Nancy Grace's show is gone. Good fucking riddance.
Gas Bandit's Political Thread V: The Vampire Likes Bats
- Thread starter GasBandit
- Start date
Dave
Staff member
That doesn't even make sense.
neither did the other times they brought abortion into a discussion on gun violence
Did we forget to refill your box of crayons again?
Did he try to see how many he could stuff up his nose again?
Gas likes to point out the stats that show the Wild West wasn't really so wild. I've come to the conclusion that Westerns are actually that subgenre of Sci-fi called Speculative Fiction.
They just got the technology totally wrong, similar to the way Asimov totally missed the miniaturation of computers.
It's hard to tell, because populations were very fluid along the frontier. Claim jumping and cattle rustling could be very violent, but would happen away from settlements so there was little proof and less law enforcement. Then you had feuds, like Texas' Horrell-Higgins feud that lasted years and could erupt into a shootout upon contact, and the Moderator-Regulator feud that was loosely covered in the Young Guns movies. The other thing is that more shootouts resulted in a fatality (often due to lack of adequate medical care) than in current times. One study indicated that 7 of every 10 gunfights resulted in at least one fatality.
Only two shades for Chuck - black and white.
Literally anyone else would be in jail.
I hope soon your media stops with the illusion, and just starts reporting you as an Oligarchy, where many are above the law. It would be a lot more honest.
Who do you think owns the media?
I thought you guys had a holiday recently (like, YESTERDAY) that was about Taxation Without Representation, Elitism, People being Above the Law, and such, and you trying to overthrow that? Or at least that's what you advertise it was about?
How exactly is what you have now all that different? Better ILLUSION of influence and/or affecting the outcome than before? Better Bread/Circuses? What?
GasBandit
Staff member
You guys did us a favor once a couple hundred years ago... think you could come do it again?
If you are referring to this paragraph, the FBI director is saying that people in similar circumstances would, regardless of the criminal side of things, often be subject to security (i.e. stripping of clearance) or administrative (e.g. resignation, demotion, firing) sanctions. The FBI was tasked with doing a criminal investigation, not adjudicating other measures. The director is saying that it would be ordinary/expected for those sanctions happen. This paragraph seems to have been twisted to hell and back on my feed (along with adults becoming aware that mens rea is actually a thing, and being outraged about it).
Dave
Staff member
Yes. The person would lose their fucking security clearance and be ineligible to hold any government office that has a TS clearance or above!!
You see what I'm saying? Hillary should now be barred from running for president because she can't handle sensitive data in a sensitive way.
TBH, more the Brits than "us" in that case, though we were part of what they were.
Deal with your own crap! We're just starting our own stint of the "Charismatic but knows nothing" head of state. We'll have our own problems soon enough!
I don't recall reading jack shit about security clearances in Articles I, II, the 12th, the 14th, or the 22nd Amendments. I am extremely skeptical of an administrative sanction that makes someone ineligible to hold elected office.
Those Brits all settled in what would become Canada though, so really, they were proto-Canadians. The politeness genes hadn't settled in yet.
It doesn't make a lot of sense to me for the FBI to say "Yeah, the law was definitely broken, but since so many people were involved, we can't figure out who to put the blame on, even though the entire series of events literally stems from one person, but since her husband bribed the attorney general and she's the designated next president, so we aren't going to do shit about it."
Another thing pissing me off about Clintonian politics: a very good friend of mine has latched onto Bernie statement that "[abortion, etc]... is a distraction," in response to Hillary saying to the press, "Now why hasn't abortion been brought up in the debates? Why doesn't Senator Sanders want to talk about it?" Now, to me, it's not too hard to look at his record on women's health, equality, representation, etc, and figure that he meant, "Since Secretary Clinton and I have essentially the same position on abortion, women's reproductive health, equal pay, and so on, bringing it up to the media is a distraction." My friend has taken it to mean that he was saying, "Despite my decades long record of supporting women's rights, particularly including access to healthcare, planned parenthood, and the right to choose, I don't care about women and mentioning their concerns is a distraction from more important things."
That's not what is being said, it's not about an elected position, but the fact that if you had the administrative sanctions that this even would justify, that you wouldn't be able to get a government job that required you to have a higher lever security clearance. Basically it is UNCLASSIFIED, CONFIDENTIAL, (admin sanction cutoff here), SECRET, TOP SECRET, and TOP SECRET-SBI (special background investigation), plus points beyond. Many members of Congress don't have clearance beyond the TOP SECRET level, much less the access that the President has.
Not to mention "Eyes Only" material that frequently even the President isn't read-in on until necessary.
So basically, she would be prohibited due to her "careless handling of sensitive material" for being trusted with material that the President must necessarily have access to / be familiar with.
(I have a superficial+ understanding how security clearances work, I read up on them after two different friends listed me in their foreign connections.)
I was specifically responding to Dave saying they should be "barred": it is what is being said. Again, I fail to see why this should have any impact on a U.S. citizen's ability to become President. Being a felon doesn't take your ability to become President away, AFAIK, I don't see why an administrative sanction should.
So if you had your driver's license taken away due to being an irresponsible motorist, and your job involved lots of driving, you can see how you'd no longer be a qualified candidate for that job?
Do you want President Martha Stewart? Because that's how you get President Martha Stewart.
--Patrick
My job posting was not in the constitution, last I checked. It sounds like you're trying to amend it.
Hmmm...
1. Security clearance isn't specified in the Constitution. Impeachment for "high crimes and treason" are.
2. What's more worrying: the language of the Constitution suggests a female may not be President. And you damn well better bet that that's the first thing the GOP challenges in court.
Two things:
1. Security clearance isn't specified in the Constitution. Impeachment for "high crimes and treason" are.
2. What's more worrying: the language of the Constitution suggests a female may not be President. And you damn well better bet that that's the first thing the GOP challenges in court.
They would have a hell of a time showing standing, as well as explaining why they let Palin be on the ticket (IIRC the gendered language is for President and Vice President, so the issue is the same). It would make for a hilarious SCOTUS ruling, assuming it wasn't dismissed out of hand.
