• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

PoliGAF 2013 |OT1| Never mind, Wheeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

Status
Not open for further replies.
C

ClovingWestbrook

Banned
Welp

In a blow to Mark Sanford's attempt at political revival, the National Republican Congressional Committee has decided not to spend any more money in the former governor's bid for a congressional seat in South Carolina.

“Mark Sanford has proven he knows what it takes to win elections. At this time, the NRCC will not be engaged in this special election,” Andrea Bozek, an NRCC spokeswoman, told Politico.

Sanford's ex-wife, Jenny Sanford, accused him Tuesday of trespassing at her home resulting in a mandated appearance in court two days after the special election this summer. Sanford claimed Wednesday that he was in the home to watch the Super Bowl with his son.

“I did indeed watch the second half of the Super Bowl at the beach house with our 14-year-old son because as a father I didn’t think he should watch it alone,” Sanford said in a statement. “Given she was out of town I tried to reach her beforehand to tell her of the situation that had arisen, and met her at the back steps under the light of my cellphone when she returned and told her what had happened.”

Sanford faces Democrat Elizabeth Colbert Busch, sister of Comedy Central star Stephen Colbert, in a runoff on May 7.
Click to expand...
 
S

speculawyer

Member
Bishman said:
If Democrats can't use Hillary to get a sweep and majority, they should just give up now.
Click to expand...

The 2010 bloodbath and the gerrymandering redistricting that followed it have made it nearly impossible. Our government has largely been tied in knots since then. Nothing really substantive has changed since then and probably won't for a few years.
 
J

jamesinclair

Banned
Link said:
What am I looking at here?
Click to expand...

Obama deploying tanks. The Boston thing was just a cover for military deployment.





(CSX shipping tanks from a tank factory in PA to a base in GA. Picture taken from a DC metro station next to freight tracks. Glad to see the sequester hasnt affected the ability of the pentagon to waste billions)
 
C

ClovingWestbrook

Banned
jamesinclair said:
Obama deploying tanks. The Boston thing was just a cover for military deployment.





(CSX shipping tanks from a tank factory in PA to a base in GA. Picture taken from a DC metro station next to freight tracks. Glad to see the sequester hasnt affected the ability of the pentagon to waste billions)
Click to expand...

... oh stop. Are you arguing this was all a ruse or saying thats what the right wing believes?
 
J

jamesinclair

Banned
Fucking supreme court, are they trying to destroy this country?

The Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that police usually must try to obtain a search warrant from a judge before ordering blood tests for drunken-driving suspects.

The justices sided with a Missouri man who was subjected to a blood test without a warrant and found to have nearly twice the legal limit of alcohol in his blood.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote for the court that the natural dissipation of alcohol in the blood is generally not sufficient reason to jettison the requirement that police get a judge's approval before drawing a blood sample.

Missouri and the Obama administration were asking the court to endorse a blanket rule that would have allowed the tests without a warrant.

Eight of the nine justices rejected that plea. Only Justice Clarence Thomas would have held that a warrantless blood test does not violate a suspect's constitutional rights.

The case stemmed from the arrest of Tyler McNeely in Missouri's rural Cape Girardeau County. A state trooper stopped McNeely's speeding, swerving car. The driver, who had two previous drunken-driving convictions, refused to submit to a breath test to measure the alcohol level in his body.

He failed several field sobriety tests. The arresting officer, Cpl. Mark Winder of the Missouri State Highway Patrol, said McNeely's speech was slurred and he was unsteady on his feet.
Click to expand...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/17/supreme-court-dui-blood_n_3100551.html

Why am I agreeing with Thomas?

Yes, lets wait for a warrant so their blood level goes below .08.
 
N

NYCmetsfan

Banned
jamesinclair said:
Fucking supreme court, are they trying to destroy this country?



http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/17/supreme-court-dui-blood_n_3100551.html

Why am I agreeing with Thomas?

Yes, lets wait for a warrant so their blood level goes below .08.
Click to expand...

You can refuse a breath test in missouri?

Thats the problem. Make it so you can't refuses a breath test. If they fail you take them in and show the evidence he was drunk.

I like that ruling though, I don't want my blood drawn without a warrant.
 
P

pigeon

Banned
APKmetsfan said:
You can refuse a breath test in missouri?

Thats the problem. Make it so you can't refuses a breath test. If they fail you take them in and show the evidence he was drunk.
Click to expand...

I think you can refuse a breath test anywhere, but it's considered evidence that you might be drunk. I'm pretty sure you can refuse it in California.
 
C

Chichikov

Member
jamesinclair said:
Fucking supreme court, are they trying to destroy this country?



http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/17/supreme-court-dui-blood_n_3100551.html

Why am I agreeing with Thomas?

Yes, lets wait for a warrant so their blood level goes below .08.
Click to expand...
No, let's get a warrant so officers can't decide to do random blood tests whenever they feel like it.

If it takes too long to get a warrant, that's an issue we should address, but not by pooping on the 4th Amendment (edit: what Gotchaye said vvv).

Alternatively, you can make it illegal to refuse a breathalyzer, which is not ideal by any stretch of the imagination, but still miles better than what the DOJ is asking here.
Fuck you Eric Holder, of all the people in the Obama administration, you had to stay for a 2nd go?

And fuck you Clarence Thomas, you anti-American asshole.
 
G

Gotchaye

Member
jamesinclair said:
Fucking supreme court, are they trying to destroy this country?



http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/17/supreme-court-dui-blood_n_3100551.html

Why am I agreeing with Thomas?

Yes, lets wait for a warrant so their blood level goes below .08.
Click to expand...

So set up a process that enables quick judicial oversight. It should take about two minutes for a judge to review video of whatever the car was doing that led police to stop it and then five minutes to go through a video of officers' interaction with the driver, including field sobriety tests. Not wanting to bother with setting that up is not a good reason for a state to allow police officers to draw blood whenever they feel like it.
 
R

rocketknight

Member
For anyone on Team Kagan who might enjoy her hating on the conservative justices in a minority opinion:
Justice Elena Kagan said:
The Court today resolves an imaginary question, based on a mistake the courts below made about this case and others like it. The issue here, the majority tells us, is whether a “collective action” brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (FLSA) “is justiciable when the lone plaintiff’s individual claim becomes moot.” Embedded within that question is a crucial premise: that the individual claim has become moot, as the lower courts held and the majority assumes without deciding. But what if that premise is bogus? What if the plaintiff’s individual claim here never became moot? And what if, in addition, no similar claim for damages will ever become moot? In that event, the majority’s decision—founded as it is on an unfounded assumption—would have no real-world meaning or application. The decision would turn out to be the most one-off of one-offs, explaining only what (the majority thinks) should happen to a proposed collective FLSA action when something that in fact never happens to an individual FLSA claim is errantly thought to have done so. That is the case here, for reasons I’ll describe. Feel free to relegate the majority’s decision to the furthest reaches of your mind: The situation it addresses should never again arise.
Click to expand...
 
C

ClovingWestbrook

Banned
Chichikov said:
No, let's get a warrant so officers can't decide to do random blood tests whenever they feel like it.

If it takes too long to get a warrant, that's an issue we should address, but not by pooping on the 4th Amendment (edit: what Gotchaye said vvv).

Alternatively, you can make it illegal to refuse a breathalyzer, which is not ideal by any stretch of the imagination, but still miles better than what the DOJ is asking here.
Fuck you Eric Holder, of all the people in the Obama administration, you had to stay for a 2nd go?

And fuck you Clarence Thomas, you anti-American asshole.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Just because the system isn't perfect right now isn't reason enough to spit in the face of the 4th Amendment.
 
J

jamesinclair

Banned
APKmetsfan said:
You can refuse a breath test in missouri?

Thats the problem. Make it so you can't refuses a breath test. If they fail you take them in and show the evidence he was drunk.

I like that ruling though, I don't want my blood drawn without a warrant.
Click to expand...

How is forcing a breath test constitutional but a blood test not?
 
C

Chichikov

Member
jamesinclair said:
How is forcing a breath test constitutional but a blood test not?
Click to expand...
They're effectively saying that just like you are forced to put a seatbelt on, they can force you to take a breath test.
If you refuse, you don't actually get prosecuted for DUI, you're prosecuted for refusing a breath test, they just happen to have very similar penalty (with DUI being generally lighter, to coerce people into taking those breath tests).

In short - they pretty much go against the spirit of the bill of rights.
 
CHEEZMO™

CHEEZMO™

Obsidian fan
APKmetsfan said:
Trains in america?
Click to expand...

fema_train.jpg


WAKE UP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 
A

Aaron Strife

Banned
Black Republican said:
Landrieu votes yes? whoa son
Click to expand...
Doesn't Louisiana have the most gun deaths (relative to population of course) of any state?

Landrieu's a pretty good Democrat, I hope she holds on in 2014.

Man, you'd think if something is good enough for John McCain it'd be good enough for a decent number of Republicans. Apparently not.
 
C

Chichikov

Member
Aaron Strife said:
Can't believe the NRA won't even let a bill pass with big enough loopholes for a tiger to jump through.

It's probably for the best to hope that Democrats will make enough gains in the 2014 elections to pass something with teeth.
Click to expand...
The NRA has direct economic incentive to keep this issue high on everyone's agenda, that's how they get paid.
 
M

mightynine

Member
RT @MajorCBS: Sen. Toomey on defeat of Manchn-Toomey amendment: "The Senate has spoken on the subject, and it’s time to move on."
Click to expand...

A few months ago when I was talking to my dad about gun control measures, and I said nothing would happen, he said I was "dour".

I laughed.
 
C

Chichikov

Member
That bill was so fucking weak it might be a good thing it was defeated.
Not directly, the gun control situation would've been slightly better with it, but I think it would've mostly given an excuse to not look at this issue.
Also, this might put public focus on the filibuster, and that's a good thing.
 
Link

Link

The Autumn Wind
Chichikov said:
That bill was so fucking weak it might be a good thing it was defeated.
Not directly, the gun control situation would've been slightly better with it, but I think it would've mostly given an excuse to not look at this issue.
Also, this might put public focus on the filibuster, and that's a good thing.
Click to expand...
I'd have to agree with this, as cynical as it sounds.
 
J

Jooney

Member
Ah the US senate, the only place in the universe where 46 > 54

If this weak tea bill can't pass through the Senate, then what will? Filibuster rules need revision and the makeup of the Senate has to change.

Gonna repimp this image that was on the nytimes and shared on Real Time. It's a big part of the problem.

senators_size.png


The caption at the bottom reads:

(Left)These 62 senators represent about a fourth of the people in the United States.

(Right) So do these 6 senators
Click to expand...

Rural voters from southern or smaller states who are less supportive of gun control have overwhelming representation in the Senate. It's highly unlikely that something will pass - even if it's ineffectual! - until that changes.
 
C

Chichikov

Member
TacticalFox88 said:
We either do this right, or we don't even bother.
Click to expand...
I think such all or nothing approach is counterproductive
if that's actually what you're saying, if not, I don't care, I have a point I want to make and by RZA I'll make it!
I would have fully embraced a good background checks bill, even though I don't think it begin to address the problem of gun violence as a whole. Legislative progress is usually achieved incrementally, and first attempts often need fixing, but it's a much more practical way than waiting for a perfect bill.
I only allow myself such calculations in cases where I see the benefit of the bill to be very very small, and even in cases like this, I do it hesitantly.
 
Link

Link

The Autumn Wind
It'd be nice if these senators were asked some hard hitting questions about why they voted against this, but that's asking too much of our media.
 
Link

Link

The Autumn Wind
Just saw on the news scroll on MSNBC that the NRA spent half a million on ads against "Obama's gun ban" that aired today.
 
S

speculawyer

Member
TacticalFox88 said:
It failing was the best option.

We either do this right, or we don't even bother.
Click to expand...

And here is a thing . . . like the gay issue, this issue may have flipped over to now help the Dems in all but the deepest red places.

You can make some pretty effective commercials about "88% of the state X citizens believe in background checks to prevent criminals from obtaining guns. Senator Z blocked a vote on such background checks. Vote against Senator Z who is protecting criminals and helping them get guns."
 
I

ivysaur12

Banned
bananas said:
I just hope this backfires on the GOP in 2014. I mean this shit has ~90% approval, and they still killed it.
Click to expand...

It won't. Politicians consistently believe their constituents are more conservative than they actually are, so I doubt that even in blue states they'll run those types of ads.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

How is it that I own a bunch of Xbox 360 games I never bought digitally?
9
942
dragonyeuw replied
The Drunk GAF Containment Thread
Social Community 7 8 9 10 11
517
10K
Artoris replied
What are you thankful for this turkey day?
17
831
MaestroMike replied
Bad games with redeeming qualities
2 3
116
5K
Koenigssee replied
Next Generation is going to be really strange because of A.I
2
58
2K
midnightAI replied
Top Bottom