|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
Poor people are being illegally arrested and jailed in Biloxi, Mississippi, because they cannot afford to pay court fines and fees sought by the city to generate revenue, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) said in a federal lawsuit filed on Wednesday.
The suit follows similar litigation brought by the ACLU earlier this month over what the rights group called a “modern-day debtors’ prisons” in one Washington state county.
The group said on Wednesday that Biloxi, the Gulf Coast city known for its casinos and white-sand beaches, locks up hundreds of indigent debtors each year for days or weeks at a time without access to a court hearing or lawyer, a violation of their constitutional rights.
"People are being jailed because they're poor," said ACLU attorney Nusrat Choudhury. "There's no chance for them to explain that their inability to pay is because of poverty."
Biloxi spokesman Vincent Creel said the city "treats all defendants fairly under the law" and that its courts have ordered community service for people who could not pay their fines.
"We believe the ACLU is mistaken about the process in Biloxi," Creel added.
So-called debtors' prisons across the country have been targeted by lawsuits in recent years. Organizations including the ACLU and the Southern Poverty Law Center say their investigations have shown cities and towns are increasingly trying to raise money by collecting unpaid court fees imposed in traffic and other misdemeanor cases.
The warrants issued in Biloxi charge debtors with failure to pay, order their arrest and say they can avoid jail only by paying the money owed in full, the ACLU said.
Source
|
|
On October 22 2015 12:10 Plansix wrote: I have seen a reality distortion field this strong since the apple conference where they announced the IPhone 4. Yeah. A lot of american politics is currently afflicted by a distortion field.
|
God, Paul Ryan as Speaker of the House. At least this probably kills his Presidential aspirations for a while (2024 at the earliest I'd say) unless some assassinations happen.
Ayn Rand is rolling in her grave at conservative Peter Keating's rise to power.
|
After months of buildup, Hillary Rodham Clinton finally takes center stage as the star witness in the Republican-led investigation into the deadly 2012 attacks in Benghazi, Libya.
Clinton, the Democratic front-runner for president, testifies from a position of political strength as her potential rival for the nomination, Vice President Joe Biden, announced Wednesday that he will not jump into the presidential race and she rides the momentum of a solid debate performance.[...]
At the same time, the Benghazi committee is on the defensive as the panel's GOP chairman scrambles to deflect comments by fellow Republicans that the inquiry is aimed at hurting Clinton's presidential bid.
Clinton faces a formidable challenge as she tries to explain security lapses at the U.S. diplomatic compound in Benghazi, the slow military response to the violence and the Obama administration's changing narrative about who was responsible for the attacks that killed four Americans, including U.S. ambassador Chris Stevens, and why the attacks were launched. AP
I say there's a good chance of entertaining verbal acrobatics from Clinton on the security, response, and assignment of blame. Clinton and her team are some of the best practicers of it today. The long-reaching possibilities are basically nil after McCarthy's gaffe. At least it helped cost him the speakership.
|
If you look up the definition of gridlock politics, you see Paul Ryan's creepy face looking back at you.
|
Retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson wants to use the Department of Education to find colleges and universities with political bias in order to deny them funding.
During an interview on "The Blaze," Glenn Beck asked Carson if he would like to abolish the Department of Education, like many conservatives.
"I actually have something I would use the Department of Education to do," Carson said in response. "It would be to monitor our institutions of higher education for extreme political bias and deny funding if it exists."
The Republican presidential candidate's proposed crusade against bias on campus was not popular with all conservatives. A writer for the site Hot Air described Carson's idea as "awful" and "repugnant."
Conservatives have criticized students for pressuring conservatives to back out of speeches, and President Obama recently joined the calls for colleges not to protect students from differing points of view.
Source
|
Upcoming political ads:
"Can you please repeat the question"
If Hilary Clinton is too elitist and absent minded to hear questions directly in front of her, how can she ever hope to tackle ISIS and lower the deficit?
|
On October 23 2015 00:36 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +Retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson wants to use the Department of Education to find colleges and universities with political bias in order to deny them funding.
During an interview on "The Blaze," Glenn Beck asked Carson if he would like to abolish the Department of Education, like many conservatives.
"I actually have something I would use the Department of Education to do," Carson said in response. "It would be to monitor our institutions of higher education for extreme political bias and deny funding if it exists."
The Republican presidential candidate's proposed crusade against bias on campus was not popular with all conservatives. A writer for the site Hot Air described Carson's idea as "awful" and "repugnant."
Conservatives have criticized students for pressuring conservatives to back out of speeches, and President Obama recently joined the calls for colleges not to protect students from differing points of view. Source
Therein lies the difference between Trump and Carson. One lacks the tailored rhetoric of a professional campaign team and says whatever crazy thought enters his brain. The other is Donald J. Trump.
|
Nearly 50 leaders of America’s defence and foreign policy establishment are calling on political and business leaders to “think past tomorrow” and lead the fight on climate change.
In a full-page ad in the Wall Street Journal the experts – 48 former secretaries of state and defense, national security advisers, diplomats and members of Congress from both parties – say it is time for America to claim global leadership on climate change.
The appeal is intended to apply pressure to Republicans in Congress who are trying to defeat Barack Obama’s plan to cut carbon pollution at home and seeking to limit US involvement in negotiations to reach a global deal on fighting climate change in Paris in December.
The letter, endorsed by Madeline Albright, secretary of state under Bill Clinton; Chuck Hagel, secretary of defense under Obama; George Shultz, secretary of state under Ronald Reagan; James Woolsey, CIA director under Clinton; and other prominent retired officials, declares that climate change is indeed a security threat.
“America’s elected leaders and private sector must think past tomorrow to focus on this growing problem, and take action at home and abroad,” the ad says.
“This issue is critically important to the world’s most experienced security planners. The impacts are real, and the costs of inaction are unacceptable.”
The ad hits back against Republicans who are trying to block a global climate deal, arguing that Obama should have to submit any agreement for approval to Congress – where it would almost certainly be defeated.
Source
|
On October 23 2015 00:14 Danglars wrote: The long-reaching possibilities are basically nil after McCarthy's gaffe. At least it helped cost him the speakership. You mean the possibilities of using a tragedy politically to sabotage Clinton's candidacy? Yeah. What a shame. FeelsBadMan D:
|
Send in the clowns... Also note that the Benghazi committees and hearings and have lasted longer and spent more money than the 9/11 hearings etc.
The House Benghazi Committee deteriorated into a partisan shouting match between Chairman Trey Gowdy and Ranking Member Elijah Cummings on Thursday, leaving Hillary Clinton to lean back and smile as the two lawmakers traded blows.
At times, Clinton seemed to revel in the battle between Gowdy and Cummings, who argued over how much information should be made public from the panel’s closed-door interviews. They honed in on longtime Clinton ally Sidney Blumenthal, who offered frequent advice and intelligence to the former secretary of state via email, and was later subpoenaed by the committee.
Cummings said the panel should release all the transcripts from its interviews, which he said would contradict public statements from Gowdy. "Mr. Chairman, you personally attended Mr. Blumenthal’s deposition, you personally asked him about the Clinton Foundation, personally directed your staff to ask questions about the Clinton Foundation, which they did more than 50 times.… [which] directly contradicts the statements that you made on national television," Cummings said.
A visibly irritated Gowdy fired back: "No, sir with all do respect, they do not,' before adding that "what is relevant is that he was sending information to the secretary of State."
The fracas broke out just a few minutes after Clinton appeared to get emotional, especially when California Democrat Adam Schiff asked how it felt to be the subject of an investigation that he said indirectly blamed her for the death of ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans in the Sept. 11, 2012 attacks on the Benghazi compound.
Source
|
On October 23 2015 03:06 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Send in the clowns... Also note that the Benghazi committees and hearings and have lasted longer and spent more money than the 9/11 hearings etc. Show nested quote +The House Benghazi Committee deteriorated into a partisan shouting match between Chairman Trey Gowdy and Ranking Member Elijah Cummings on Thursday, leaving Hillary Clinton to lean back and smile as the two lawmakers traded blows.
At times, Clinton seemed to revel in the battle between Gowdy and Cummings, who argued over how much information should be made public from the panel’s closed-door interviews. They honed in on longtime Clinton ally Sidney Blumenthal, who offered frequent advice and intelligence to the former secretary of state via email, and was later subpoenaed by the committee.
Cummings said the panel should release all the transcripts from its interviews, which he said would contradict public statements from Gowdy. "Mr. Chairman, you personally attended Mr. Blumenthal’s deposition, you personally asked him about the Clinton Foundation, personally directed your staff to ask questions about the Clinton Foundation, which they did more than 50 times.… [which] directly contradicts the statements that you made on national television," Cummings said.
A visibly irritated Gowdy fired back: "No, sir with all do respect, they do not,' before adding that "what is relevant is that he was sending information to the secretary of State."
The fracas broke out just a few minutes after Clinton appeared to get emotional, especially when California Democrat Adam Schiff asked how it felt to be the subject of an investigation that he said indirectly blamed her for the death of ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans in the Sept. 11, 2012 attacks on the Benghazi compound. Source
I'm no major fan of Hillary's, but I can't wait for this charade to be over. In the meantime, I'm enjoying watching fools implode on themselves.
|
Half the republicans questioning her in that session are doing such a bang up job of looking petty and vindictive.
|
So how does this committee come to die? What is the process of deciding whether this "investigation" continues or ends?
|
On October 23 2015 03:38 Mohdoo wrote: So how does this committee come to die? What is the process of deciding whether this "investigation" continues or ends?
Like all investigations, it will die once nobody on Capital Hill believes they can exploit it for political gain anymore.
|
How to tell the hearing is a sham: 50% of questions are on Sydney Blumenthal (but the Republicans voted party line to block release of his testimony to the committee*). SB has zero to do with the attacks. SB had no idea about the security situation before the attacks. SB didn't know about the CIA annex. SB had no contact with Ambassador Stevens. SB didn't know even the littlest bit about Stevens' actual mission there**. But you have Gowdy hyping up just how many questions he is going to ask about SB.
*Every last transcript of this committee must be released immediately if it is to gain even the semblance of legitimacy. If you disagree you are a partisan tool. **The hearing should be about what Stevens and the CIA were doing there.
|
On October 23 2015 02:41 frazzle wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2015 00:14 Danglars wrote: The long-reaching possibilities are basically nil after McCarthy's gaffe. At least it helped cost him the speakership. You mean the possibilities of using a tragedy politically to sabotage Clinton's candidacy? Yeah. What a shame. FeelsBadMan D: The chance that the liars and manipulators responsible for negligence in the death of a diplomat and American servicemen will come to justice. The only speedy arrest in the wake of the tragedy was some dude that made a YouTube video. It isn't even McCarthy--he's just the face of an establishment primarily concerned with the pursuit of political power through partisanship.
|
The funny thing is that many of the Republicans I know personally are viewing the hearing as a victory thus far.
|
On October 23 2015 03:49 CannonsNCarriers wrote: How to tell the hearing is a sham: 50% of questions are on Sydney Blumenthal (but the Republicans voted party line to block release of his testimony to the committee*). SB has zero to do with the attacks. SB had no idea about the security situation before the attacks. SB didn't know about the CIA annex. SB had no contact with Ambassador Stevens. SB didn't know even the littlest bit about Stevens' actual mission there**. But you have Gowdy hyping up just how many questions he is going to ask about SB.
*Every last transcript of this committee must be released immediately if it is to gain even the semblance of legitimacy. If you disagree you are a partisan tool. **The hearing should be about what Stevens and the CIA were doing there.
Relevant to your post: http://gawker.com/benghazi-committee-demands-to-know-why-sidney-blumentha-1738082110
“This is a quote from him: ‘I would say Obama’—and by- the way, he left the president part out— ‘I would say Obama appears to be intent on seizing defeat from the jaws of victory. He and his political cronies in the White House and Chicago are, to say the least, unenthusiastic about regime change in Libya. Obama’s lukewarm and self-contradicting statements have produced what is, at least for the moment, operational paralysis.’”
“You know, Mr. Chairman, if you don’t have any friends who say unkind things, I congratulate you,” Hillary said.
|
|
|
|