US Politics Mega-thread - Page 2381

On October 10 2015 01:25 Gorsameth wrote:

The fact that your "small group" wasn't outright ignored is telling enough.

On October 10 2015 01:08 Slaughter wrote:
That argument that it provides protection against gov abuse justifying gun ownership seems so outdated. What revolution in this day and age would be viable without help from the military (or outside forces shipping in weapons)? Those open carry yokels who walk around with assault rifles in public places would not do jack shit if the US gov actually decided to suppress its people. Being armed or not wouldn't make much of a difference.

On October 10 2015 01:08 Slaughter wrote:
That argument that it provides protection against gov abuse justifying gun ownership seems so outdated. What revolution in this day and age would be viable without help from the military (or outside forces shipping in weapons)? Those open carry yokels who walk around with assault rifles in public places would not do jack shit if the US gov actually decided to suppress its people. Being armed or not wouldn't make much of a difference.

South Carolina’s state insurance director has warned of “horrendous losses” as he prepares to release the first official estimate of damage from this week’s deadly flooding that claimed at least 17 lives. And many residents are learning that their insurance may not even cover damage to their homes.

Ray Farmer said he expected the preliminary assessment, set to be released as early as Friday afternoon, to be more than $1bn.

“We’re still working on the calculations, but it is bleak,” Farmer told the Guardian.

“There is so much damage to infrastructure, and on top of that there’s significant damage to homes, automobiles and commercial interests. Many businesses haven’t reopened.

“Some sources have already estimated it in excess of $1bn. I can’t say exactly what it’s going to be, but the losses are horrendous,” he said.

University of South Carolina professor Jerry Wallulis is among those who fear they may be left to pay for the cost of damage out of pocket, despite having household insurance. His two-story home in Columbia’s Sherwood Forest neighbourhood was engulfed by a wave of water that flooded his sun room and much of the rest of the ground floor.

“We don’t live in a flood zone and like a whole lot of people had no realisation that we would ever be in danger of a flood,” he said.

“We don’t have a flood policy because we had no idea we would ever need one. There are so many questions: if you don’t live in a flood zone, are you even eligible to buy flood insurance? We don’t know how it all works, it’s very complicated.”

Insurance assessors were out in force on Thursday around Columbia, South Carolina’s capital that bore the brunt of last weekend’s record deluge. Farmer said the state had also partnered with insurance companies and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (Fema) to set up an “insurance village” in the centre of the city where residents could come to file claims or seek advice.

But large numbers of those affected were learning that their homeowners’ insurance policies were unlikely to pay for their wrecked homes. Farmer said that damage from rising water was excluded from most standard policies, and was covered only by a separate policy available from the federal National Flood Insurance Program that most had not purchased.

Since House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) dropped from the speaker race, Republicans have coalesced around the idea of Ways and Means Chairman Rep. Paul Ryan as their knight in shining armor, even as Ryan himself has expressed reluctance to enter the race.

However, while some of the hardliners who pushed back at McCarthy have expressed their support of Ryan, other conservatives are already begin to raise their concerns about Ryan's record. The question is not just whether Ryan would have the votes necessary to win the speakership on the House floor, but also his ability if elected to bring the hardliners in line and avoid shutdowns, debt defaults, and the array of looming government crises.

Coming out of Friday morning's party meeting, Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX) told reporters he could not back Ryan because of his support for the government bailout of Wall Street in 2008 during the depths of the financial crisis.

"I love Paul. He's one of the smartest guys here," Gohmert said. "Back in 2008 there were a number of us that committed that we simply could not ever support a speaker who fought so hard to pass the Wall Street bailout."

Likewise, Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY) withheld his support of Paul in an interview Friday with CNN and said he would stick with his previous support for Daniel Webster (R-FL) for speaker.

"Some of my conservative colleagues remember Paul Ryan's passionate please for the TARP, the Wall Street bailout -- he was asking them to vote for it several years ago," Massie said, "I don't have a problem with his ideology. I would want to talk to Paul Ryan about why he kicked conservatives off the budget committee, when he was chairman of the Budget Committee. So I am still supporting Daniel Webster."

Ryan's more moderate stance on immigration reform could also cause ire among the caucus' hard right, according to at least one report.

On October 10 2015 02:43 JinDesu wrote:
Armed people didn't stop Germany in Russia in WW2. The Russian winter and scorched earth did that.

Solution - everyone gets to own a winter and scorched land.

On October 10 2015 02:46 MotherFox wrote:


So now this is a climate change debate.

The House moved Friday to legalize crude oil exports for the first time in four decades, siding with the petroleum industry in a power struggle that echoes its long feud with greens over the Keystone XL pipeline.

Despite the 261-159 vote, the pro-oil forces face growing resistance from the same environmental groups that have spent seven years fighting Keystone to a standstill — along with opposition from the White House and Democrats like Hillary Clinton. But this time, oil supporters are optimistic they’ll prevail in the end.

The arguments for and against crude exports broadly parallel the debate about building the Canada-to-Texas oil pipeline: In both cases, Republicans say the move would create jobs at home, enhance national security and lessen the influence of rivals like Russia. Greens say it would encourage carbon-spewing oil production, damaging the fight against climate change. And the White House wants Congress to stay out of the issue — a message lawmakers pointedly ignored Friday.

Export supporters also call the ban an outdated relic of the scarcity-haunted 1970s, unsuited to an era when the fracking boom has turned the U.S. into one of the world’s top oil producers. So far, though, they're short of the 60 votes they would need to get past a filibuster in the Senate.

Wikileaks has released what it claims is the full intellectual property chapter of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), the controversial agreement between 12 countries that was signed off on Monday.

TPP was negotiated in secret and details have yet to be published. But critics including Democrat presidential hopefuls Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders, unions and privacy activists have lined up to attack what they have seen of it. Wikileaks’ latest disclosures are unlikely to reassure them.

One chapter appears to give the signatory countries (referred to as “parties”) greater power to stop embarrassing information going public. The treaty would give signatories the ability to curtail legal proceedings if the theft of information is “detrimental to a party’s economic interests, international relations, or national defense or national security” – in other words, presumably, if a trial would cause the information to spread.

A drafter’s note says that every participating country’s individual laws about whistleblowing would still apply.

“The text of the TPP’s intellectual property chapter confirms advocates warnings that this deal poses a grave threat to global freedom of expression and basic access to things like medicine and information,” said Evan Greer, campaign director of internet activist group Fight for the Future. “But the sad part is that no one should be surprised by this. It should have been obvious to anyone observing the process, where appointed government bureaucrats and monopolistic companies were given more access to the text than elected officials and journalists, that this would be the result.”

Among the provisions in the chapter (which may or may not be the most recent version) are rules that say that each country in the agreement has the authority to compel anyone accused of violating intellectual property law to provide “relevant information [...] that the infringer or alleged infringer possesses or controls” as provided for in that country’s own laws.

The rules also state that every country has the authority to immediately give the name and address of anyone importing detained goods to whoever owns the intellectual property.

On October 10 2015 04:38 zlefin wrote:
Non-mass shooting shouldn't be that surprising.
There are ~20 million americans in college/university, which is a touch under 1/15. And about 30 gun murders/day.
So seeing 2 gun murders of students in a day is more like what one would expect on average. That's just a result of being a big country.

Friday's shooting was the TSU's third this week.

On October 10 2015 04:38 zlefin wrote:
Non-mass shooting shouldn't be that surprising.
There are ~20 million americans in college/university, which is a touch under 1/15. And about 30 gun murders/day.
So seeing 2 gun murders of students in a day is more like what one would expect on average. That's just a result of being a big country.