|
Warcabbit posted:Project Ratfuck is fully operational, gentlemen. 
Rincewinds fucked around with this message at 20:46 on Mar 4, 2016 |
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 20:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 16:31 |
|
|
Northjayhawk posted:...but a lot of people who were charged with misdemeanors and know how to assert their rights may have to be released. of course, i find it unlikely that there are very many people at all who are too poor to afford their own lawyer but have any idea how to assert that right without the assistance of legal representation prisons at least have law libraries and clear structures to submit appeals without representation, jails are generally lacking in these resources
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 20:44
|
|
|
UberJew posted:of course, i find it unlikely that there are very many people at all who are too poor to afford their own lawyer but have any idea how to assert that right without the assistance of legal representation Even if you're perfectly aware of your rights - if you have no lawyer and no money to hire one, and the cops holding you respond to your "I have rights" with "I don't care," you're basically out of options. After all, what consequences are they going to face?
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 20:46
|
|
|
Northjayhawk posted:Trump just changed his mind and announced that he would not order the military to commit a war crime. (probably because someone told him that they would probably not obey such an order) Aw. That one was a good bit to sling - it was great to watch the squirm as fundamentalists tried to justify that the sons should bear the sins of their fathers.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 20:48
|
|
|
Warcabbit posted:Project Ratfuck is fully operational, gentlemen. Is this real? Is that chair real? Am I real? Guys I'm having and existential crisis. This is near definitive proof God is real.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 21:01
|
|
|
showbiz_liz posted:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gideon_v._Wainwright - In 1963 the Supreme Court ruled that, under the 14th Amendment, states must provide defense lawyers. That Muslim gentleman from a term or so ago was pro se up until SCOTUS granted his cert petition, right? The case concerned religious exemptions from prison beard standards.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 21:10
|
|
|
Mr Hootington posted:Is this real? Is that chair real? Am I real? God is real, and he has come to strike this country down for its wickedness and drepredations
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 21:21
|
|
|
We are seeing the split in real time, if Trump wins, they will split into a whole new "Conservitive Party" leaving Trump to rot during the general.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 21:21
|
|
|
Fried Chicken posted:Follow up on Louisiana, this from the WaPo Holy poo poo they hosed that state up something fierce. Like, Jesus, not only is Kansas not going to be the first state to trickle down out of existence, it's going to happen to Louisiana next week. My favorite part was where subsidies and credits meant that keeping big businesses there was COSTING them 250 mil a year
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 21:28
|
|
|
I don't know I think if Trump goes into the convention with a majority all this scheming will disintegrate. Trump running and losing (still the most likely scenario at this point) might not even destroy the GOP.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 21:28
|
|
|
porfiria posted:I don't know I think if Trump goes into the convention with a majority all this scheming will disintegrate. Trump running and losing (still the most likely scenario at this point) might not even destroy the GOP. If anything, it'll be a scarily solidifying rally cry for 2020.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 21:30
|
|
|
BetterToRuleInHell posted:Gawker is reporting that they received a file containing voicemails from a one Donald Trump, allegedly from people like Mika and Joe (MSNBC), Tamron Hall (again, MSNBC) and David Axelrod, among others. I want to hear these voicemails. So very much. And I love all the concerns about cybersecurity flying around in the news when good ol' fashioned social engineering is the most devastating weapon of all.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 21:30
|
|
|
BlueBlazer posted:We are seeing the split in real time, if Trump wins, they will split into a whole new "Conservitive Party" leaving Trump to rot during the general. They won't be conservative. Those globalist bastiges at NRO ruined the name conservative! My bet is Christian Nationalist, or Anti-Globalist, or some other softly fascistic name.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 21:30
|
|
|
site posted:Republicans can safely blame jindal cuz he's not white. What? I seen his painting, he looks white.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 21:31
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Reminder: CPAC is on! They're technically correct.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 21:34
|
|
|
Fried Chicken posted:Follow up on Louisiana, this from the WaPo Huh, so if you dogmatically slash spending to everything, everything goes insolvent and bankrupt. Who woulda' thunk it?
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 21:37
|
|
|
Louisiana and Kansas have nothing on Oklahoma: http://newsok.com/article/5391585 quote:One of the strategic objectives on the state’s new “performance transparency website” calls for sharply decreasing the number of Oklahomans without health insurance. http://newsok.com/article/5482383 quote:The Oklahoma Health Care Authority would seek to remove 111,000 people from the rolls of the Medicaid under a bill approved by the House on Wednesday. Yes, single mothers and children may die, but at least they died standing up to the tyranny of Comrade Caliph Barack Hussein Obama 
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 21:39
|
|
|
Warcabbit posted:Project Ratfuck is fully operational, gentlemen. He can't seriously be planning to run in primary contests, can he?
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 21:39
|
|
|
Well, those tax cuts for "job creators" would have spurred a staggering amount of economic growth, bringing in jobs, revenue, and prosperity for all, if only that damned Obama didn't ruin the economy! We just gotta stick with it, this will work any moment now, my wealthy donors told me so!
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 21:40
|
|
|
Catfish Noodlin posted:He can't seriously be planning to run in primary contests, can he? Its too late to get on the primary ballot in a lot of states. This is presumably preparing for his nomination at the convention, if no one gets a majority.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 21:41
|
|
|
Northjayhawk posted:Its too late to get on the primary ballot in a lot of states. This is presumably preparing for his nomination at the convention, presuming no one gets a majority. I would pay good money for a "Draft Mitt!" sign that came from the RNC.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 21:43
|
|
|
I know the rules state that a candidate going into the convention with a majority gets the nom, but, speaking very hypothetically, could the GOP as a private organization just be like, "Nah, that's not what we're doing this year." I assume that would be civil suit territory?
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 21:44
|
|
|
porfiria posted:I know the rules state that a candidate going into the convention with a majority gets the nom, but, speaking very hypothetically, could the GOP as a private organization just be like, "Nah, that's not what we're doing this year." I assume that would be civil suit territory? That's what a brokered convention means... at least if my limited knowledge is correct. Which it most likely isn't.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 21:45
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:God is real, and he has come to strike this country down for its wickedness and drepredations Hail gay satan! 
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 21:45
|
|
|
BonoMan posted:That's what a brokered convention means... at least if my limited knowledge is correct. Which it most likely isn't. A brokered or contested convention in parlance means a convention where going in there's no clear idea who the nominee will be. If Trump goes into the convention with a majority of the delegates, it doesn't strictly become brokered until he's hosed over on the first ballot (this would have to be something like rogue delegates or delegates getting their credentials revoked or something like that; could only happen if Trump delegates are actually anti-Trump). If Trump has a plurality but not a majority, you're gonna have a contested convention. Conventions used to be contested all the time until the modern primary system was born in the 1970s.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 21:47
|
|
|
Antti posted:A brokered or contested convention in parlance means a convention where going in there's no clear idea who the nominee will be. If Trump goes into the convention with a majority of the delegates, it doesn't strictly become brokered until he's hosed over on the first ballot. What does "hosed over on the first ballot" mean?
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 21:47
|
|
|
Man, I was just reminded that a little under a year ago Fox News was going off on Hillary Clinton for eating at a Chipotle. I'd never have imagined that a year later they'd be bashing their own candidates more than Clinton.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 21:49
|
|
|
Panama Red posted:Louisiana and Kansas have nothing on Oklahoma: Don't forget about them loving their state so hard earthquakes have spiked.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 21:50
|
|
|
Panama Red posted:Louisiana and Kansas have nothing on Oklahoma: Isn't this just naked contempt for poor people? How can they rationally justify this? I mean, I'm used to this level of conservative shittiness, but sometimes their cruelty is baffling.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 21:50
|
|
|
BonoMan posted:What does "hosed over on the first ballot" mean? I edited my post a little late but the way I see it, because the delegates on the convention floor can amend the rules of the convention, what would need to happen is that the anti-Trump faction persuades enough Trump delegates to turn faithless. The delegates are supposed to be bound, but I imagine that can be rules-lawyered away if you have the majority of the floor delegates under your thumb and so can alter the rules as you see fit. So you'd need Trump delegates to betray Trump, allow a rule change, and then that way let them become unbound and vote someone else instead on the first ballot. Alternatively, you could maybe somehow physically prevent Trump delegates from voting on the first ballot so that no majority can be established and the delegates become unbound? Anti-Trump Trump delegates could miss the ballot voluntarily and then be unbound allowing them to vote Romney or whatever. The rub is that the rules say the delegates are bound for the first ballot into voting for whomever they have been picked to represent. Contested conventions are messy affairs and people who know parliamentary procedure inside out will thrive. I have no idea if any of this is actually possible.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 21:52
|
|
|
Spatula City posted:Isn't this just naked contempt for poor people? How can they rationally justify this? I mean, I'm used to this level of conservative shittiness, but sometimes their cruelty is baffling. I love the "have a lawsuit against the subsidies allowing poor people to have insurance" part.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 21:52
|
|
|
Antti posted:A brokered or contested convention in parlance means a convention where going in there's no clear idea who the nominee will be. If Trump goes into the convention with a majority of the delegates, it doesn't strictly become brokered until he's hosed over on the first ballot (this would have to be something like rogue delegates or delegates getting their credentials revoked or something like that; could only happen if Trump delegates are actually anti-Trump). The RNC could pass a rule that unbinds all the delegates, and the courts won't touch it. All hell would break loose, and Trump's moron voters would revolt, but they could do it. I don't think it would happen because if Trump has most of the delegates, at that point they are probably better off to let him go get his rear end kicked in a staggeringly bad loss for the GOP up and down the ballot, if for no other reason than to prove Trumpism is doomed. If they steal the nomination and lose, the moron Trump voters will insist that their man would have beaten Hillary. Northjayhawk fucked around with this message at 21:55 on Mar 4, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 21:53
|
|
|
Meg From Family Guy posted:They're technically correct. It feels good to be wrong 
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 21:53
|
|
|
BonoMan posted:What does "hosed over on the first ballot" mean? If there's enough procedural/external fuckery around the first vote for nominee, like say, delegates don't show up, delegates get replaced or credentials get revoked, maybe someone insinuates a delegate loses their place in the party/career if they vote Trump, or basically any other underhanded tactic that would result in the first vote not coming up with a clear majority for Trump, then chaos reigns.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 21:54
|
|
|
Antti posted:I edited my post a little late but the way I see it, because the delegates on the convention floor can amend the rules of the convention, what would need to happen is that the anti-Trump faction persuades enough Trump delegates to turn faithless. The delegates are supposed to be bound, but I imagine that can be rules-lawyered away if you have the majority of the floor delegates under your thumb and so can alter the rules as you see fit. So you'd need Trump delegates to betray Trump, allow a rule change, and then that way let them become unbound and vote someone else instead on the first ballot. There wouldn't need to be much convincing. Roughly 3/4 of the delegates were known before the elections and the winning candidate has no input on picking them. Most of the delegates are party loyalists who are bound to vote for someone on the first ballot, so most of Trump's delegates probably do not want Trump to win.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 21:55
|
|
|
Spatula City posted:Isn't this just naked contempt for poor people? How can they rationally justify this? I mean, I'm used to this level of conservative shittiness, but sometimes their cruelty is baffling. Most Oklahomans are poor, less educated people. It's a long-standing joke that the commencement speeches at Oklahoma universities are a list of flights departing the state. It's just that they've been socially conditioned to care more about God, guns and the "gay agenda" than their actual interests.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 21:56
|
|
|
Antti posted:I edited my post a little late but the way I see it, because the delegates on the convention floor can amend the rules of the convention, what would need to happen is that the anti-Trump faction persuades enough Trump delegates to turn faithless. The delegates are supposed to be bound, but I imagine that can be rules-lawyered away if you have the majority of the floor delegates under your thumb and so can alter the rules as you see fit. So you'd need Trump delegates to betray Trump, allow a rule change, and then that way let them become unbound and vote someone else instead on the first ballot. Greatbacon posted:If there's enough procedural/external fuckery around the first vote for nominee, like say, delegates don't show up, delegates get replaced or credentials get revoked, maybe someone insinuates a delegate loses their place in the party/career if they vote Trump, or basically any other underhanded tactic that would result in the first vote not coming up with a clear majority for Trump, then chaos reigns. Gotcha! Thanks for all the info. Super informative. Are their potential legal repercussions to that kind of fuckery or are we basically talking about Thunderdome Rules here?
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 21:56
|
|
|
The RNC is a private organization and it can determine who represents it on the ticket exactly as it likes. The primary is the one place in US politics where you get a lot of nuance and cloak and dagger going on because it's not even in the Constitution.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 21:59
|
|
|
BonoMan posted:Gotcha! Thanks for all the info. Super informative. No. Its a political issue and the parties are private organizations, so the courts won't touch it. The usual rules of fairness and one man, one vote etc that we usually expect in elections do not apply here. As long as they follow their own internal party rules, they are good. The RNC has a process where any rules, including the rules binding delegates or explaining who is eligible to be nominated, can be changed by the delegates before they start voting.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 21:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 16:31 |
|
|
BonoMan posted:Are their potential legal repercussions to that kind of fuckery or are we basically talking about Thunderdome Rules here? Conventions are run on internal party rules. So there's no legal reason they have to do it the way they've always done it (but it does make a mockery of their own rules). Of course, they'll have a stampede of angry Trump supporters to deal with, and the near certainty of facing a Trump 3rd party run, and still zero chance of winning the presidency. But at least they'll have won... uh... something? Edit: Antti posted:The primary is the one place in US politics where you get a lot of nuance and cloak and dagger going on because it's not even in the Constitution. This is the important point here. Political parties and their inner workings aren't laid down in the Constitution, they've just grown over time to be the way we do things. BobTheJanitor fucked around with this message at 22:04 on Mar 4, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 22:02
|
|
