Gas Bandit's Political Thread V: The Vampire Likes Bats
- Thread starter GasBandit
- Start date
The swimmer is banned from major swimming competitions for life.
This really fucks with his life plans, so I would feel bad for him but you know, he's a rapist.
This really fucks with his life plans, so I would feel bad for him but you know, he's a rapist.
The FBI can perform an investigation, and make a recommendation, but they cannot prosecute, force the federal attorney general (Lorretta Lynch) to prosecute, or even issue subpeonas.
The federal attorney general is most certainly not going to prosecute a case that the president doesn't want prosecuted. This would hardly be the first time a president instructed his AG to hold off on a case. The FBI can blow and bluster, but the president has broad powers to bring a recalcitrant agency into line.
Once the presidency changes, the new president appoints a new attorney general, who is confirmed by the senate.
If Clinton wins I'm quite certain good things are in store for Lynch.
Clintons always pay their debts.
So I did a little more research.
1. Presidents can pardon people before they are even investigated or charged, and don't have to wait for a conviction.
2. Presidents can issue secret pardons.
So this is simply never going to trial. Clinton will play the "I'm not even charged with a crime, so obviously there's no reason to think I did something illegal" card while the FBI and others who know the situation are essentially being told to ignore it by decree.
Also, in other news, looks like the rapist is having his sentence cut in half, so he's only getting three months in prison.
1. Presidents can pardon people before they are even investigated or charged, and don't have to wait for a conviction.
2. Presidents can issue secret pardons.
So this is simply never going to trial. Clinton will play the "I'm not even charged with a crime, so obviously there's no reason to think I did something illegal" card while the FBI and others who know the situation are essentially being told to ignore it by decree.
Also, in other news, looks like the rapist is having his sentence cut in half, so he's only getting three months in prison.
I almost posted an appropriate gif but I'm worried I'd ACTUALLY be stabbed for posting a GoT spoiler...
As for Clinton... yeah, she's probably guilty of something but we're never going to know for sure what. Whether or not she gets issued a pardon is irrelevant when they don't even have enough evidence to make an indictment, let alone the political will to do so. Frankly, part of me was hoping it would happen so Bernie would actually get his shot in the general election.
How have you come by this information?
Dave
Staff member
Oklahoma now has given their police a card reader that allows them to - I shit you not - scan in your bank cards and transfer the money to them. Yes, you read that right. Now you don't even have to have the stuff handy for them to issue civil forfeiture against your stuff, they just have to have the idea that you are getting money illegally. They then take your card, swipe it, and *poof* all your money is now theirs. And do you have to be convicted of a crime? Nope.
https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/...on-a-traffic-stop-without-any-charges-at-all/
The police take all your money, the feds get a cut, and the card company gets 7% as well. Everybody wins! Except you, who now has no money to get a lawyer and fight. Or pay bills. Or eat. But the police win, so...yay?
https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/...on-a-traffic-stop-without-any-charges-at-all/
The police take all your money, the feds get a cut, and the card company gets 7% as well. Everybody wins! Except you, who now has no money to get a lawyer and fight. Or pay bills. Or eat. But the police win, so...yay?
But USA Swim banned him for life today... Not able to rejoin association and cannot compete in any USA Swim sponsored event, which means no chance at ever participating in Olympics. Too little still.
Debit cards are not protected by the card companies, only the banks backing them, and they're not going to fight your civil forfeiture for you.
Perhaps it would be better to say "even if they DID have the evidence to make the indictment, there isn't the political will to make it happen in this administration". Basically, I'm saying that even if they had a video tape of her deleting all her emails and could see the contents of all of those emails, there is little chance she was ever going to see a court room because of her connections. It would be like doing it to a Kennedy; I'd love to see it but it was never going to happen.
Anyone else hate how we talk about the Bushes, Kennedys, and Clintons like they were fucking royalty?[DOUBLEPOST=1465524228,1465523874][/DOUBLEPOST]
A million times this. Visa isn't going to let them take THEIR money but your debit card has no such backing. If you get pulled over in Oklahoma, just cut up your debit card before they can get to the door. Let them pull you before a judge and force them to explain why they had a compelling need to drain your life savings over a traffic stop.
They won't take credit cards because that represents new debt, not cash on hand. So if you must go through that state, leave your debit cards behind and keep your credit card handy - pay it off later using your accounts.
The thing is, if they can justify this, then they can justify using your checkbook or any other financial instrument. It just boggles the mind, and I fully expect it to get tossed out. Hopefully it'll be another straw on the camel's back of civil forfeiture law, limiting or destroying it for good.
The thing is, if they can justify this, then they can justify using your checkbook or any other financial instrument. It just boggles the mind, and I fully expect it to get tossed out. Hopefully it'll be another straw on the camel's back of civil forfeiture law, limiting or destroying it for good.
It's only on pre-paid debit cards, according to this news report.
OHP uses New Device to Seize Money During Traffic Stops
Apparently it's a deal something like red light cameras, and some state rep is going to try to get a law passed to prevent this without a conviction.
OHP uses New Device to Seize Money During Traffic Stops
Apparently it's a deal something like red light cameras, and some state rep is going to try to get a law passed to prevent this without a conviction.
Dave
Staff member
It only takes the money right from debit cards, but it can also freeze your other cards, check their balances, etc. so yeah, they still leave you broke and at their mercy.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
I was considering posting this in the civil forfeiture thread, actually. Something like, "It's not dead yet!"
--Patrick
Wan't and didn't say that Dave. Just putting out info that was clarifying the issue instead of the "OHMYGERD! DEYS TERKING ALL THE DEBITS!" that everyone is tossing around facebook and the more off-kilter websites.
This is amusing. A short time ago a study was released that said, essentially, that conservatives are more psychotic than liberals, and that liberals were more neurotic and desired to "get along with others" more than conservatives. This was spread around facebook and elsewhere as a confirmation that liberals are arguably better for society than conservatives.
Unfortunately there was a teeny, tiny mistake in the results, which they've now corrected:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ajps.12216/epdf
It turns out they exactly reversed the conclusion. Liberals tend more towards psychoticism and conservatives more towards neuroticism and a desire to get along with others.
Unfortunately there was a teeny, tiny mistake in the results, which they've now corrected:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ajps.12216/epdf
It turns out they exactly reversed the conclusion. Liberals tend more towards psychoticism and conservatives more towards neuroticism and a desire to get along with others.
That thread has a troublesome title ... and also one of the best jokes that's ever happened on this forum.
Wasn't there a sitcom episode where the plot was having a couple take an IQ test, finding out one was smarter than the other, and then halfway through the facilitator reverses it and says that due to a mistake it was the other way around, but really the experiment was to see what happens when people think they're smarter than other people?
'cuz this feels like that.
--Patrick
GasBandit
Staff member
The senate passed a bill to require women to register for the draft.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/15/u...draft.html?_r=0&referer=https:/www.google.com
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/15/u...draft.html?_r=0&referer=https:/www.google.com
Affecting twice the population might help gather momentum for that.
Not unless they actually enacted a draft, and I'd be terrified to see what shape the world was in if the military needed one.
Making selective service registration mandatory for everyone is probably an overdue step. Especially with women in the infantry and other combat roles.
GasBandit
Staff member
Highjacked into my other thread because the examples were just TOO good.
I thought it was stupid back in the 80s, because I had considered a military career for a while (never made it beyond AFROTC cadet). So I could join the military, but not have to sign up with selective service like my male friends. How does that make any sense? Especially when there are plenty of non-combat/non-infantry jobs you can be drafted for. This should have been gender neutral from the beginning. If you're not willing to send "young girls" (WTF, Cruz?) off to die, you shouldn't be willing to send young men off to die, either.
Maybe the problem is starting conflicts that you aren't willing to have (other people's) daughters die for? So maybe Ted "Never Served In The Military" Cruz should take his Hawkishness and shove it up his ass?
But Senator McCain said it so much nicer: "“I respect the senator from Texas’s view. Too bad that view is not shared by our military leadership, the ones who have had the experience in combat with women.” Buuuuuuuurrrrrrrrn!
GasBandit
Staff member
Yeah, Cruz took the wrong stance and defended it badly. The "little girls" argument clued me in to what I believe his real reason is - his own 5 and 8 year old daughters.I thought it was stupid back in the 80s, because I had considered a military career for a while (never made it beyond AFROTC cadet). So I could join the military, but not have to sign up with selective service like my male friends. How does that make any sense? Especially when there are plenty of non-combat/non-infantry jobs you can be drafted for. This should have been gender neutral from the beginning. If you're not willing to send "young girls" (WTF, Cruz?) off to die, you shouldn't be willing to send young men off to die, either.
Maybe the problem is starting conflicts that you aren't willing to have (other people's) daughters die for? So maybe Ted "Never Served In The Military" Cruz should take his Hawkishness and shove it up his ass?
But Senator McCain said it so much nicer: "“I respect the senator from Texas’s view. Too bad that view is not shared by our military leadership, the ones who have had the experience in combat with women.” Buuuuuuuurrrrrrrrn!
That said, I hope the fitness standards aren't lowered.
I'm still of the opinion that there should be a law that requires the oldest military aged immediate family member of every Congress person be immediately drafted when war is declared. Lawmakers should have a personal stake at risk when voting on something like that, would make sure that war is declared for a damn good reason.
GasBandit
Staff member
I'd settle for requiring military service (with honorable discharge/retirement) as a prerequisite for being able to run for office. If you want to be part of leading the country, you need to have shown yourself willing to be in harm's way for the country.
Unless things have changed recently there are already lower fitness standards for women.
Absolutely, because lives depend on being able to haul people out if you're search & rescue, and lug around equipment for special forces. My husband is flight crew, so yeah, I don't want him to have to depend on a person who doesn't have the required strength to haul him out of a bad situation, no matter what their gender.
But there are plenty of dangerous jobs women have already been doing for decades that don't require special fitness standards: medics, truck drivers, pilots & air crew, the female liaisons embedded with infantry. They've already been serving in "combat" roles. Is a female truck driver in an ambush not supposed to return fire because, "Sorry, Congress said I can't participate in combat because it might give Ted Cruz the vapors!" The "women in combat" debate is ridiculous (whether volunteer military or the draft), because they're arguing about a thing that's already been happening for a very long time.
Restricting particular jobs by specific physical ability is good. Restricting jobs by nothing other than gender is stupid.
I know the Marines only had 4 of 29 woman pass the first day's endurance test during one phase of testing... but then again, the Marines have a very high washout rate for men too. It's almost certain they'll drop the standards though or face a lawsuit.