hate these ads?, log in or register to hide them
Page 1991 of 2100 FirstFirst ... 99114911891194119811988198919901991199219931994200120412091 ... LastLast
Results 39,801 to 39,820 of 41981

Thread: The Official Russian [USA Politics Thread]™

  1. #39801
    Dorvil Barranis's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 18, 2011
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    4,371
    Quote Originally Posted by erichkknaar View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Alistair View Post
    https://www.annenbergpublicpolicycen...al-provisions/

    There are days I am deeply embarrassed by my fellow Americans. This is one.
    I had to take a test on all that, so I know I'm good. Most of my fellow immigrants have had to.
    Anybody that had to pass the citizenship has a better grasp on the US political system then the average american.
    "Those who are skilled in combat do not become angered, those who are skilled at winning do not become afraid. Thus the wise win before they fight, while the ignorant fight to win." - Zhuge Liang


  2. #39802
    Donor erichkknaar's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 10, 2011
    Posts
    8,994
    Quote Originally Posted by Dorvil Barranis View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by erichkknaar View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Alistair View Post
    https://www.annenbergpublicpolicycen...al-provisions/

    There are days I am deeply embarrassed by my fellow Americans. This is one.
    I had to take a test on all that, so I know I'm good. Most of my fellow immigrants have had to.
    Anybody that had to pass the citizenship has a better grasp on the US political system then the average american.
    I also finally had to learn 7th chords for the anthem.
    meh

  3. #39803
    Movember 2011Movember 2012 Nordstern's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 10, 2011
    Posts
    8,427
    Another First Amendment ruling: https://blogs.mprnews.org/newscut/20...t-at-meetings/

    MN Supreme Court throws out law against disorderly conduct at meetings

    The Minnesota Supreme Court has tossed out a disorderly conduct law aimed at people who disrupt public meetings.

    The Court ruled in the case of Robin Hensel, of Little Falls, who was cited for disorderly conduct after she moved her chairs closer to city councilors at a meeting, days after the Council rescheduled a meeting when Hensel displayed signs that depicted dead and deformed children, blocking the view of others in the audience.

    She was convicted after a judge refused to allow her to enter a defense under the First Amendment.

    “The Court has made clear that “the First Amendment does not guarantee the right to communicate one’s views at all times and places or in any manner that may be desired,” Court of Appeals Judge Michelle Ann Larkin ruled last year upholding the conviction.

    Today, the Minnesota Supreme Court overruled the Court of Appeals, ruling the statute about disturbing public meetings is overly broad (See full opinion).

    Here’s how the law reads:
    Whoever does any of the following in a public or private place, including on a school bus, knowing, or having reasonable grounds to know that it will, or will tend to, alarm, anger or disturb others or provoke an assault or breach of the peace, is guilty of disorderly conduct, which is a misdemeanor:
    . . .
    (2) disturbs an assembly or meeting, not unlawful in its character . .
    “An individual could violate the statute by, for example, wearing an offensive t-shirt, using harsh words in addressing another person, or even raising one’s voice in a speech,” Justice David Stras wrote for the majority in today’s opinion.

    This statute presents us with a “criminal prohibition of alarming breadth.” Stevens, 559 U.S. at 474. It criminalizes a public speech that “criticize[s] various political and racial groups . . . as inimical to the nation’s welfare.” It prohibits an individual from wearing a jacket containing an offensive inscription to a meeting. And certainly, it would forbid someone from burning the American flag on a public street.

    In addition to being disruptive of gatherings of all kinds, all of these actions share a common quality: they are protected under the First Amendment. Due to the countless ways in which [the law] can prohibit and chill protected expression, we conclude that the statute facially violates the First Amendment’s overbreadth doctrine.
    In a dissent joined by Chief Justice Lorei Gildea, Justice G. Barry Anderson said the court should have interpreted the statute more narrowly, rather than throwing it out.

    In this case, he said, the court could have said the law targets conduct, not content.
    Indeed, under the narrowing construction that I urge we adopt, many of the troubling applications of the statute the court mentions would no longer be criminalized.

    For example, the court concludes that the disorderly conduct statute prohibits “criticiz[ing] various political and racial groups . . . as inimical to the nation’s welfare,” which is protected under Terminiello v. City of Chicago. But the narrowed construction urged here limits the reach of the statute to conduct, not speech.

    The court worries that the disorderly conduct statute criminalizes wearing a jacket with an offensive description, which is protected under Cohen v. California. But this, too, would be outside the reach of the statute as narrowly construed because, as the Supreme Court of the United States concluded, Cohen’s jacket was simply written speech, not conduct.
    Stras agreed that would settle the First Amendment violations, but it would be unworkable.
    A straightforward example illustrates the point. In this case, Hensel displayed signs with pictures of dead and deformed children during the first of the two Little Falls City Council meetings.

    Suppose that the State had prosecuted Hensel solely because of her decision to display the controversial signs at the first meeting, not her later decision to sit in the area between the gallery and the dais during the second meeting.

    Under such a scenario, the factfinder would need to disentangle whether the cause of the disruption was her decision to display the signs, which blocked the view of other members of the public, or the message on the signs, which contained graphic images. Yet in many cases, the answer is likely both, leaving the jury with the thorny task of attempting to differentiate between the two in a disorderly-conduct case.
    Stras said Anderson and Gildea’s proposed solution constitutes a “shave-a-little-off-here and throw-in-a-few-words-there statute” that would bear little resemblance to the law the Legislature actually passed.

    That’s a law that is now dead.

    “We’re at a time in our history where our democratic norms and values are under attack and it’s critical that people be able to publicly dissent and hold their government accountable,” Hensel’s attorney, Kevin Riach, said. “This decision takes a tool away from those who would seek to squash that dissent.”
    Last edited by Nordstern; September 14 2017 at 03:12:11 AM.
    "Holy shit, I ask you to stop being autistic and you debate what autistic is." - spasm
    Quote Originally Posted by Larkonis Trassler View Post
    WTF I hate white people now...

  4. #39804
    Donor erichkknaar's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 10, 2011
    Posts
    8,994
    Quote Originally Posted by Nordstern View Post
    Another First Amendment ruling: https://blogs.mprnews.org/newscut/20...t-at-meetings/

    MN Supreme Court throws out law against disorderly conduct at meetings

    The Minnesota Supreme Court has tossed out a disorderly conduct law aimed at people who disrupt public meetings.

    The Court ruled in the case of Robin Hensel, of Little Falls, who was cited for disorderly conduct after she moved her chairs closer to city councilors at a meeting, days after the Council rescheduled a meeting when Hensel displayed signs that depicted dead and deformed children, blocking the view of others in the audience.

    She was convicted after a judge refused to allow her to enter a defense under the First Amendment.

    “The Court has made clear that “the First Amendment does not guarantee the right to communicate one’s views at all times and places or in any manner that may be desired,” Court of Appeals Judge Michelle Ann Larkin ruled last year upholding the conviction.

    Today, the Minnesota Supreme Court overruled the Court of Appeals, ruling the statute about disturbing public meetings is overly broad (See full opinion).

    Here’s how the law reads:
    Whoever does any of the following in a public or private place, including on a school bus, knowing, or having reasonable grounds to know that it will, or will tend to, alarm, anger or disturb others or provoke an assault or breach of the peace, is guilty of disorderly conduct, which is a misdemeanor:
    . . .
    (2) disturbs an assembly or meeting, not unlawful in its character . .
    “An individual could violate the statute by, for example, wearing an offensive t-shirt, using harsh words in addressing another person, or even raising one’s voice in a speech,” Justice David Stras wrote for the majority in today’s opinion.

    This statute presents us with a “criminal prohibition of alarming breadth.” Stevens, 559 U.S. at 474. It criminalizes a public speech that “criticize[s] various political and racial groups . . . as inimical to the nation’s welfare.” It prohibits an individual from wearing a jacket containing an offensive inscription to a meeting. And certainly, it would forbid someone from burning the American flag on a public street.

    In addition to being disruptive of gatherings of all kinds, all of these actions share a common quality: they are protected under the First Amendment. Due to the countless ways in which [the law] can prohibit and chill protected expression, we conclude that the statute facially violates the First Amendment’s overbreadth doctrine.
    In a dissent joined by Chief Justice Lorei Gildea, Justice G. Barry Anderson said the court should have interpreted the statute more narrowly, rather than throwing it out.

    In this case, he said, the court could have said the law targets conduct, not content.
    Indeed, under the narrowing construction that I urge we adopt, many of the troubling applications of the statute the court mentions would no longer be criminalized.

    For example, the court concludes that the disorderly conduct statute prohibits “criticiz[ing] various political and racial groups . . . as inimical to the nation’s welfare,” which is protected under Terminiello v. City of Chicago. But the narrowed construction urged here limits the reach of the statute to conduct, not speech.

    The court worries that the disorderly conduct statute criminalizes wearing a jacket with an offensive description, which is protected under Cohen v. California. But this, too, would be outside the reach of the statute as narrowly construed because, as the Supreme Court of the United States concluded, Cohen’s jacket was simply written speech, not conduct.
    Stras agreed that would settle the First Amendment violations, but it would be unworkable.
    A straightforward example illustrates the point. In this case, Hensel displayed signs with pictures of dead and deformed children during the first of the two Little Falls City Council meetings.

    Suppose that the State had prosecuted Hensel solely because of her decision to display the controversial signs at the first meeting, not her later decision to sit in the area between the gallery and the dais during the second meeting.

    Under such a scenario, the factfinder would need to disentangle whether the cause of the disruption was her decision to display the signs, which blocked the view of other members of the public, or the message on the signs, which contained graphic images. Yet in many cases, the answer is likely both, leaving the jury with the thorny task of attempting to differentiate between the two in a disorderly-conduct case.
    Stras said Anderson and Gildea’s proposed solution constitutes a “shave-a-little-off-here and throw-in-a-few-words-there statute” that would bear little resemblance to the law the Legislature actually passed.

    That’s a law that is now dead.

    “We’re at a time in our history where our democratic norms and values are under attack and it’s critical that people be able to publicly dissent and hold their government accountable,” Hensel’s attorney, Kevin Riach, said. “This decision takes a tool away from those who would seek to squash that dissent.”
    meh

  5. #39805
    Movember 2012 Elriche Oshego's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 21, 2011
    Posts
    6,590
    Quote Originally Posted by Dorvil Barranis View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by erichkknaar View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Alistair View Post
    https://www.annenbergpublicpolicycen...al-provisions/

    There are days I am deeply embarrassed by my fellow Americans. This is one.
    I had to take a test on all that, so I know I'm good. Most of my fellow immigrants have had to.
    Anybody that had to pass the citizenship has a better grasp on the US political system then the average american.
    Surely there is a law or civics class available to High School students?

  6. #39806
    Dorvil Barranis's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 18, 2011
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    4,371
    The US edumacation system took a sharp nosedive early in the millenium with "no child left behind" which meant schools that didn't focus on standardize testing would lose their funding. I learned civics in the '80s, but I don't think it is much of a focus anymore.
    "Those who are skilled in combat do not become angered, those who are skilled at winning do not become afraid. Thus the wise win before they fight, while the ignorant fight to win." - Zhuge Liang


  7. #39807
    Donor Sparq's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 11, 2011
    Location
    Strayastan
    Posts
    8,770
    Tangential, but:

    'Pharma bro' Martin Shkreli jailed over Hillary hair post


    A judge has ordered the jailing of ex-pharmaceutical chief executive Martin "Pharma Bro" Shkreli while he awaits sentencing for securities fraud.

    Judge Kiyo Matsumoto said a Facebook post in which Shkreli offered $5,000 for a strand of Hillary Clinton's hair showed he was a danger to the public.

    On Wednesday, Judge Matsumoto ruled that Shkreli's post on 4 September - made shortly before Mrs Clinton began a book tour - showed he posed a danger, rejecting arguments his words were protected by US free speech laws.

    Shkreli - who has clashed frequently with critics on social media - had argued that the since-deleted post amounted to satire, and had been a reference to DNA sequencing.

    "This is a solicitation of assault in exchange for money," the judge said. "That is not protected by the First Amendment."

    The tiniest violin.

  8. #39808
    Joe Appleby's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Location
    in front of the class
    Posts
    12,700
    Quote Originally Posted by Elriche Oshego View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Dorvil Barranis View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by erichkknaar View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Alistair View Post
    https://www.annenbergpublicpolicycen...al-provisions/

    There are days I am deeply embarrassed by my fellow Americans. This is one.
    I had to take a test on all that, so I know I'm good. Most of my fellow immigrants have had to.
    Anybody that had to pass the citizenship has a better grasp on the US political system then the average american.
    Surely there is a law or civics class available to High School students?
    Tbh it's not better here.

    Political apathy is a huge problem for modern democracies.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_apathy

    Tapapapatalk
    nevar forget

  9. #39809
    Banned
    Join Date
    April 18, 2011
    Location
    Only one here to predict a win for God Emperor
    Posts
    12,463
    http://dailycaller.com/2017/09/13/hi...ent-and-media/

    Clinton campaign memoir includes a questionable interpretation of the central lesson of George Orwell's novel "1984."
    Winston Smith was the villain, the authorities the heros.
    Are you an engineer? -- Quack

  10. #39810
    Liare's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Location
    Denmark
    Posts
    11,080
    Quote Originally Posted by Joe Appleby View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Elriche Oshego View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Dorvil Barranis View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by erichkknaar View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Alistair View Post
    https://www.annenbergpublicpolicycen...al-provisions/

    There are days I am deeply embarrassed by my fellow Americans. This is one.
    I had to take a test on all that, so I know I'm good. Most of my fellow immigrants have had to.
    Anybody that had to pass the citizenship has a better grasp on the US political system then the average american.
    Surely there is a law or civics class available to High School students?
    Tbh it's not better here.

    Political apathy is a huge problem for modern democracies.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_apathy

    Tapapapatalk
    considering how modern democracies work, it's a wonder people turn up to vote in such numbers in the first place.
    Viking, n.:
    1. Daring Scandinavian seafarers, explorers, adventurers, entrepreneurs world-famous for their aggressive, nautical import business, highly leveraged takeovers and blue eyes.
    2. Bloodthirsty sea pirates who ravaged northern Europe beginning in the 9th century.

    Hagar's note: The first definition is much preferred; the second is used only by malcontents, the envious, and disgruntled owners of waterfront property.

  11. #39811
    XenosisMk4's Avatar
    Join Date
    July 13, 2017
    Location
    More turbo-lightspeed neoliberal platitudes/virtue signaling/misplaced priorities on full display.
    Posts
    1,589
    Quote Originally Posted by Sparq View Post
    Tangential, but:

    'Pharma bro' Martin Shkreli jailed over Hillary hair post


    A judge has ordered the jailing of ex-pharmaceutical chief executive Martin "Pharma Bro" Shkreli while he awaits sentencing for securities fraud.

    Judge Kiyo Matsumoto said a Facebook post in which Shkreli offered $5,000 for a strand of Hillary Clinton's hair showed he was a danger to the public.

    On Wednesday, Judge Matsumoto ruled that Shkreli's post on 4 September - made shortly before Mrs Clinton began a book tour - showed he posed a danger, rejecting arguments his words were protected by US free speech laws.

    Shkreli - who has clashed frequently with critics on social media - had argued that the since-deleted post amounted to satire, and had been a reference to DNA sequencing.

    "This is a solicitation of assault in exchange for money," the judge said. "That is not protected by the First Amendment."

    The tiniest violin.
    hahahaha

    I bet that Judge was chuffed when that landed on his desk

  12. #39812
    rufuske's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Posts
    1,739
    Quote Originally Posted by Rakshasa The Cat View Post
    http://dailycaller.com/2017/09/13/hi...ent-and-media/

    Clinton campaign memoir includes a questionable interpretation of the central lesson of George Orwell's novel "1984."
    Winston Smith was the villain, the authorities the heros.
    Lol, wtf.

  13. #39813

    Join Date
    April 10, 2011
    Posts
    3,386
    Quote Originally Posted by rufuske View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Rakshasa The Cat View Post
    http://dailycaller.com/2017/09/13/hi...ent-and-media/

    Clinton campaign memoir includes a questionable interpretation of the central lesson of George Orwell's novel "1984."
    Winston Smith was the villain, the authorities the heros.
    Lol, wtf.
    The excerpt in question from the article, for the lazy:

    “Attempting to define reality is a core feature of authoritarianism. This is what the Soviets did when they erased political dissidents from historical photos. This is what happens in George Orwell’s classic novel Nineteen Eighty-Four, when a torturer holds up four fingers and delivers electric shocks until his prisoner sees five fingers as ordered. The goal is to make you question logic and reason and to sow mistrust toward exactly the people we need to rely on: our leaders, the press, ex-perts who seek to guide public policy based on evidence, ourselves. For Trump, as with so much he does, it’s about simple dominance.”
    It is a pretty tortured attempt to draw parallels to the battle cry of Fake News, as it is used as a bludgeon by Trump et al. The supposition is that the victim retains his knowledge of objective reality, and completely misses the point of constructing parallel, diametrically opposed truths in order to subjugate the individuals mind. Winston doesnt just call it five fingers, he doesnt just re-define the word five to mean four, he genuinely is made to see five just because Big Brother tells him there are five.

    Ill hope that she just had a shit ghostwriter, theres scores of better analogies that could have been drawn to make the point. It shows a basic lack of understanding in why the right-wing media is so effective.

  14. #39814
    Liare's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Location
    Denmark
    Posts
    11,080
    considering her statements recently, i dont think there is a ghost-writer involved in that bit.
    Viking, n.:
    1. Daring Scandinavian seafarers, explorers, adventurers, entrepreneurs world-famous for their aggressive, nautical import business, highly leveraged takeovers and blue eyes.
    2. Bloodthirsty sea pirates who ravaged northern Europe beginning in the 9th century.

    Hagar's note: The first definition is much preferred; the second is used only by malcontents, the envious, and disgruntled owners of waterfront property.

  15. #39815

    Join Date
    July 3, 2014
    Posts
    2,907
    Quote Originally Posted by Joe Appleby View Post
    Tbh it's not better here.

    Political apathy is a huge problem for modern democracies.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_apathy

    Tapapapatalk
    Because public and politicians have different agenda. Once elected, politicians forget about campaign program.

  16. #39816
    Smuggo
    Guest
    It's because choosing different flavours of neoliberalism is not especially enticing for voters.

    The UK had the same until this year which saw much higher turnout after years of falling turnout, and it's because the Labour Party finally abandoned neoliberalism and ran on a proper socialist platform, so suddenly voters had a genuine choice again for the first time in decades.

  17. #39817
    XenosisMk4's Avatar
    Join Date
    July 13, 2017
    Location
    More turbo-lightspeed neoliberal platitudes/virtue signaling/misplaced priorities on full display.
    Posts
    1,589
    Quote Originally Posted by Smuggo View Post
    It's because choosing different flavours of neoliberalism is not especially enticing for voters.

    The UK had the same until this year which saw much higher turnout after years of falling turnout, and it's because the Labour Party finally abandoned neoliberalism and ran on a proper socialist platform, so suddenly voters had a genuine choice again for the first time in decades.
    Too bad they still lost :^)

  18. #39818

    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Location
    2006
    Posts
    4,447
    Quote Originally Posted by XenosisMk4 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Smuggo View Post
    It's because choosing different flavours of neoliberalism is not especially enticing for voters.

    The UK had the same until this year which saw much higher turnout after years of falling turnout, and it's because the Labour Party finally abandoned neoliberalism and ran on a proper socialist platform, so suddenly voters had a genuine choice again for the first time in decades.
    Too bad they still lost :^)
    Did they?

    Looks to me like the far left has solidified their internal control of the party, positioned themselves excellently for the next election and avoided being held responsible for the hot mess that is Brexit.

    Two years ago the far left was a joke. Now I can easily see them dominating politics for a decade after the Tories finish committing suicide.

  19. #39819
    Smuggo
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Nicholai Pestot View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by XenosisMk4 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Smuggo View Post
    It's because choosing different flavours of neoliberalism is not especially enticing for voters.

    The UK had the same until this year which saw much higher turnout after years of falling turnout, and it's because the Labour Party finally abandoned neoliberalism and ran on a proper socialist platform, so suddenly voters had a genuine choice again for the first time in decades.
    Too bad they still lost :^)
    Did they?

    Looks to me like the far left has solidified their internal control of the party, positioned themselves excellently for the next election and avoided being held responsible for the hot mess that is Brexit.

    Two years ago the far left was a joke. Now I can easily see them dominating politics for a decade after the Tories finish committing suicide.
    ^^

  20. #39820
    XenosisMk4's Avatar
    Join Date
    July 13, 2017
    Location
    More turbo-lightspeed neoliberal platitudes/virtue signaling/misplaced priorities on full display.
    Posts
    1,589
    Quote Originally Posted by Nicholai Pestot View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by XenosisMk4 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Smuggo View Post
    It's because choosing different flavours of neoliberalism is not especially enticing for voters.

    The UK had the same until this year which saw much higher turnout after years of falling turnout, and it's because the Labour Party finally abandoned neoliberalism and ran on a proper socialist platform, so suddenly voters had a genuine choice again for the first time in decades.
    Too bad they still lost :^)
    Did they?

    Looks to me like the far left has solidified their internal control of the party, positioned themselves excellently for the next election and avoided being held responsible for the hot mess that is Brexit.

    Two years ago the far left was a joke. Now I can easily see them dominating politics for a decade after the Tories finish committing suicide.
    They are still a joke though

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •