Club PA 2.0 has arrived! If you'd like to access some extra PA content and help support the forums, check it out at patreon.com/ClubPA
The image size limit has been raised to 1mb! Anything larger than that should be linked to. This is a HARD limit, please do not abuse it.
Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

The Trump Administration

13567100

Posts

  • tbloxhamtbloxham Registered User regular
    Mr Khan wrote: »
    If the credit card solution is their aim, then the current system people get out-of-state CCW licenses (because many, like Utah's, are accepted in many states), but you would still have to prove that you hold a CCW in some state, unless there's a state that has no licensing whatsoever, then you would have to prove that you're a resident of that state to have that rule apply.

    I guess, so forcing states to give reciprocity agreements to other states which effectively had no rules at all? The gun is still there in those states though. So what would stop California saying, "OK, you can have your concealed carry permit. You're totally allowed to do it. Unfortunately here's a new law which says that no-one can drive a car while there's a gun in it."

    "That is cool" - Abraham Lincoln
    GaddezGiggles_Funsworth
  • DarkewolfeDarkewolfe Registered User regular
    tbloxham wrote: »
    TryCatcher wrote: »
    The world still rotates, and the NC GOP still moves:
    WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, U.S. Representative Richard Hudson (NC-08) released the following statement after introducing the bipartisan Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017 (H.R. 38) with 58 original cosponsors:

    “Our Second Amendment right doesn’t disappear when we cross state lines, and this legislation guarantees that. The Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017 is a common sense solution to a problem too many Americans face. It will provide law-abiding citizens the right to conceal carry and travel freely between states without worrying about conflicting state codes or onerous civil suits. As a member of President-elect Trump’s Second Amendment Coalition, I look forward to working with my colleagues and the administration to get this legislation across the finish line.”
    Team Trump getting started up with their own legislation priorities.

    This confuses me. How can the federal government force a state to obey another states laws? I can see how they could pass a federal concealed carry law, and say "This now applies", but even that is challenging since the state governments aren't saying that something illegal is legal, but that something legal elsewhere is illegal here. Going beyond federal regulations is fully within the purview of state governments.

    And again, I just do not think California and other blue states (where everyone who cares about gun control actually lives) will accept this. If it went through, I could see California banning holsters. Or coats. Or any gun with rifling.

    Read up on what happened with credit cards - the feds said that the card issuer's home state laws would apply.

    Hence why every credit card comes out of either Delaware or South Dakota.

    Interstate commerce, basically.

    What is this I don't even.
  • Jealous DevaJealous Deva Registered User regular
    edited January 2017
    tbloxham wrote: »
    tbloxham wrote: »
    TryCatcher wrote: »
    The world still rotates, and the NC GOP still moves:
    WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, U.S. Representative Richard Hudson (NC-08) released the following statement after introducing the bipartisan Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017 (H.R. 38) with 58 original cosponsors:

    “Our Second Amendment right doesn’t disappear when we cross state lines, and this legislation guarantees that. The Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017 is a common sense solution to a problem too many Americans face. It will provide law-abiding citizens the right to conceal carry and travel freely between states without worrying about conflicting state codes or onerous civil suits. As a member of President-elect Trump’s Second Amendment Coalition, I look forward to working with my colleagues and the administration to get this legislation across the finish line.”
    Team Trump getting started up with their own legislation priorities.

    This confuses me. How can the federal government force a state to obey another states laws? I can see how they could pass a federal concealed carry law, and say "This now applies", but even that is challenging since the state governments aren't saying that something illegal is legal, but that something legal elsewhere is illegal here. Going beyond federal regulations is fully within the purview of state governments.

    And again, I just do not think California and other blue states (where everyone who cares about gun control actually lives) will accept this. If it went through, I could see California banning holsters. Or coats. Or any gun with rifling.

    Read up on what happened with credit cards - the feds said that the card issuer's home state laws would apply.

    Hence why every credit card comes out of either Delaware or South Dakota.

    So they would try and make the gun manufacturers home state laws apply? Because if they try and say, "Oh, the home state laws on your drivers license apply" and then try and let everyone pretend to be from Louisiana then that's totally something that California could crack down on since it has tax implications. And voting implications.

    It just doesn't seem to work as well with guns, which are owned by people, than with Credit cards which are owned by banks.

    I think the point would be that place of residence would apply. So california could ban people from california from concealed carry but someone from texas could carry even in california.

    Which might fly under interstate commerce.

    Edit: I did not realize nonresidents of Utah could get Utah CCWs though, that is insane and would be a giant loophole.

    Jealous Deva on
  • rockrngerrockrnger Registered User regular
    tbloxham wrote: »
    Mr Khan wrote: »
    If the credit card solution is their aim, then the current system people get out-of-state CCW licenses (because many, like Utah's, are accepted in many states), but you would still have to prove that you hold a CCW in some state, unless there's a state that has no licensing whatsoever, then you would have to prove that you're a resident of that state to have that rule apply.

    I guess, so forcing states to give reciprocity agreements to other states which effectively had no rules at all? The gun is still there in those states though. So what would stop California saying, "OK, you can have your concealed carry permit. You're totally allowed to do it. Unfortunately here's a new law which says that no-one can drive a car while there's a gun in it."

    The Supreme Court

  • PhyphorPhyphor Building Planet Busters Tasting FruitRegistered User regular
    PantsB wrote: »
    KetBra wrote: »
    Enc wrote: »
    Mr Khan wrote: »
    Gundi wrote: »
    TryCatcher wrote: »
    OptimusZed wrote: »
    I think California is just looking for every available way to flip the bird to the incoming adminstration.

    They really want to be the city on the hill, beset by the Trumpian hordes.

    What's sad is that Calexit means that the state inmediatly gets a visit from the Chinese Navy looking to annex a new colony.

    States can't leave the union. Period.

    The notion of that always bothered me from a legal perspective, despite being a fierce anti-Confederate myself. You'd figure if a majority of state delegations voted to allow a state to leave, then that would constitute mutual consent or something. I could easily see conservatives being behind that in theory, on the mistaken assumption that the blue states are the takers, so if a blue state wanted out a majority of state delegations could be pushed to approve.

    I get that the legal standard doesn't exist for that, but it should. No union should be binding in perpetuity since all government comes from consent, even if a small-l liberal view of secessionism goes to dangerous places (whether for the ulterior motives of secessionists or just to prevent large, functional states from becoming a nest of small, weak countries that have less of an ability to provide for their citizens).

    One state leaving damages all the states with the repercussion. It's to prevent some tiny state like Vermont from destabilizing a nation of hundreds of millions because of the short sighted extremism at the state capital.

    States can 100% leave, you would "just" need a constitutional amendment to do it

    Or at least consent of the federal government.

    This is the simplest way. The right to self determination exists under international law, so as long as the existing government accepted it it would be recognized internationally. The legality in this case is largely irrelevant because secession is a declaration that the laws of the state no longer apply. Plus if the legalities were all that mattered you would have remained in the British Empire

    Magic Box
    Academician Prokhor "Phyphor" Zakharov, Chief Scientist of China, Provost of the University of Planet - SE++ Megagame
    The EnderrockrngerHefflingmrondeauGiggles_Funsworth
  • TryCatcherTryCatcher Registered User regular
    More Congress action, this time from Rand Paul:

    And Omarosa got a job. Good for her:
    Washington (CNN)Omarosa Manigault will join President-elect Donald Trump's White House team in a role expected to focus on public engagement, a senior level transition source told CNN on Wednesday.

    The Trump team officially announced the hire in a statement Wednesday afternoon.

    Manigault, who prefers to go by only her first name, was a prominent African-American surrogate for Trump during his campaign and served as his campaign's director of African-American outreach.`

    Her title will be assistant to the President and director of communications for the Office of Public Liaison focusing on issues such as community outreach.

  • djmitchelladjmitchella Registered User regular
    edited January 2017
    The way that US law gets made always confuses me; I was trying to look up the credit card stuff mentioned above to see if I could work out what that meant, and found:
    Contents
    1 Introduction and votes
    2 Provisions
    2.1 Amendment on guns in national parks
    ...
    The Credit Cardholders' Bill of Rights includes several provisions aimed at limiting how credit card companies can charge consumers but does not include price controls, rate caps, or fee settings. . .

    . . .Gun rights advocates in the Senate, led by Tom Coburn (R-Okla) added an unrelated rider to the bill to prevent the Secretary of the Interior from enforcing any regulation that would prohibit an individual from possessing a firearm in any unit of the National Park System or the National Wildlife Refuge System.

    uh... what am I missing here about how this makes sense?


    (edit: the original thing seems to be http://www.creditcards.com/credit-card-news/marquette-interest-rate-usury-laws-credit-cards-1282.php and http://www.wisegeek.com/why-do-so-many-credit-card-companies-have-a-wilmington-delaware-address.htm)

    djmitchella on
  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    The way that US law gets made always confuses me; I was trying to look up the credit card stuff mentioned above to see if I could work out what that meant, and found:
    Contents
    1 Introduction and votes
    2 Provisions
    2.1 Amendment on guns in national parks
    ...
    The Credit Cardholders' Bill of Rights includes several provisions aimed at limiting how credit card companies can charge consumers but does not include price controls, rate caps, or fee settings. . .

    . . .Gun rights advocates in the Senate, led by Tom Coburn (R-Okla) added an unrelated rider to the bill to prevent the Secretary of the Interior from enforcing any regulation that would prohibit an individual from possessing a firearm in any unit of the National Park System or the National Wildlife Refuge System.

    uh... what am I missing here about how this makes sense?

    Google "Christmas tree bill" sometime, if you want to be depressed.

    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
    chrono_traveller
  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
    SpoitPLASo It Goesemp123OrcaMahnmutMan in the MistsShadowfireOghulkNo-QuarterAstaerethCommander ZoomGiggles_FunsworthJazzwanderingExtreaminatus14357jdarksunN1tSt4lkerHacksawchrono_travellerSquigie
  • DarkPrimusDarkPrimus Registered User regular
    The Ender wrote: »
    DoctorArch wrote: »
    PantsB wrote: »
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_inauguration_of_Barack_Obama
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_inauguration_of_Barack_Obama

    So crowds in 08 and 12 were estimated around 1.8 million and roughly 1 million. How many show for Trump's and how many of them are openly white nationalists?

    What's the over/under on someone or multiple people sneaking in Nazi flags and unfurling them during the inauguration?

    Spencer's crowd will be there. I'm skeptical that they would attempt to raise Nazi iconography; that ship sailed from the American fascist movement quite a long time ago. They'll probably try to generate a noteworthy Seig Heil! salute throughout the crowd, though.

    Why bother with a Nazi flag when the Confederate flag exists?

    wpyz0Y5.png
    Gamertag: PrimusD | Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
    CaedwyrmrondeaurockrngerSleepMagellGnome-InterruptusLovelyGennenalyse RuebenOrcaThe EnderMan in the MistsKetBraAistanDoctorArchTheDrifterPanda4Youdispatch.oshrykeCommander ZoomlonelyahavaMetzger MeisterMegaMekGiggles_FunsworthToxNightDragonYamiB.TransporterNobeard14357NijaN1tSt4lkerHacksawCommunistCowLeon2309chrono_travellerSquigie
  • TNTrooperTNTrooper Registered User regular

    Hopefully Graham and Flake join him.

    steam_sig.png
    CptKemziklonelyahavaGiggles_FunsworthSquigie
  • ShadowhopeShadowhope Baa. Registered User regular
    tbloxham wrote: »
    Mr Khan wrote: »
    If the credit card solution is their aim, then the current system people get out-of-state CCW licenses (because many, like Utah's, are accepted in many states), but you would still have to prove that you hold a CCW in some state, unless there's a state that has no licensing whatsoever, then you would have to prove that you're a resident of that state to have that rule apply.

    I guess, so forcing states to give reciprocity agreements to other states which effectively had no rules at all? The gun is still there in those states though. So what would stop California saying, "OK, you can have your concealed carry permit. You're totally allowed to do it. Unfortunately here's a new law which says that no-one can drive a car while there's a gun in it."

    Here's a better question: could New York or California issue a permit regarding abortion that allows women to have speedy access to abortions regardless of what state they're in at the time, or could they issue a permit allowing someone to be a registered abortion provider out of state to get around the inane regulations that red states are putting in place to squeeze out abortion clinics?

    Dinosaurs were made up by the CIA to discourage time travel.
    GaddezGiggles_FunsworthJazzminirhyderCalicaNobeardjdarksun
  • ImthebOHGODBEESImthebOHGODBEES Registered User regular
    Taramoor wrote: »
    Will Trump finally mint the Platinum coin?

    Which is more likely: "In Trump we Trust" or "In God we Trump"?

    E Pluribus Trump

    It's really pewter with a glass chip in it to look like a diamond. But he hands it to you from his own pocket, so that means it's suuuuuper valuable, right?

    Do you, in fact, have any builds in this shop at all?
    Giggles_FunsworthToxSquigie
  • QuidQuid I don't... what... hnnng Registered User regular
    DarkPrimus wrote: »
    The Ender wrote: »
    DoctorArch wrote: »
    PantsB wrote: »
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_inauguration_of_Barack_Obama
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_inauguration_of_Barack_Obama

    So crowds in 08 and 12 were estimated around 1.8 million and roughly 1 million. How many show for Trump's and how many of them are openly white nationalists?

    What's the over/under on someone or multiple people sneaking in Nazi flags and unfurling them during the inauguration?

    Spencer's crowd will be there. I'm skeptical that they would attempt to raise Nazi iconography; that ship sailed from the American fascist movement quite a long time ago. They'll probably try to generate a noteworthy Seig Heil! salute throughout the crowd, though.

    Why bother with a Nazi flag when the Confederate flag exists?

    Well it's embarrassing to wave a white flag.

    OatsGaddezPLAGennenalyse RuebenOrcaThe EnderEriosMan in the MistsForarTheDrifterMrVyngaardNo-QuartershrykelonelyahavaMetzger MeisterGiggles_FunsworthToxNightDragonAlanF5wanderingYoshisummonsTransporterNobeardNijaN1tSt4lkerHacksawchrono_travellerSquigie
  • tbloxhamtbloxham Registered User regular
    Shadowhope wrote: »
    tbloxham wrote: »
    Mr Khan wrote: »
    If the credit card solution is their aim, then the current system people get out-of-state CCW licenses (because many, like Utah's, are accepted in many states), but you would still have to prove that you hold a CCW in some state, unless there's a state that has no licensing whatsoever, then you would have to prove that you're a resident of that state to have that rule apply.

    I guess, so forcing states to give reciprocity agreements to other states which effectively had no rules at all? The gun is still there in those states though. So what would stop California saying, "OK, you can have your concealed carry permit. You're totally allowed to do it. Unfortunately here's a new law which says that no-one can drive a car while there's a gun in it."

    Here's a better question: could New York or California issue a permit regarding abortion that allows women to have speedy access to abortions regardless of what state they're in at the time, or could they issue a permit allowing someone to be a registered abortion provider out of state to get around the inane regulations that red states are putting in place to squeeze out abortion clinics?

    Which is why I'm concerned that issues like this are what is going to tear this country apart over the next 4 years. If California is simply dictated to by Louisiana on all issues (IE, Louisiana gets to set gun laws for its recipients regardless of where they are, California can't license its doctors in Louisiana) then what is the purpose of California remaining in the union?

    "States cannot leave" is a paper tiger. It has the exact value that California allows it to have, and that the federal Government works with California to give it. Its like saying laws against crime mean there can't be any crime. The federal government can't invade California, California can't fight the federal government, but what will California do when its citizens are being assaulted by the federal government, and its state government has overwhelming support to just ignore these regulations.

    "That is cool" - Abraham Lincoln
  • ShivahnShivahn Unaware of her barrel shifter privilege Eastern coastal temptressRegistered User regular
    edited January 2017
    Quid wrote: »
    DarkPrimus wrote: »
    The Ender wrote: »
    DoctorArch wrote: »
    PantsB wrote: »
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_inauguration_of_Barack_Obama
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_inauguration_of_Barack_Obama

    So crowds in 08 and 12 were estimated around 1.8 million and roughly 1 million. How many show for Trump's and how many of them are openly white nationalists?

    What's the over/under on someone or multiple people sneaking in Nazi flags and unfurling them during the inauguration?

    Spencer's crowd will be there. I'm skeptical that they would attempt to raise Nazi iconography; that ship sailed from the American fascist movement quite a long time ago. They'll probably try to generate a noteworthy Seig Heil! salute throughout the crowd, though.

    Why bother with a Nazi flag when the Confederate flag exists?

    Well it's embarrassing to wave a white flag.

    Q

    Quid

    This is amazing

    Edit for actual question and substance: do we need a federal law to make that gun thing matter? Or is there precedent? I get what's going on, I think, but I'm not sure how it's supposed to.. matter, given that people will be held in Californian jail awaiting Californian courts to judge on California law if something like the gun thing happens.

    Shivahn on
  • TaramoorTaramoor Registered User regular
    tbloxham wrote: »
    Shadowhope wrote: »
    tbloxham wrote: »
    Mr Khan wrote: »
    If the credit card solution is their aim, then the current system people get out-of-state CCW licenses (because many, like Utah's, are accepted in many states), but you would still have to prove that you hold a CCW in some state, unless there's a state that has no licensing whatsoever, then you would have to prove that you're a resident of that state to have that rule apply.

    I guess, so forcing states to give reciprocity agreements to other states which effectively had no rules at all? The gun is still there in those states though. So what would stop California saying, "OK, you can have your concealed carry permit. You're totally allowed to do it. Unfortunately here's a new law which says that no-one can drive a car while there's a gun in it."

    Here's a better question: could New York or California issue a permit regarding abortion that allows women to have speedy access to abortions regardless of what state they're in at the time, or could they issue a permit allowing someone to be a registered abortion provider out of state to get around the inane regulations that red states are putting in place to squeeze out abortion clinics?

    Which is why I'm concerned that issues like this are what is going to tear this country apart over the next 4 years. If California is simply dictated to by Louisiana on all issues (IE, Louisiana gets to set gun laws for its recipients regardless of where they are, California can't license its doctors in Louisiana) then what is the purpose of California remaining in the union?

    "States cannot leave" is a paper tiger. It has the exact value that California allows it to have, and that the federal Government works with California to give it. Its like saying laws against crime mean there can't be any crime. The federal government can't invade California, California can't fight the federal government, but what will California do when its citizens are being assaulted by the federal government, and its state government has overwhelming support to just ignore these regulations.

    You're misrepresenting things here.

    Louisiana is Real America.

    California is fake, liberal, elitist America.

    Panda4YouGiggles_FunsworthMagell
  • tbloxhamtbloxham Registered User regular
    edited January 2017
    Taramoor wrote: »
    tbloxham wrote: »
    Shadowhope wrote: »
    tbloxham wrote: »
    Mr Khan wrote: »
    If the credit card solution is their aim, then the current system people get out-of-state CCW licenses (because many, like Utah's, are accepted in many states), but you would still have to prove that you hold a CCW in some state, unless there's a state that has no licensing whatsoever, then you would have to prove that you're a resident of that state to have that rule apply.

    I guess, so forcing states to give reciprocity agreements to other states which effectively had no rules at all? The gun is still there in those states though. So what would stop California saying, "OK, you can have your concealed carry permit. You're totally allowed to do it. Unfortunately here's a new law which says that no-one can drive a car while there's a gun in it."

    Here's a better question: could New York or California issue a permit regarding abortion that allows women to have speedy access to abortions regardless of what state they're in at the time, or could they issue a permit allowing someone to be a registered abortion provider out of state to get around the inane regulations that red states are putting in place to squeeze out abortion clinics?

    Which is why I'm concerned that issues like this are what is going to tear this country apart over the next 4 years. If California is simply dictated to by Louisiana on all issues (IE, Louisiana gets to set gun laws for its recipients regardless of where they are, California can't license its doctors in Louisiana) then what is the purpose of California remaining in the union?

    "States cannot leave" is a paper tiger. It has the exact value that California allows it to have, and that the federal Government works with California to give it. Its like saying laws against crime mean there can't be any crime. The federal government can't invade California, California can't fight the federal government, but what will California do when its citizens are being assaulted by the federal government, and its state government has overwhelming support to just ignore these regulations.

    You're misrepresenting things here.

    Louisiana is Real America.

    California is fake, liberal, elitist America.

    Yeah, sure, to Donald Trump, but not to the government of California. If Trump says 'Goose you California and New York', and doesn't do anything to indicate any level of care for their citizens then how long do you think "You can't leave! We're da boss! GO GOP!" will hold up?

    edit - Heck, Screw California, what about Hawaii? California is Louisiana compared to Hawaii. Voted like 90% democrat. Minority majority. Whats going to keep them around.

    tbloxham on
    "That is cool" - Abraham Lincoln
  • MuddBuddMuddBudd Registered User regular
    Taramoor wrote: »
    tbloxham wrote: »
    Shadowhope wrote: »
    tbloxham wrote: »
    Mr Khan wrote: »
    If the credit card solution is their aim, then the current system people get out-of-state CCW licenses (because many, like Utah's, are accepted in many states), but you would still have to prove that you hold a CCW in some state, unless there's a state that has no licensing whatsoever, then you would have to prove that you're a resident of that state to have that rule apply.

    I guess, so forcing states to give reciprocity agreements to other states which effectively had no rules at all? The gun is still there in those states though. So what would stop California saying, "OK, you can have your concealed carry permit. You're totally allowed to do it. Unfortunately here's a new law which says that no-one can drive a car while there's a gun in it."

    Here's a better question: could New York or California issue a permit regarding abortion that allows women to have speedy access to abortions regardless of what state they're in at the time, or could they issue a permit allowing someone to be a registered abortion provider out of state to get around the inane regulations that red states are putting in place to squeeze out abortion clinics?

    Which is why I'm concerned that issues like this are what is going to tear this country apart over the next 4 years. If California is simply dictated to by Louisiana on all issues (IE, Louisiana gets to set gun laws for its recipients regardless of where they are, California can't license its doctors in Louisiana) then what is the purpose of California remaining in the union?

    "States cannot leave" is a paper tiger. It has the exact value that California allows it to have, and that the federal Government works with California to give it. Its like saying laws against crime mean there can't be any crime. The federal government can't invade California, California can't fight the federal government, but what will California do when its citizens are being assaulted by the federal government, and its state government has overwhelming support to just ignore these regulations.

    You're misrepresenting things here.

    Louisiana is Real America.

    California is fake, liberal, elitist America.

    I hope they enjoy the fake, liberal, elitist food. :P

    In all seriousness, we're a huge chunk of the economy and also produce like, 80-90% of a BUNCH of the nations produce. (not just avocados and almonds)

    We've got some leverage.

    steam_sig.png
    Giggles_Funsworth
  • CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited January 2017
    http://www.wsj.com/articles/lawmakers-officials-frown-on-donald-trumps-dismissal-of-u-s-intelligence-1483554450
    Donald Trump Plans Revamp of Top U.S. Spy Agency
    WASHINGTON—President-elect Donald Trump, a harsh critic of U.S. intelligence agencies, is working with top advisers on a plan that would restructure and pare back the nation’s top spy agency, people familiar with the planning said, prompted by a belief that the Office of the Director of National Intelligence has become bloated and politicized.
    Trump will only consider intelligence agencies not politicized when they are completely politicized in his favor (Comey's letter is not political while not prosecuting Clinton is political), so that really worries me.

    Paring down intelligence agencies would provide plenty of opportunities for getting rid of dissent that might reach conclusions the administration doesn't like.

    Couscous on
    Panda4YouCommander ZoomMegaMekGiggles_FunsworthKayne Red RobeNobeardjdarksunN1tSt4lkerMagellLeon2309Squigie
  • PLAPLA The process.Registered User regular
    Coinage wrote: »
    I mean sure oppose it because if you give an inch they'll take a mile, but concealed carry is really not a big deal.

    The issue isn't concealed carry. The issue is that they're doing the same thing they did to credit cards - kneecapping local regulations by forcing states to have to accept the lowest common denominator.

    The sovereignty of states is only propped up in the first place to let republicans get away with things. It doesn't apply when it would inconvenience them.

    SleepDoodmannDarkPrimusLovelykimeGennenalyse RuebenArdolIncenjucarHakkekageGnome-Interruptusemp123AistanHarry DresdenMrVyngaarddispatch.oshrykeSpoitMegaMekGiggles_FunsworthToxminirhyderNobeardjdarksunN1tSt4lkerHacksawMagellLeon2309Squigie
  • DedwrekkaDedwrekka What Would Nyarlathotep Do? Registered User regular
    Couscous wrote: »
    http://www.wsj.com/articles/lawmakers-officials-frown-on-donald-trumps-dismissal-of-u-s-intelligence-1483554450
    Donald Trump Plans Revamp of Top U.S. Spy Agency
    WASHINGTON—President-elect Donald Trump, a harsh critic of U.S. intelligence agencies, is working with top advisers on a plan that would restructure and pare back the nation’s top spy agency, people familiar with the planning said, prompted by a belief that the Office of the Director of National Intelligence has become bloated and politicized.
    Trump will only consider intelligence agencies not politicized when they are completely politicized in his favor (Comey's letter is not political while not prosecuting Clinton is political), so that really worries me.

    Damn you monkey's paw!

    ShadowhopeKetBraMrVyngaardCommander ZoomGiggles_Funsworth
  • GundiGundi Serious Bismuth Registered User regular
    I think if you think that California could ever leave without almost unanimous support for it in California and majority support in the US as a whole you're, uh, kidding yourself.

    The federal government would totally send in troops to literally occupy certain areas of California if they ever thought that California was really trying to do it. They would abolish California's government and set up a provisional one.

    Although I don't know why folks keep talking about California, Alaska is the only state in the entire United States that actually has a significant separatist political movement. (Varying between 5-30% at various points in history.) Last I checked less than 1% of California's population has ever considered secession as a real, actual for serious "we should do this" thing.

    EriosTryCatcherNobeard
  • PLAPLA The process.Registered User regular
    Queen Palin would be amazing.

    MrVyngaardGiggles_Funsworth
  • DoodmannDoodmann Registered User regular
    PLA wrote: »
    Coinage wrote: »
    I mean sure oppose it because if you give an inch they'll take a mile, but concealed carry is really not a big deal.

    The issue isn't concealed carry. The issue is that they're doing the same thing they did to credit cards - kneecapping local regulations by forcing states to have to accept the lowest common denominator.

    The sovereignty of states is only propped up in the first place to let republicans get away with things. It doesn't apply when it would inconvenience them.

    When is the last time a strong (I don't know what the right word here is) challenged the federal government in a general sense? Even in the civil war the states succeeding were not the economic powerhouses they thought they were.

    Giggles_Funsworth
  • hippofanthippofant ティンク Registered User regular
    edited January 2017
    Couscous wrote: »
    http://www.wsj.com/articles/lawmakers-officials-frown-on-donald-trumps-dismissal-of-u-s-intelligence-1483554450
    Donald Trump Plans Revamp of Top U.S. Spy Agency
    WASHINGTON—President-elect Donald Trump, a harsh critic of U.S. intelligence agencies, is working with top advisers on a plan that would restructure and pare back the nation’s top spy agency, people familiar with the planning said, prompted by a belief that the Office of the Director of National Intelligence has become bloated and politicized.
    Trump will only consider intelligence agencies not politicized when they are completely politicized in his favor (Comey's letter is not political while not prosecuting Clinton is political), so that really worries me.

    Paring down intelligence agencies would provide plenty of opportunities for getting rid of dissent that might reach conclusions the administration doesn't like.

    This is really the sort of shit you read about in history textbooks where a new monarch/emperor/czar decides on day 1 to purge the palace of everybody who disagrees with him and the nation subsequently collapses into dysfunction, with so-and-so being forever known as <Title> <Name> the Foolish for having executed the vizier/court advisor who'd been around forever and was the one man who knew how the country worked.

    hippofant on
    ShadowhopeMan in the MistsForarkimeKetBraOghulkMrVyngaardLovelyshrykeCommander ZoomMegaMekGiggles_FunsworthToxJazznaengwenAlanF5CalicaNobeardjdarksunHacksawMagellDisruptedCapitalistCommunistCowLeon2309Squigie
  • Mr KhanMr Khan Not Everyone WAHHHRegistered User regular
    Like with NATO, it's another thing where Trump's right for the wrong reasons. How to fix the intelligence agency quagmire is one of those things Presidents have been trying for a generation, and usually attempts to fix just make it worse (like when Bush's effort to reconcile interagency rivalries that had their role in causing 9/11 to get past the radar ended up creating an entire expensive new cabinet-level department).

    Similar to NATO, i'm sure any solution Trump devises will just make the problem worse.

    hippofantDarkPrimusCptKemzik
  • CantelopeCantelope Registered User regular
    I live in CA, and I would say the stronger secessionist movement is the northern half of the state wanting to separate from the southern half. Everything north of Sacramento would vote to leave as a state if they could, and how can you blame them? If your north of a certain area, the word redneck is a badge of honor, if your south of it, its a slur. We have radically different values.


    I don't think our society either understands the problem or can deal with it, which is that the values of different segments of the population are so radically opposed that they can't be governed by the same set of rules. For example, if you literally think abortion amounts to killing babies, then you are going to have a hard time being governed by a government that allows it to exist.


    I imagine one of two futures. One of which is that we allow states to have radically different freedoms available to their citizens, such that if you are liberal you are pretty much forced into a blue state to enjoy many freedoms you currently take for granted, and vis versa for Republicans. The other future is one where we have something akin to 8 year dictatorships. Each party upon gaining power uses it in ways not envisioned by the constitution to oppress the other party and its voters.


    People are making a mistake when they try to examine these issues from a purely logical point of view. What they should be doing is trying to understand what the values of the opposing side are, as the arguments that are being advanced by the other side only make sense in context of those values. This is why Democrats and Republicans cannot talk to each other. They have radically different values, or starting points for these discussions.


    If Trump does something that makes you unhappy you can blame Ford for pardoning Nixon. Once the president does something, it becomes legal. So it was only a matter of time till the power of the president was expanded to such a scope that it would become untenable. The president is above the law in our system of government, so why should the president have any fear of abusing it? When the Democrats had power, they didn't try to fix it, and when the Republicans had power, they didn't try to fix it. They each pointed out the abuses of the other party, and then pretended they had done nothing wrong when it was their turn to take power again.

    Calica
  • MuddBuddMuddBudd Registered User regular
    CA isn't going to leave. That's not happening short of a civil war.

    But we can do everything we can to resist the Trump/GOP agenda.

    steam_sig.png
    Commander ZoomGiggles_FunsworthDoodmannNobeardNijaLeon2309
  • nexuscrawlernexuscrawler Registered User regular
    difference is after Nixon presidents tried at least give an appearance of decency. Trump just gives zero fucks

    LovelyshrykeGiggles_FunsworthNobeardSquigie
  • gladapplegladapple Registered User new member
    edited January 2017
    Can the thread titles for these Trump threads be a little more creative?

    They've all just been bland and uninspired.

    Sorry if this is too meta.

    gladapple on
  • tbloxhamtbloxham Registered User regular
    MuddBudd wrote: »
    CA isn't going to leave. That's not happening short of a civil war.

    But we can do everything we can to resist the Trump/GOP agenda.

    Yes, but that argument only has the strength that both parties allow it to have. The federal government will want to ban abortions in all cases, possibly including rape. Do you genuinely believe California will obey that law if it passes?

    California cannot leave, the Federal Government cannot create a California that wants to leave, Trump and the Republicans seem intent on violating the second part of that bargain.

    "That is cool" - Abraham Lincoln
  • hippofanthippofant ティンク Registered User regular
    edited January 2017
    Mr Khan wrote: »
    Like with NATO, it's another thing where Trump's right for the wrong reasons. How to fix the intelligence agency quagmire is one of those things Presidents have been trying for a generation, and usually attempts to fix just make it worse (like when Bush's effort to reconcile interagency rivalries that had their role in causing 9/11 to get past the radar ended up creating an entire expensive new cabinet-level department).

    Similar to NATO, i'm sure any solution Trump devises will just make the problem worse.

    Well, I mean, if Trump being "right" is just his saying that something is good or bad, that's at worst a 50/50 shot. In practice, the odds are probably much better than that, since most things in the world are imperfect and subject to criticism.

    I mean, most people can highlight the fact that American manufacturing is in trouble. That's not hard. The problem is most of them get the reasoning wrong, so their plans to fix it are entirely wrong-headed. It's like medical quackery: yeah duh, the patient is sick, but it's not because their chakras are misaligned with retrograde Mercury.

    hippofant on
    Gnome-InterruptusGiggles_FunsworthSquigie
  • SurfpossumSurfpossum A nonentity trying to preserve the anonymity he so richly deserves.Registered User regular
    Cantelope wrote: »
    I imagine one of two futures. One of which is that we allow states to have radically different freedoms available to their citizens, such that if you are liberal you are pretty much forced into a blue state to enjoy many freedoms you currently take for granted, and vis versa for Republicans. The other future is one where we have something akin to 8 year dictatorships. Each party upon gaining power uses it in ways not envisioned by the constitution to oppress the other party and its voters.
    Yes, how could anyone possibly live with the oppression of being free to not have a single abortion, of being free to marry whomever they want, of being free to choose what to do with their life regardless of their gender or skin color, of being able to vote easily and conveniently.

    Just the thought of all that oppression makes me sick.

    At least use guns or taxes or something as your example.

    icon.png facebookIcon.png tumblrIcon.png
    is this how nations are born
    ShadowhopeEriosAngelHedgieQuidGnome-InterruptusMan in the MistskimerockrngerGennenalyse Ruebendispatch.oshrykeArdolMegaMekGiggles_FunsworthMagell
  • GoumindongGoumindong Registered User regular
    The way that US law gets made always confuses me; I was trying to look up the credit card stuff mentioned above to see if I could work out what that meant, and found:
    Contents
    1 Introduction and votes
    2 Provisions
    2.1 Amendment on guns in national parks
    ...
    The Credit Cardholders' Bill of Rights includes several provisions aimed at limiting how credit card companies can charge consumers but does not include price controls, rate caps, or fee settings. . .

    . . .Gun rights advocates in the Senate, led by Tom Coburn (R-Okla) added an unrelated rider to the bill to prevent the Secretary of the Interior from enforcing any regulation that would prohibit an individual from possessing a firearm in any unit of the National Park System or the National Wildlife Refuge System.

    uh... what am I missing here about how this makes sense?

    Google "Christmas tree bill" sometime, if you want to be depressed.

    Christmas tree bills, like earmarks, are often necessary to the functioning of government. It looks bad but its not really.

    wbBv3fj.png
    PotatoNinjalonelyahavaCalica
  • EclecticGrooveEclecticGroove Registered User regular
    hippofant wrote: »
    Couscous wrote: »
    http://www.wsj.com/articles/lawmakers-officials-frown-on-donald-trumps-dismissal-of-u-s-intelligence-1483554450
    Donald Trump Plans Revamp of Top U.S. Spy Agency
    WASHINGTON—President-elect Donald Trump, a harsh critic of U.S. intelligence agencies, is working with top advisers on a plan that would restructure and pare back the nation’s top spy agency, people familiar with the planning said, prompted by a belief that the Office of the Director of National Intelligence has become bloated and politicized.
    Trump will only consider intelligence agencies not politicized when they are completely politicized in his favor (Comey's letter is not political while not prosecuting Clinton is political), so that really worries me.

    Paring down intelligence agencies would provide plenty of opportunities for getting rid of dissent that might reach conclusions the administration doesn't like.

    This is really the sort of shit you read about in history textbooks where a new monarch/emperor/czar decides on day 1 to purge the palace of everybody who disagrees with him and the nation subsequently collapses into dysfunction, with so-and-so being forever known as <Title> <Name> the Foolish for having executed the vizier/court advisor who'd been around forever and was the one man who knew how the country worked.

    Trump has already expressed his liking of not only Putin, but Erdogan, so he's just taking plays from the playbook of people he admires.

    I'm sure he's got some things lined up from Duterte's playbook in the not too far off future as well.

    I don't think he will (or would be allowed) to go full Pol Pot, Hitler, or any such thing... But Trump's regime is likely to be quite a far ways away from pleasant.... unless you are a rich businessman or have fairly close ties to one. Then you're likely to be loving the next several years.

  • Harry DresdenHarry Dresden Registered User regular
    edited January 2017
    PLA wrote: »
    Queen Palin would be amazing.

    She'd quit within a month. Being Queen is hard work, doge.

    Harry Dresden on
    Panda4YouHacksawSquigie
  • KetBraKetBra FISTS OF JUSTICE! Registered User regular
    edited January 2017

    I dunno, I think you showed pretty convincingly over the last year that they will. In fact, they have every incentive to do so.

    KetBra on
    ohKiGmg.png
    Steam Bnet:KetBra#1692 Yo Satan
    ShadowfirekimeCptKemzikGennenalyse RuebenOrcaSpoitZomroNo-QuarterEtiowsaemp123TomantaForarGundishrykeRhesus PositiveQuidCommander ZoomArdollonelyahavaMetzger MeisterErlecVegemyteMegaMekBurnageGiggles_FunsworthToxShadowhopeJazzSleepKayne Red RobenaengwenwanderingMan in the MistsHexmage-PAExtreaminatusVeagleTransporterNobeardDedwrekkaFoolOnTheHilljdarksunN1tSt4lkerHacksawBlameless ClericRedTidejoshofalltradesglithertMagellvalianceCommunistCowLeon2309chrono_travellerchocoboliciousSquigie
  • HakkekageHakkekage Space Whore Academy summa cum laudeRegistered User regular
    3DS: 2165 - 6538 - 3417
    NNID: Hakkekage
    rockrngerSlacker1913kimeTNTrooperDarkPrimusGnome-Interruptusenlightenedbumdestroyah87Gennenalyse RuebenOrcaPanda4YouTetraRayZomroVoodooVdispatch.oLovelyMillCaptainPeacockemp123ForarGundishrykeCommander ZoomArdolAntoshkaOneAngryPossumRaiden333DaclonelyahavaMetzger MeisterErlecJohnny ChopsockyVegemytescherbchenBurnageGiggles_FunsworthToxShadowhopeUnluckyJazzSleepImthebOHGODBEESPLAnaengweniTunesIsEvilminirhyderAlanF5BloodsheedOatsMan in the MistsIncenjucarHexmage-PAExtreaminatusDoodmannKid PresentableVeagleTransporterCalicaNobeard14357DedwrekkaNijaFoolOnTheHilljdarksunN1tSt4lkerHacksawBlameless ClericRedTidejoshofalltradesglithertMagellvalianceSmrtnikCommunistCowLeon2309DrezSquigie
This discussion has been closed.