Author Topic: Local government thread  (Read 682 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Online Podaar

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 4702
  • Gender: Male
  • Looks like Fish, tastes like chicken
Re: Local government thread
« Reply #35 on: February 21, 2017, 04:35:44 PM »
My thought is, it's bad that the Arizona legislature is wasting time on such a trivial matter.  :biggrin:

Online chknptpie

  • DTF.org Member
  • *
  • Posts: 2870
  • Gender: Female
Re: Local government thread
« Reply #36 on: February 22, 2017, 04:42:56 PM »
My thought is, it's bad that the Arizona legislature is wasting time on such a trivial matter.  :biggrin:

Isn't that politics most of the time? lol

I don't think I've ever donated to the Clean Elections fund - as I just assumed it was a misnomer like this article mentions
http://www.pressherald.com/2017/02/21/republican-lawmakers-want-to-remove-gubernatorial-candidates-from-maines-clean-elections-act/
Quote
Reps. Joel Stetkis and Paula Sutton have co-sponsored a bill removing candidates for governor from the list of those who can become eligible for taxpayer support for an election campaign.

Offline jasc15

  • Posts: 4812
  • Gender: Male
  • TTAL: Yeti welcome
Re: Local government thread
« Reply #37 on: February 26, 2017, 12:57:54 PM »
On a whim the other night, I decided to see who my state senator is.  Turns out he is the CEO of a highway construction company that gets a majority of the contracts in my state as well as simultaneously mayor of a nearby town.  Lots of work for a single person.  I'm trying to learn more about this guy.

Online chknptpie

  • DTF.org Member
  • *
  • Posts: 2870
  • Gender: Female
Re: Local government thread
« Reply #38 on: February 26, 2017, 08:23:11 PM »
On a whim the other night, I decided to see who my state senator is.  Turns out he is the CEO of a highway construction company that gets a majority of the contracts in my state as well as simultaneously mayor of a nearby town.  Lots of work for a single person.  I'm trying to learn more about this guy.
Sadly, not surprising.


AZ is one of the states trying to crack down on protests - allowing police to seize the assets of anyone involved in a protest that at some point becomes violent. See if your state is on the list.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/02/24/republican-lawmakers-introduce-bills-to-curb-protesting-in-at-least-17-states/?utm_term=.69a54de18138


Offline Cool Chris

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 4436
  • Gender: Male
Re: Local government thread
« Reply #39 on: February 26, 2017, 08:40:43 PM »
Slightly off the point, as these new laws are mainly garbage, but
Quote
...They cite existing laws that already make it a crime to block traffic....

What's the point when those laws are never enforced?

"My aim is not to pass laws, but to repeal them. It is not to inaugurate new programs, but to cancel old ones that do violence to the Constitution, or that have failed their purpose, or that impose on the people an unwarranted financial burden. I will not attempt to discover whether legislation is "needed" before I have first determined whether it is constitutionally permissible." - Barry Goldwater
"Nostalgia is just the ability to forget the things that sucked" - Nelson DeMille, 'Up Country'

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 7366
  • Gender: Male
Re: Local government thread
« Reply #40 on: February 27, 2017, 08:11:13 AM »
On a whim the other night, I decided to see who my state senator is.  Turns out he is the CEO of a highway construction company that gets a majority of the contracts in my state as well as simultaneously mayor of a nearby town.  Lots of work for a single person.  I'm trying to learn more about this guy.
Sadly, not surprising.


AZ is one of the states trying to crack down on protests - allowing police to seize the assets of anyone involved in a protest that at some point becomes violent. See if your state is on the list.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/02/24/republican-lawmakers-introduce-bills-to-curb-protesting-in-at-least-17-states/?utm_term=.69a54de18138

If it's "seizing assets" of protesters WHEN THAT PROTEST TURNS VIOLENT, is that necessarily bad?  I have a problem with it, but not because it "chills protest".  (My beef is that it separates accountability with responsibility; if I'm a homeless guy with no assets, why WOULDN'T I throw that rock? I have nothing to lose.  But the more legit, measured protestors would then pay the price). 

Offline El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 17793
  • Bad Craziness
Re: Local government thread
« Reply #41 on: February 27, 2017, 08:49:39 AM »
On a whim the other night, I decided to see who my state senator is.  Turns out he is the CEO of a highway construction company that gets a majority of the contracts in my state as well as simultaneously mayor of a nearby town.  Lots of work for a single person.  I'm trying to learn more about this guy.
Sadly, not surprising.


AZ is one of the states trying to crack down on protests - allowing police to seize the assets of anyone involved in a protest that at some point becomes violent. See if your state is on the list.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/02/24/republican-lawmakers-introduce-bills-to-curb-protesting-in-at-least-17-states/?utm_term=.69a54de18138

If it's "seizing assets" of protesters WHEN THAT PROTEST TURNS VIOLENT, is that necessarily bad?  I have a problem with it, but not because it "chills protest".  (My beef is that it separates accountability with responsibility; if I'm a homeless guy with no assets, why WOULDN'T I throw that rock? I have nothing to lose.  But the more legit, measured protestors would then pay the price).
I believe it's seizing assets if a protest that you're a part of turns violent. You need have no part of the violence. Not a chance in hell that passes muster. Moreover, if sitting around singing Kumbaya exposes you to forfeiture if guys around the corner set a dumpster on fire, that's about a chilling as it gets. Most of the other stuff will never fly, either. A court of 9 Borks probably wouldn't sign off on indemnifying people who hit protestors with their car (though Thomas certainly would). The only thing that'll fly is increasing the punishment for blocking highways. The rest is all spiteful masturbation.
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Online chknptpie

  • DTF.org Member
  • *
  • Posts: 2870
  • Gender: Female
Re: Local government thread
« Reply #42 on: February 27, 2017, 10:22:12 AM »
On a whim the other night, I decided to see who my state senator is.  Turns out he is the CEO of a highway construction company that gets a majority of the contracts in my state as well as simultaneously mayor of a nearby town.  Lots of work for a single person.  I'm trying to learn more about this guy.
Sadly, not surprising.


AZ is one of the states trying to crack down on protests - allowing police to seize the assets of anyone involved in a protest that at some point becomes violent. See if your state is on the list.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/02/24/republican-lawmakers-introduce-bills-to-curb-protesting-in-at-least-17-states/?utm_term=.69a54de18138

If it's "seizing assets" of protesters WHEN THAT PROTEST TURNS VIOLENT, is that necessarily bad?  I have a problem with it, but not because it "chills protest".  (My beef is that it separates accountability with responsibility; if I'm a homeless guy with no assets, why WOULDN'T I throw that rock? I have nothing to lose.  But the more legit, measured protestors would then pay the price).
I believe it's seizing assets if a protest that you're a part of turns violent. You need have no part of the violence. Not a chance in hell that passes muster. Moreover, if sitting around singing Kumbaya exposes you to forfeiture if guys around the corner set a dumpster on fire, that's about a chilling as it gets. Most of the other stuff will never fly, either. A court of 9 Borks probably wouldn't sign off on indemnifying people who hit protestors with their car (though Thomas certainly would). The only thing that'll fly is increasing the punishment for blocking highways. The rest is all spiteful masturbation.

Agreed - it seems worded very openly that evidence of involvement in the violence or destruction isn't needed. Further - I feel like the violence/destruction isn't always created by protesters, but spurred by the police/military response or anarchists that like to show up. In the event of a clash - when are the police/military accountable for instigating?

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 7366
  • Gender: Male
Re: Local government thread
« Reply #43 on: February 27, 2017, 10:49:05 AM »
And there's really no benefit to "spiteful masturbation", is there? Kind of defeats the purpose, doesn't it?

Offline antigoon

  • Not Elvis
  • DT.net Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 10054
  • Gender: Male
  • This was a triumph.
Re: Local government thread
« Reply #44 on: February 27, 2017, 10:51:12 AM »
"spiteful masturbation"

What is, "title of the next great 3-hour prog metal opus", Alex?

Offline El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 17793
  • Bad Craziness
Re: Local government thread
« Reply #45 on: February 27, 2017, 11:04:17 AM »
On a whim the other night, I decided to see who my state senator is.  Turns out he is the CEO of a highway construction company that gets a majority of the contracts in my state as well as simultaneously mayor of a nearby town.  Lots of work for a single person.  I'm trying to learn more about this guy.
Sadly, not surprising.


AZ is one of the states trying to crack down on protests - allowing police to seize the assets of anyone involved in a protest that at some point becomes violent. See if your state is on the list.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/02/24/republican-lawmakers-introduce-bills-to-curb-protesting-in-at-least-17-states/?utm_term=.69a54de18138

If it's "seizing assets" of protesters WHEN THAT PROTEST TURNS VIOLENT, is that necessarily bad?  I have a problem with it, but not because it "chills protest".  (My beef is that it separates accountability with responsibility; if I'm a homeless guy with no assets, why WOULDN'T I throw that rock? I have nothing to lose.  But the more legit, measured protestors would then pay the price).
I believe it's seizing assets if a protest that you're a part of turns violent. You need have no part of the violence. Not a chance in hell that passes muster. Moreover, if sitting around singing Kumbaya exposes you to forfeiture if guys around the corner set a dumpster on fire, that's about a chilling as it gets. Most of the other stuff will never fly, either. A court of 9 Borks probably wouldn't sign off on indemnifying people who hit protestors with their car (though Thomas certainly would). The only thing that'll fly is increasing the punishment for blocking highways. The rest is all spiteful masturbation.

Agreed - it seems worded very openly that evidence of involvement in the violence or destruction isn't needed. Further - I feel like the violence/destruction isn't always created by protesters, but spurred by the police/military response or anarchists that like to show up. In the event of a clash - when are the police/military accountable for instigating?
Certainly not when it comes for forfeiture. That's what concerns me more about this. Forfeiture in the modern context is a civil matter, so the protections afforded the accused are slim to none. My hunch is that in practice you would have to prove that your presence didn't contribute to the protest turning ugly, and I'm not sure that's even possible. Simply by adding 1 to its number it could be argued that you increased the likelihood of it turning violent, so say bye-bye to your house now. That's more of an arctic blast than a chill, but again, it never flies.
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson