America - The Official Thread

[Brett]

Imagine the illegal immigrants coming in from Texas. I'd hope the US would do a decent thing and build a massive wall around the entire country of Texas, it's what President Abbot would want after all. Also, for good measure, we should probably shoot any illegal Texan and then send the US military in to take care of their crime problem. If President Abbot protests and says that's an act of war, well we can just engage in military action against him too. After all, it's what the Republicans would want.

So fun fact, Oklahoma's border with Texas extends to the vegetation line along the south bank of the Red River.

 

[TexRex]

So fun fact, Oklahoma's border with Texas extends to the vegetation line along the south bank of the Red River.

 

[sturk0167]

Imagine the illegal immigrants coming in from Texas. I'd hope the US would do a decent thing and build a massive wall around the entire country of Texas, it's what President Abbot would want after all. Also, for good measure, we should probably shoot any illegal Texan and then send the US military in to take care of their crime problem. If President Abbot protests and says that's an act of war, well we can just engage in military action against him too. After all, it's what the Republicans would want.

It seems like y'all haven't been spending enough time reading Breitbart.com.

 

[Joey D]

It seems like y'all haven't been spending enough time reading Breitbart.com.

I think most of us don't bother with fake news websites.

 

[TexRex]

I think most of us don't bother with fake news websites.

I mean I have delved into the falsehoods perpetuated by that particular outlet.

Where have all the Republicans gone? Why don't they post here anymore? Oh well...

Republicans support preferential treatment for rapists who penetrate the vaginas of minors. That's disgusting!

Let's go for a ride.



I call it three things:

1) It's old.

2) It's false (not that Democrats want Newsom to be president--that may well be true--but the Breitbart* headline is certainly false).

3) It's evidence that stupid Republicans (the Department of Redundancy Department approves) aren't willing to scrutinize things they read if they want to believe it and/or they can use it against the opposition.

*Breitbart. I mean ****ing seriously. It would be a disservice to dirt to use it as a basis for comparison against the stupidity of these mother****ers. Breitbart is not a source for factual reporting. Okay so a broken clock is correct twice a day, but Breitbart perpetuates falsehoods with sufficient consistency that it should never be considered a legitimate source.

The law was SB 145 and Newsom signed it in September of 2020. The law has no effect on the penalties for sodomy with minors or anything else. The law has no effect on penalties whatsoever.

California's age of consent is 18 years. Anyone over 18 years of age who has sexual intercourse with anyone under the age of 18 is committing a crime. That crime is sexual assault. It doesn't matter if the minor consents in spirit (consent to sexual intercourse with a minor isn't recognized by law, so even non-coercive sexual intercourse with a minor is against the law--termed "statutory rape") or if the perpetrator does indeed force themselves upon a minor. There's some relevant flexibility with sentencing here, as one who perpetrates non-coercive statutory rape and is no more than 10 years older than the minor (this is an absolute maximum), a prosecutor may exercise discretion and charge the perpetrator (regardless of the sex of the perpetrator and the minor) with a misdemeanor rather than a felony. SB 145 didn't affect any of this, but we're getting a little closer.

Prior to the passage of SB 145, a judge in California had discretion in cases of statutory rape within the 10-year differential (again, this is an absolute maximum) over whether the convicted perpetrator must register as a sex offender...but only if they perpetrated vaginal penetrative sexual assault. In cases of statutory rape involving non-vaginal penetrative (sodomy; oral and/or anal penetration) sexual assault, there was no judicial discretion over reporting and sex offender registration was mandatory. SB 145 gave judges discretion over sex offender registration in statutory rape cases involving non-vaginal penetrative sexual assault.

What this means in practice is that homosexual males (because there are no vaginas involved) aren't automatically discriminated against by the criminal justice system over non-coercive penetrative sexual assault.

In the absolute simplest of terms, the passage and execution of SB 145 established equality before the law. That's a good thing. Thia isn't perfect because it's still subject to the discretion of individual actors, but it's an improvement to the penal (heh...penal) code.

People absolutely should be treated equally by the criminal justice system. To think otherwise is deeply unAmerican.

So given what SB 145 actually did, really what Republicans who oppose it are saying (even if they do so unwittingly because they don't scrutinize the information they receive) is that those who perpetrate vaginal penetrative sexual assault should get preferential treatment.

Let's strip all minutiae to make it sound as bad as possible, in much the way that right-wing propagandists do, and as I did for effect at the start.

Republicans support preferential treatment for rapists who penetrate the vaginas of minors. That's disgusting!

@sturk0167 absolutely strikes me as one of those Republicans who think rapists convicted for vaginal penetration of minors should benefit from preferential treatment. Disgusting.

I still think that one would very much not like law enforcement to become aware of the contents of their personal devices.

 

[sturk0167]

@sturk0167 absolutely strikes me as one of those Republicans who think rapists convicted for vaginal penetration of minors should benefit from preferential treatment. Disgusting.

I still think that one would very much not like law enforcement to become aware of the contents of their personal devices.

Are you off your meds?

 

[TexRex]

Are you off your meds?

Are you a child sexual predator?

 

[sturk0167]

Are you a child sexual predator?

I'm a human, so no.
I'm not a republican either, so you're 0 for 2.

Also, I think you may be going a little bit out of bounds with that assertion.

 

[TexRex]

I'm a human, so no.

One thing has nothing to do with the other.

I'm not a republican either, so you're 0 for 2.

And yet your lips are firmly sealed to the sphincter of the Republican figurehead. Weird.

Also, I think you may be going a little bit out of bounds with that assertion.

It wasn't an assertion. It was a question. You can tell the difference by the punctuation at the end, which is commonly referred to as a question mark.

Is it "out of bounds" because you don't like it? You can ask me. In fact I'm happy to volunteer the response that, no, I am in fact not a child sexual predator, nor am I in possession of child sexual abuse material. See, I respect natural rights, individual sovereignty being the basis for all others and consent being key to respect thereof.

I'm also not wont to link expression in the form of drag before an audience of minors to child sexual predation as you have*. And because there's this weird correlation (it's actually not weird) between those who are wont to link those two things to having been found in possession of child sexual abuse materials or having engaged in child sexual predation (termed "PedoCon Theory"--referring to pedophile conservatives), I am concerned about your...erm...proclivities.

*

 

[sturk0167]

@sturk0167 absolutely strikes me as one of those Republicans who think rapists convicted for vaginal penetration of minors should benefit from preferential treatment.

It wasn't an assertion. It was a question.

Really?

 

[TexRex]

Really?

Observation and opinion, not a statement of fact. Do work on that reading comprehension.

Edit: Also now seeing that what you've quoted first is entirely removed from what you referred to as being "out of bounds." TBI?

 

[sturk0167]

Observation and opinion, not a statement of fact. Do work on that reading comprehension.

Edit: Also now seeing that what you've quoted first is entirely removed from what you referred to as being "out of bounds." TBI?

Sounds good 👍
Catch you later

 

[TexRex]

It's still absolutely hilarious to me that that one once sought to defend Groundfish despite being so very fragile.

 

[Brett]

It seems like y'all haven't been spending enough time reading Breitbart.com.

I really hope you are kidding because Breibtbart is a trash website. And if you are not kidding, then you should feel bad for reading an absolutely rubbish, garbage, muppet of a website.

 

[eran0004]

Trump’s alleged actions after the 2020 election do not meet the constitutional definition of “insurrection.”

How does the constitution define insurrection and how does it differ from how the court understands the term?

Obviously the Colorado justices disagree, but shouldn't the bar be a little higher for something so consequential, than them just feeling like he did such and such? Did they present any evidence, interview witnesses, or hear out his defense?

The court doesn’t present evidence. The parties present the evidence and the court evaluates it. And yes, there were plenty of evidence presented at the trial, witnesses were interviewed and Trump’s defense was heard.

 

[Tornado]

That's opinion

Wrap it up folks the matter is settled.

 

[Danoff]

Imagine the illegal immigrants coming in from Texas. I'd hope the US would do a decent thing and build a massive wall around the entire country of Texas, it's what President Abbot would want after all. Also, for good measure, we should probably shoot any illegal Texan and then send the US military in to take care of their crime problem. If President Abbot protests and says that's an act of war, well we can just engage in military action against him too. After all, it's what the Republicans would want.

So let me get this straight, there's going to be a wall, and Texas is going to pay for it?

 

[TexRex]

"SysTeMic RaCiSm OnLy ExiStS iN tHe MiNdS oF rAce HuStLerS."

Boundaries for 13 seats in Michigan Legislature were illegally influenced by race, court says

The boundaries of 13 Detroit-area seats in the Michigan Legislature must be redrawn after a three-judge panel said the map was illegally influenced by race.

www.cbsnews.com

Opinion and order:

https://thearp.org/documents/15160/MI_122-cv-272_131.pdf

Legislative redistricting is usually performed by state legislatures, which usually do not create a contemporary record of their every move during that process. But here the Commission did create such a record: every decision they made, every word they spoke, was recorded in real time in a body of transcripts that runs some 10,000 pages. In that respect the record here is unique among redistricting cases litigated in federal court. That record makes clear that the commissioners relied heavily on their experts’ advice, particularly with regard to compliance with the federal Voting Rights Act, 52 U.S.C. § 10301. And the record shows, overwhelmingly, that those experts—Adelson, especially—expressly told the commissioners, scores if not hundreds of times, to sort Detroit-area voters into different districts on the basis of race.

Specifically, Adelson and Pastula told the commissioners that, to comply with the VotingRights Act (“VRA”), they must limit the “black voting age population”—known as “BVAP” inredistricting jargon—to approximately 35-45%. That proposition is without support in theSupreme Court’s VRA caselaw. Yet the record further shows that the commissioners did as their experts said—with great difficulty, and misgivings throughout, and over the vociferous objections of Detroit residents at the time—so that, in the end, the Commission limited the percentages of black voters, in the districts at issue here, to the racial targets their experts had given them. And so—in a city whose African-American population is almost 80%—the BVAPs of every Detroit-area district here, with one exception, fell within 35-45%. The exception was Senate District 11, which has a BVAP of 19.19%; but the record shows that most of the African-American voters in that district were put there to lower the BVAP of an adjacent district to the target range.

The record here shows overwhelmingly—indeed, inescapably—that the Commission drew the boundaries of plaintiffs’ districts predominantly on the basis of race. We hold that those districts were drawn in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution.

"The record here shows overwhelmingly—indeed, inescapably—that the Commission drew the boundaries of plaintiffs’ districts predominantly on the basis of race."

 

[UKMikey]

So let me get this straight, there's going to be a wall, and Texas is going to pay for it?

They're Trumpists, insurrectionists and rabid right-to-lifers and some of them, I assume, are good people.

 

[TexRex]

Wisconsin Supreme Court tosses GOP-drawn legislative maps in major redistricting case

The liberal-controlled Wisconsin Supreme Court has overturned Republican-drawn legislative maps and ordered that new ones be created.

www.cbsnews.com

The court ruled 4-3 in favor of Democrats who argued that the legislative maps are unconstitutional because districts drawn aren't contiguous. They also argued that the Supreme Court violated the separation of powers doctrine.

The lawsuit was filed a day after the court's majority flipped to 4-3 liberal control in August. That's when Justice Janet Protasiewicz joined the court after her April election victory.

Protasiewicz called the GOP-drawn maps "unfair" and "rigged" during her campaign, leading Republicans to threaten to impeach her before she had even heard a case. She sided with the other liberal justices in striking down the current maps.

Republican Assembly Speaker Robin Vos, who had threatened impeachment the loudest, backed off on Wednesday and said even if she ruled in favor of throwing out the maps, impeachment was "super unlikely."

Edit: It's amazing to me that Republicans drew non-contiguous legislative districts given how wild districts can be while still being contiguous.

 

[Liquid]

Districts like that might as well be named:

______'s Rich White District
______'s Rich Black District
______'s Poor White District
______'s Poor Black District

Stop pretending.

 

[Aerocoupe]

Wisconsin Supreme Court tosses GOP-drawn legislative maps in major redistricting case

The liberal-controlled Wisconsin Supreme Court has overturned Republican-drawn legislative maps and ordered that new ones be created.

www.cbsnews.com

Edit: It's amazing to me that Republicans drew non-contiguous legislative districts given how wild districts can be while still being contiguous.

About. Friggin'. Time.

Perhaps now we can start healing the wounds our state GOP has been causing since they rode the Tea Party wave to power back in 2010, though I'm sure they're going to thrash around in the meantime to cause as much collateral damage as possible. Most recently they held employee raises for the UW system hostage in order to get freezes on expanding DEI programs (which they won), so I'm not going to pretend we're out of the woods just yet, but it's a BIG step in the right direction.

It's also not likely that fair maps will immediately equal Dem majorities like we saw in Michigan since Wisconsin has a greater rural-urban divide, but at least it backs us away from the cliff of Republicans giving themselves super-majorities to do whatever the hell they want. However, I personally believe that a Dem majority in at least one of our state congressional chambers is possible within a few election cycles, as some historically red districts leaned purple in the April election. If more districts become competitive in the future it's possible that the rats start getting picked off when running against opponents who actually have a chance (though obviously this is best case scenario). There's also the 2025 SC election coming up that will test defense of the liberal majority, but hopefully April is a good omen for that.

 

[TexRex]

This Republican's dissenting passage is unhinged and high-larious from start ("Riding a trojan horse"? What?) to finish.

With its first opinion as an openly progressive faction, the members of the majority shed their robes, usurp the prerogatives of the legislature, and deliver the spoils to their preferred political party.

"How dare they meander the path that we trampled into the forest floor?"

I mean it's really no wonder that Republicans so desperately wanted to impeach the Court's newest member given that her having been democratically elected threatens to break their stranglehold.

 

[GBO Possum]

This Republican's dissenting passage is unhinged and high-larious from start ("Riding a trojan horse"? What?) to finish.

"How dare they meander the path that we trampled into the forest floor?"

I mean it's really no wonder that Republicans so desperately wanted to impeach the Court's newest member given that her having been democratically elected threatens to break their stranglehold.

The "P" in "GOP" must surely stand for "Projection".

It was almost laughable that they even had signs made saying "Stop The Steal".

You know that back in 2016, Tony Schwartz (who, as author of the Art of the Deal, got to know Trump better than probably any other person on earth), TOLD us what we were in for. He knew that Trump could never concede defeat in an election. He knew the Trump is an authoritarian, and he told us.

 

[Keef]

Wisconsin Supreme Court tosses GOP-drawn legislative maps in major redistricting case

The liberal-controlled Wisconsin Supreme Court has overturned Republican-drawn legislative maps and ordered that new ones be created.

www.cbsnews.com

Edit: It's amazing to me that Republicans drew non-contiguous legislative districts given how wild districts can be while still being contiguous.

For the life of me I can't recall what this mapping technique is called but I don't understand why political districts aren't created in the same manner, but rather than purely using distance, combining both population and distance so that more more populous districts are proportionally larger than less populous ones. Basically a bunch of "circles" sandwiched together with sizes proportional to their populations. Shapes would vary but would be considerably better than gerrymandering.

 

[Tornado]

Trump denies bullying his way into Home Alone 2

The former US president angrily responds to comments from the film's director Chris Columbus.

www.bbc.com

I like how the answer to this question is so immediately apparent that Bing, the RC Cola of search engines, knew the answer to said question as the first search suggestion before I even actually asked it even though I spelled it wrong.

 

[Liquid]

It has caught my attention that Steamboat Willie has now entered the public domain in the US. It has especially caught my attention that after coming close in 1955, 1986 and 2003, what tipped this over the edge is Republicans refusing to work with Disney, who have obviously lobbied very hard over this for decades, because of the DeSantis butthurt situation.

It's weird that Republicans didn't campaign for copyright extension, something that absolutely smacks of the corporate and proprietal greed of the United States they would usually love, and have given the public a big win without meaning or wanting to.

Suck it, Disney. Original Mickey Mouse is ours now.

 

[Sprite]

It has caught my attention that Steamboat Willie has now entered the public domain in the US. It has especially caught my attention that after coming close in 1955, 1986 and 2003, what tipped this over the edge is Republicans refusing to work with Disney, who have obviously lobbied very hard over this for decades, because of the DeSantis butthurt situation.

It's weird that Republicans didn't campaign for copyright extension, something that absolutely smacks of the corporate and proprietal greed of the United States they would usually love, and have given the public a big win without meaning or wanting to.

Suck it, Disney. Original Mickey Mouse is ours now.

So, does this mean Lego can rebrand their Steamboat Willie set and remove the Disney Branding and keep all the money for themselves, or is this just in US and rest of the world it’s still owned by Disney?

 

[Liquid]

So, does this mean Lego can rebrand their Steamboat Willie set and remove the Disney Branding and keep all the money for themselves, or is this just in US and rest of the world it’s still owned by Disney?

It's unclear because every news outlet and armchair lawyer is celebrating the expiration in its home market and understandably not focusing on elsewhere. The best I have seen is that European Union copyright is the life of the author +70 years. Given that Walt Disney died in 1966, that would mean 2036.

Disney still has the trademark on the Mickey Mouse character as trademarks can be indefinite but no longer controls the 1928 design.

 

[TexRex]

A former clerk who refused to issue marriage licenses must pay $260,000 in fees and costs, a judge rules

A judge has ruled that a former county clerk who refused to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples in Kentucky must pay up.

apnews.com