: Current "anti-discrimination" policies could be used to expel a student for reading a Bible passage.

Presumably by 'reading a bible passage' you mean 'terrorizing a fellow student using words that happen to be from the Bible'? If not, source?

[Fez]

Fair enough. On the other hand, I think the NYC circus (that I'm more involved in, cause I live there) is going to increase turnout.

From what I can tell, the NYC races are fun, filled with characters; by contract the VA-Gov race is two uninspiring candidates with lots of baggage tearing into each other constantly. There's a reason the Libertarian is polling in the high single digits.

[thecryptile]

Actually, according to the wapo, he actually might be saying just that.

I'll have to do some research on that.

If he is saying that gays should be excluded from employment and admission; that is a very different position than protecting religious students' freedom of expression.

I suspect turnout will be rather low though; even lower than odd-year state elections usually are.

McAuliffe better hope for a good turn out. Low turn out favors Republicans.

And I'm sure if it was a Democratic AG getting gifts like this, you'd feel the same...

Believe it or not, I don't really give a shit about the gifts, regardless of party affiliation. They're all crooks to some degree. For me, gun rights are the real issue. If you're wrong about everything else, but right on guns- you've got my vote.

How does one [student's] safety and equal access to school services affect [any other student's] first amendment rights? Not one bit.

If students are prohibited from deviating from some sort of official pro-gay stance it interferes with their rights.

Presumably by 'reading a bible passage' you mean 'terrorizing a fellow student using words that happen to be from the Bible'?

I wouldn't advocate "terrorizing" anyone for any reason in an academic setting.

Say a LGBT group has a pro-gay marriage rally, a conservative student group should be able to organize a counterdemonstration without fear of official reprisals.

[Mlle. Zabzie]

From what I can tell, the NYC races are fun, filled with characters; by contract the VA-Gov race is two uninspiring candidates with lots of baggage tearing into each other constantly. There's a reason the Libertarian is polling in the high single digits.

Yeah, I love my state of birth, but yo, this is embarrassing. I am glad this is not a decision I have to make.

[DanteGabriel]

If students are prohibited from deviating from some sort of official pro-gay stance it interferes with their rights.

Is treating gay people like citizens with the same rights as everyone else a "pro gay" stance?

[Fez]

McAuliffe better hope for a good turn out. Low turn out favors Republicans.

Depends on who isn't turning out. There've been a couple articles in the Richmond Times Dispatch (can't find them right now) where they interviewed a bunch of small business owners who voted Republican last election who pretty consistently said that they don't like how far right Cucinelli is, particularly on social issues. But when they start thinking about MaAuliffe, they get worried that he'll start introducing new regulations.

If they just stay home, that really hurts Cuccinelli, since those are the sort of reliable voters Republicans need to show up to win. Virginia doesn't have enough evangelicals to push someone over the top.

[thecryptile]

Is treating gay people like citizens with the same rights as everyone else a "pro gay" stance?

No, of course not. Disapproving of homosexuality or homosexual marriage is very different from "f*g bashing" IMO. The former should be protected speech, the latter must be prohibited in a civil society.

Telling people they'll go to Hell if they don't change their ways isn't limited to gays. A religious believer can tell an atheist, an alcoholic, and/or an adulterer that they are Hell-bound. A religious believer should be able to say the same to a homosexual- without fear of official reprisals.

Depends on who isn't turning out.(...)

Virginia doesn't have enough evangelicals to push someone over the top.

True, but in my experience the older white men who form the backbone of the Republican Party are much more likely to get out and vote than the Democrats core constituency.

[Kouran]

Well I have to wonder since its a foreign intelligence gathering operation why we let Johnny Foreigners like Shryke into threads like this, since the thread contains keywords that will get flagged by NSA and since he is from Canada the NSA can spy on all of us in periphery to him.

Way to go Shryke thanks for getting the NSA to spy on us.

Ok thats in jest, but not really. How can anyone see what NSA is saying plus all the shit that comes on on a daily basis and still think this is okay in any way? Seriously this shit is worse than 1984 and we shouldnt stand for it, what about malware that is targeting peoples ID's on encrypted sites, just because they are encrypted and then the data is being reported back to a server whos IP is in Reston VA? Golly gee willikers Beeve I wonder who is on the other end of that server?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2013/08/05/a-bunch-of-tor-sites-spread-malware-was-the-fbi-behind-it/

Oh and since Raidne isnt registered for VA yet I'm totally voting a single block of Republicans since she cant offset my vote muaahhahahahaaa.

No not really since Cucinelli is nuttier than a squirrel turd.