US Politics Mega-thread - Page 7031

On March 04 2017 06:42 xDaunt wrote:


No, you're mistaken on pretty much every level, including why I mentioned the founders and why your reference to the Revolutionary War is so badly misplaced. I mentioned the Founders as an explanation for how and why the First Amendment works the way it does as a limit on government. You bringing up inane things like dueling and the conduct of the Founders during the Revolutionary War demonstrates that you really don't understand the issue of balancing the First Amendment with the police power of the state at all.

On March 04 2017 06:49 Sermokala wrote:

I didn't say it was a government body I said it was a public university. you are the one confused as you seem to be hallucinating different words then what is there. You can't bash someone for an argument they lost before you make the argument. If we have to fight on basic process of thought we've got bigger problems.

Do we want to have an argument about how related the university of Berkeley is to the government and how much influence the government has on the university? It seems thin at best to say that a state university is a private entity because its not directly controlled by the legislature. Segregation couldn't be enforced because the university of Mississippi was a private entity is a better argument then the university of California doesn't have to respect the first amendment.

On March 04 2017 06:50 Plansix wrote:

I did that because the government has no role in this discussion. At all. The first amendment doesn’t protect you from a shitty venue not keeping protesters from shouting over the sound system.

If you want to argue that the protesters should be arrested, I would agree in both case.(assuming that the protesters in the most recent case were trespassing or where they should not be). The people from the Berkley protest clearly violated the law.

But that isn’t some crime against free speech or repression of it. That is Milo getting exactly what Milo has been courting for every. He celebrated when he got banned from twitter. He celebrated when his speech was canceled. He wants private venues to cancel on him so he can claim he is being silenced and further his own fame. The government didn’t repress Milo, he just made himself more trouble than he was worth to any venue.

Women and children crossing together illegally into the United States could be separated by U.S. authorities under a proposal being considered by the Department of Homeland Security, according to three government officials.

Part of the reason for the proposal is to deter mothers from migrating to the United States with their children, said the officials, who have been briefed on the proposal.

The policy shift would allow the government to keep parents in custody while they contest deportation or wait for asylum hearings. Children would be put into protective custody with the Department of Health and Human Services, in the "least restrictive setting" until they can be taken into the care of a U.S. relative or state-sponsored guardian.

Currently, families contesting deportation or applying for asylum are generally released from detention quickly and allowed to remain in the United States until their cases are resolved. A federal appeals court ruling bars prolonged child detention.

...

A third DHS official said the department is actively considering separating women from their children but has not made a decision.

DHS, HHS and the White House did not respond to requests for comment.

On March 04 2017 07:11 Gahlo wrote:

Again, pertaining to the recent event. Citation. Fucking. Needed.

On March 04 2017 06:59 xDaunt wrote:


I already said that this isn't a first amendment issue, so I have no idea why you're bringing it up again. It's an issue of purposefully withholding the police power as a means to stifle free speech.



What would you say if a certain city decided that it was going to direct law enforcement to not respond to the calls from any citizens who were registered democrats? What if the city directed law enforcement to offer no protection to a liberal speaker who was going to be the subject of protests? Hell, we could really make these hypothetical egregious and start withholding protections on the basis of race. How far do you want to advocate against equal protection under the law?

On March 04 2017 07:13 OuchyDathurts wrote:
Not sure how this is remotely ok to do...

Exclusive: Trump administration considering separating women, children at Mexico border


Source

Not sure how someone who isn't a psycho can defend doing this. Another completely unamerican idea, this better get shot down. Ugh.

House Republicans aren’t backing down from their Obamacare repeal plan that sparked backlash from the party's conservative wing.

The latest version of the House’s Obamacare repeal bill — which has yet to be publicly released — contains few significant changes to a previously leaked draft, according to documents obtained by POLITICO.

The bill still includes new tax credits for individuals based on age, a proposal that hardline conservatives derided as "Obamacare lite" after POLITICO published a previous version of the draft legislation last week.

However, one significant change to the tax credit is being considered: not allowing wealthier Americans to qualify for assistance. No specific proposal for cutting off eligibility has been added to the legislation, but staff have been directed to come up with possible proposals, according to a source familiar with the deliberations.

The latest draft, dated Feb. 24, also still includes a plan to phase out Obamacare’s Medicaid expansion. Instead the program’s current open-ended federal entitlement would be replaced by capped payments to states based on the number of Medicaid enrollees.

Republicans are still divided about several key provisions, and the bill is likely to undergo changes before being publicly released. Spokesmen for the relevant House committees declined to comment or did not respond to requests for comment.

The proposal also still includes plans to eliminate Obamacare’s taxes. Revenue would be generated by capping the tax exemption for employer-sponsored plans at the 90th percentile of current premiums. That means benefits above that level would be taxed.

In a significant reversal, a Trump campaign official on Thursday told CNN that he personally advocated for softening the language on Ukraine in the GOP platform at the Republican National Convention, and that he did so on behalf of the President.

CNN’s Jim Acosta reported on air that J.D. Gordon, the Trump campaign’s national security policy representative at the RNC, told him that he made the change to include language that he claimed “Donald Trump himself wanted and advocated for” at a March 2016 meeting at then-unfinished Trump International Hotel in Washington, D.C.

Gordon claimed that Trump said he did not “want to go to World War III over Ukraine” during that meeting, Acosta said.

Yet Gordon had told Business Insider in January that he “never left” the side table where he sat monitoring the national security subcommittee meeting, where a GOP delegate's amendment calling for the provision of “lethal defense weapons” to the Ukrainian army was tabled. At the time, Gordon said “neither Mr. Trump nor [former campaign manager] Mr. [Paul] Manafort were involved in those sort of details, as they've made clear."

Discussion of changes to the platform, which drew attention to the ties to a pro-Russia political party in Ukraine that fueled Manafort's resignation as Trump’s campaign chairman, resurfaced Thursday in a USA Today story. The newspaper revealed that Gordon and Carter Page, another former Trump adviser, met with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak at the GOP convention.

Trump and his team have long insisted that his campaign had no contact with Russian officials during the 2016 race, and that they were not behind softening the language on Ukraine in the Republican Party platform.

Attorney General Jeff Sessions on Thursday recused himself from all cases involving the Trump campaign, after the Washington Post revealed that he failed to disclose during his confirmation hearing that he had two meetings with the Russian ambassador during the campaign. Michael Flynn also stepped down as national security adviser in a cloud of controversy over reports that he spoke with Kislyak about sanctions against Russia during the post-election transition period.

Gordon acknowledged meeting with Kislyak to both CNN and USA Today on Thursday, and said that the conversation focused only on Trump’s oft-stated belief that “the U.S. and Russia should have a better relationship.”

He did not respond Friday to TPM’s request for comment, but denied to Business Insider that there was any significant distinction between how he characterized his involvement in altering the Ukraine amendment in January and in March.

"The RNC and Nominee's Campaign have the authority and responsibility to shape the GOP Platform," Gordon told Business Insider in an email, reiterating that Trump was not involved with the details.

"They weren't part of the process to write, draft, edit the document, or weigh in with the delegates at all," he wrote about Trump and Manafort. "That said, the overarching thought of better relations with Russia was certainly their strategic position."

The watered-down language that ultimately ended up in the platform called for the U.S. to provide “appropriate assistance,” rather than lethal weapons, to Ukraine to push back against Russian intervention.

On March 04 2017 08:24 Plansix wrote:
Their plan might not make it out of the House and I don't know how it gets through the Senate. Senate Republicans were putting that thing on blast a while ago.

Also the House is considering voting on the measure before it is marked up and assessed for costs.

On March 04 2017 05:39 NeoIllusions wrote:

I reread this article a couple times and I don't see how admins at Middlebury failed to protect free speech.

From what I gather, it boils down to this:
1. Charles Murray is a white nationalist (I want to write racist here but I'll remain consistent with the writing from article) and he wanted to share his views at a VT university
2a. Student protesters don't want his ideology spread at their school.
2b. Student protesters become disruptive enough where Murray has to change locations to deliver his talk
3. Middlebury fulfilled their "obligation" (for a lack of a better word) to allow Murray to speak at a non-disclosed location on campus and recorded his talk for students who wanted to hear it later

It seems to me that the university indeed allowed Murray to speak and share his ideas on campus and recorded it for Murray's/the club that invited Murray to use/reproduce/etc.
In the end, no party outright prevented Murray from speaking but only what, inconvenienced (?) him from speaking at his original location. So are you discontent that student protesters forced him to change venues at best?

On March 04 2017 06:28 Nebuchad wrote:
I for one have absolutely no problem admitting I don't want Milo to speak on a college campus.

On March 04 2017 09:47 Danglars wrote:
And campaign against the first amendment on these grounds, hate speech, and the rest. It's a constitutional amendment and can be removed by the amendment process. Just admit the rule of law gives him this right and police and universities that dismiss it are subverting the law.

On March 04 2017 09:47 Danglars wrote:
...

And campaign against the first amendment on these grounds, hate speech, and the rest. It's a constitutional amendment and can be removed by the amendment process. Just admit the rule of law gives him this right and police and universities that dismiss it are subverting the law.

On March 04 2017 08:45 GreenHorizons wrote:
They've painted themselves into a corner. They have to pass anything that's not Obamacare, even if it's Obamacare in every way but name. If they don't pass something they'll have conceded a lot of turnout/directed it toward primaries in 2018