US Politics Mega-thread - Page 9349

On November 29 2017 04:35 Seuss wrote:
We could sell Alaska to Canada. The Civ/Stellaris player in me is perpetually bothered by how it isn't connected with the rest of the country.

On November 29 2017 04:32 KwarK wrote:

He also said that he'd pay back the full $20t national debt in 8 years. When pressed on how he'd achieve that one of these advisers gave the amazing reply of selling all of the national parks and other Federal land to China in settlement of the debt. I guess we're lucky he didn't think to try to sell Alaska back to Russia.

On November 29 2017 04:41 Danglars wrote:

We built a harbor. It's connected to the rest of the country by sea

Come to think of it, most Civ players would see the current situation as reason to completely conquer Canada/create a land route to Alaska by conquest to more easily invade Russia.

On November 29 2017 04:41 Danglars wrote:

We built a harbor. It's connected to the rest of the country by sea

On November 29 2017 04:24 Toadesstern wrote:

Why am I even trying to understand nazi propaganda

On November 29 2017 04:51 Buckyman wrote:


Because there's a cogent argument under the statistics - namely, that police aren't particularly dangerous for black Americans compared to non-police black Americans. By implication, despite BLM's stance, blacks would be safer with stronger policing.

On November 29 2017 04:51 Buckyman wrote:


Because there's a cogent argument under the statistics - namely, that police aren't particularly dangerous for black Americans compared to non-police black Americans. By implication, despite BLM's stance, blacks would be safer with stronger policing.

On November 29 2017 04:57 Gorsameth wrote:

This thing being the tax plan?
The one with a gutting of the ACA?

I would be extremely surprised considering the resistance to the last several times

On November 29 2017 05:04 Danglars wrote:

The vote from the senate budget committee. As in this report claims they’ve found a compromise that will pass that committee and possibly go on to pass the senate, entering reconciliation.

As I was typing this, it just passed the budget committee 12-11. Corker/Johnson on board. It’s interesting because the prospects of all the factions coming together was on something was close to nil, and now it seems like there’s more hope.

On November 29 2017 05:04 Danglars wrote:

The vote from the senate budget committee. As in this report claims they’ve found a compromise that will pass that committee and possibly go on to pass the senate, entering reconciliation.

As I was typing this, it just passed the budget committee 12-11. Corker/Johnson on board. It’s interesting because the prospects of all the factions coming together was on something was close to nil, and now it seems like there’s more hope.

CFPB Deputy Director ‘Flagrantly Butchers’ Law in Lawsuit Against Trump Pick, Expert Says

On Sunday, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s Deputy Director Leandra English filed a lawsuit against President Donald Trump and John ‘Mick’ Mulvaney, whom Trump picked to be Acting Director of the CFPB after the former head, Richard Cordray, resigned. Cordray resigned as of Friday, and English claims that the Dodd-Frank Act—which created the CFPB—declares that she become the Acting Director until a permanent director is both nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate.

Trump’s selection of Mulvaney appears to be authorized by the Federal Vacancies Reform Act, which grants POTUS the power to name a temporary acting director of a government body. English argues, however, that the FVRA doesn’t apply to this situation, because it specifically says that it is not “the exclusive means for temporarily authorizing an acting official” when another statute “expressly designates” someone else to take on the role.

There are two issues with English’s argument.

First, she misstates the law by saying “the Vacancies Act, by its own terms, does not apply where another statute ‘expressly . . . designates an officer or employee.'” The Act doesn’t say it “does not apply,” only that it is not the “exclusive means” for picking an Acting Director. Indeed, the CFPB’s own General Counsel Mary E. McLeod refuted this argument in a memo sent the day before English filed her lawsuit.

The memo cites a situation from 2007 when the Office of Legal Counsel deemed it proper when an Acting Attorney General was selected who would not have been the one next in line according to the agency’s succession statute. That OLC opinion stated, “That the Vacancies Reform Act is not exclusive does not mean that it is unavailable.”

Additionally, even if the FVRA would be overruled by a contradicting statute, it’s unclear whether Dodd-Frank really contradicts it. Dodd-Frank says that the Deputy Director shall “serve as acting Director in the absence or unavailability of the Director.” As McLeod noted, an “absence” typically means something temporary, where a “vacancy” would mean a permanent situation such as the one created by Cordray’s resignation.

Adam White, a professor at George Mason University’s Antonin Scalia Law School, agrees with McCleod.


In a blog post, White cited a Ninth Circuit decision that ruled in favor of President Barack Obama‘s usage of the FVRA to appoint an acting General Counsel to the National Labor Relations Board, despite the National Labor Relations Act having a clause similar to Dodd-Frank’s. The court ruled in that case that the existence of the NLRA’s clause did not prohibit Obama from appointing his own replacement, rather it provided an alternative option for selecting someone for the position.

White also noted that Trump could solve this problem pretty quickly by firing English.

English’s lawsuit also ignores another part of the FVRA. In her complaint, she warns that with his new appointment, Mulvaney “would seek to serve indefinitely as the interim head[.]” That’s just not true, however, as the FVRA provides time limits for how long a person named under the Act can serve. Mulvaney would not be able to serve for longer than 210 days, unless a nomination for the permanent role is rejected, in which case his term would be extended.

English v Trump Mulvaney Complaint by LawNewz on Scribd

On November 29 2017 04:55 Excludos wrote:


If you have to use fake statistics to prove your argument it might not be entirely cogent.

The biggest problem in America isn't too much or too little policing, it's the complete lack of police training. For most countries it's treated as a bachelor or masters degree. In US it's a 6 month basic camp.

Continuing Professional Development (CPD) is anything over and above mandatory training,
for example first aid. This has just been launched at 35 hours per year (recommended by
the College of Policing) recorded locally by logging hours (Interviewee 7).

The initial training is divided into three phases, and lasts for 20 weeks with one week built into the programme for annual leave. Leave at this stage will be taken as directed. Following this you will have a period of workplace assessment. Successful completion at this point will make you eligible for independent patrol. Over the following 18 months, you will continue to be assessed and will return to Sedgley Park, or other training venues for further legislative training.

Weeks 1 – 10
You will be based at the Sedgley Park complex. This incorporates a general induction into GMP or your new role if you are an internal candidate; an introduction to the main policies and procedures, including professional standards and expectations; ethics and values; decision making and problem solving; communication skills training, the assessment process for the probationary period and some basic legislation. You will also attend other sites to undertake Personal Safety Training and on your Borough for a Community Engagement week incorporating partnership awareness. You will have your Attestation ceremony in this period of training.

Weeks 11 – 20
This is the main section of the legislative training programme. You will work aligned to an Area Training Base, of which there are 5 across the force. They are currently located at Rochdale, Bury, Stretford, Leigh and Wythenshawe. It includes public protection training, crime scene preservation and investigation and training on roads policing. You will also undergo victim and suspect interview and search technique training.

Assessment
During your initial training you will be assessed by way of knowledge checks, multiple choice question formal assessment, and taking part in simulated exercises designed to test your practical application of knowledge.

You will also be enrolled on the Level 3 Diploma in Policing which is a nationally recognised qualification and equivalent to ‘A’-level standard on the Qualifications Credit Framework. The City and Guilds are our current providers for the award.

You will be assessed by trained assessors both in the learning environment and also in the workplace. You will work toward completion of the award within your two-year probationary period and is essential for you to achieve confirmation in the rank of Constable. You will use an electronic portfolio to record evidence of competence.

Tutor Phase. Weeks 22-32
Following the initial training programme, you will commence a period of 10-weeks workplace assessment with a trained tutor constable. This will be on your posted borough and you are likely to be on shifts during this period. You will be assessed against some of the basic skills required for an officer to achieve independent patrol.


Independent Patrol/Phase 4. Weeks 33 - 104
During this time you will be on independent patrol on your Borough and are likely to be a Neighbourhood Police Office. You will be continually assessed during this period by trained Borough staff and your line manager who will complete assessment documentation. You will return to a training venue for 3 additional developmental courses throughout this period covering more complex legislation.

Completion
At the successful completion of this two-year probation period, you will be confirmed in the rank of Constable.

On November 29 2017 03:25 Danglars wrote:

Are you really ducking to Arpaio? Was Obama black and did he have pardon power over everyone black and white?