US Politics Mega-thread - Page 3776

On May 10 2016 05:31 Sbrubbles wrote:


In Brazil we have that option, but in practical terms it's never mattered because it requires too much social coordination for None of the above to actually win.

Oh, and the consequences are redoing the elections actually it's a grey area (conflicting legislation), nobody is 100% sure.

On May 10 2016 05:07 GreenHorizons wrote:


Must be hard out there for you, the oppression must be overwhelming. I admire your strength in the face of such adversity. I hope one day America can put an end to such oppression, surely no American deserves to live under such a yoke and no American can stand idle while others do.

On May 10 2016 05:54 Nebuchad wrote:


It's good to know that even though you weren't able to get Bernie over Hillary in a democratic primary, you still unequivocally rule over what people are allowed to say in the entirety of America.

On May 10 2016 05:54 Nebuchad wrote:


It's good to know that even though you weren't able to get Bernie over Hillary in a democratic primary, you still unequivocally rule over what people are allowed to say in the entirety of America.

Oregon standoff leader Ammon Bundy was a peaceful protester advocating the constitutional beliefs of US supreme court justices Clarence Thomas and the late Antonin Scalia, according to the jailed activist’s formal defense filed on Monday.

Bundy’s motion to dismiss the federal charges that he led a violent conspiracy against the government with an armed occupation of a wildlife refuge lays the groundwork for a trial that could have a lasting impact on the controversial land-use movement in the west.

On 2 January, Bundy, 40, led a group of activists into the Malheur national wildlife refuge in eastern Oregon to protest the federal government’s treatment of local ranchers. The protesters, some of whom were heavily armed, took over a number of public buildings at the refuge headquarters, launching a standoff with federal authorities that dragged on for 41 days.

Bundy and two-dozen other activists were eventually arrested and now face serious felony charges for using “force” and “threats” to impede the government, which could lead some of them to spend decades behind bars.

“Contrasted with shallow and uninformed media portrayals and government hyperbole, Ammon is not an ‘extremist’ and is not a member of any militia, patriot group, or political land protest organization,” Bundy’s attorneys wrote in the filing. “Mr Bundy is not a ... so-called ‘sovereign citizen,’ and he does not hold anti-government views.”

The new motion claims that Bundy identifies as a “federalist” and an “originalist”, meaning he believes the federal government has overstepped its authority by owning vast swaths of land in the west and has strayed beyond its limited jurisdiction the founders intended.

On May 10 2016 05:51 Soap wrote:


No, we don't. http://english.tse.jus.br/noticias-tse-en/2014/Agosto/2014-elections-elections-not-to-be-declared-null-and-void-even-if-more-than-50-of-votes-cast-are-deemed-invalid

On May 10 2016 05:35 Biff The Understudy wrote:

I don't think we have a whole lot to discuss, you and me, so I will politely leave that discussion.

On May 10 2016 06:28 xDaunt wrote:

I didn't have you pegged as one of those left wingers who is afflicted with retrograde illiberalism. Looks like I was wrong.

On May 10 2016 06:34 Plansix wrote:

Someone politely tells him that they don’t see a lot to be gained by the discussion, XDaunt calls them stupid. As I expected.

On Nov. 3, ExxonMobil dispatched its top lobbyists to Capitol Hill on an urgent mission — tamping down an escalating campaign aimed at making the country’s largest oil company pay a legal and political price for its role in warming the planet.

The meeting marked a striking shift in Exxon’s handling of the controversy. The notion of holding oil companies responsible for global warming, in the same way tobacco companies had to pay billions of dollars in damages over the health effects of cigarettes, had long been seen as a quixotic quest led by scruffy, oil-hating extremists. But POLITICO’s interviews with dozens of activists, industry officials and lawmakers suggest that support for a legal crusade against Exxon is growing far beyond the political fringe — and now poses the biggest existential threat the company has faced in decades.

Just five days before the meeting on Capitol Hill, Democratic presidential front-runner Hillary Clinton had urged the Justice Department to investigate whether the petroleum giant spent decades deceiving the public about the threat of climate change. State attorneys general had Exxon in their sights as well, preparing to issue subpoenas that would eventually rope in virtually all of Washington’s conservative policy apparatus. A four-year effort by green activists, scientists and lawyers to turn Big Oil’s biggest player into the poster child for climate change — deliberately patterned after the successful campaign to take down tobacco — was shaking the descendant of John D. Rockefeller’s Standard Oil empire to its core.

So the four Exxon executives arrived at the office of California Democrat Rep. Ted Lieu with one job: convincing four of their most vocal congressional critics that the company wasn’t the polluting villain its enemies were making it out to be.

Exxon supports “sound climate policy” and has tripled its greenhouse-gas cuts since 2008, the executives boasted to the lawmakers in a 10-page glossy presentation, later obtained by POLITICO. Exxon was even on record in favor of a tax on carbon emissions — a climate remedy more radical than anything President Barack Obama has proposed.

The company left empty-handed, though, after refusing to directly answer questions about whether it had suppressed internal research that underscored the threat of climate change while publicly sowing doubt about climate science, according to people in the room.

On May 10 2016 06:37 xDaunt wrote:

You may want to try reading what I wrote again. I did not call him stupid. My complaint is very different.

On May 10 2016 05:24 xDaunt wrote:

Fair enough. But we are about to wrap up eight years of Obama, and if his presidency tells us anything, it tells us that the political establishment and institutions are remarkably resilient to whatever the president may choose to do. In short, worrying about Trump wrecking the country is largely hyperbolic.

On May 10 2016 06:48 Gorsameth wrote:

Your right but Obama got a fair bit done with executive orders when institutions did not cooperate. Unless congress unites against Trump this could be repeated.
But most of Trumps damage would be international where the opinion and influence of America would hit all time lows.

On May 10 2016 06:55 xDaunt wrote:

Well, the US is at a pretty good low point right now internationally. Our global influence is about as low as it has been since WW2. And of course foreign countries are going to rail at Trump's "America first" platform. I'd expect nothing less when their interests in the American gravy train are so directly threatened. But we will have to see how things play out. Let's not forget all of the lofty expectations for Obama's foreign policy when he was elected. How utterly laughable does his Nobel Peace Prize look now?

On May 10 2016 06:41 Plansix wrote:

I am sure I could perform a full breakdown of the specific wording and use of the world “afflicted” as opposed to “subscriber” or “believer” to prove that you meant to imply he has limited mental capacity due his views.

But I don’t have time for that and sometimes it’s nice to cut through the passive aggressive nerd bullshit and just call a spade and spade.

On May 10 2016 07:03 Ghostcom wrote:


Then let's cut through it: Do you really think it possible to denigrate someone and then "politely" excuse yourself from the discussion when your unsubstantiated claims meets reality? Because that was exactly what Biff did. He even managed to equate voting for Trump/Le Pen/Fahrad with Hitler and Mussolini and yet you still consider him polite?

People voting for Trump is not an argument against democracy - it is an argument against the current politicians and their deafness towards a large segment of the population. If you want people to vote for someone else, listen to their concerns instead of trying to silence them (for the vast majority their concerns aren't founded in neither bigotry nor racism), and then give them a better alternative.

It's almost as if the average politician forgot about the "representative" part in a representative democracy.

A Democratic candidate for the West Virginia state Senate was brutally attacked at a political cookout just two days before the state’s primary in an attack his family believes was politically motivated, WSAZ reported.

Richard Ojeda suffered eight facial fractures, severe swelling, and a concussion after suspect Jonathan Porter allegedly showed up to a Sunday cookout uninvited, according to the report.

Porter allegedly asked Ojeda, a military veteran, for help putting a bumper sticker on his car and started beating him with brass knuckles when he bent down to help, the local station reported. Witnesses told police the suspect also tried to run Ojeda over with his car while trying to flee the scene.

Porter turned himself into police about six hours later and was charged with felony destruction of property, malicious assault and attempt to commit a felony, according to WSAZ.

After the attack, Ojeda posted a photo of his battered face from the hospital on Facebook, and said he believes the attack was planned.

“Make no mistake....I am now even more dedicated to the cause. This doesn't scare me and I don't quit! This was premeditated and there was a reason the guy did this,” he wrote.

Ojeda’s opponent in the race, incumbent state Sen. Art Kirkendoll, strongly condemned the attack in a statement.