USCE Summer 2022: You can't change the crisis settings.

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > USCE Summer 2022: You can't change the crisis settings.

«‹›4 »

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

The White House is releasing a broad LGBTQI+ EO tomorrow, the text is here:

https://www.federalregister.gov/doc...sex-individuals

Lots of actions are involved, but relatively few can have direct impact since the problems are occurring at the state level. Highlights include instructing HHS to expand programs to explicitly cover LGBTQI in several areas with related reporting, and a multiprong attack on the funding and permissibility of conversion therapy.

# ¿ Jun 21, 2022 01:25

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 11, 2024 16:28

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

The FDA is also extending the comment period for its proposed rule that will render flavored cigars and all menthol-flavored cigarettes illegal.

Proposed rule for flavored cigars:
https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2022/05/04/2022-08993/tobacco-product-standard-for-characterizing-flavors-in-cigars
Comment docket:
https://www.regulations.gov/document/FDA-2021-N-1309-0001/comment

Proposed rule for mentholated cigarettes:
https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2022/05/04/2022-08994/tobacco-product-standard-for-menthol-in-cigarettes
Comment docket:
https://www.regulations.gov/document/FDA-2021-N-1349-0001/comment

There are about 140k comments on these so far, so there's clearly botting and form comment campaigns going on. What I'm finding unusual is how many comments appear handmade, including from both the pro and anti sides.

Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 01:35 on Jun 21, 2022

# ¿ Jun 21, 2022 01:32

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Craig K posted:

I did not realize that these were online, and i am getting bigtime "Pawnee citizens at Town Hall" vibes

e: also, randomly clicking, i've already found four "i am a tobacco retailer that is strongly opposed to this ban ~~because I will make less money~~ because this is a governmental intrusion on personal freedoms" so far

Not only are they generally public, the agency has to respond to all substantive comments. Regulations.gov is a treasuretrove.

Similarly, for those interested in federal activity, the federal register is an excellent resource of what new regulations most agencies are implementing on a day to day basis.

# ¿ Jun 21, 2022 01:54

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

I need to do more reading on this proposed cigarette change. At root, the greatest harm involved is the nicotine itself for its addictive effects; I'm concerned with any policy plan that doesn't ultimately countenance strangling the nicotine industry (but if that were the goal, they likely wouldn't state it). There's going to be a tremendous amount of misinformation floating around regarding the underlying research.

Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 15:18 on Jun 21, 2022

# ¿ Jun 21, 2022 15:13

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:

It says in the article that it isn't a ban on nicotine in every product - just tobacco products.

Nicotine has health risks by itself, but the vast majority of health risks from smoking comes from the tobacco and other products.

Gum, patches, and e-cigs won't be required to remove all of their nicotine. Part of the further study and follow-up plan involves people switching to other sources of nicotine. The goal is to make cigarettes essentially non-addictive to prevent people from getting hooked in the future and make people currently addicted to nicotine switch to less deadly options.

I understand that. Addiction is, itself, a health harm, and a deeper civic harm. The long term goal should be to end the consumption of nicotine.

# ¿ Jun 21, 2022 15:31

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Edgar Allen Ho posted:

Somehow youtube recced me a 30 minute long scene from some network cop show. Specifically a graphic 30 minute scene of a school shooting. With realistic depictions of dying kids, not network style "pow" *falls over dead*

Prolly the only on-screen violence that has ever phased me and more importantly, where the gently caress are we at that this was made? Christ on a cracker.

Focused on hero cops charging through the corridors rescuing kids and taking down the shooter, which, lol.

What was it called? The Daily Wire has been heavily promoting something like that recently.

# ¿ Jun 22, 2022 14:51

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

gently caress yeah, now that�s what I�m talking about, git�em Califf (in practice is be surprised if this isn�t stayed via a legal challenge; Altria and its other tobacco company shareholders have little incentive to do otherwise)

# ¿ Jun 22, 2022 15:12

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

I am curious about their sample size for age breakdowns.

# ¿ Jun 23, 2022 00:39

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

It would be really great if people would read things other than just the text of the tweet or post sources.

Actual Georgia Law Enorcement pay structure:
https://doas.ga.gov/assets/Human%20Resources%20Administration/State%20Salary%20Plan%20Documents/2016%20LAW%20Pay%20Structure.pdf

Actual Georgia state level job portal:
https://careers.georgia.gov/jobs/search/7248525

Lots of listed jobs below 50k.

Abrams' actual criminal justice policy per her campaign site (internal links omitted):
https://staceyabrams.com/policy/#public-safety-and-criminal-justice-reform

quote:

The rise in violence in Georgia is inextricably linked to economic insecurity and guns. Georgia�s poverty rate is 14 percent overall and 20 percent among children, who are now committing more crimes or are the most vulnerable victims. Numerous studies show direct connections between violence, economic instability and under-resourced public schools.

Yet, the violence our neighborhoods face is directly tied to guns and their availability and poor oversight in Georgia. Guns are the leading cause of death among Georgia�s kids and teens. Georgia ranks 9th in the nation for gun violence and at least 80 percent of homicides in Georgia are committed with guns.

The current governor has consistently deflected responsibility for the rise of violent crime that started on his watch, and he has failed to respond to the major increase in gun violence that began in 2020. Instead, he has advocated for and signed into law a new criminal carry bill that makes it easier for virtually anyone to carry concealed weapons in public. Before the passage of criminal carry legislation in Georgia, more than 11,000 people were denied or revoked permits over a three year period because they likely failed to pass a background check.

Brian Kemp�s predecessor, Governor Nathan Deal, a Republican, understood the connection between public safety and criminal justice. Gov. Deal led a multi-year bipartisan reform effort, which saved hundreds of millions of dollars while advancing public safety. Instead of building on Gov. Deal�s work, Gov. Kemp disbanded that successful, cost-saving effort. Stacey Abrams will reconstitute the Public Safety and Criminal Justice Reform Task Force and expand on Governor Deal�s legacy by convening stakeholders�including law enforcement, prosecutors, criminal defense attorneys, judges, advocates, and formerly incarcerated Georgians�to collaborate on evidence-based solutions to our public safety challenges.

Stacey Abrams is the only candidate for governor with a comprehensive plan to address violent crime and reform our criminal justice system in Georgia.

Combat the fundamental causes of violence and decriminalize poverty

Expand Medicaid to broaden access to mental health and substance abuse treatment and reduce the role of law enforcement in crisis intervention.

Support wraparound services for high-risk communities to decrease incident rates, including targeting challenged schools/neighborhoods that produce a disproportionate number of youth offenders.

Require civil rather than criminal penalties for certain traffic and low-level drug offenses to reduce recidivism and escalation of criminal behavior.

Target programs to increase educational and community opportunities for at-risk young people beginning in 3rd grade through joint projects with schools and nonprofits.

Secure mental health and behavioral therapy for highest-risk youth and offer family interventions.

Expand employment training and opportunities, including apprenticeships, for high-risk youth.

Reduce gun violence

Coordinate with and secure financial incentives for local governments, law enforcement agencies, and community organizations to design and implement violence intervention programs.

Reduce guns on the streets by repealing bills that needlessly endanger Georgians � including criminal carry, campus carry, and the 2014 �Guns Everywhere� law.

Close the background check loophole for private transfers and gun show sales.

Close the domestic violence perpetrators loophole.

Adopt red flag legislation to prevent those who pose a danger to themselves or others to purchase a weapon or to be reported for protective actions.

Reduce recidivism and support reentry

Establish a new Public Safety and Criminal Justice Reform Task Force that builds on Governor Nathan Deal�s legacy by reconvening stakeholders � including law enforcement, prosecutors, criminal defense attorneys, judges, advocates, and formerly incarcerated Georgians � to collaborate on evidence-based solutions to our public safety challenges.

Restore and expand proven interventions like eliminating private probation, expanding diversion programs and funding accountability courts such as veterans� courts and drug courts

Realign investments in treatment, education, and job training that will enable people to live crime-free lives after release.

Strengthen self-help programs for people released from prison.

Expand access to mental health and substance abuse treatment through Medicaid expansion.

Incentivize employers to hire people reentering their community.

Enact Clean Slate legislation that offers automatic clearing of criminal records once someone remains crime-free for a set period of time.

Support and Invest in Law Enforcement

Raise base salary for state patrol, correctional officers (adult and juvenile), and community supervision officers to approximately $50,000/year and offer proportionate increases based on experience, which will improve recruitment and retention efforts to address severe staffing shortages, at a two-year cost of $91M per year.

Provide $25M in state grants to local agencies for salary raises to support living wages and incentivize local housing options, rather than deferring support to the public through problematic tax credit programs that have proven uneven or insufficient in other sectors.

Secure and regularize mental health supports at every level of law enforcement, including reducing stigma and expanding self-reporting options.

Invest in expanded training and collaborative supports, like crisis officers who specialize in mental health and social service.

Build community trust and accountability in public safety

Develop and enforce guidelines for key police department policies that govern community relations and transparency.

Partner with Georgia Peace Officers Standards and Training Program (GA POST) to fortify training standards that address use of force, de-escalation, and crisis intervention and tie increased state funding to local department adoption of best practices.

Require accountability for unlawful law enforcement and correctional violence and misconduct.

Provide and maintain a statewide database of law enforcement officers dismissed for violation of standards to help other law enforcement agencies make informed hiring decisions

.

Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 18:26 on Jun 23, 2022

# ¿ Jun 23, 2022 18:23

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Gumball Gumption posted:

Where did you find this? It's 2016 numbers, I can't find any info on what those codes actually mean in terms of position, and the URL links to an internal HR website so there's no way to see if it's been updated or if it's the latest numbers or what.

https://doas.ga.gov/human-resources-administration/compensation/state-salary-plans

Here's the 2021 job catalog with codes and salary ranges. The pay ranges appear not to have changed since 2016.

https://doas.ga.gov/assets/Human%20...nt%20071621.pdf

Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 18:34 on Jun 23, 2022

# ¿ Jun 23, 2022 18:31

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Dapper_Swindler posted:

i thought that was thursday was last of this week?

The scotus calendar also has opinion releases tomorrow, it appears, per scotusblog.

# ¿ Jun 23, 2022 18:37

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Grouchio posted:

Does the recent SCOTUS ruling against New York's concealed carry law mean gun control of any kind (like the bill in the senate) is now dead in the water?

No.

# ¿ Jun 23, 2022 20:11

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

In the previous iteration of this thread I discussed a bill, the FDASLA (aka FDA Safety and Landmark Advancements Act), that includes provisions that will improve regulation of dietary supplements (thereby seriously undercutting groups like the alt-right, antivaxxers, Dr. Oz, and Alex Jones). The bill is going to pass the Senate with these provisions (and calls from the public played a role in that), but it is not clear that the House will support these dietary supplement provisions in the final version.

If you'd like the antivaxx movement or groups like the alt-right to lose a major source of funding, please contact your House of Representatives member and tell them you want the dietary supplement provisions from the senate version of the FDASLA bill in the final version. This is especially important if the Representative is on the House House Energy and Commerce Committee, which is the one handling the bill.

Context: this is a bill that has to pass every 5 years (it reauthorizes basic drug approval systems for FDA), so the inclusion of mandatory product registration requirements for dietary supplements is a critical chance to actually get these products regulated. This bill would make supplement companies send FDA their product information and label. That information goes into a public database (basically a public supplement registry), and FDA can instantly seize and stop supplements that aren't in that system. (It also means FDA will actually know what products are even on the market, since right now there's zero premarket approval or scrutiny for supplements) The short version is that the bill will let FDA crush fake Covid cures and other scam products much, much faster. The bill also includes a massive reform expansion of regulations on cosmetics products.

The politics involved are complicated, but the short version is that it's worth making this call no matter what party they are a part of or where you live. This doesn't fall along the usual partisan or even industry lines, and hearing even a single call or email of public support could actually change whether this happens.

Talking points:

Here's the author of a similar bill talking about the need for supplement listing: https://twitter.com/i/broadcasts/1ynKOZAVMrzxR

You can mine the video for talking points(it's a good watch), but some basic starters:

Always say you use supplements, and you want to feel like they're safe and better regulated...and that you want them to support provisions in the bill that will create a mandatory dietary supplement listing system.
Saying you want a more transparent market or want to be able to know what you're taking is what it says it is, is also a good line with most senators.
If the Rep is a Republican, talk about creating a "stable, free market for supplements made here in America" and in particular, say that you are always worried about foreign drugs (you can say Chinese or Russian, if you want) getting imported and dumped on the market as supplements.
if they're a Dem, it may be effective to say that you know there were a lot of fake Covid cures labeled as supplements, and you think this could help clean things up- and boost trust in vaccines, too.

Cunningham offered some more general info about contacting a congressional office:

cunningham posted:

My own comments (as one who routinely communicates with congressional staffers):
1. Be succinct. Staffers have limited time and get dozens (sometimes hundreds) of requests per day. Be short, sweet, to the point.
2. Have an "ask." It's one thing to say, "this sucks, you should fix it!" It's another to say, "this sucks, here is how you can fix it." That's why I asked about whether there was a bill to support, and what language you would like to see in it.

If you would like more specific info, context, or talking points for a particular office, PM me.

# ¿ Jun 24, 2022 00:50

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

World Famous W posted:

please don't pretend to be a bigot to get a bill passed, even if dealing with republicans

China and Russia are, in fact, two major sources of drugs that are illegally sent to the US and repackaged as supplements. China is the largest source for these by a mile.

# ¿ Jun 24, 2022 00:59

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Kalit posted:

Surprising news:
https://twitter.com/nytimes/status/1540160301202640898
I'm shocked this actually passed. I don't think it'll make a huge impact, but much, much better than nothing. I guess we'll see how the phrase "serious relationship" is interpreted. Here's the full text of the bill: https://www.sinema.senate.gov/sites/default/files/2022-06/bipartisan_safer_communities_act_text.pdf

Google suggests the "dating relationship" definition appears to at least involve all the same factors by which it is commonly defined in state law involving things like restraining orders.

# ¿ Jun 24, 2022 04:35

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Collins et al have had time to develop a response, the release of the opinion that was expected isn't going to disrupt her messaging.

# ¿ Jun 24, 2022 15:34

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

theCalamity posted:

https://twitter.com/ohheyjenna/status/1540509529493872640?s=21&t=VVovdRoAyI7QcRDAQmvhTA

AOC wants Biden to open abortion clinics on federal land. If he�s unwilling to expand the court, then he should do this l. I doubt he�ll do anything other than tell people to vote, but this would be nice to see

Not clear how that�s possible without an act of Congress.

# ¿ Jun 25, 2022 05:23

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Impeachment requires a 2/3rds Senate vote. I know this has been explained multiple times.

# ¿ Jun 26, 2022 22:37

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Heck Yes! Loam! posted:

There are other ways the democrats could be fighting against the courts. They could limit their jurisdiction to certain issues. They could literally take away their staff. There are options.

https://twitter.com/KBAndersen/status/1541054146626965504

Everything that the op-ed describes requires an act of congress, i.e. 50 or 60 Senate votes, except for the ones that require a constitutional amendment. Of course, it doesn't mention any of that, so we get more "they should fight!" claims unmoored from how the government works.

# ¿ Jun 27, 2022 01:00

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:

3) Why is Australia so disproportionately down on both China and the U.S.?

Australia has a saturation of Murdoch-funded media that would likely favor Trump/Republicans, and is also very proximate to and directly impacted by China's regional influence and manipulation plays.

# ¿ Jun 29, 2022 21:12

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

It's describing Iran and Russia sabotaging the deal to Russia's benefit.

# ¿ Jun 30, 2022 00:37

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:

Iran isn't taking a dive for Russia on this one and Russia doesn't really benefit much from a deal tanking entirely. This is more of a spite move/desperation attempt to get something by Russia.

That doesn't parse because Iran knows that 3) in your post is impossible to confirm, and always has been. It's not how international agreements work. It makes sense only in the context of feeding the "wow look how much better the authoritarian government is" framing.

# ¿ Jun 30, 2022 00:49

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Quorum posted:

To add on to the above, it's sadly not uncommon for, say, VA or IHS facilities to believe that the Hyde amendment means no abortions at all. Reinforcing the need to actually honor the Hyde exceptions and administer abortions in those cases is a meaningful harm reduction step (although the Hyde amendment is loving garbage and needs to go away yesterday).

My understanding is there is a separate legal provision that blocks the VA from covering abortions;

Discendo Vox posted:

I don't think the VHA is even allowed to provide abortions to eligible vets; it looks like they were precluded from it by a provision of the VHA law of 1992: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/STATUTE-106/pdf/STATUTE-106-Pg4943.pdf (section 106 on page 5).

# ¿ Jun 30, 2022 15:23

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:

I saw the graphic from that poll going around a few days ago and it is about as stark as you can get:

I'm honestly a little bit surprised that framing the question as "Who should have more rights?" didn't prop up the "woman" side of the poll. Or maybe (horrifyingly) it did.

That's a terrible poll question, it'd be hard for it to be more designed to generate that result.

# ¿ Jun 30, 2022 21:18

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

FLIPADELPHIA posted:

I guess I just don't understand, beyond lol Republicans are evil lol, how a law can be passed in a given state that makes a supposed crime committed in another state prosecutable in the "home" state. If I live in South Dakota, and drive to North Dakota to rob a store, how can South Dakota prosecute me for anything?

Or maybe a better example would be, if I drive from a state where marijuana is illegal to a state where marijuana is legal, and smoke a joint in the second state, how can that first state prosecute me for anything?

Slow chanting builds down the corridor:
conflict of laws conflict of laws CONFLICT OF LAWS CONFLICT OF LAWS
This is a very complex area and depends on existing statutory and common law doctrines in all relevant states. For example, if you steal a car in one state and get into a collision in another while high.

This is one of those areas where you get an LLM and make big bucks as a specialist; there's a layer of constitutional caselaw on top of the direct interstate conflicts involved. It's possible to wind up with multiple states applying divergent common law and statutory doctrines, including situations where one state has to perform an analysis of another state's interests using a third state's test standards and a fourth state's evidence...to provide an example, in this case Kansas was obligated to correctly apply the substantive law of all 50 states to plaintiff standing and outcomes in a class action suit.

With all that said, it is very rare for a state to be able to get jurisdiction over a simple criminal action in another state- these laws seeking this will rarely be enforceable with the doctrines presently on the books, especially as most conflict of law standards are developed in civil liability contexts. Wide interstate access to this sort of thing cuts strongly against corporate interests in another major area: class action liability.

Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 23:05 on Jun 30, 2022

# ¿ Jun 30, 2022 23:00

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

bird food bathtub posted:

This sounds like a complex and fascinatingly detailed area of the law.

Exactly the kind of place where authoritarians and fascists like to say "lol gently caress you no"

So, like, then what?

Just because something is complex doesn�t mean the appropriate response is to dismiss it and assume the worst outcome.

(USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)

# ¿ Jul 1, 2022 00:21

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Jaxyon posted:

The poster was speaking to the response of the fascists, who do not deal in complexity and generally decide on the basis of 'does this outcome help conservatives'.

Complexity and sophistry merely serve as fig leaves to the fascist outcome and these days barely even that.

Bishyaler posted:

Dismissing complexity and generating the worst outcome is what the Supreme Court has been doing all week.

cat botherer posted:

I think the probed poster's point was that it doesn't necessarily matter if it causes inconsistencies with the nuanced case law in this area - that doesn't appear to matter that much to the current court, because some of their new decisions are already bizarre and inconsistent, and instead appear to be post hoc justifications of their personal prejudices.

I used bigger words please don't probe me koos

You're not the Supreme Court, and neither is this thread. My post explaining conflict of laws already discussed why this is unlikely to transpire. Responding to it with nothing but "yes, but the fascists are so angrypowerful they can ignore all information, and therefore so can I" doesn't actually promote any kind of discussion or detail.

# ¿ Jul 1, 2022 03:17

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Jaxyon posted:

You need to engage with the reality of the SCOTUS not the neat legal puzzles.

The justices themselves are pointing out that the majority is basically contradicting itself constantly and has no clear jurisprudence.

If you're not engaging with that then you aren't adding anything to the discussion but intellectual masturbation.

This isn't even related to the question that was the basis of discussion. As I already said, twice now, there are reasons why even conservative judges aren't interested in undoing the territoriality test that is the standard for criminal conflict of laws.

# ¿ Jul 1, 2022 04:52

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Blind Rasputin posted:

This is so weird to me. I don�t know if they are just counting the number of hospital admissions/ED visits for any reason where the patient was positive for THC? Because I�m an acute care doc at a big PNW hospital and I have never once seen a case of psychosis, actual poisoning (not just intoxication), whatever the heck �scromiting� is, or any other illness actually directly attributed to MJ use. The only one is cyclic vomiting, which pinning on MJ use is half a diagnosis of exclusion, and is quite rare.

I just honestly don�t buy that this is factually accurate and not hyperbole. But that�s just my anecdotal experience.

The source is The Mail on Sunday, a pretty right-wing british tabloid in the full stereotype of the word; if you've heard of the Daily Mail, it's the same company.

# ¿ Jul 3, 2022 22:22

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Oracle posted:

Wonder if they were on a conference call.

Also is the Georgia AG appointed or elected?

Elected; the current one was appointed to fill a vacancy, then ran in and won election. He's up for reelection this year.

# ¿ Jul 5, 2022 19:31

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Oracle posted:

Oof. He better finish up before November.

He's a conservative Republican, and he won his primary by a landslide in May. He actually resigned as head of RAGA in April over his disagreements with them about the 2020 election, which is genuinely quite the statement- both about his moral stance on the issue, and that he won the primary after doing it. edit: the governor who appointed him, Nathan Deal, appears to be an interesting case study- he's a corrupt scummy chud, but nowhere near as bad as Kemp, his successor.

Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 20:09 on Jul 5, 2022

# ¿ Jul 5, 2022 20:05

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Main Paineframe posted:

The Salon article doesn't mention it, but the bill also has a provision that gives students the right to record professors without their knowledge or consent for the express purpose of making a complaint against that professor.

There's also a bunch of other smaller things, like a provision reforming university disciplinary systems to have standards similar to those of real courtrooms, such as a presumption of innocence, a right to remain silent or plead the fifth, a statute of limitations, and a right for the accused to have a dedicated advisor who will have full access to advocate on their behalf and basically act as their lawyer.

Overall, it's basically just a wishlist for right-wing firebrand students, turned into a bill and shoved through the legislature.

That sounds like it may be FIRE legislation.

# ¿ Jul 5, 2022 21:22

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

BRJurgis posted:

Hoping not to invoke "pro-gun leftist" stigma, but aren't we at unironically at "nothing can done" legislatively? Even "working with what we have", any meaningful gun legislation with any significant effect is likely impossible, and seemingly still wouldn't be enough to address both our amount of gun deaths or our mass shootings.

And what we're all worried about, this thread and (some of) the USA that is, isn't just some data points on gun statitistics, it's more than that. It's our culture. Even if we somehow banned guns in some real way, wouldn't it just lead to largely right wing upheaval and terrorism? We've been sowing this crop for a long time.

Just to be clear I'm not anti gun control or even close to pro gun, but it just bugs the hell out of me that this is going to keep happening and be followed by days of political coverage on middling half measures that won't exist or matter by the time they have any impact at all, while we ignore the issues that erase a chance of a future.

Guess I'm saying I'm done pretending our leaders system or culture can address this (or much of anything), the political circus makes the constant deaths somehow worse, and I hope people stop equating folks scoffing at gun control coverage with ignoring statistics or worshipping the gun.

You are stating the arguments employed by the gun lobby: that there is a cultural issue innate to America that makes gun control futile, that any gun control measure that passes will have perverse political outcomes and will also, simultaneously, not be "meaningful" or "real", and that gun control would create an existential upheaval. This is the reactionary playbook to shut down discussion of the specifics of any policy measure.

# ¿ Jul 6, 2022 02:48

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Going by avatar, I think Kalit has the authority to declare people guilty, anyways.

# ¿ Jul 6, 2022 06:37

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:

Trump apparently pulled a Nixon, but this time the appointee didn't even resign in protest - or tell anyone.

Charles Rettig was appointed by Trump, but he is still currently the IRS Commissioner. His term expires in November.

https://twitter.com/nytimes/status/1544809945626976259
https://twitter.com/brianstelter/status/1544808506653642755

This is extremely unlikely to be anything; these are National Research Program (NRP) audits and they work through an entirely different selection process than investigative ones. I struggle to conceive of any way for the commissioner to find a way to target anyone for any kind of audit, given the layers of procedure and bureaucracy now in place at the IRS. The likelihood is also not represented accurately by the article, because although the specifics aren't public, NRP audit selection uses a stratified sample that also probably increases sampling for areas that the IRS is considering increasing overall enforcement. Both men may have been selected because they had high income, used a particular investment vehicle, recently left federal service, or some combination of those- or any number of other factors, individually or as a pair.

The specific details of the audits are also, you know, just how an audit is conducted. Where a for cause audit normally requests substantiating information for particular flagged parts of the taxpayer's return, NRP audits require substantiation be provided for everything on the return.

The audit went so deeply into his finances that his accountant had a back and forth with the agency about how much the Comeys had spent on office supplies purchased more than two years earlier. In an series of documents the accountant provided to the I.R.S. in February 2020, the accountant said that Mr. Comey, originally going by memory, had provided far too low an estimate about how much he had spent on them.

quote:

�I have attached an invoice to support the cost of the MacBook Air for $1,761,� Mr. Comey�s accountant wrote to the agent in a letter. �He also bought a printer and toner, charged on his AMX, 9/29/17. Mr. Comey has requested a copy of the statement for that month. I will also fax that document to you, when I get it. �

A month later, Mr. Comey�s accountant pushed back on the invasiveness of the audit, likening it to a federal investigation.

�We had a long conversation,� the agent wrote in her notes about the call. �He said he couldn�t understand this audit, and this is how a fraud case is audited. He also couldn�t understand why I requested all bank statements.�

No poo poo they asked for expenses from "more than two years earlier", any audit normally looks back 3 years. The main takeaway I'm getting from the article is that Comey needs a better accountant, and should've documented actual office expenses.

Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 00:25 on Jul 7, 2022

# ¿ Jul 7, 2022 00:18

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Oracle posted:

So you're saying dogs can't play basketball?

I'm saying the article is misleading in presenting this as even remotely likely to have been anything other than the normal functioning of the IRS NRP. Rettig probably knows what the NRP is and little more. He's not going to have somehow secretly persuaded the 50 separate career civil servants involved to independently and obviously commit the federal crimes necessary to even try to get a particular person audited, a process that still would've taken years of advance planning during study development.

# ¿ Jul 7, 2022 00:31

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

The passthrough element became an instant area of focus for IRS after the TCJA went through, because of course it incentivizes a lot of sleazy fact-specific behavior to minimize costs with passthrough entities. If it's going away, that'll be some degree of enforcement relief (in several years when it's no longer part of the audit system).

# ¿ Jul 7, 2022 19:09

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Herstory Begins Now posted:

what do you even have to do to hit a 1k utility bill?

are you running an aluminum recycling operation in your back yard?

Crypto.

# ¿ Jul 7, 2022 23:15

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Kavros posted:

i get 20 spam calls a week minimum even on a new number and i have started to think of it as an outward reminder i live in a dying country. this degree of regulatory paralysis and helplessness for so long. how many years has "we've been trying to reach you about ur car's extended warranty" been a meme

It's not an American problem; the companies doing this operate through overseas entities, and they operate globally. The US gets hit hard because we've got a population with money and means to be scammed.

# ¿ Jul 9, 2022 01:53

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 11, 2024 16:28

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

There's been a massive leak of internal documents from Uber executives.

Among other things, they show the executives deliberately setting up uber drivers to be attacked by taxi drivers to garner political leverage and press sympathy. The leak also documents a global system of failsafes used to hide information about things like market price manipulation or violation of court orders from regulators and investigators.

# ¿ Jul 11, 2022 04:41

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > USCE Summer 2022: You can't change the crisis settings.

«‹›4 »