***Official Political Discussion Thread***

[IATT]

 

[mplsdunk]

I mentally prepared myself to chat with some of my republican friends after the debate expecting to be roasted about Bidens perfomance. To my pleasant surprise the majority of them were just saddened by the two choices we are left with.

Yeah I’m friends with a lot of country republican and Latino republicans. Nobody is stoked on trump, “we’re f’ed either way”

 

[Platinum State]

I notice a lot of Trump voters are saying "all I know is my groceries cost less under Trump", like the president has any say in how much your eggs are gonna cost
I'll never understand how anyone falls for Trumps utter lies man, he doesnt care about you and your life isnt gonna be better at all with a literal con man in office who does nothing but watch tv all day and waits for friday to come so he can go golfing until monday while wasting taxpayer money on secret service staying in his hotel every weekend

 

[moonman818]

also the price of everything skyrocketed during his last year in office.

 

[05fordgt]

also the price of everything skyrocketed during his last year in office.

Yup. And we ran out of toilet paper, paper towels, bottled water & hand sanitizer, all because he didn't want to follow an Obama devised pandemic plan to go off of. In his mind that was giving him a win for having it ready. What a bleeping a**hole!

 

[fluid hips]

Dems didn't learn from RBG and Hillary

Moving like the Jedi in the Acolyte

 

[Nike Jordan]

Good luck trying to find someone else who could get 81 million votes.

 

[Nike Jordan]

 

[sneaksoy]

Belongs in the Fools Wildin thread too

 

[Nike Jordan]

 

[biggie62]

It’s sad I’ve been a subscriber since 2008 and been reading since 2001 when we got free papers at HS. I’m legit about to cancel and get a Washington post subscription. And this hurts since it’s my home town paper

 

[earldagoat]

"His treachery is to be respected."

 

[Brownstone]

It’s sad I’ve been a subscriber since 2008 and been reading since 2001 when we got free papers at HS. I’m legit about to cancel and get a Washington post subscription. And this hurts since it’s my home town paper

Been waiting for a reason to cancel for a while and this is all I needed

They published an article with possible replacements for Biden with Harris at the top, out of touch delusion....

 

[mplsdunk]

you guys read actual newspapers or don't know how to get around a paywall?

 

[htg designs]

So, yall boy is quitting tomorrow?

'It's a mess': Biden turns to family on his path forward after his disastrous debate

Democratic leaders have stood by the president as he faces questions about his ability to defeat Trump in November. But privately, many are expressing concern.

www.nbcnews.com

 

[Nike Jordan]

 

[Zainjal26]

 

[osh kosh bosh]

Seems like Biden is really going to continue...

love Biden, think he's been a very good president. but he's going to be an RGB level villain if he does this. Trump wins, and you a 7-2 supreme court.

 

[RustyShackleford]

I get your perspective but like making it constitutional right to camp seems like a step too far? Unless I'm misunderstanding, wouldn't that basically he the implications of rulling the law unconstitutional?

Like if you think that people shouldn't enforce these laws or cities shouldn't implement these laws. That's fine, I think you should be able to vote for politicians that'll do that.

Creating a right to camp just seems highly impractical.

Like there are situations where people prefer to camp even there are accomodations. I remember during covid the city took over hotels, my family member told me they were really nice, way better than homeless shelters. But some people still wanted to camp. Mostly due to mental illness.

I understand objecting to sending people to jail but should a city have like no ability to say "no you can't camp here"?

Couple point:

-First, the Supreme can play dumb and act like this ruling didn't have to do with homelessness and housing policy. But I am not gonna play dumb and act like the Supreme Court has not turned itself into a legislative branch. Especially after what they did with Chevron.

This didn't need to be a binary choice between establishing a blanket constitutional right, and their decision. They could have established criteria/test to would mandate that citizens have to have a certain level of housing available to ban camping, and make exceptions to who they can detain. From what I am seeing, the court didn't even do that.

-If it were a binary choice, I think I would prefer the constitutional right be established. I don't like encampments either, I think cities should work to eliminate them. But if I am choosing a corner solution I think it is best to err on the side of citizens that most of them are put in the situation because of the city's decades of neglect to a problem. Not saying it would lead to optimal results but I think it is better than the alternative were cities can just criminalize tons of people for something that the cities caused. That seems to be just letting cities off the hook.

-If cities thinks camps are so bad, and everyone knows it is mainly a consequence bad housing policy, then the solution should be for cities to fix their housing policy and build more shelters all over town.

They had the opportunity for a long while to do such things, yet the have chosen most to not do anything

I don't see how allowing them to do something the want to do instead of building more housing will lead to more housing getting built.

Like I said, if they over crowd jails they can transfer people to prisons, or build more jails.

So it allows cities to better hide the consequences of bad housing policy, without any real incentive to fix it.

Even if they fine people. Then those municipal fines can be something that will hurt people that try to get their lives together.

People that want to avoid jails will then be driven either break into buildings (facing even more serious charges if caught), into sewer systems, or go live in the forest/away from city center where they can better hide. That makes it easier for people to assaulted, exploited, and harder to get emergency services if they need them. Seems like a ton of bad will come from cities being able to criminalize homelessness at will.

Listen, I fulling understand and sympathize with your family situation. And I would be cool with cities having a framework to get mentally ill people off the street. However, I am thinking about this on a macro level. So I just think that much more bad will come from this than good.

But I feel we are in agreement that encampments should not exist, and the best way for them not to is for cities to fix their housing policy.

 

[gry60]

French Far Right Scores Big in a First Round of Voting, Polling Suggests

A surprise decision by President Emmanuel Macron to hold a snap election appears to have backfired badly, giving the National Rally a decisive victory, early returns showed.

www.nytimes.com

 

[gry60]

https://www.reddit.com/r/technology/s/5gkxXLnjet

Forget the debate, the Supreme Court just declared open season on regulators | TechCrunch

As the country reels from a presidential debate that left no one looking good, the Supreme Court has swooped in with what could be one of the most

techcrunch.com

Federal law is by necessity broad, applying as it does across so many jurisdictions. Furthermore, some laws stay on the books for decades without modification. And so each law’s wording — just like the Constitution — requires interpretation, a task spread among all parties in the legal system, from lawyers to justices to amici curae.


The 1984 Chevron decision established that independent agencies like the EPA, SEC, and FCC also have a say in this. In fact, the decision found, in cases where the law is ambiguous, the courts must defer to these agencies in their capacity as experts in their fields.

As an example, think about something like the Clean Water Act providing certain legal protections for wetlands. Who defines whether a plot of land counts as wetlands? It can’t be interested parties like heavy industry or nature advocacy groups, since their interpretations will likely be mutually exclusive.

And what are the chances that whatever judge gets handed the case has any expertise in the matter? Instead, in such cases, the EPA, staffed with notionally disinterested experts on wetlands, is empowered to settle ambiguities.


All right, so what do wetlands and the EPA have to do with technology? Well, who do you think defines “encryption” in law, or “communications,” “search and seizure,” or “reasonable expectation of privacy”?


The entire concept of net neutrality is perched atop the FCC’s interpretation of whether broadband data is an “information service” or a “communications service,” the terms written in the act empowering that agency.

 

[IATT]

 

[yobyellav]

Not sure why some think Joe dropping out would be the best move. That debate wasn’t great but there are enough sound bites from Biden to make a highlight reel. And as far news cycles in politics, that debate was a long time ago already and we’re still months away from the election. Trump is still a convicted felon and on trial for other felonies.

The NYTimes wild for that. His opponent was just convicted of dozens of crimes.

Does he think appliances stop working at night?

 

[rexanglorum]

mplsdunk

Neo mullets and nicotine, an unstoppable combination.

 

[osh kosh bosh]

Hunter Biden is a HOF 1st ballot horrible son.