US Politics Mega-thread - Page 3857

On May 21 2016 05:27 zlefin wrote:


I'm not entirely disagreeing, but want to note a couple things:
Public universities (which aren't just partly funded by, but literally owned by, the state) should probably run by the same rules as the state in general.
Places that are "public accomodations" should allow generally legal products to be brought in imho; with possible exceptions of course. Not sure if it would apply to guns. Though now tha tI think about it; i don't think this is the case anyways, and they can and do exclude whatever stuff they want.

On May 21 2016 05:27 cLutZ wrote:
The thing about campuses is I don't like campuswide bans if there aren't locker areas for storage outside the banned zones, particularly if you are a public campus. At University of Pittsburgh, where I went to school, the campus was integrated with huge swaths of the city, I don't think there is a real dividing line where campus starts and the city begins. On top of that, a lot of students lived in crappier areas of the city because rents in campus housing were high (and I assume this is even worse in places like Palo Alto or New York, I know its worse in Chicago schools).

Its perfectly fine, then for the taxpayers to say, "yea, this is actually our property not your private playground" to school admins, who frankly live a totally insulated life comparatively.

On May 21 2016 06:13 Mohdoo wrote:
My favorite Bernista conspiracy: every time Clinton or a Clinton super pac donate money to the Democratic party of a state (thus supporting the party), it is framed as fraud. It's amazing.

On May 21 2016 05:37 Plansix wrote:

Most state schools are funded through a number of means, the least of which is directs support from the tax payers. In the case of some school, its billion dollar endowments or other funding. So I have some serious issues with that tax payers attempt to force their in your face gun politics on schools they contribute very little to.

Just because it says University of Georgia doesn’t make it the municipal fire department.

On May 21 2016 04:12 GreenHorizons wrote:

The biggest problem people have with her is not trusting her word. You think any Bernie supporters are going to trust the other crap she's said if she thinks she doesn't have to keep her word on something this small?

On May 21 2016 06:22 Rebs wrote:


I know I am a little late to this, but to be fair, Bernie supporters the way they are now wouldnt trust any of her "crap" regardless of what she did. Or would you disagree?

On May 21 2016 06:20 cLutZ wrote:


You are only looking at the last few years when you make that judgment though. UGA was built with taxpayer funding, that people started feeling loyalty to them instead of the local fire department and donating out of pocket (along with the Federal government massively subsidizing them through loans) doesn't mean they all of the sudden get independence. Its like if you work at a law firm as a paralegal and they pay for your degree, you can't just peace out when you get it.

The faculty and administrators are free to forge their own legacy at "Georgia Private University" but I doubt many of their donors (who fund that endowment) will come along.

On May 21 2016 07:03 LegalLord wrote:
I'm hoping that a California debate between Hillary and Sanders will be a more or less conciliatory one. Hillary won the nomination by now, but the Democratic campaign does stand to lose a lot if Bernie voters are not on board. I'm hoping to see a concession after the end of voting on June 7/8, and a commitment to supporting the Democratic ticket. In return maybe Hillary will move somewhat left on a lot of the issues that the Bernie base cares about, and to address the "rigged" system to an extent that people will at least find acceptable.

On May 21 2016 07:06 Mohdoo wrote:


I've often pondered what this issue will be. What I predict is that Clinton will just directly absorb one of Bernie's key policy ramblings. I don't think free college. That has huge negatives with moderates and republicans. I was considering the idea of Clinton not using super pacs where Bernie is her fundraiser or some wild shit like that. I would definitely drop some somewhat irresponsible amounts of cash donating to the democratic party not using special interest money. I don't think that'll happen, though.

Oklahoma Gov. Mary Fallin vetoed a bill on Friday that would have made it a felony for doctors to perform an abortion.

The legislation, which was the first of its kind, as NPR's Jennifer Ludden reported Thursday, would have effectively eliminated abortion in the state. Oklahoma lawmakers passed the bill on Thursday, as the Two-Way reported.

Fallin's office issued a press release saying she vetoed the bill because it was "vague and would not withstand a criminal constitutional legal challenge."

It continued:

"Fallin is the most pro-life governor in the nation. She has signed 18 bills supporting pro-life values and protecting the health and lives of mothers and their unborn children.

"Senate Bill 1552 would have made it a felony for physicians to perform abortions. It also contained a provision to revoke their medical licenses unless the abortion was necessary to save the life of the mother.

" 'The bill is so ambiguous and so vague that doctors cannot be certain what medical circumstances would be considered 'necessary to preserve the life of the mother,' Fallin said.

" 'The absence of any definition, analysis or medical standard renders this exception vague, indefinite and vulnerable to subjective interpretation and application,' she wrote in her veto message."

As Jennifer reported Thursday, abortion rights groups said the bill "is unconstitutional, a direct violation of Roe v. Wade," the 1973 Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion nationwide, and predicted it would be struck down by the courts if it were signed into law.

The Associated Press adds that "state law already makes it a felony for anyone who is not a doctor to perform an abortion. [The] bill would have removed the exemption for physicians."

On May 21 2016 08:11 Naracs_Duc wrote:


They will say that they are in agreement that minimum wage needs to be raised, and that they both agree that ACA needs to be stronger, they will also say that Dodd Frank will be the primary tool to regulate banks, and that campaign finance reform cannot happen without overturning citizens united.

For the most part, Sanders will absorb Hilary's plans.

On May 21 2016 08:40 Sermokala wrote:

Pretty sure it would be the opposite in this case considering the point is to coalesce under Hillary.

I don't know I'm not sure if the DNC is competent enough to pull off a good to neutral sanders wing absorption maneuver. They've failed on their attempts so far and there isn't any evidence they have it in them now.

Over 150 pregnant women in the United States appear to have been infected with Zika virus. That's in addition to more than 120 women affected by Zika in U.S. territories, mainly Puerto Rico.

Those are the latest figures from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta, which has been keeping track of all pregnant women in the U.S. and its territories who have lab tests suggestive of Zika virus infections.

So far, officials say they are aware of fewer than a dozen pregnancies that have had complications, although many of the pregnancies are ongoing. "We don't have full information yet on all of the outcomes," says Margaret Honein, chief of the CDC's birth defects branch.

Zika virus infection has been associated with miscarriage as well as birth defects like unusually small brains, called microcephaly. The exact risk posed by the virus remains unclear, and figuring that out is one reason the CDC is keeping track of affected pregnancies.

In the past, the CDC publicly reported on only those women who had both positive lab tests as well as symptoms. But officials say recent research suggests that women do not necessarily have to have symptoms to have their pregnancies affected. So the CDC is expanding its reporting to include women who didn't have symptoms.

"As the data accumulated about the risk of asymptomatic infections, it seemed more and more important to be very transparent and share publicly the numbers, the full number of pregnant women at risk of adverse outcomes associated with Zika," said Honein in a press briefing Friday.

Among the 157 pregnant women from U.S. states and the District of Columbia who are being monitored, only 49 percent reported symptoms consistent with Zika — mostly rash and fever.