• 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.
P

pigeon

Banned
Dax01 said:
The first bill is the most curious. It's from the dude who's legislator is Justin Amash (ugh). His bill says it amends the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 (a bill I had never heard of until now, go 111th!) by reducing the weight ratio of powdered cocaine to crack cocaine needed to trigger certain federal penalties from 18:1 to 2:1. Thing is, I've read the FSA of 2010 (it's only four pages long), and the section of the Controlled Substances Act it amends. Basically, the FSA of 2010 increased the amount of cocaine a person can have. Which, I think is good, because the more you're allowed to carry on hand, the less people will be convicted for having cocaine. However, I see nothing, either in the CSA or the FSA of 2010, about an 18:1 weight ratio. Am I missing it? And regardless, decreasing the weight ratio will just make it easier to convict people, won't it?
Click to expand...

This is Lindsey Graham's cocaine bill, isn't it? The purpose of the original bill was to rectify the legal loophole where crack cocaine was sentenced much more harshly than regular cocaine.

lindsay graham said:
Under current law, five grams of crack triggers a mandatory five-year prison sentence. It requires 500 grams of powder cocaine to receive an equal five year mandatory sentence. The disparity in sentencing is 100 to 1 and the new law will reduce it to 18 to 1.
Click to expand...

http://www.lgraham.senate.gov/publi...ecord_id=1a979d3e-802a-23ad-4ffc-bbf572acd2b7

18 to 1 is the ratio between 5000 grams of powder cocaine (necessary for a mandatory sentence according to (A)(ii)(II)) and 280 grams of crack cocaine (necessary for a mandatory sentence according to (A)(iii)).

It's not sufficient to know that this bill will further reduce the ratio unless you know HOW it will reduce the ratio. Will it do so by raising the minimum amount of crack necessary for a mandatory sentence, or lowering the minimum amount of powder cocaine? The first means less mandatory sentences, the second more.

Dax01 said:
The second bill is something I'm even more confused about. This one, at the expense of some federal dollars if they do not do so otherwise, says that any state that requires a voter ID must issue a free photo identification. Now, isn't this a little redundant because in any state that does require photo ID, aren't those photo IDs already free? Additionally, isn't the problem with any voter ID is that it makes it harder to vote, whether or not you have to pay for it?
Click to expand...

This is one of those tricky subjects. Obviously I think it makes sense to require states that have voter ID to have free photo IDs. It's possible that this is already true in states now, but this law will affect future states and set a federal requirement, so I don't think that's an issue. The question is how difficult it is to GET those IDs. If there's any sort of difficulty or hardship in getting such an ID, it's a de facto poll tax, in my perspective. Remember that many Americans not only have no money, they have no permanent address. How do we ensure that nobody is disenfranchised by such a law? I worry that this bill is a trap intended to make it harder to argue against voter ID laws, without necessarily actually preventing them from suppressing votes.
 
F

fallagin

Member
Dax01 said:
Sooooo what's up. I hope I don't get annoying with this over the next week, but I'll be coming here to help me research some information. In one of my political science classes I'm taking, called the American Legislature, we'll be having a model Congress for the last four days of class. We're only doing the House because they're aren't enough people to do both chambers. We also had to take up a role of a certain legislator. I'm Representative Schakowsky.

Looks like we'll be able to do about four bills a day. I have two here that I may need help figuring out. I apologize if I'm annoying with this! Hopefully we can get some good discussion here as well.

The first bill is the most curious. It's from the dude who's legislator is Justin Amash (ugh). His bill says it amends the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 (a bill I had never heard of until now, go 111th!) by reducing the weight ratio of powdered cocaine to crack cocaine needed to trigger certain federal penalties from 18:1 to 2:1. Thing is, I've read the FSA of 2010 (it's only four pages long), and the section of the Controlled Substances Act it amends. Basically, the FSA of 2010 increased the amount of cocaine a person can have. Which, I think is good, because the more you're allowed to carry on hand, the less people will be convicted for having cocaine. However, I see nothing, either in the CSA or the FSA of 2010, about an 18:1 weight ratio. Am I missing it? And regardless, decreasing the weight ratio will just make it easier to convict people, won't it?

The second bill is something I'm even more confused about. This one, at the expense of some federal dollars if they do not do so otherwise, says that any state that requires a voter ID must issue a free photo identification. Now, isn't this a little redundant because in any state that does require photo ID, aren't those photo IDs already free? Additionally, isn't the problem with any voter ID is that it makes it harder to vote, whether or not you have to pay for it?
Click to expand...

God I wish it was the senate you guys were doing s that you could filibuster the fuck out of everything. Would be hilarious.
 
B

B-Dubs

No Scrubs
Dax01 said:
Sooooo what's up. I hope I don't get annoying with this over the next week, but I'll be coming here to help me research some information. In one of my political science classes I'm taking, called the American Legislature, we'll be having a model Congress for the last four days of class. We're only doing the House because they're aren't enough people to do both chambers. We also had to take up a role of a certain legislator. I'm Representative Schakowsky.

Looks like we'll be able to do about four bills a day. I have two here that I may need help figuring out. I apologize if I'm annoying with this! Hopefully we can get some good discussion here as well.

The first bill is the most curious. It's from the dude who's legislator is Justin Amash (ugh). His bill says it amends the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 (a bill I had never heard of until now, go 111th!) by reducing the weight ratio of powdered cocaine to crack cocaine needed to trigger certain federal penalties from 18:1 to 2:1. Thing is, I've read the FSA of 2010 (it's only four pages long), and the section of the Controlled Substances Act it amends. Basically, the FSA of 2010 increased the amount of cocaine a person can have. Which, I think is good, because the more you're allowed to carry on hand, the less people will be convicted for having cocaine. However, I see nothing, either in the CSA or the FSA of 2010, about an 18:1 weight ratio. Am I missing it? And regardless, decreasing the weight ratio will just make it easier to convict people, won't it?

The second bill is something I'm even more confused about. This one, at the expense of some federal dollars if they do not do so otherwise, says that any state that requires a voter ID must issue a free photo identification. Now, isn't this a little redundant because in any state that does require photo ID, aren't those photo IDs already free? Additionally, isn't the problem with any voter ID is that it makes it harder to vote, whether or not you have to pay for it?
Click to expand...

I can't speak on the first bill, but the second I can. The problem with voterID laws is that the places to go get them are only open during work hours and not everyone can take a day off to get one, also that not every state offers a free photo ID and if they do they are not well publicized or annoying to get. You are right about the problem they cause, but having to pay for an ID would constitute a poll tax which is illegal. Basically this would be a way to implement voterID laws without having to worry about it being overturned on a technicality. If I've read what you've written right.

RustyNails said:
So is immigration reform dead in water because of boston or what.
Click to expand...

Wouldn't shock me in the slightest.
 
T

TacticalFox88

Banned
Maine Governor Paul LePage accused the University of Maine of turning on an electric motor when the wind wasn’t blowing their turbine to fool people into thinking that “wind power works.”

This isn’t a joke. Reported by Mike Tipping with the Bangor Daily News, LePage told the Skowhegan
Area Chamber of Commerce on Tuesday:

"Now, to add insult to injury, The University of Maine, Presque Isle — anybody here been up there to see that damn windmill in the back yard? Guess what, if it’s not blowing wind outside and they have somebody visiting the campus, they have a little electric motor that turns the blades. I’m serious. They have an electric motor so they can show people that wind power works. Unbelievable."

And that’s the government that you have here in the state of Maine.
Click to expand...

...How do idiots consistently get elected?
 
P

PhoenixDark

Banned
APKmetsfan said:
Yup, sad but true.

Though Rubio is seemingly fighting back. I really think rubio wants immigration to boost him to look presidential.
Click to expand...

So far Rubio deserves props, he's gone into the belly of the beast (right wing radio) to defend this bill. I heard him slap down Steve King's ignorant comments about the bombing a few days ago.

I still think he'll bail if things get too crazy, but as of right now I'll give him dap. The bill is surprisingly good.
 
N

NYCmetsfan

Banned
PhoenixPause said:
So far Rubio deserves props, he's gone into the belly of the beast (right wing radio) to defend this bill. I heard him slap down Steve King's ignorant comments about the bombing a few days ago.

I still think he'll bail if things get too crazy, but as of right now I'll give him dap. The bill is surprisingly good.
Click to expand...

He needs the bill. I gives him giant cred in 2016, he'll have an accomplishment. More than Obama in 2008.

Rand paul certainly won't have anything, rubio can also push things he did in florida.


Edit:
This stuff frustrates me to know end. Wall St. is doing the same stuff they did leading up to the crisis (packaging loans up and selling them)

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/19/business/banks-revive-risky-loans-and-mortgages.html?hp&_r=0
 
S

speculawyer

Member
TacticalFox88 said:
...How do idiots consistently get elected?
Click to expand...

Asked about this curious claim, the University spokesperson’s first response was to literally laugh out loud. There is no motor. The project is actually a success story for the university, and for Maine. This was the first mid-sized turbine installed by a university in the state, has a 600 kilowatt capacity, and has produced 680,000 kwh worth of clean electricity in its first year. That’s $100,000 off the University of Maine at Preque Isle’s utility bill, and 572 tons of CO2 not burnedinto the atmosphere.
Click to expand...
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/20...-little-electric-motor-that-turns-the-blades/
 
T

The Librarian

Banned
This is one of those tricky subjects. Obviously I think it makes sense to require states that have voter ID to have free photo IDs. It's possible that this is already true in states now, but this law will affect future states and set a federal requirement, so I don't think that's an issue. The question is how difficult it is to GET those IDs. If there's any sort of difficulty or hardship in getting such an ID, it's a de facto poll tax, in my perspective. Remember that many Americans not only have no money, they have no permanent address. How do we ensure that nobody is disenfranchised by such a law? I worry that this bill is a trap intended to make it harder to argue against voter ID laws, without necessarily actually preventing them from suppressing votes.
Click to expand...

Sirpopopop said:
It extends a federal penalty for states failing to provide voter IDs to every voter, where the state might not have had a penalty before for non-compliance. (That's my take)

If voter ID is inevitable, which I think it is, at least the feds are doing their best to ensure that the secret purpose of Voter ID (being discriminatory) is thwarted.
Click to expand...

B-Dubs said:
I can't speak on the first bill, but the second I can. The problem with voterID laws is that the places to go get them are only open during work hours and not everyone can take a day off to get one, also that not every state offers a free photo ID and if they do they are not well publicized or annoying to get. You are right about the problem they cause, but having to pay for an ID would constitute a poll tax which is illegal. Basically this would be a way to implement voterID laws without having to worry about it being overturned on a technicality. If I've read what you've written right.
Click to expand...

fallagin said:
God I wish it was the senate you guys were doing s that you could filibuster the fuck out of everything. Would be hilarious.
Click to expand...
If there was a Senate and if I was majority leader, the first thing I would do is grab the most loyal Democrats and get rid of the thing. :p
pigeon said:
This is Lindsey Graham's cocaine bill, isn't it? The purpose of the original bill was to rectify the legal loophole where crack cocaine was sentenced much more harshly than regular cocaine.

http://www.lgraham.senate.gov/publi...ecord_id=1a979d3e-802a-23ad-4ffc-bbf572acd2b7

18 to 1 is the ratio between 5000 grams of powder cocaine (necessary for a mandatory sentence according to (A)(ii)(II)) and 280 grams of crack cocaine (necessary for a mandatory sentence according to (A)(iii)).

It's not sufficient to know that this bill will further reduce the ratio unless you know HOW it will reduce the ratio. Will it do so by raising the minimum amount of crack necessary for a mandatory sentence, or lowering the minimum amount of powder cocaine? The first means less mandatory sentences, the second more.
Click to expand...
Why would one increase sentencing and the other wouldn't?
 
S

speculawyer

Member
Here's an idea . . . should the current background checks for guns be eliminated? All it does is create a false sense of security. If you can just go to a gunshow and buy a gun no questions asked, then what is the fucking point of having any background checks at all?

Perhaps if we eliminated this loophole-swallows-up-the-law background check then it might be easier to pass one that doesn't have a loophole?
 
B

B-Dubs

No Scrubs
Dax01 said:
If there was a Senate and if I was majority leader, the first thing I would do is grab the most loyal Democrats and get rid of the thing. :p

Why would one increase sentencing and the other wouldn't?
Click to expand...

If you lower the amount of crack needed then fewer people will be subject to the mandatory minimum. If you increase the amount of powdered then more people will meet that same mandatory minimum. So the former will have less people getting an insane number of years for possession and the latter will have more.

We should try and find some kind of procedural rule in the House that would allow Dax to completely stall all legislation. There has to be something in there about it, somewhere deep deep in the annals of House precedent.

Oblivion said:
Uh...
Click to expand...

Yea, I want to punch him in his stupid face after that.
 
S

shadowsdarknes

Member
speculawyer said:
Here's an idea . . . should the current background checks for guns be eliminated? All it does is create a false sense of security. If you can just go to a gunshow and buy a gun no questions asked, then what is the fucking point of having any background checks at all?

Perhaps if we eliminated this loophole-swallows-up-the-law background check then it might be easier to pass one that doesn't have a loophole?
Click to expand...

Well I'm sure the current background checks are still doing their job by ocassionally stopping people from getting guns that shouldn't be having them.

However, this seems like a fairly well known loophole and I would not be surprised if more felons were inclined to gravitate towards purchasing guns at gun shows or online simply because they know they won't have to risk being denied due to a background check.

I definitely see what you mean, why even have licensed arms dealers that require background checks if gun shows can just sell you a gun without any question at all?
Perhaps the gun shows do not have the same selection of guns that a licensed arms dealer does? Just a thought.
Aaron Strife said:
No it'll once again be too soon to debate anything according to the gun lobby and no one else, which will be enough for the politicians whose votes matter.
Click to expand...

Jon Stewart made a pretty funny reference a good while ago about this.
Apparently there was a ~36 hour period in NYC where there were no criminal activity 911 related calls. He alluded that was perhaps the best time to talk about the issues for NYC without invoking any emotion in it. I thought it was pretty good.
 
S

speculawyer

Member
shadowsdarknes said:
Well I'm sure the current background checks are still doing their job by ocassionally stopping people from getting guns that shouldn't be having them.

However, this seems like a fairly well known loophole and I would not be surprised if more felons were inclined to gravitate towards purchasing guns at gun shows or online simply because they know they won't have to risk being denied due to a background check.

I definitely see what you mean, why even have licensed arms dealers that require background checks if gun shows can just sell you a gun without any question at all?
Perhaps the gun shows do not have the same selection of guns that a licensed arms dealer does? Just a thought.
Click to expand...

I agree that having licensed dealers do checks probably stops a few random people. But considering that we probably have to use a fair amount of government money to make such checks possible and the checks are easy to completely avoid by just saying "Oh, OK . . . I just go to the gun show then.", they might not be worth the money spent on them. It would be like building the border fence but having lots of unlocked doors built into it . . . just not much point.

And they provide people with a false sense of security. People should know that any criminal or crazy can just buy a gun at a gun show. They can then adjust their behavior in view of that fact. (I'm not sure how they could change. Perhaps move away from places that have such gun shows. Of course the obvious is that they might change their voting habits.)
 
N

NYCmetsfan

Banned
Oblivion said:
Uh...
Click to expand...

other stupid tweets

@GrahamBlog 9m
The last thing we may want to do is read Boston suspect Miranda Rights telling him to "remain silent."
Click to expand...

Also he's calling for drones...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...bit-a-of-why-the-homeland-is-the-battlefield/

“It sure would be nice to have a drone up there [to track the suspect.]” He also slammed the president’s policy of “leading from behind and criminalizing war.” I’ll have more on my interview with Sen. Graham on Sunday.
Click to expand...
 
N

NYCmetsfan

Banned
Oblivion said:
Why is it disgusting?

You don't want to see the entire right wing media apparatus fall over themselves to reverse course and say that this whole thing wasn't a terrorist attack afterall?
Click to expand...

No, I want the suspects stopped and for people to figure out why they did this and how to prevent it.

I could care less about the right-wing media and what they say. I don't want to use death to promote my preferred political outcomes.

Its the same thing as the rightwing people talking about how they are muslim
 
S

speculawyer

Member
Oblivion said:
Why is it disgusting?

You don't want to see the entire right wing media apparatus fall over themselves to reverse course and say that this whole thing wasn't a terrorist attack afterall?
Click to expand...
It is just never good form to wish for some tragedy to be a certain way for political gain. That is always going to backfire on you.


That said, I'm glad these guys weren't recent immigrants from some mid-East country that we are entangled with. There will be no war coming this. This seems like generic Islamist-extremism and Chechnya is not our problem. And that father better watch what he says because I'm sure Putin is listening.
 
N

NYCmetsfan

Banned
speculawyer said:
It is just never good form to wish for some tragedy to be a certain way for political gain. That is always going to backfire on you.


That said, I'm glad these guys weren't recent immigrants from some mid-East country that we are entangled with. There will be no war coming this. This seems like generic Islamist-extremism and Chechnya is not our problem. And that father better watch what he says because I'm sure Putin is listening.
Click to expand...

I don't think its wrong to say "I'm glad they're not something" (though sometimes that runs into trouble when it applies you WANT them to be someone else)
 
U

User 406

Banned
The problem is, the only way for minorities to not get shat on after things like this is for it not to be a minority, and that leaves just one option.
 
N

NYCmetsfan

Banned
Sea Manky said:
The problem is, the only way for minorities to not get shat on after things like this is for it not to be a minority, and that leaves just one option.
Click to expand...

People would be shat on anyways. Maybe differently but there could be people shat on for their political beliefs if he was right wing. Even if I don't like them, people would harass tea partiers, and they don't deserve that. Guilt by association is wrong.

Also these guy seem to balance both, they're white and muslim
 
U

User 406

Banned
No.

There would be no assaults on people for looking white, there would be no white churches firebombed, there would be none of the other disgraceful racist shit that always happens being applied to white people.

You're in denial if you think there would be any kind of discrimination and abuse like that.

Edit: Also, these guys might be white, but since they're muslim a whole lot of brown people are gonna catch hell now.
 
N

NYCmetsfan

Banned
Sea Manky said:
No.

There would be no assaults on people for looking white, there would be no white churches firebombed, there would be none of the other disgraceful racist shit that always happens being applied to white people.

You're in denial if you think there would be any kind of discrimination and abuse like that.
Click to expand...

I never said that, I said people would be affected negatively.

I don't think that's worth saying "I hope he's white"
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Kid these days will never...
Social 2 3 4
174
6K
Agent_Nobody replied
SAW 3 | A Finale on Life Support (HyperBitHero)
Opinion
4
816
HyperBitHero replied
  • Locked
RTX 4070 TI Super for sale. Never gamed on.
1
573
LSWilson replied
How is it that I own a bunch of Xbox 360 games I never bought digitally?
9
1K
dragonyeuw replied
The Drunk GAF Containment Thread
Social Community 9 10 11 12 13
606
18K
Liljagare replied
Top Bottom