|
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. |
On June 13 2016 22:31 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2016 21:43 SolaR- wrote:On June 13 2016 21:41 On_Slaught wrote:On June 13 2016 21:16 zeo wrote:On June 13 2016 20:48 ShoCkeyy wrote:
I hear he's going to concede, endorse Hillary so the democrats have a chance at beating Trump. I also think that with this recent massacre, it will push a ton of people in FL to vote republican this Nov.
@KadaverBB - GL in moderation - seems like everyone tried to be hands off this thread lol. Yeah, I think Florida just turned red. Interested to see poll numbers among gays nationwide in the next few days. edit: Actually any polls to be honest LOL.... no. People forget about these things faster than we'd like to admit. Maybe if this shooting happened in October it would matter, but June? No. Which brings up the question of why people would ever vote for Trump if they wanted to prevent these sorts of events. He has zero experience on the matter and nothing he has said is a real answer to the solution.Unless of course you want to start throwing all Muslims in the country into internment camps. Then, I admit, this specific shooting wouldn't have happened. The guy should have been locked up. The fbi is not granted enough power to do their job. He was interviewed twice and had known terrorist connections. That is enough for me. The US is a democracy governed by the rule of law. That has some inconveniences, such as not locking up people that might be dangerous, and some advantages, such as not being threatened to be locked yourself by an arbitrary power. With all due respect, I also find rich that Republicans who complain all the time about the oppressing al powerful state (and have had conspiracy theories about military exercises being a coup from the evil Washington juggernaut) want the FBI to have the right to deprive an individual of his freedom on the basis of simple suspicion. At one point you have to chose between perfect security, which actually never happens, or freedom. And what seems common sense measure to protect the citizen of a democracy can be completely undermining the basis on which the whole society is based.
I agree we are a rule of law. However, i think associating with terrorists should be a jailable offense. At least we should be able to detain the person indefinitely. I don't think this would affect normal citizens from exercising their liberties. More importantly, it would detract some radical Muslims from even trying to communicate with known associates.
Also, I would appreciate not being lumped with the party that I am supporting. I am not my party, and I always vote who i think the best candidate is regardless of party. I don't always vote republican, and sometimes i am willing to compromise my values for what I believe to be the greater good.
|
On June 13 2016 22:53 SolaR- wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2016 22:31 Biff The Understudy wrote:On June 13 2016 21:43 SolaR- wrote:On June 13 2016 21:41 On_Slaught wrote:On June 13 2016 21:16 zeo wrote:On June 13 2016 20:48 ShoCkeyy wrote:
I hear he's going to concede, endorse Hillary so the democrats have a chance at beating Trump. I also think that with this recent massacre, it will push a ton of people in FL to vote republican this Nov.
@KadaverBB - GL in moderation - seems like everyone tried to be hands off this thread lol. Yeah, I think Florida just turned red. Interested to see poll numbers among gays nationwide in the next few days. edit: Actually any polls to be honest LOL.... no. People forget about these things faster than we'd like to admit. Maybe if this shooting happened in October it would matter, but June? No. Which brings up the question of why people would ever vote for Trump if they wanted to prevent these sorts of events. He has zero experience on the matter and nothing he has said is a real answer to the solution.Unless of course you want to start throwing all Muslims in the country into internment camps. Then, I admit, this specific shooting wouldn't have happened. The guy should have been locked up. The fbi is not granted enough power to do their job. He was interviewed twice and had known terrorist connections. That is enough for me. The US is a democracy governed by the rule of law. That has some inconveniences, such as not locking up people that might be dangerous, and some advantages, such as not being threatened to be locked yourself by an arbitrary power. With all due respect, I also find rich that Republicans who complain all the time about the oppressing al powerful state (and have had conspiracy theories about military exercises being a coup from the evil Washington juggernaut) want the FBI to have the right to deprive an individual of his freedom on the basis of simple suspicion. At one point you have to chose between perfect security, which actually never happens, or freedom. And what seems common sense measure to protect the citizen of a democracy can be completely undermining the basis on which the whole society is based. I agree we are a rule of law. However, i think associating with terrorists should be a jailable offense. At least we should be able to detain the person indefinitely. I don't think this would affect normal citizens from exercising their liberties. More importantly, it would detract some radical Muslims from even trying to communicate with known associates. Also, I would appreciate not being lumped with the party that I am supporting. I am not my party, and I always vote who i think the best candidate is regardless of party. I don't always vote republican, and sometimes i am willing to compromise my values for what I believe to be the greater good.
I was not talking about you specifically. The trend has been going since Reagan, talk about small government, and systematically push for increasing government control or pour money into the military. At least the libbies are consistent with their idea.
The thing is that "small government" really is newspeak for "not helping those people with social security".
But on topic. So, say, your brother is a radicalized muslim (could happen to anyone), and you know / talk with some of his friends. Maybe they are even friends of yours. Ok, those are not great acquaintance, but you haven't done anything wrong.
Does your law means the FBI can jail you for the rest of your life?
|
On June 13 2016 23:07 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2016 22:53 SolaR- wrote:On June 13 2016 22:31 Biff The Understudy wrote:On June 13 2016 21:43 SolaR- wrote:On June 13 2016 21:41 On_Slaught wrote:On June 13 2016 21:16 zeo wrote:On June 13 2016 20:48 ShoCkeyy wrote:
I hear he's going to concede, endorse Hillary so the democrats have a chance at beating Trump. I also think that with this recent massacre, it will push a ton of people in FL to vote republican this Nov.
@KadaverBB - GL in moderation - seems like everyone tried to be hands off this thread lol. Yeah, I think Florida just turned red. Interested to see poll numbers among gays nationwide in the next few days. edit: Actually any polls to be honest LOL.... no. People forget about these things faster than we'd like to admit. Maybe if this shooting happened in October it would matter, but June? No. Which brings up the question of why people would ever vote for Trump if they wanted to prevent these sorts of events. He has zero experience on the matter and nothing he has said is a real answer to the solution.Unless of course you want to start throwing all Muslims in the country into internment camps. Then, I admit, this specific shooting wouldn't have happened. The guy should have been locked up. The fbi is not granted enough power to do their job. He was interviewed twice and had known terrorist connections. That is enough for me. The US is a democracy governed by the rule of law. That has some inconveniences, such as not locking up people that might be dangerous, and some advantages, such as not being threatened to be locked yourself by an arbitrary power. With all due respect, I also find rich that Republicans who complain all the time about the oppressing al powerful state (and have had conspiracy theories about military exercises being a coup from the evil Washington juggernaut) want the FBI to have the right to deprive an individual of his freedom on the basis of simple suspicion. At one point you have to chose between perfect security, which actually never happens, or freedom. And what seems common sense measure to protect the citizen of a democracy can be completely undermining the basis on which the whole society is based. I agree we are a rule of law. However, i think associating with terrorists should be a jailable offense. At least we should be able to detain the person indefinitely. I don't think this would affect normal citizens from exercising their liberties. More importantly, it would detract some radical Muslims from even trying to communicate with known associates. Also, I would appreciate not being lumped with the party that I am supporting. I am not my party, and I always vote who i think the best candidate is regardless of party. I don't always vote republican, and sometimes i am willing to compromise my values for what I believe to be the greater good. I was not talking about you specifically. The trend has been going since Reagan, talk about small government, and systematically push for increasing government control or pour money into the military. At least the libbies are consistent with their idea. The thing is that "small government" really is newspeak for "not helping those people with social security". But on topic. So, say, your brother is a radicalized muslim (could happen to anyone), and you know / talk with some of his friends. Maybe they are even friends of yours. Ok, those are not great acquaintance, but you haven't done anything wrong. Does your law means the FBI can jail you for the rest of your life?
I see no problem being questioned and possibly detained until everything is clear. However, it also depends on the association. If my brother is making trips to syria to fight for isis, and i am actively communicating with him then I think i should be questioned and my phone call records checked. If my brother fled the family and dropped all contact with me and my family then the suspicion around me should be greatly reduced.
I can't give you a firm answer on this as it depends on the situation and the evidence that is available. I do agree with your concern of locking up innocent people just because of their association with a terrorist. Discretion should be used of course.
However, this is starting to be a continuing problem of knowing these guys are most likely guilty and thr fbi cannot do anything about it. Sane issue happened with san Bernardino. Something needs to be done, because this cannot be allowed to happen anymore.
|
Solar -> i'd say it's not so much as knowing they're guilty, as knowing they're suspicious.
I mean, the list of people who're suspicious is awfully long.
It's the same with a lot of figures in organized crime, who're being watched, but there's not enough evidence to prove they did something criminally wrong.
keep in mind also, it's hard to tell whether all contact has been dropped or not, as there's a lot of surreptitious methods of communication.
as to your call to use discretion; discretion is a powerful tool if used well; but many feel (with some justificatoin) that the government has abused discretion at times, and prefer to limit such methods.
Another thing is, from a legal standpoint, if they want to use the fact that someone's on some watch list to deny them something, then the basis for someone being on that list would be subject to judicial review, so you'd have to show your evidence against them in a court (when they challenge their classification). If they are a terrorist, revealing that information, which would also at least give hints as to its sources, would pose risks of its own.
|
On June 13 2016 23:29 SolaR- wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2016 23:07 Biff The Understudy wrote:On June 13 2016 22:53 SolaR- wrote:On June 13 2016 22:31 Biff The Understudy wrote:On June 13 2016 21:43 SolaR- wrote:On June 13 2016 21:41 On_Slaught wrote:On June 13 2016 21:16 zeo wrote:On June 13 2016 20:48 ShoCkeyy wrote:
I hear he's going to concede, endorse Hillary so the democrats have a chance at beating Trump. I also think that with this recent massacre, it will push a ton of people in FL to vote republican this Nov.
@KadaverBB - GL in moderation - seems like everyone tried to be hands off this thread lol. Yeah, I think Florida just turned red. Interested to see poll numbers among gays nationwide in the next few days. edit: Actually any polls to be honest LOL.... no. People forget about these things faster than we'd like to admit. Maybe if this shooting happened in October it would matter, but June? No. Which brings up the question of why people would ever vote for Trump if they wanted to prevent these sorts of events. He has zero experience on the matter and nothing he has said is a real answer to the solution.Unless of course you want to start throwing all Muslims in the country into internment camps. Then, I admit, this specific shooting wouldn't have happened. The guy should have been locked up. The fbi is not granted enough power to do their job. He was interviewed twice and had known terrorist connections. That is enough for me. The US is a democracy governed by the rule of law. That has some inconveniences, such as not locking up people that might be dangerous, and some advantages, such as not being threatened to be locked yourself by an arbitrary power. With all due respect, I also find rich that Republicans who complain all the time about the oppressing al powerful state (and have had conspiracy theories about military exercises being a coup from the evil Washington juggernaut) want the FBI to have the right to deprive an individual of his freedom on the basis of simple suspicion. At one point you have to chose between perfect security, which actually never happens, or freedom. And what seems common sense measure to protect the citizen of a democracy can be completely undermining the basis on which the whole society is based. I agree we are a rule of law. However, i think associating with terrorists should be a jailable offense. At least we should be able to detain the person indefinitely. I don't think this would affect normal citizens from exercising their liberties. More importantly, it would detract some radical Muslims from even trying to communicate with known associates. Also, I would appreciate not being lumped with the party that I am supporting. I am not my party, and I always vote who i think the best candidate is regardless of party. I don't always vote republican, and sometimes i am willing to compromise my values for what I believe to be the greater good. I was not talking about you specifically. The trend has been going since Reagan, talk about small government, and systematically push for increasing government control or pour money into the military. At least the libbies are consistent with their idea. The thing is that "small government" really is newspeak for "not helping those people with social security". But on topic. So, say, your brother is a radicalized muslim (could happen to anyone), and you know / talk with some of his friends. Maybe they are even friends of yours. Ok, those are not great acquaintance, but you haven't done anything wrong. Does your law means the FBI can jail you for the rest of your life? I see no problem being questioned and possibly detained until everything is clear. However, it also depends on the association. If my brother is making trips to syria to fight for isis, and i am actively communicating with him then I think i should be questioned and my phone call records checked. If my brother fled the family and dropped all contact with me and my family then the suspicion around me should be greatly reduced. I can't give you a firm answer on this as it depends on the situation and the evidence that is available. I do agree with your concern of locking up innocent people just because of their association with a terrorist. Discretion should be used of course. However, this is starting to be a continuing problem of knowing these guys are most likely guilty and thr fbi cannot do anything about it. Sane issue happened with san Bernardino. Something needs to be done, because this cannot be allowed to happen anymore.
This attitude is so incredibly naive. Yeah, the chance that you personally will be impacted if the government has these powers (such as detaining people indefinitely just because who they talk to) may be very hard to estimate. But it all boils to if you believe that your government will always and forever be "the good guys". This proposal of yours is actually pretty similar to many that have been though of in the past, all across the political spectrum. Ironically, it fails at the very same point where all hardcore socialist and communist attempts failed: that we do not live under an enlightened emperor, but in a society, where people who desire power can climb to power.
We actually have had this for more than 40 years in my country - exactly the same arrangement you are asking for, where people could be detained for mere suspicion of anti-state activity, their whole lives ruined by secret police ... guess what, it wasn't pretty and it has left an insane scar on the society as a whole that still hasn't been healed. I can imagine, that the things you type out about detaining terorrists seem completely straightforward to you, but they just aren't and it has been repeatedly proven by history. The whole problem can be summarized very briefly: who gets to decided who is a terrorist? That's why we have all this cumbersome and annoying "due process" and whatnot - because there simply isn't any other way to prevent abuse.
|
What is being discussed has echoes to the McCarthy hearings on known communist supporters and sympathizers.
|
On June 13 2016 23:29 SolaR- wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2016 23:07 Biff The Understudy wrote:On June 13 2016 22:53 SolaR- wrote:On June 13 2016 22:31 Biff The Understudy wrote:On June 13 2016 21:43 SolaR- wrote:On June 13 2016 21:41 On_Slaught wrote:On June 13 2016 21:16 zeo wrote:On June 13 2016 20:48 ShoCkeyy wrote:
I hear he's going to concede, endorse Hillary so the democrats have a chance at beating Trump. I also think that with this recent massacre, it will push a ton of people in FL to vote republican this Nov.
@KadaverBB - GL in moderation - seems like everyone tried to be hands off this thread lol. Yeah, I think Florida just turned red. Interested to see poll numbers among gays nationwide in the next few days. edit: Actually any polls to be honest LOL.... no. People forget about these things faster than we'd like to admit. Maybe if this shooting happened in October it would matter, but June? No. Which brings up the question of why people would ever vote for Trump if they wanted to prevent these sorts of events. He has zero experience on the matter and nothing he has said is a real answer to the solution.Unless of course you want to start throwing all Muslims in the country into internment camps. Then, I admit, this specific shooting wouldn't have happened. The guy should have been locked up. The fbi is not granted enough power to do their job. He was interviewed twice and had known terrorist connections. That is enough for me. The US is a democracy governed by the rule of law. That has some inconveniences, such as not locking up people that might be dangerous, and some advantages, such as not being threatened to be locked yourself by an arbitrary power. With all due respect, I also find rich that Republicans who complain all the time about the oppressing al powerful state (and have had conspiracy theories about military exercises being a coup from the evil Washington juggernaut) want the FBI to have the right to deprive an individual of his freedom on the basis of simple suspicion. At one point you have to chose between perfect security, which actually never happens, or freedom. And what seems common sense measure to protect the citizen of a democracy can be completely undermining the basis on which the whole society is based. I agree we are a rule of law. However, i think associating with terrorists should be a jailable offense. At least we should be able to detain the person indefinitely. I don't think this would affect normal citizens from exercising their liberties. More importantly, it would detract some radical Muslims from even trying to communicate with known associates. Also, I would appreciate not being lumped with the party that I am supporting. I am not my party, and I always vote who i think the best candidate is regardless of party. I don't always vote republican, and sometimes i am willing to compromise my values for what I believe to be the greater good. I was not talking about you specifically. The trend has been going since Reagan, talk about small government, and systematically push for increasing government control or pour money into the military. At least the libbies are consistent with their idea. The thing is that "small government" really is newspeak for "not helping those people with social security". But on topic. So, say, your brother is a radicalized muslim (could happen to anyone), and you know / talk with some of his friends. Maybe they are even friends of yours. Ok, those are not great acquaintance, but you haven't done anything wrong. Does your law means the FBI can jail you for the rest of your life? I see no problem being questioned and possibly detained until everything is clear. However, it also depends on the association. If my brother is making trips to syria to fight for isis, and i am actively communicating with him then I think i should be questioned and my phone call records checked. If my brother fled the family and dropped all contact with me and my family then the suspicion around me should be greatly reduced. I can't give you a firm answer on this as it depends on the situation and the evidence that is available. I do agree with your concern of locking up innocent people just because of their association with a terrorist. Discretion should be used of course. However, this is starting to be a continuing problem of knowing these guys are most likely guilty and thr fbi cannot do anything about it. Sane issue happened with san Bernardino. Something needs to be done, because this cannot be allowed to happen anymore.
That's the thing, you can and should put someone you suspect under surveillance but as soon as someone has not committed an offense, you cannot detain him for "as long as you want". Talking with someone, as evil as that person might be is not and cannot be an offense. Or you are not anymore in the rule of law, but has entered in the realm of arbitrary state control. That's a pity, but it's like that. And the benefits of respecting one's rights far exceed the inconvenience, even if that means that you are more likely to be hit by terrorist attacks.
Anyway, to start detaining arbitrarily and for as long as you want people who have bad acquaintances, you would probably have to rewrite the constitution from scratch. That has never seem to me as an urgent priority to the GOP.
We can leave that for now I think. This thread has turned into liquid shit a few days ago because a couple of posters didn't want to listen any rational argument. I say that your proposal is sapping the basis of democracy and cannot be made with your constitution, that protects people. If you don't agree, well let's agree to disagree and let's move on.
|
I don't necessarily disagree with you. I understand your concerns and agree with them. I just think there has to be some middle ground or something we could do better, whatever that may be. But, yes let's move on with a different dicussion, everything that can be said on this topic bas been said.
|
Freedom of association and freedom of speech are still things, as well as the right to a timely fair trial and not to be held forever.
On paper it might sound great to you to be able to just lock people up for associating with terrorists, or who you perceive to be terrorists. But that's a very nebulous rule, who gets to define the "terrorist" in this? Someone has to be the ultimate arbiter on that, and that person will not be the arbiter forever. Over time the definition gets broadened to include these suspected evil people as well, power gets handed to the next guy who's always had a problem with these people. No one has a problem when it's their own team calling the shots, but it won't be your team forever, and then what? Are you suddenly going to realize that this was a terrible idea to give so much power so broadly away when it's too late? It's way too open ended, way too much of a slippery slope, you will never reign that power in once you let it go, ever.
It's like the FBI watch list issue. There's a super nebulous list out there that you don' know if you're on or not and its virtually impossible to be removed from, that there's no clearly defined definition for being put on, essentially having no oversight and that's not concerning at all? I'm pro reasonable gun control and even I think that's way too open ended and exploitable to use solely to deny people guns!
On June 13 2016 23:44 Plansix wrote:
What is being discussed has echoes to the McCarthy hearings on known communist supporters and sympathizers.
Pretty much this. This seems really short sighted. It also reminds me of the Patriot Act, you've got nothing to hide, right?
|
There's a middle ground. We shouldn't go back to cold war crap. But we also should not allow extremism to fester. Hearing about the Orlando shooter's dad is just depressing.
Edit:
Sanders says he will meet with Hillary Clinton on Tuesday
U.S. Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders said he will meet with his rival Hillary Clinton on Tuesday to press her to embrace his progressive agenda, saying he wants to know what she will stand for if she becomes president.
Speaking on ABC's "This Week" program on Sunday, Sanders did not concede he had lost the Democratic presidential nomination to Clinton, who is leading in Democratic primaries and is the party's presumed nominee.
Sanders said he and Clinton would discuss "if she wins, what kind of administration she will have."
"What I need to see (is) a commitment that there will be progressive taxation," he said, saying corporations and billionaires should pay higher tax rates.
He repeated his stance that he would do "everything I can" to ensure Donald Trump, the presumptive Republican nominee, will not become president.
Sanders said he wanted to see Clinton embrace his view that healthcare should be a universal right in America and public universities should offer education for free.
"Will she go as far as I would like her to go? No, she won't," he said. "But I think millions of people want to understand and see is what kind of commitment she has to addressing the real crises in the country."
(Reporting by Jason Lange; Editing by Alistair Bell)
Link: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-sanders-idUSKCN0YY0S2
|
On June 14 2016 00:14 Mohdoo wrote:There's a middle ground. We shouldn't go back to cold war crap. But we also should not allow extremism to fester. Hearing about the Orlando shooter's dad is just depressing. Edit: Sanders says he will meet with Hillary Clinton on Tuesday Show nested quote +
U.S. Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders said he will meet with his rival Hillary Clinton on Tuesday to press her to embrace his progressive agenda, saying he wants to know what she will stand for if she becomes president.
Speaking on ABC's "This Week" program on Sunday, Sanders did not concede he had lost the Democratic presidential nomination to Clinton, who is leading in Democratic primaries and is the party's presumed nominee.
Sanders said he and Clinton would discuss "if she wins, what kind of administration she will have."
"What I need to see (is) a commitment that there will be progressive taxation," he said, saying corporations and billionaires should pay higher tax rates.
He repeated his stance that he would do "everything I can" to ensure Donald Trump, the presumptive Republican nominee, will not become president.
Sanders said he wanted to see Clinton embrace his view that healthcare should be a universal right in America and public universities should offer education for free.
"Will she go as far as I would like her to go? No, she won't," he said. "But I think millions of people want to understand and see is what kind of commitment she has to addressing the real crises in the country."
(Reporting by Jason Lange; Editing by Alistair Bell)
Link: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-sanders-idUSKCN0YY0S2
That's finally good news and common sense. I hope he deploys as much energy to help his side win the race than he did for himself.
On terrorism, a comprehensive counter intelligence service should be enough. You don't lock down people you suspect but you can put them under constant surveillance. With the warrant of a judge or judicial authorities, of course.
|
Lone crazy attacks are nigh impossible to stop if the perpetrator is competent. There is no direct evidence of their intent so you cant arrest them for that.
Yes he was watched by the FBI but that alone cannot disqualify you from owning a gun (not without actual evidence) so he could buy a gun.
He had a permit so he could leave the house with his gun.
Walking to a bar with his gun? Still not illegal.
At what point can any law enforcement agency intervene in a scenario like this? Not until the bullets start flying and your not going to follow the guy with a complete swat team for the rest of his life.
|
What a surprise... not really.
Peabody Energy, America’s biggest coalmining company, has funded at least two dozen groups that cast doubt on manmade climate change and oppose environment regulations, analysis by the Guardian reveals.
The funding spanned trade associations, corporate lobby groups, and industry front groups as well as conservative thinktanks and was exposed in court filings last month.
The coal company also gave to political organisations, funding twice as many Republican groups as Democratic ones.
Peabody, the world’s biggest private sector publicly traded coal company, was long known as an outlier even among fossil fuel companies for its public rejection of climate science and action. But its funding of climate denial groups was only exposed in disclosures after the coal titan was forced to seek bankruptcy protection in April, under competition from cheap natural gas.
Environmental campaigners said they had not known for certain that the company was funding an array of climate denial groups – and that the breadth of that funding took them by surprise.
The company’s filings reveal funding for a range of organisations which have fought Barack Obama’s plans to cut greenhouse gas emissions, and denied the very existence of climate change.
Source
|
On June 14 2016 00:14 Mohdoo wrote:Sanders says he will meet with Hillary Clinton on Tuesday Show nested quote +
U.S. Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders said he will meet with his rival Hillary Clinton on Tuesday to press her to embrace his progressive agenda, saying he wants to know what she will stand for if she becomes president.
Speaking on ABC's "This Week" program on Sunday, Sanders did not concede he had lost the Democratic presidential nomination to Clinton, who is leading in Democratic primaries and is the party's presumed nominee.
Sanders said he and Clinton would discuss "if she wins, what kind of administration she will have."
"What I need to see (is) a commitment that there will be progressive taxation," he said, saying corporations and billionaires should pay higher tax rates.
He repeated his stance that he would do "everything I can" to ensure Donald Trump, the presumptive Republican nominee, will not become president.
Sanders said he wanted to see Clinton embrace his view that healthcare should be a universal right in America and public universities should offer education for free.
"Will she go as far as I would like her to go? No, she won't," he said. "But I think millions of people want to understand and see is what kind of commitment she has to addressing the real crises in the country."
(Reporting by Jason Lange; Editing by Alistair Bell)
Link: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-sanders-idUSKCN0YY0S2
Should be an easy talk since most of Bernies core policies are already in the Clinton platform, just taken less far but with a more solid basis of viability.
Doubt it will help the Bernie or Bust group tho. Would expect them to see it as Bernie selling out rather then as Clinton being acceptable for now.
|
On June 14 2016 00:23 Gorsameth wrote:
Lone crazy attacks are nigh impossible to stop if the perpetrator is competent. There is no direct evidence of their intent so you cant arrest them for that.
Yes he was watched by the FBI but that alone cannot disqualify you from owning a gun (not without actual evidence) so he could buy a gun.
He had a permit so he could leave the house with his gun.
Walking to a bar with his gun? Still not illegal.
At what point can any law enforcement agency intervene in a scenario like this? Not until the bullets start flying and your not going to follow the guy with a complete swat team for the rest of his life.
The fact people like that can own this kind of weaponry is completely nuts. That's basic common sense, but that's for the gun thread I guess. Actually, the only thing that makes this kind of shooting a bit more unlikely is very strict regulation on firearms. We've seen how it went : Obama has expressed frustration over and over, at every mass shooting over the attitude of GOP representative on the subject.
If and only if Hillary wins with a large majority at the house is there a hope for regulations. And even then the NRA will blackmail democrat representative to death. We can always pray.
|
On June 14 2016 00:23 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On terrorism, a comprehensive counter intelligence service should be enough. You don't lock down people you suspect but you can put them under constant surveillance. With the warrant of a judge or judicial authorities, of course.
I believe the Orlando shooter was given too many rights. I think people who were investigated by the FBI in the same way he was should be given less rights. As for how many or whatever, I don't know. But this shouldn't have happened. Authorities were aware of him. Someone who authorities are aware of should not have been able to do this. If the rules in place prevented authorities from being aware, those rules need to change. It doesn't need to be 100 or 0. If it is "50" rights right now, maybe we should consider "40".
|
On June 14 2016 00:27 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On June 14 2016 00:14 Mohdoo wrote:Sanders says he will meet with Hillary Clinton on Tuesday
U.S. Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders said he will meet with his rival Hillary Clinton on Tuesday to press her to embrace his progressive agenda, saying he wants to know what she will stand for if she becomes president.
Speaking on ABC's "This Week" program on Sunday, Sanders did not concede he had lost the Democratic presidential nomination to Clinton, who is leading in Democratic primaries and is the party's presumed nominee.
Sanders said he and Clinton would discuss "if she wins, what kind of administration she will have."
"What I need to see (is) a commitment that there will be progressive taxation," he said, saying corporations and billionaires should pay higher tax rates.
He repeated his stance that he would do "everything I can" to ensure Donald Trump, the presumptive Republican nominee, will not become president.
Sanders said he wanted to see Clinton embrace his view that healthcare should be a universal right in America and public universities should offer education for free.
"Will she go as far as I would like her to go? No, she won't," he said. "But I think millions of people want to understand and see is what kind of commitment she has to addressing the real crises in the country."
(Reporting by Jason Lange; Editing by Alistair Bell)
Link: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-sanders-idUSKCN0YY0S2 Should be an easy talk since most of Bernies core policies are already in the Clinton platform, just taken less far but with a more solid basis of viability. Doubt it will help the Bernie or Bust group tho. Would expect them to see it as Bernie selling out rather then as Clinton being acceptable for now.
The election is in 6 months. There will always be burned earth strategy extremist who would rather see Trump than Hillary in the White House (or don't care), but I am confident most his supporters will eventually rally her.
|
On June 14 2016 00:32 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 14 2016 00:23 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On terrorism, a comprehensive counter intelligence service should be enough. You don't lock down people you suspect but you can put them under constant surveillance. With the warrant of a judge or judicial authorities, of course. I believe the Orlando shooter was given too many rights. I think people who were investigated by the FBI in the same way he was should be given less rights. As for how many or whatever, I don't know. But this shouldn't have happened. Authorities were aware of him. Someone who authorities are aware of should not have been able to do this. If the rules in place prevented authorities from being aware, those rules need to change. It doesn't need to be 100 or 0. If it is "50" rights right now, maybe we should consider "40".
Except from owning war weapons, what kind of right would you want to take away from him?
You have someone you know may be dangerous and you have no way to prevent him to buy enough weaponry to win the Stalingrad battle. What else than putting him in jail can you do? Since that's not an option, we are back to counter intelligence and hypothetically, firearm regulations. Ideally both.
And even then, those killing will always happen. French DGSE has a very intrusive anti terrorist strategy, and no terrorist in the Paris attacks had bought his weapons legally. And yet, it happened.
I'm afraid, we'll have to get used to those things happening.
I don't know why Republicans are so upset about that, since they have had no plans to do anything about the other mass killing that happen in the country all the time. Their attitude in school shootings the last decade has been appalling. The best answer they have had is to have a gun in the pocket of every teacher.
|
Trump's comments on this attack and his policies on the issue are really disgusting. God help the world if that phony gets elected.
|
More guns in the hands of the right people can definitely improve the problem. Doesn't matter what you believe on gun policy. Teachers having guns would limit school shootings. In this orlando case, if the bouncers had guns there may have been a better chance at stopping him or at least slow him down.
You are improving the problem through deterrence. People are less likely to storm an area that is armed.
Banning guns raises numerous issues.
1. The u.s has been a huge manufacturer of guns for decades if not centuries. There are so many guns everywhere, that instituting a ban on guns would not be feasible. The good citiziens who obey the law and turn their weapons in are putting themselves at a disadvantage to the people who keep their weapons. I don't think banning guns would be effective in getting them off the street in the near future.
2. I don't feel comfortable only allowing the government to have access to firearms. It may be fine now, but i could see it being a problem down the line.
3. We still are going to have terror attacks regardless if guns are legal or not. I rather people feel like they have the ability to protect themselves whether it aids in protecting them or not.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
