ImageImageImage

World Politics

Moderators: heat4life, MettaWorldPanda, Wiltside, BFRESH44, IggieCC

Flash4thewin
General Manager
Posts: 8,520
And1: 2,894
Joined: Jan 27, 2006

Re: World Politics 

Post#301 » by Flash4thewin » Sun Jul 29, 2018 6:38 pm

Bishop45 wrote:Wild that this isn't something of more national news

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/399196-florida-cop-admits-to-framing-two-black-men-at-direction-of

A former Florida police officer said he framed two innocent black men for unsolved crimes at the direction of his boss.

Guillermo Ravelo appeared in a Miami federal court on Thursday and pleaded guilty to a conspiracy charge, The Miami Herald reported.

Former Biscayne Park Police Chief Raimundo Atesiano has been accused of encouraging his staff to pin unsolved crimes on random, nearby black people so his 12-person department would have a better arrest record.
Prosecutors allege that Atesiano told Ravelo in 2014 to arrest 31-year-old Erasmus Banmah for five unsolved vehicle burglaries despite a lack of evidence.

Ravelo filled out the required paperwork on Banmah just days later, where he “falsely claimed in an arrest affidavit that [Banmah] had taken him to the site of the respective burglary and confessed to the items that [he] had stolen,” according to court records the Miami Herald obtained.

It was allegedly the second time Ravelo made a false arrest under Atesiano’s guidance.

Prosecutors claim that Ravelo arrested 35-year-old Clarens Desrouleaux in January 2013 for two unsolved home break-ins at Atesiano's direction.

Ravelo falsely wrote in the arrest affidavits that Desrouleaux “had confessed to committing the burglary,” according to the prosecution.

The charges against both Banmah and Desrouleaux were eventually dropped.

Ravelo, who was kicked off the force earlier this year, also pleaded guilty on Thursday to an excessive force charge against him following a 2013 traffic stop where he punched a handcuffed suspect in the face, the newspaper noted.

The charges were part of an alleged department history of targeting random people to achieve a spotless crime-solving record before an internal investigation in 2014, the Herald reported earlier this month.

“If they have burglaries that are open cases that are not solved yet, if you see anybody black walking through our streets and they have somewhat of a record, arrest them so we can pin them for all the burglaries,” Officer Anthony De La Torre said in a 2014 probe uncovered by the Herald this month. “They were basically doing this to have a 100 percent clearance rate for the city.”

Atesiano's department cleared 29 out of 30 burglary cases in 2013 and 2014, but at least 11 of those cases were based on false arrests, investigators say.

Atestiano and two officers, Raul Fernandez and Charlie Dayoub, have also been charged with falsely accusing in 2013 a black Haitian-American teenager — identified as T.D. — of four burglaries in order to achieve a perfect clearance rate on property crimes that year.

All have pleaded not guilty to the accusations, but Fernandez and Dayoub plan to change their pleas to guilty next month, according to the Herald reporting on court records.

All three men are reportedly cooperating in the charges against Atesiano. Prosecutors may add an additional charge to Atesiano’s indictment based on Ravelo's testimony, according to the Herald.



Something we'd be able to pay attention to without the constant distractions but those distractions are likely there for a reason

http://thehill.com/regulation/labor/399323-osha-reduces-obama-era-injury-report-requirements-for-large-companies

The Trump administration has proposed rolling back an Obama-era Labor Department rule requiring companies with 250 or more workers to submit detailed forms to the agency on workplace injuries, a move labor advocates say will allow companies to cover up the extent of injuries.

The department's Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) issued a notice on Friday stating that it is seeking to roll back the rule passed under the Obama administration that greatly increased the amount of detail supervisors are supposed to provide to the federal government on workplace injuries.

Some of that information was then posted publicly by the Labor Department under the rule, and included summaries of incidents that occurred in larger-scale companies.

A spokesperson for the Labor Department told NBC News that the rule change would not alter the agency's ability to collect information from companies on workplace injuries and safety violations.

"This proposal maintains safety and health protections for workers while protecting sensitive worker information from public disclosure," communications director Megan Sweeney told NBC. "The data OSHA continues to collect is robust and enables the agency to most effectively protect workers on the job."

The Labor Department argued that the original rule violated workers' privacy by exposing incidents that they were involved in to Freedom of Information Act requests.

Public safety advocates argued that the rule's rollback would only hurt workers.

"The existing rule is in place to protect workers," said Sean Sherman, an attorney at the Public Citizen Litigation Group which is involved in a lawsuit over the rule. "The idea that you can protect workers by rolling back a strong worker protection is absurd."




Read on Twitter


Nice to see something become of the deficit spending and budget increases that Reps refused the Obama administration. Something they should hopefully keep bragging about to the working class as their wages continue to drop

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/399150-trump-gdp-comments

took a victory lap at the White House on Friday, touting his tax and regulatory policies as drivers of the best economic growth in nearly four years.

The U.S. economy expanded at a 4.1 percent rate in the April-to-June quarter, the highest level since growth hit 5.2 percent in the third quarter of 2014, the Commerce Department reported.


In a speech at the White House, Trump said the country is growing "at the amazing rate" and that "we're on track to hit the highest annual average growth rate in over 13 years."

Trade deals will further help the economy and "we're going to go a lot higher than these numbers and these are great numbers," said Trump, surrounded by top administration officials on the South Lawn.
Republicans are hoping that a string of good economic news will bolster their hopes in the November midterm elections. The booming economy is the foundation of the GOP’s pitch to voters as the party tries to defend its vulnerable House majority.

Trump and his top economic aides seized the chance to bolster that message Friday with a hastily planned speech held an hour after the growth report was released.

The president attributed the boom to GOP efforts to slash taxes, repeal finance and energy regulations and strike fairer trade deals, and he called the U.S. “the economic envy of the entire world.”

“Everywhere we look, we’re seeing the effects of the economic miracle all across America,” Trump said.

Trump also touted a $50 billion drop in the U.S. trade deficit and a recent agreement with the European Union to negotiate a free-trade deal.

“We were abused by countries themselves, even allies,” Trump said. "We were abused like no country had ever been abused on trade before. They stole our jobs and plundered our wealth. But that ended.”

Trump and his top aides touted the trade deficit decrease as proof that his tariffs on imported steel, aluminum and Chinese goods are yielding fairer trade terms for the U.S. But economists attribute it to buyers stocking up on U.S. crops before retaliatory tariffs imposed by several nations drive up prices.

Economists have also doubted the sustainability of the second quarter growth rate. Analysts have attributed the massive spike in growth to one-time increases in consumer spending driven by tax cuts, and the global rush to buy U.S. soybeans before tariffs kick in.

The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget estimated that those factors accounted for 1.4 percentage points of growth, and that the second-quarter growth rate would be 2.7 percent without them.

Trump's top economic advisers disputed those concerns Friday, saying the U.S. could expect similar growth levels for the foreseeable future.

“If we look at the data today, we can see the proof in the pudding that the president’s policies are working. And it’s not just in the top line, it’s in the details," said Council of Economic Advisers Chairman Kevin Hassett.

“If you stand up for American workers and let our allies know the deal that aren’t reciprocal aren’t acceptable, we can make a lot of progress.”

National Economic Council Director Larry Kudlow said “this is a boom that will be sustainable as far as the eye can see. It is no one shot-effort.”




Semi long read, in spoilers but interesting story

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2018/07/bret-stephens-abolish-ice-ocasio-cortez-no-evidence-radical-left-is-helping-trump.html


Spoiler:
In late June, a 28-year-old Democratic Socialist – who had called for nationalizing health insurance, guaranteeing public jobs to the unemployed, and abolishing Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) — won a primary challenge against a high-ranking House Democrat.

And centrists have been lamenting Team Blue’s imminent self-immolation ever since.

Last week, the center-left’s “radical pragmatists” warned NBC News that if progressive Democrats keep ignoring their preferences, they “will lead the party to disaster in the midterm elections and the 2020 presidential contest.” The moderate reactionaries of the Never Trump movement wholeheartedly agree. Days after Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s victory, New York Times columnist (and world-champion concern troll) Bret Stephens wrote that “democratic socialism” was “political hemlock”; “social democracy” was a “dying force”; and “Democrats who aren’t yet sick of all their losing should feel free to embrace them both.” Meanwhile, former Republican James Comey (a man who knows a little something about inadvertently aiding Donald Trump) implored Democrats not to “lose your minds and rush to the socialist left,” since “America’s great middle wants sensible, balanced, ethical leadership.”

But the Democrats’ ascendant left wing shrugged off these warnings. Since Ocasio-Cortez’s upset, prominent Senate progressives have called for abolishing ICE, ending cash bail, and canceling Puerto Rico’s debt — while the House’s Medicare for All caucus has welcomed (self-styled) moderate Democrats into its ranks.

Now, one month after voters in the South Bronx put “democratic socialism” in the headlines, real America has registered its outrage at the Democrats’ hard-left turn — by giving the party a larger lead in the generic congressional ballot.

Since the Democrats (supposedly) embraced open borders and slow-motion Stalinism, their party’s poll numbers have gone up, while both Donald Trump — and his favorite immigration agency — have seen their own standing decline (the former, only modestly).

To be sure, month-to-month polling changes are typically more noise than signal. And even if Democrats did gain support over the past four weeks, there’s little reason to assume that this constitutes a public endorsement of the party’s leftward lurch. A lot of big, weird news broke in July; Trump’s trade wars, the Helsinki press conference, or the family-separation fiasco could all theoretically explain Team Blue’s polling boost.

Regardless, it remains the case that, over the past month, the Democratic Party became simultaneously more closely associated with “socialism” and more popular.

You might think that this development would make Bret Stephens question his political acumen — or at least, wait for new evidence that the Democrats’ left wing is, in fact, politically toxic before writing another column centered on that claim. If so, then you might be on the committee that awards the Pulitzer Prize for Commentary — because you’ve given Bret Stephens far too much credit.

Instead of waiting for future events to prove his punditry prescient, Stephens has decided to devote his latest column to detailing a fictional future in which Democrats pay a heavy price for betraying his counsel:

Donald J. Trump has been decisively re-elected as president of the United States, winning every state he carried in 2016 and adding Nevada, even as he once again failed, albeit narrowly, to gain a majority of the popular vote. Extraordinary turnout in California, New York, Illinois and other Democratic bastions could not compensate for the president’s abiding popularity in the states that still decide who gets to live in the White House: Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Florida.



…“Trump succeeded,” lamented one moderate former Democratic lawmaker who asked to speak on background. “He got my party to lose its marbles.” The lawmaker cited calls by party activists to abolish the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency — calls the Warren campaign did not formally endorse but did little to refute — as emblematic of the party’s broader problems.



“What do Democrats stand for?” he asked. “Lawlessness or liberality? Policymaking or virtue signaling? Gender-neutral pronouns and bathrooms or good jobs and higher wages?”



As is his way, Mr. Trump wasted little time rubbing salt into Democratic wounds. “Democrats used to stand with the Working Man,” he tweeted Wednesday morning. “Now it’s the party of Abortion and Amnesty. All that’s missing is Acid. Sad!”



The New Yorker’s Adam Gopnik once wrote that the object of all satire is “to take what’s happening now and imagine what would happen if it kept on happening.” By that metric, Stephens’s satire is an abject failure.

Recent polls haven’t just given Democrats a nearly double-digit national lead — they’ve also shown Donald Trump’s popularity to be anything but “abiding” in Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Iowa (i.e. the “states that still decide who gets to live in the White House). In May, Morning Consult found Trump’s approval rating underwater in all of those midwestern battlegrounds.

And newly released surveys from NBC News and Marist suggest that the president has not gained any ground in the heartland in recent weeks. According to the pollster, more than 50 percent of voters in both Michigan and Wisconsin disapprove of the president. Meanwhile, only 31 percent of Wisconsinites say Trump deserves to be reelected; among Michiganders, that figure is just 28.

Of course, we’re a long way from 2020. Stephens’s dystopia isn’t wholly implausible. It just isn’t substantiated by much beyond his intuition that Democrats will lose unless they adopt more of his policy preferences (at one point, Stephens suggests that Warren might have won in 2020, if only she’d had the courage to stand up for free trade).

Trump entered office a historically unpopular president — and, despite presiding over the peak of an economic expansion and historically low unemployment, he has seen his approval rating fall precipitously since then in the states that matter most. A lot can happen in two years. But there is at least a chance that Trump will be so unpopular by 2020, centrists will be incapable of mounting a credible “electability” argument against progressive presidential candidates.

And that’s a real problem for “the vital center” — because their substantive case against social democracy is even weaker than the political one. Deficit scaremongering rings hollow in an era of persistently low interest rates, and giant, unfunded tax cuts (unilateral fiscal responsibility is political idiocy — Democrats can’t build a lasting majority by force-feeding the electorate medicine after Republicans spend years doling out sugar). And it’s hard to disparage calls for strengthening unions or increasing redistribution as “class warfare” when concentrated capital dominates the economy so thoroughly, wages are falling amid full employment.

To appreciate what a tough spot these conditions put centrists in, observe this passage from Bret Stephens’s substantive indictment of “democratic socialism”:

The Democratic Socialists of America, of which Ocasio-Cortez is a member, believe in economies defined by state-owned enterprises and worker-owned cooperatives. Versions of this have been tried to varying degrees before: Israel in its first decades; post-independence India; Sweden in the 1960s and ’70s.



It always led to crisis: hyperinflation for Israel in 1980s; an I.M.F. bailout for India in 1991; a banking meltdown for Sweden in 1992…People used to know this stuff. That someone like Ocasio-Cortez apparently doesn’t is a fresh reminder that, in politics as in life, the most obvious lessons are the ones you can least afford to stop teaching.

I have never heard a left-wing Democrat cite Israel or post-independence India as a model for the political economy that they wish to build in the United States. Plenty have, however, expressed affinity for the Nordic model. And Stephens’s case against Swedish social democracy is, apparently, that it produces one banking crisis every 50 years or so.

And that is actually a much too generous summation of Stephens’s case. As Matt Bruenig explains:

The link Stephens uses for his citation about Sweden is a slideshow created by the former Swedish Finance Minister Anders Borg. Borg is a member of the right-wing Moderate Party and created the slideshow when Sweden was under a right-wing government in 2012. The slideshow does not talk about the 1992 banking meltdown. It is, in fact, completely unrelated.



Stephens omission of any information about the 1992 Swedish banking crisis is curious. That crisis was caused by the popping of a housing bubble that left banks insolvent, which was the exact same thing that blew up the global economy in 2008. In fact, the two events were so similar that the New York Times published a piece in 2008 titled “Stopping a Financial Crisis, the Swedish Way[.]”

Social democracy might allow Sweden to provide its people with longer lives, a lower poverty rate, cheaper health care, more retirement security, better educational outcomes, and higher levels of self-reported happiness than Americans enjoy. But American capitalism provides U.S. citizens with something even better than all that: total immunity from the threat of banking crises produced by housing bubbles.

People used to know this stuff. That someone like Ocasio-Cortez apparently doesn’t is a fresh reminder that, in politics as in life, the least obvious lessons are the ones that conservative Times columnists can least afford to stop teaching.



Maybe the longest lasting legacy outside of any scandal that's still being recorded. Watchable segment



That Florida cop story is insane. I wonder if the cop making the accusation is not credible. This is a story that should be blowing up
User avatar
Bishop45
RealGM
Posts: 27,050
And1: 89,918
Joined: Apr 22, 2015
 

Re: World Politics 

Post#302 » by Bishop45 » Wed Aug 22, 2018 1:24 pm

Man it's going to suck when/if this man loses to Cruz, he's been a treat. Equally going to be angry when/if Andrew Gillum loses his race, he's been upstanding. Everyone here, remember to vote next week. I will report all of you.

Read on Twitter
User avatar
Bishop45
RealGM
Posts: 27,050
And1: 89,918
Joined: Apr 22, 2015
 

Re: World Politics 

Post#303 » by Bishop45 » Wed Aug 29, 2018 1:52 pm

I didn't report any of you, will be back to the regularly scheduled chit-posting in no time

Read on Twitter


Image

November wouldn't be any ordinary task tho so expectations are at bay. Repubs not coming short, The runner-up in their primary race got more votes than Gillum(less comp). Dems need that fire and some
User avatar
Bishop45
RealGM
Posts: 27,050
And1: 89,918
Joined: Apr 22, 2015
 

Re: World Politics 

Post#304 » by Bishop45 » Wed Sep 19, 2018 11:18 am

Great article about the Europe far-right struggle, not going to post the whole article because it's kind of lengthy and reading it without the linked articles in-text wouldn't do it justice: https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2018/10/poland-polarization/568324/

A lot of sociological context about democracies and nationalism as a macrocosm of the human conscious. Being bordered up so long in your way of thinking will make you forget how open-ended your reality is for your and future generations. Committing to a Lockean democracy won't keep any one society from the Hobbesian reality that self-governance will produce. Even as tendentious as the premise of the article seems, issa good read; please read
User avatar
Bishop45
RealGM
Posts: 27,050
And1: 89,918
Joined: Apr 22, 2015
 

Re: World Politics 

Post#305 » by Bishop45 » Wed Sep 26, 2018 11:27 pm

Because I don't have a socially amassed tweeter

Read on Twitter
User avatar
Bishop45
RealGM
Posts: 27,050
And1: 89,918
Joined: Apr 22, 2015
 

Re: World Politics 

Post#306 » by Bishop45 » Sat Oct 6, 2018 6:22 pm

Scary transition to 2019

Read on Twitter
User avatar
BadMofoPimp
RealGM
Posts: 45,796
And1: 10,667
Joined: Oct 12, 2003
Location: In the Paint

Re: World Politics 

Post#307 » by BadMofoPimp » Mon Oct 8, 2018 12:39 am

Someone should rename this thread to "Bishops Trump Derangement Rant" and then move the thread to the Political Board since he is the only one who posts his hate on here. There is no World Politics on here but Liberalist bashing. McCarthyism ended in the 50's.
'
Image

Provin Ya'll Wrong!!!
User avatar
Bishop45
RealGM
Posts: 27,050
And1: 89,918
Joined: Apr 22, 2015
 

Re: World Politics 

Post#308 » by Bishop45 » Mon Oct 8, 2018 1:17 am

I'm not going to make any conciliatory efforts to make whatever extreme diet for pro-Trump media that you're used to affable here.

You can either contribute or take the highway, and reject the "PC, Snowflake" culture that you say we've all been abject to by rejecting your need to be hurt by popular dissent
User avatar
Bishop45
RealGM
Posts: 27,050
And1: 89,918
Joined: Apr 22, 2015
 

Re: World Politics 

Post#309 » by Bishop45 » Wed Oct 10, 2018 2:37 pm

More facts for anyone who seeks: Which are maybe less than a handful of board members.Info avail for ppl tho

This is unilaterally happening in the governance of one faction/party

Read on Twitter


Read on Twitter


Palast's hat makes me feel secure, that he might not be Indiana Jones. I don't feel the need to post the stats of actual voter fraud as it's inconsequential, especially related to the methods of purging being spoken of.
Read on Twitter


Read on Twitter


Read on Twitter


Read on Twitter


Read on Twitter


Read on Twitter


til then

User avatar
Bishop45
RealGM
Posts: 27,050
And1: 89,918
Joined: Apr 22, 2015
 

Re: World Politics 

Post#310 » by Bishop45 » Tue Nov 6, 2018 7:09 pm

Some looks for the brehs that haven't voted, decided yet

Probably the most unbiased breakdown of the amendments that I could find on the interwebs:

https://www.heraldtribune.com/news/20181026/voter-guide-to-2018-florida-constitutional-amendments
Spoiler:
Amendment 1: Increased Homestead Property Exemption

Cut through the circuitous arithmetic, and Amendment 1 boils down to a referendum on local property taxes. Do Florida homeowners want to give themselves a tax cut worth $688 million, or do they prefer to send that money to local governments?

First, a description of how taxes work now: Florida lets homesteaded property owners exempt from taxes the first $50,000 of value. So if you own a property with an assessed value of $150,000, you subtract $50,000 from that sum and pay taxes on just $100,000. In that scenario, a typical homeowner would pay about $2,000 a year in property taxes to cities, counties, school boards, water management districts and other local taxing bodies.

Amendment 1 exempts an additional $25,000 from taxes — but only the $25,000 of value from $100,000 to $125,000. So the owner of the $150,000 home would see the taxable value fall to $75,000, and the tax bill would drop to $1,500.

The Florida Legislature put this measure on the ballot. Lawmakers support Amendment 1 as a hefty tax cut for homeowners. But cities, counties and schools counter that Amendment 1 would force them to slash services and raise tax rates.

Amendment 2: Limitations on Property Tax Assessments

“Son of Save Our Homes” might be a catchier slogan. The landmark 1992 amendment limited assessment increases on homesteaded properties to 3 percent a year. But second homes, investment properties, office buildings, malls and other non-homesteaded properties could soar in assessed value — and that’s exactly what happened when the Florida real estate bubble inflated.

Seeking to address the unfairness created by Save Our Homes, Florida voters in 2008 agreed to limit tax assessment increases on non-homesteaded properties to 10 percent a year. However, that cap was limited to 10 years.

This time around, voters will decide whether to make the 10 percent cap permanent. State lawmakers also put this amendment on the ballot. While the Florida Realtors, the Florida Chamber of Commerce and Florida TaxWatch support the measure, the League of Women Voters opposes it.

Amendment 3: Voter Control of Gambling


This proposal would take authority to expand casino gambling away from the Legislature and give it to voters.

Amendment 3 would give voters the “exclusive right to decide whether to authorize casino gambling” in the state. The change would require voter approval of casino-style games, such as slots, in the future.

The amendment — bankrolled by a Disney subsidiary and the Seminole Tribe of Florida — pits the state’s gambling industry and many lawmakers against anti-gambling advocates.

Lawmakers would continue to make decisions about non-casino gambling, including poker rooms, bingo, lotteries and fantasy sports.

The constitutional amendment comes after the Legislature has failed time and again to agree on sweeping changes to gambling rules. In one example, Gov. Rick Scott in 2015 proposed allowing 750 slot machines and 750 video-gaming machines at Palm Beach Kennel Club, a plan that fizzled. Palm Beach County is one of eight counties in which voters have approved slot machines by referendums.

Amendment 4: Restoration of Voting Rights

Some 1.4 million Floridians have lost the right to vote after being convicted of felonies. Regaining their voting rights requires ex-convicts to wait five years and then seek clemency, a lengthy process.


Amendment 4, which has backers as varied as the American Civil Liberties Union and the Koch Brothers, automatically would restore the right to vote for people who were convicted of felonies and who have completed their sentences, paid restitution and fulfilled parole or probation requirements. Murderers and sex offenders would be excluded.

After taking office in 2011, Gov. Rick Scott and Attorney General Pam Bondi effectively made it harder for felons to have their voting rights restored. The number of applications for restoration has plunged under Scott and the all-Republican Cabinet, which acts as the state’s Board of Executive Clemency.

Since the changes went into effect, Scott — whose support is required for any type of clemency to be granted — and the board have restored the rights of 3,005 of the more than 30,000 convicted felons who’ve applied, according to the Florida Commission on Offender Review. As of Oct. 1, there was a backlog of 10,275 pending applications, according to the commission.

Amendment 5: Supermajority Vote Required to Impose, Authorize or Raise State Taxes or Fees

Florida taxpayers pay one of the lowest tax burdens in the nation, and the Florida Legislature wants to keep it that way. The body proposed an amendment that would require a two-thirds vote by the state House and Senate to raise existing taxes and fees or to impose new ones.

Now, tax increases require a simple majority — although such a vote is rare given the Republican majority in Tallahassee — and the approval of the governor.

Florida TaxWatch and the Florida Chamber of Commerce support Amendment 5. Opponents, including the League of Women Voters of Florida and the Florida Education Association, say the measure would hamstring the state’s ability to respond to another financial crisis or to adapt to shifting priorities.


Amendment 6: Rights of Crime Victims; Judges

This amendment — the subject of an advertising blitz that includes a spot featuring television actor Kelsey Grammer — would expand the rights of crime victims, making certain that they’re kept apprised of court dates and appeals filed by the accused. The measure also would limit time frames for filing appeals and would guarantee victims the right to have standing in court.

It’s one of the “bundled” amendments proposed by the Constitution Review Committee. Amendment 6 also raises the mandatory retirement age for judges and Supreme Court justices from 70 to 75.

Supporters of Amendment 6 include 37 of Florida’s 67 sheriffs. Opponents include the Florida Public Defender Association and the American Civil Liberties Union.

Amendment 7: First Responder and Military Member Survivor Benefits; Public Colleges and Universities

The ballot proposal would require a supermajority vote by university boards of trustees and the university system’s Board of Governors when raising or creating student fees. The amendment would not affect decisions about tuition.

Another ballot question combining unrelated issues, this one also would require the payment of death benefits when law enforcement officers, paramedics, correctional officers and other “first responders” are killed while performing their official duties. The provision also includes Florida National Guard members and active-duty military members stationed in Florida.


It’s unclear how much the more generous death benefits might cost.

Amendment 9: Prohibits Offshore Oil and Gas Drilling; Restricts Vaping in Enclosed Indoor Workplaces

The title aptly describes the intent: Amendment 9 bans oil and gas drilling beneath Florida state waters, and it seeks to treat indoor vaping in a manner similar to smoking.

Restrictions on oil drilling have won the support of environmental advocates such as the Florida Wildlife Federation. And vaping restrictions have won the support of health-related organizations such as the American Cancer Society and the American Lung Association, which say that e-cigarettes expose non-vaping workers to secondhand aerosols that could prove harmful. The amendment would treat electronic cigarettes in a similar manner to tobacco cigarettes and send office workers outside to vape. However, vaping would be allowed in homes, bars and hotel rooms that permit vaping.

Opponents of Amendment 9 include the Florida Petroleum Council, Associated Industries of Florida and the Florida Chamber of Commerce. Meanwhile, the ballot measure has drawn criticism for combining two unrelated issues in one amendment.

Amendment 10: State and Local Government Structure and Operation

This amendment addresses a variety of seemingly unrelated issues. It would compel each of Florida’s 67 counties to elect rather than appoint constitutional officers, including sheriffs, tax collectors, property appraisers and supervisors of elections.


Miami-Dade, Broward and Volusia counties unsuccessfully challenged the proposal, arguing that local voters should have the right to decide whether constitutional officers are appointed or elected.

Amendment 10 also would mandate the creation of an Office of Domestic Security and Counterterrorism within the Florida Department of Law Enforcement. It would forbid Florida from dissolving the state Department of Veterans’ Affairs.

And the ballot measure would require the state Legislature to begin its session in early January in even-numbered years, rather than allowing lawmakers to set the start date.

Amendment 11: Property Rights; Removal of Obsolete Provision; Criminal Statutes

Supporters of this proposal consider it a “clean-up” measure. Amendment 11 would eliminate an unenforceable section in the state Constitution that prohibits “aliens ineligible for citizenship” from owning property.

The proposal also would strike obsolete language that authorizes a high-speed rail system. And it would revise the Constitution to make it clear that the repeal of a criminal law does not affect the prosecution of any crime committed before the repeal, although it could allow the punishment to be adjusted in light of the repealed or modified statute.

Amendment 12: Lobbying and Abuse of Office by Public Officers


This government ethics proposal would impose a six-year ban on lobbying by state and local elected officials, expanding the current two-year prohibition.

Amendment 12 was spearheaded by former Florida Senate President Don Gaetz, a Niceville Republican who served on the Constitution Revision Commission.

Amendment 12 would forbid state lawmakers and statewide elected officials from lobbying the Legislature, any state agency or Cabinet offices for six years after they leave office. Also, former state agency heads would be banned from lobbying their former agencies, as well as the Legislature and other state agencies.

At the local level, former county commissioners, school board members, mayors, city council members and constitutional officers would be banned from lobbying their former agencies for six years after they leave office. And former judges would not be allowed to lobby the Legislature or state executive agencies for six years after they leave the bench.

Another provision would prohibit public officials, at both the state and local levels, from lobbying any other government entity, including the federal government, “for compensation” while they are in office. Amendment 12 is supported by Common Cause and Integrity Florida and opposed by the Florida Chamber of Commerce.

Amendment 13: Dog Racing

Greyhound racing, that throwback to Florida’s days of early-bird dinners and Coppertone tans, has been in decline for decades. Opponents of the sport hope to hasten its demise.


Amendment 13 would end betting on dog racing by Dec. 31, 2020, while letting dog tracks continue to offer poker rooms and slot machines.

Critics long have called the racing industry’s treatment of dogs cruel, an allegation greyhound owners dispute. Activists say more than 400 racing dogs have died in Florida since 2013, many after injuries sustained on the track, including broken backs, broken necks and head trauma. They also point to greyhounds testing positive for steroids and cocaine.

Other criticisms: Greyhounds spend more than 20 hours a day in small cages, eat low-grade food and frequently are afflicted with hookworm, ticks and fleas.

“They are incredibly athletic and beautiful and graceful,” said Carey Theil, executive director of the anti-racing group Grey2K USA of Massachusetts. “We think Florida voters will look at this and think, ‘This isn’t how I would treat my dog.’”

Jack Cory, a lobbyist who represents the Florida Greyhound Association and the National Greyhound Association, disputes allegations of abuse. The dogs’ owners get paid only if the animals finish in the top four of any given race, so handlers have an incentive to coddle greyhounds, Cory argued.

“Common sense would tell you they’re going to do everything humanly possible to treat their animals well,” Cory said. “They’re animal athletes, no different than the basketball players and football players at FAU. Would FAU not feed their football players? Of course not.”

Amid the strenuous debate over the treatment of dogs, there’s no disputing another harsh reality: Greyhound racing no longer captures the attention of the betting public like it once did. For the past quarter-century, the racing business has been shrinking.

In 2006, Florida greyhound tracks handled bets totaling $478 million, according to the state’s Division of Pari-Mutuel Wagering. By 2017, that amount had plummeted to less than $230 million.


You won't find every issue posted but this site gives a good amount of information on where candidates stand on name topics: http://www.ontheissues.org/default.htm

If you're without party affiliation and just care about who's less involved with dark money: https://www.opensecrets.org/

Want to find out how any certain representative has voted/lobbied: https://www.govtrack.us/

I'm missing some but those should help.

Also, if you're not registered to vote and have ID, you can stil make a provisional ballot. Anyone gives you chit or won't let you vote, call the ACLU in your state

Some prepost election banter with Maddow(I know, I know, liberal agenda):



Good article on Brazil's situation, if gom care's to read/opine:

Spoiler:
n july, at a convention of his small and inaptly named Social Liberal Party, Jair Bolsonaro unveiled his star hire. Paulo Guedes, a free-market economist from the University of Chicago, has done much to persuade Brazil’s business people that Mr Bolsonaro can be trusted with the country’s future, despite his insults to women, blacks and gays, his rhetorical fondness for dictatorship and the suddenness of his professed conversion to liberal economics. At the convention Mr Guedes praised Mr Bolsonaro as representing order and the preservation of life and property. His own entry into the campaign, he added, means “the union of order and progress”.

That prospect seems poised to make Mr Bolsonaro, a former army captain, Brazil’s president in a run-off election on October 28th. A survey by Ibope, a pollster, gives him around 52% of votes, to 37% for Fernando Haddad, his opponent from the left-wing Workers’ Party (pt); 9% of respondents said they would abstain. Mr Bolsonaro has benefited from a public mood of despair over rising crime, corruption and an economic slump caused by the mistakes of a previous pt government.

In the PowerPoint slideshow that passes for his manifesto, Mr Bolsonaro promises “a liberal democratic government”. Certainly Mr Guedes champions some liberal economic measures. He proposes to slim Brazil’s puffed-up, ineffective and near-bankrupt state through privatisations and public-spending cuts, and to undo the country’s serpentine red tape.

Yet Mr Bolsonaro’s words are often neither liberal nor democratic. He stands for “order”, but not the law. He urges police to kill criminals, or those they think might be criminals. He wants to change human-rights policy to “give priority to victims”, though presumably he does not mean the victims of extra-legal killings by police. He lacks a liberal regard for the public good in his plans to favour farmers over the environment and withdraw Brazil from the Paris agreement on climate change.

Whereas Mr Guedes proposes economic deregulation, Mr Bolsonaro wants moral re-regulation. He vows “to defend the family”; to “defend the innocence of children in school” against alleged homosexual propaganda; and to oppose abortion and the legalisation of drugs. As a congressman, he proposed birth control for the poor. He calls the generals who took power as dictators in Brazil in 1964 and ruled for two decades “heroes”. In July one of his sons, Eduardo Bolsonaro, who is a congressman, said “a soldier and a corporal” would be enough to shut down the supreme court. (The candidate distanced himself from these “emotional” comments, saying “the court is the guardian of the constitution.”)

When Comte hijacked liberalism

The combination of political authoritarianism and free-market economics is not new in Brazil or Latin America. Indeed, Mr Guedes’s phrase at the convention harks back to the point in the history of Latin American thought when the notions of economic and political freedom became divorced. “Order and Progress” is the slogan stamped across Brazil’s flag. There is no mention of “freedom” or “equality”. The slogan was dreamed up when Brazil became a republic in 1889 under the influence of positivism, a set of ideas associated with Auguste Comte, a French philosopher. Positivists believed that government by a high-minded “scientific” elite could bring about modern industrial societies without violence or class struggle.

Positivism was little more than a footnote in Europe. But it was hugely influential in Latin America, especially in Brazil and Mexico. It combined a preference for strong central government with a conception of society as a hierarchical collective, rather than an agglomeration of free individuals. Positivism hijacked liberalism and its belief that progress would come from political and economic freedom for individuals, just when this seemed to have become the triumphant political philosophy in the region in the third quarter of the 19th century. According to Charles Hale, a historian of ideas, positivism relegated liberalism to a “foundation myth” of the Latin American republics. It was to be paid lip service in constitutions but ignored in political practice. In a sentiment to which Mr Bolsonaro might subscribe, Francisco G. Cosmes, a Mexican positivist, claimed in 1878 that rather than “rights” society preferred “bread…security, order and peace”.

The divorce between the ideas of political and economic freedom in Latin America was in part a consequence of the region’s difficulty in creating prosperous market economies and stable democracies based on equality of opportunity. But it has also been one of the causes of that failure.

Liberalism had struggled to change societies marked by big racial and social inequalities, inherited from Iberian colonialism, especially in rural Latin America. Liberals abolished slavery and the formal serfdom to which Indians were subjected in the Andes and Mexico. But the countryside remained polarised between owners of latifundia (large estates) and indentured labourers. Missing were yeoman farmers, or a rural bourgeoisie. André Rebouças, a leader of the movement to abolish slavery in Brazil (which happened only in 1888), envisaged a “rural democracy” resulting from “the emancipation of the slave and his regeneration through land ownership”. It never happened.

Positivists rejected the liberal belief in the equal value of all citizens and imbibed the “scientific racism” and social Darwinism in vogue in late 19th-century Europe. They saw the solution to Latin American backwardness in immigration of white European indentured labourers, which initially prevented a rise in rural wages for former slaves and serfs.

The ignored lesson of Canudos

The high-minded positivists who ran the Brazilian republic were humiliated by a rebellion in the 1890s by a monarchist preacher at Canudos, in the parched interior of Bahia in the north-east. It took four expeditions, the last involving 10,000 troops and heavy artillery, to crush Canudos, at a cost of 20,000 dead (some of the defenders had their throats cut after surrendering). Euclides da Cunha, a positivist army officer-turned-journalist who covered these events, wrote in “Os Sertões” (“Rebellion in the Backlands”), which became one of Brazil’s best-known books, that the military campaign would be “a crime” if it was not followed by “a constant, persistent, stubborn campaign of education” to draw these “rude and backward fellow-countrymen into…our national life”.

That was a liberal response from a positivist writer. Again, it didn’t happen. Veterans from the Canudos campaign would set up the first favelas in Rio de Janeiro, which soon were filled with migrants from the north-east. Their descendants may end up as victims of Mr Bolsonaro’s encouragement of police violence.

Liberalism never died in Latin America, but in the 20th century it often lost out. With industrialisation and the influence of European fascism, positivism morphed into corporatism, in which economic freedom yielded to the state’s organisation of the economy, as well as society, in non-competing functional units (unions and bosses’ organisations, for example). Corporatism, with the power it awarded to state functionaries of all kinds, appealed to many of the region’s military men.


That became clear when many countries suffered dictatorships in the 1960s and 1970s. The Brazilian military regime would intermittently adopt economic liberalism, especially under the aegis of Mario Henrique Simonsen, a brilliant economist (and one of Mr Guedes’s tutors). He twice tried to impose fiscal and monetary squeezes to curb inflation. His nemesis was Antonio Delfim Netto, who favoured expansion through debt and inflation, which would cost Brazil a “lost decade” in the 1980s. The dictatorship that Mr Bolsonaro so admires ignored Da Cunha’s plea: it left to civilian leaders a country in which a quarter of children aged seven to 14 were not at school. Only in the current democratic period, under the constitution of 1988, has Brazil achieved universal primary education and mass secondary schooling.

The exception to military corporatism was General Augusto Pinochet’s personal dictatorship in Chile from 1973 to 1990. Pinochet sensed, rightly, that corporatism would require him to share power with his military colleagues. Instead, he called on a group of civilian economists, dubbed the “Chicago boys” because several had studied at the University of Chicago, where the libertarian economics of Friedrich Hayek and Milton Friedman held sway.

Trial and error from the Chicago boys

The Chicago boys applied these principles in Chile, whose economy had been wrecked by the irresponsibility of Salvador Allende, a democratic socialist overthrown by Pinochet. Their programme would eventually lay the foundations for Chile to become Latin America’s most dynamic economy at the turn of the century. But it was akin to a major operation by trial and error and without anaesthetic. They slashed import tariffs and the fiscal deficit, which fell from 25% of gdp in 1973 to 1% in 1975. They privatised hundreds of companies, with no regard for competition or regulation. Worried that inflation was slow to fall, they established a fixed and overvalued exchange rate. The result of all this was that the economy came to be dominated by a few conglomerates, heavily indebted in dollars and centred on the private banks.

In 1982, after a rise in interest rates in the United States, Chile defaulted on its debts and the economy slumped. Poverty engulfed 45% of the population and the unemployment rate rose to 30%. Pinochet eventually dumped the Chicago boys and turned to more pragmatic economists, whose policies contributed to Chile’s post-dictatorship prosperity.

Something similar happened in Peru under the presidency of Alberto Fujimori, who governed from 1990 to 2000. He sent tanks to shut down congress and pushed through a radical free-market economic programme. Again, that laid the basis for a dynamic economy but carried heavy costs. Mr Fujimori’s regime engaged in systematic corruption, and his destruction of the party system and of judicial independence had consequences that are still being felt. In Guatemala and Honduras, Hayekian anti-state libertarianism has led to dystopias from which citizens migrate en masse to escape from weak governments unable to provide public security or encourage economic opportunity (see article).

Mr Bolsonaro is a fan of Pinochet, who “did what had to be done”, he said in 2015. (This included killing some 3,000 political opponents and torturing tens of thousands.) So is Mr Guedes, who taught at the University of Chile in the 1980s, when the dean of its economics faculty was Pinochet’s budget director. Mr Guedes wants a flat income tax, a libertarian but not liberal measure. (Adam Smith, the father of liberal economics, favoured a progressive tax.)

So is Brazil in for a dose of pinochetismo? Mr Bolsonaro is not the army commander—indeed he was eased out of the army for indiscipline in 1988. And he is not a convincing economic liberal. At heart, he is a corporatist. As a congressman for 27 years, he repeatedly voted against privatisation and pension reform, and for increases in the wages of public servants.

Many of Mr Guedes’s proposals are vague, but sensible in principle and overdue. They include cutting the deficit and the public debt and reshaping public spending. Many of his proposed privatisations are necessary. As he told Piauí, a newspaper, Brazil is “paradise for rent seekers and hell for entrepreneurs”. He rightly wants to change that. But in many of these things Mr Bolsonaro may be his opponent. Mr Guedes may not last long.

Under a Bolsonaro presidency, Brazil could hope for a reformed, faster-growing economy and a president who keeps his authoritarian impulses in check. But there are plenty of risks. Perhaps the biggest is of illiberal democracy in which elections continue, but not the practice of democratic government with its checks and balances and rules of fairness. That could arise if a Bolsonaro presidency descended into permanent conflict, both within the government and between it and an opposition inflamed by Mr Bolsonaro’s verbal aggression. Frustrated, he might then lash out against the legislature and the courts. Separating economic and political freedom may seem like a short cut to development. But in Latin America it rarely is: the demand for strong government has vied with a persistent yearning for liberty.
User avatar
delanka
Veteran
Posts: 2,843
And1: 15,748
Joined: Dec 20, 2014
Location: Neverland
 

Re: World Politics 

Post#311 » by delanka » Tue Nov 6, 2018 7:46 pm

Read on Twitter
User avatar
delanka
Veteran
Posts: 2,843
And1: 15,748
Joined: Dec 20, 2014
Location: Neverland
 

Re: World Politics 

Post#312 » by delanka » Thu Nov 8, 2018 10:03 am

Read on Twitter
User avatar
Bishop45
RealGM
Posts: 27,050
And1: 89,918
Joined: Apr 22, 2015
 

Re: World Politics 

Post#313 » by Bishop45 » Fri Nov 9, 2018 1:11 am

This race here was of the worse, if not the worse, of election night. YOU WILL CATCH 5-8 YEARS for illegal voting, whether your intent is malicious or not but Brian Kemp can put up the most brazen display of voter suppression without as much of a fine. Deny thousands the right to vote, then target and suppress without a gleam of criminality being added to his name

Read on Twitter
ReturnofMVP3
RealGM
Posts: 14,669
And1: 11,461
Joined: Dec 14, 2011
       

Re: World Politics 

Post#314 » by ReturnofMVP3 » Sun Nov 11, 2018 10:12 pm

**** donald trump.
Donald Trump is an idiot.
User avatar
delanka
Veteran
Posts: 2,843
And1: 15,748
Joined: Dec 20, 2014
Location: Neverland
 

Re: World Politics 

Post#315 » by delanka » Wed Nov 14, 2018 11:32 am

Read on Twitter
User avatar
Bishop45
RealGM
Posts: 27,050
And1: 89,918
Joined: Apr 22, 2015
 

Re: World Politics 

Post#316 » by Bishop45 » Wed Nov 14, 2018 6:10 pm

Footage of the fires are real scary, getting a taste of what Europe has been seeing in past summers. Should be military action being placed where we can combat climate change most efficiently, but while we're in the process of mass deregulation for corporations... Probably not going to happen

Image

https://www.ucsusa.org/global-warming/science-and-impacts/impacts/global-warming-and-wildfire.html#.W-cwdYxOmfC
User avatar
Bishop45
RealGM
Posts: 27,050
And1: 89,918
Joined: Apr 22, 2015
 

Re: World Politics 

Post#317 » by Bishop45 » Sat Dec 1, 2018 5:22 am

Flash4thewin wrote:
Bishop45 wrote:Wild that this isn't something of more national news

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/399196-florida-cop-admits-to-framing-two-black-men-at-direction-of
Spoiler:
A former Florida police officer said he framed two innocent black men for unsolved crimes at the direction of his boss.

Guillermo Ravelo appeared in a Miami federal court on Thursday and pleaded guilty to a conspiracy charge, The Miami Herald reported.

Former Biscayne Park Police Chief Raimundo Atesiano has been accused of encouraging his staff to pin unsolved crimes on random, nearby black people so his 12-person department would have a better arrest record.
Prosecutors allege that Atesiano told Ravelo in 2014 to arrest 31-year-old Erasmus Banmah for five unsolved vehicle burglaries despite a lack of evidence.

Ravelo filled out the required paperwork on Banmah just days later, where he “falsely claimed in an arrest affidavit that [Banmah] had taken him to the site of the respective burglary and confessed to the items that [he] had stolen,” according to court records the Miami Herald obtained.

It was allegedly the second time Ravelo made a false arrest under Atesiano’s guidance.

Prosecutors claim that Ravelo arrested 35-year-old Clarens Desrouleaux in January 2013 for two unsolved home break-ins at Atesiano's direction.

Ravelo falsely wrote in the arrest affidavits that Desrouleaux “had confessed to committing the burglary,” according to the prosecution.

The charges against both Banmah and Desrouleaux were eventually dropped.

Ravelo, who was kicked off the force earlier this year, also pleaded guilty on Thursday to an excessive force charge against him following a 2013 traffic stop where he punched a handcuffed suspect in the face, the newspaper noted.

The charges were part of an alleged department history of targeting random people to achieve a spotless crime-solving record before an internal investigation in 2014, the Herald reported earlier this month.

“If they have burglaries that are open cases that are not solved yet, if you see anybody black walking through our streets and they have somewhat of a record, arrest them so we can pin them for all the burglaries,” Officer Anthony De La Torre said in a 2014 probe uncovered by the Herald this month. “They were basically doing this to have a 100 percent clearance rate for the city.”

Atesiano's department cleared 29 out of 30 burglary cases in 2013 and 2014, but at least 11 of those cases were based on false arrests, investigators say.

Atestiano and two officers, Raul Fernandez and Charlie Dayoub, have also been charged with falsely accusing in 2013 a black Haitian-American teenager — identified as T.D. — of four burglaries in order to achieve a perfect clearance rate on property crimes that year.

All have pleaded not guilty to the accusations, but Fernandez and Dayoub plan to change their pleas to guilty next month, according to the Herald reporting on court records.

All three men are reportedly cooperating in the charges against Atesiano. Prosecutors may add an additional charge to Atesiano’s indictment based on Ravelo's testimony, according to the Herald.



Something we'd be able to pay attention to without the constant distractions but those distractions are likely there for a reason

http://thehill.com/regulation/labor/399323-osha-reduces-obama-era-injury-report-requirements-for-large-companies

The Trump administration has proposed rolling back an Obama-era Labor Department rule requiring companies with 250 or more workers to submit detailed forms to the agency on workplace injuries, a move labor advocates say will allow companies to cover up the extent of injuries.

The department's Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) issued a notice on Friday stating that it is seeking to roll back the rule passed under the Obama administration that greatly increased the amount of detail supervisors are supposed to provide to the federal government on workplace injuries.

Some of that information was then posted publicly by the Labor Department under the rule, and included summaries of incidents that occurred in larger-scale companies.

A spokesperson for the Labor Department told NBC News that the rule change would not alter the agency's ability to collect information from companies on workplace injuries and safety violations.

"This proposal maintains safety and health protections for workers while protecting sensitive worker information from public disclosure," communications director Megan Sweeney told NBC. "The data OSHA continues to collect is robust and enables the agency to most effectively protect workers on the job."

The Labor Department argued that the original rule violated workers' privacy by exposing incidents that they were involved in to Freedom of Information Act requests.

Public safety advocates argued that the rule's rollback would only hurt workers.

"The existing rule is in place to protect workers," said Sean Sherman, an attorney at the Public Citizen Litigation Group which is involved in a lawsuit over the rule. "The idea that you can protect workers by rolling back a strong worker protection is absurd."




Read on Twitter


Nice to see something become of the deficit spending and budget increases that Reps refused the Obama administration. Something they should hopefully keep bragging about to the working class as their wages continue to drop

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/399150-trump-gdp-comments

took a victory lap at the White House on Friday, touting his tax and regulatory policies as drivers of the best economic growth in nearly four years.

The U.S. economy expanded at a 4.1 percent rate in the April-to-June quarter, the highest level since growth hit 5.2 percent in the third quarter of 2014, the Commerce Department reported.


In a speech at the White House, Trump said the country is growing "at the amazing rate" and that "we're on track to hit the highest annual average growth rate in over 13 years."

Trade deals will further help the economy and "we're going to go a lot higher than these numbers and these are great numbers," said Trump, surrounded by top administration officials on the South Lawn.
Republicans are hoping that a string of good economic news will bolster their hopes in the November midterm elections. The booming economy is the foundation of the GOP’s pitch to voters as the party tries to defend its vulnerable House majority.

Trump and his top economic aides seized the chance to bolster that message Friday with a hastily planned speech held an hour after the growth report was released.

The president attributed the boom to GOP efforts to slash taxes, repeal finance and energy regulations and strike fairer trade deals, and he called the U.S. “the economic envy of the entire world.”

“Everywhere we look, we’re seeing the effects of the economic miracle all across America,” Trump said.

Trump also touted a $50 billion drop in the U.S. trade deficit and a recent agreement with the European Union to negotiate a free-trade deal.

“We were abused by countries themselves, even allies,” Trump said. "We were abused like no country had ever been abused on trade before. They stole our jobs and plundered our wealth. But that ended.”

Trump and his top aides touted the trade deficit decrease as proof that his tariffs on imported steel, aluminum and Chinese goods are yielding fairer trade terms for the U.S. But economists attribute it to buyers stocking up on U.S. crops before retaliatory tariffs imposed by several nations drive up prices.

Economists have also doubted the sustainability of the second quarter growth rate. Analysts have attributed the massive spike in growth to one-time increases in consumer spending driven by tax cuts, and the global rush to buy U.S. soybeans before tariffs kick in.

The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget estimated that those factors accounted for 1.4 percentage points of growth, and that the second-quarter growth rate would be 2.7 percent without them.

Trump's top economic advisers disputed those concerns Friday, saying the U.S. could expect similar growth levels for the foreseeable future.

“If we look at the data today, we can see the proof in the pudding that the president’s policies are working. And it’s not just in the top line, it’s in the details," said Council of Economic Advisers Chairman Kevin Hassett.

“If you stand up for American workers and let our allies know the deal that aren’t reciprocal aren’t acceptable, we can make a lot of progress.”

National Economic Council Director Larry Kudlow said “this is a boom that will be sustainable as far as the eye can see. It is no one shot-effort.”




Semi long read, in spoilers but interesting story

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2018/07/bret-stephens-abolish-ice-ocasio-cortez-no-evidence-radical-left-is-helping-trump.html


In late June, a 28-year-old Democratic Socialist – who had called for nationalizing health insurance, guaranteeing public jobs to the unemployed, and abolishing Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) — won a primary challenge against a high-ranking House Democrat.

And centrists have been lamenting Team Blue’s imminent self-immolation ever since.

Last week, the center-left’s “radical pragmatists” warned NBC News that if progressive Democrats keep ignoring their preferences, they “will lead the party to disaster in the midterm elections and the 2020 presidential contest.” The moderate reactionaries of the Never Trump movement wholeheartedly agree. Days after Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s victory, New York Times columnist (and world-champion concern troll) Bret Stephens wrote that “democratic socialism” was “political hemlock”; “social democracy” was a “dying force”; and “Democrats who aren’t yet sick of all their losing should feel free to embrace them both.” Meanwhile, former Republican James Comey (a man who knows a little something about inadvertently aiding Donald Trump) implored Democrats not to “lose your minds and rush to the socialist left,” since “America’s great middle wants sensible, balanced, ethical leadership.”

But the Democrats’ ascendant left wing shrugged off these warnings. Since Ocasio-Cortez’s upset, prominent Senate progressives have called for abolishing ICE, ending cash bail, and canceling Puerto Rico’s debt — while the House’s Medicare for All caucus has welcomed (self-styled) moderate Democrats into its ranks.

Now, one month after voters in the South Bronx put “democratic socialism” in the headlines, real America has registered its outrage at the Democrats’ hard-left turn — by giving the party a larger lead in the generic congressional ballot.

Since the Democrats (supposedly) embraced open borders and slow-motion Stalinism, their party’s poll numbers have gone up, while both Donald Trump — and his favorite immigration agency — have seen their own standing decline (the former, only modestly).

To be sure, month-to-month polling changes are typically more noise than signal. And even if Democrats did gain support over the past four weeks, there’s little reason to assume that this constitutes a public endorsement of the party’s leftward lurch. A lot of big, weird news broke in July; Trump’s trade wars, the Helsinki press conference, or the family-separation fiasco could all theoretically explain Team Blue’s polling boost.

Regardless, it remains the case that, over the past month, the Democratic Party became simultaneously more closely associated with “socialism” and more popular.

You might think that this development would make Bret Stephens question his political acumen — or at least, wait for new evidence that the Democrats’ left wing is, in fact, politically toxic before writing another column centered on that claim. If so, then you might be on the committee that awards the Pulitzer Prize for Commentary — because you’ve given Bret Stephens far too much credit.

Instead of waiting for future events to prove his punditry prescient, Stephens has decided to devote his latest column to detailing a fictional future in which Democrats pay a heavy price for betraying his counsel:

Donald J. Trump has been decisively re-elected as president of the United States, winning every state he carried in 2016 and adding Nevada, even as he once again failed, albeit narrowly, to gain a majority of the popular vote. Extraordinary turnout in California, New York, Illinois and other Democratic bastions could not compensate for the president’s abiding popularity in the states that still decide who gets to live in the White House: Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Florida.



…“Trump succeeded,” lamented one moderate former Democratic lawmaker who asked to speak on background. “He got my party to lose its marbles.” The lawmaker cited calls by party activists to abolish the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency — calls the Warren campaign did not formally endorse but did little to refute — as emblematic of the party’s broader problems.



“What do Democrats stand for?” he asked. “Lawlessness or liberality? Policymaking or virtue signaling? Gender-neutral pronouns and bathrooms or good jobs and higher wages?”



As is his way, Mr. Trump wasted little time rubbing salt into Democratic wounds. “Democrats used to stand with the Working Man,” he tweeted Wednesday morning. “Now it’s the party of Abortion and Amnesty. All that’s missing is Acid. Sad!”



The New Yorker’s Adam Gopnik once wrote that the object of all satire is “to take what’s happening now and imagine what would happen if it kept on happening.” By that metric, Stephens’s satire is an abject failure.

Recent polls haven’t just given Democrats a nearly double-digit national lead — they’ve also shown Donald Trump’s popularity to be anything but “abiding” in Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Iowa (i.e. the “states that still decide who gets to live in the White House). In May, Morning Consult found Trump’s approval rating underwater in all of those midwestern battlegrounds.

And newly released surveys from NBC News and Marist suggest that the president has not gained any ground in the heartland in recent weeks. According to the pollster, more than 50 percent of voters in both Michigan and Wisconsin disapprove of the president. Meanwhile, only 31 percent of Wisconsinites say Trump deserves to be reelected; among Michiganders, that figure is just 28.

Of course, we’re a long way from 2020. Stephens’s dystopia isn’t wholly implausible. It just isn’t substantiated by much beyond his intuition that Democrats will lose unless they adopt more of his policy preferences (at one point, Stephens suggests that Warren might have won in 2020, if only she’d had the courage to stand up for free trade).

Trump entered office a historically unpopular president — and, despite presiding over the peak of an economic expansion and historically low unemployment, he has seen his approval rating fall precipitously since then in the states that matter most. A lot can happen in two years. But there is at least a chance that Trump will be so unpopular by 2020, centrists will be incapable of mounting a credible “electability” argument against progressive presidential candidates.

And that’s a real problem for “the vital center” — because their substantive case against social democracy is even weaker than the political one. Deficit scaremongering rings hollow in an era of persistently low interest rates, and giant, unfunded tax cuts (unilateral fiscal responsibility is political idiocy — Democrats can’t build a lasting majority by force-feeding the electorate medicine after Republicans spend years doling out sugar). And it’s hard to disparage calls for strengthening unions or increasing redistribution as “class warfare” when concentrated capital dominates the economy so thoroughly, wages are falling amid full employment.

To appreciate what a tough spot these conditions put centrists in, observe this passage from Bret Stephens’s substantive indictment of “democratic socialism”:

The Democratic Socialists of America, of which Ocasio-Cortez is a member, believe in economies defined by state-owned enterprises and worker-owned cooperatives. Versions of this have been tried to varying degrees before: Israel in its first decades; post-independence India; Sweden in the 1960s and ’70s.



It always led to crisis: hyperinflation for Israel in 1980s; an I.M.F. bailout for India in 1991; a banking meltdown for Sweden in 1992…People used to know this stuff. That someone like Ocasio-Cortez apparently doesn’t is a fresh reminder that, in politics as in life, the most obvious lessons are the ones you can least afford to stop teaching.

I have never heard a left-wing Democrat cite Israel or post-independence India as a model for the political economy that they wish to build in the United States. Plenty have, however, expressed affinity for the Nordic model. And Stephens’s case against Swedish social democracy is, apparently, that it produces one banking crisis every 50 years or so.

And that is actually a much too generous summation of Stephens’s case. As Matt Bruenig explains:

The link Stephens uses for his citation about Sweden is a slideshow created by the former Swedish Finance Minister Anders Borg. Borg is a member of the right-wing Moderate Party and created the slideshow when Sweden was under a right-wing government in 2012. The slideshow does not talk about the 1992 banking meltdown. It is, in fact, completely unrelated.



Stephens omission of any information about the 1992 Swedish banking crisis is curious. That crisis was caused by the popping of a housing bubble that left banks insolvent, which was the exact same thing that blew up the global economy in 2008. In fact, the two events were so similar that the New York Times published a piece in 2008 titled “Stopping a Financial Crisis, the Swedish Way[.]”

Social democracy might allow Sweden to provide its people with longer lives, a lower poverty rate, cheaper health care, more retirement security, better educational outcomes, and higher levels of self-reported happiness than Americans enjoy. But American capitalism provides U.S. citizens with something even better than all that: total immunity from the threat of banking crises produced by housing bubbles.

People used to know this stuff. That someone like Ocasio-Cortez apparently doesn’t is a fresh reminder that, in politics as in life, the least obvious lessons are the ones that conservative Times columnists can least afford to stop teaching.



Maybe the longest lasting legacy outside of any scandal that's still being recorded. Watchable segment



That Florida cop story is insane. I wonder if the cop making the accusation is not credible. This is a story that should be blowing up


Update:

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/28/us/florida-police-chief-frame-black-people.html

A former police chief in Florida was sentenced on Tuesday to three years in prison for ordering officers to arrest black people for crimes they did not commit in order to give the impression that his department was solving crimes, court documents say.

Judge K. Michael Moore of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida gave Raimundo Atesiano, who resigned from the Biscayne Park Police Department in 2014, until Dec. 10 to report to authorities to serve his sentence.

The sentencing came just over a month after three officers who worked for Mr. Atesiano when he was the chief were sentenced to prison for their roles in the wrongful arrests.

Mr. Atesiano told Judge Moore in court that he was “not prepared” when he took the job as chief of the department in the Miami-area village of about 3,000 people. “I made some very, very bad decisions,” he said, according to The Miami Herald.

The Herald obtained internal public records that suggested that the Biscayne Park officers, in order to clear cases, had been pressured into singling out random black people.

“If they have burglaries that are open cases that are not solved yet, if you see anybody black walking through our streets and they have somewhat of a record, arrest them so we can pin them for all the burglaries,” one officer quoted in an internal investigation said.

Mr. Atesiano’s lawyer, Richard Docobo, conceded on Thursday that his client had “allowed his officers to falsify arrest affidavits,” but said he had “categorically denied” ever telling an officer “that they should arrest anyone based on their race.”

As the chief of the department, Mr. Atesiano was intent on appearing to be a successful crime fighter. He instructed two officers to arrest a 16-year-old for four burglaries, even though they had no evidence that the teenager was the culprit, according to a June indictment.

The indictment charged Mr. Atesiano and the officers, Charlie Dayoub and Raul Fernandez, with conspiracy against the right to be free from unreasonable seizure by the police, and with depriving the teenager, identified as “T.D.,” of that right.

Mr. Atesiano pleaded guilty to the charges, prosecutors said.

In 2013, when Mr. Atesiano was head of the department, the village had 11 full-time police officers and two reserve officers. It had just recorded a decrease in burglaries, down to 19 in 2012 from 36 in 2011, the indictment showed.

In June 2013, with three burglaries in April and one in May unsolved, Chief Atesiano “caused and encouraged” Officer Dayoub and Officer Fernandez, who was one of the reserve officers, to falsely arrest T.D. and charge him in the four burglaries, the indictment said.

He also told the officers to falsely arrest a man identified in court documents as “C.D.” in 2013 for two burglaries, even though there was no evidence the man had committed the crimes.

In July of that year, the chief presented the city council with a perfect record of solving burglaries, though the statistics were “fictitious,” the indictment said.

The following year, Chief Atesiano told another officer, Guillermo Ravelo, to arrest and charge a man, referred to as “E.B.,” with five vehicle burglaries, despite no legal reason for doing so, according to court documents.

Officers Dayoub and Fernandez both said they were troubled by the unethical behavior. They eventually cooperated with the authorities.

Officer Fernandez sent a letter to the city manager about the bad arrests and then told investigators that Chief Atesiano “via his underlings, would use a specific code meant to alert officers that a person of color was seen in the city and that they needed to be stopped and confronted.”

The two officers pleaded guilty this past August, and in October, they were sentenced to 12 months in prison. Officer Ravelo was charged separately and sentenced in October to 27 months in prison for the conspiracy arrests and for striking a handcuffed driver in the head during a traffic stop.


Yea...
User avatar
Dr_Heat
RealGM
Posts: 17,893
And1: 84,649
Joined: Feb 27, 2015
Location: Bustelo coffee bar
         

Re: World Politics 

Post#318 » by Dr_Heat » Sat Dec 1, 2018 5:26 am

Rest In Peace George H.W. Bush
Dr_Heat wrote:lifelong Luka Doncic fan checking in
User avatar
Bishop45
RealGM
Posts: 27,050
And1: 89,918
Joined: Apr 22, 2015
 

Re: World Politics 

Post#319 » by Bishop45 » Tue Jul 2, 2019 3:58 pm

This thread's futility on par with common political apathy would be a good reason not to prop it back up, but scary times brehs

This is far more dangerous than a brain drain, the fact that it's happening without national concern is scurry brehs



The scope of the damage done by this doesn't even feel real, a real life atrocity
Read on Twitter


Jus Florida again
Read on Twitter

Return to Miami Heat