Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > Jeff Sessions, shitstain

Jeff Sessions, shitstain (Page 5)
Thread Tools
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 7, 2017, 11:13 AM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
and including their "ilk" makes your proposal untenable (and, at least here, illegal).
Since we both agree about these people, lets both agree to leave them out of the discussion from now on.


Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
Unless you get it through your head that "Right-wing" doesn't automatically mean evil, no more than Left-wing does, I don't believe there's any way you can come to a rational perspective regarding this.
You say I'm being irrational but perhaps you don't understand the rationale. Evil is often too strong a word but its a spectrum. The worst of the left are the ones who stray from intellectually preposterous ideas about equality over the lone to committing violence not in defence of those ideas but in the silencing of contradictory ones. I could start a whole other thread about some of those ideas in light of a disagreement I was involved in with a bunch of American lefties not long ago and I suspect you and I might be in agreement on a lot of what that discussion centred around.

The right though is a spectrum that ranges from the genuinely violent intolerant extremists down to those who simply fail to act against them in exchange for personal gain. I can totally understand voting for favourable tax or economic policies if you think it will benefit you or your family or better yet your local community, but when you have to ignore racism, misogyny, homophobia, transphobia, religious intolerance and whatever else, sometimes to violent levels but often to very spiteful and vitriolic levels, well theres a famous quote that applies about all that is required for the triumph of evil.....
The irony of the side that is most strongly associated with intolerance of all kinds asking the other to see things from their POV is not lost.

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
Ex. I may disagree with Antifa's message, but as long as they aren't violent or infringing someone else's liberties, I'll wholeheartedly defend their right to say what they want.
Its a pity that this sort of attitude can't win the Republicans enough voters to win elections without needing to pander to the extremists that will always prevent the left from "seeing things from their point of view".


Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
I see no proof that's the case at all. "Restriction" and free expression don't mix, ever, and adding qualifiers to it only creates loopholes to be exploited.
When I was young I spent plenty of time entertaining myself with my toys or books, or simply some blank sheets of paper and drawing implements. Nowadays parents seem to think their precious little bundles have to be fully entertained for every waking hour of the day. Typically this seems to involve being plonked in front of a Disney movie on repeat or being handed an iPad to button bash or slobber over. When I said I was bored, I was told to go and find something to do. I get a sense that doesn't often happen these days. Kids end up with stunted imaginations before they even get going.
Add in the 'every child gets a trophy for participation' policies, the health and safety overkill that means you can't eat mud or climb trees anymore and you have quickly raised young teenagers that don't know how to handle hardship, difficulty, boredom, rejection, losing and a raft of other everyday things that life will throw at you long before you are really equipped to deal with more complex political concepts and ideas.


Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
I'm not talking about children, these are adults in college.
These discussions would go a lot more smoothly if you didn't insist on abusing every shred of credit I give you. By 'kids' in this context, I meant college kids.

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
Before then their parents or guardians are responsible for them, and as much as SJWs and Evangelicals want to make hay over "dangerous content" online, just like with violent video games, there is no proven connection between mere access to said content and negative behavior. Just like an entire generation wasn't "lost" due to exposure to rock-n-roll, despite Jerry Falwell's predictions.
I don't know why you might think I have a problem exposing anyone to such things. Most of that stemmed from absolute ignorance of the subject matter and the typical disingenuous abuse of the unknown-but-scary-looking/sounding to further someone else's agendas.

The one exception being that parents whether they like it or not are going to have to find ways of dealing with childhood exposure to pornography at much earlier ages than previous generations. In the 80s the closest we got to naked women was the top shelf in the newsagent, the odd flash if we stayed up past the TV watershed or builders leaving their copy of The Sun (is Page 3 something you guys are aware of?) in skips on rural building sites. Nowadays kids under 10 are easily exposed to all manner of hardcore video online without even trying to be and even the most puritanical parents need to have some constructive input instead of clamming up and getting furious or embarrassed about it. Its already warping teenaged minds about what is and isn't normal in bed.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 15, 2017, 01:47 AM
 
So, allegedly, Trump was so mean to Sessions he had to run out of the room, and Pence had to go calm him down.

I remember this from grade school.
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 15, 2017, 09:03 AM
 
Not enough for him to resign, sadly.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 15, 2017, 11:35 AM
 
I'll take one "recused devil I know" please.
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 15, 2017, 11:42 AM
 
I know. It's a fair point in uncertain times but I wouldn't hesitate to say we're better off if he resigned either.
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 19, 2017, 12:06 AM
 
Rudy, Rudy, Rudy!
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 26, 2017, 11:57 AM
 
Can't know whose idea it was, but either Jeff Sessions or Georgetown law thought he needed a safe space



Also, irony
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 18, 2017, 09:32 AM
 
Testifies in front of congress today; Democrats told him to bring a list of topics he will be invoking executive privilege on.

Could be interesting
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 18, 2017, 12:06 PM
 
Asked why Trump took so long to fire Comey giving his reasoning, Sessions literally froze for three seconds before asking for the question to be repeated.

...and we're still in the schroedingers executive privilege zone.
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 18, 2017, 04:11 PM
 
Very odd exchange regarding whether Sessions has been contacted by Mueller. Went through some semantic lawyering before Sessions flatly denied it. Then Blumenthal implied he knew he was lying. Sessions followed up that's he'd ask for confirmation from his office then got a note later confirming he has not been contacted. What the hell was Blumenthal on about?
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 7, 2017, 11:40 AM
 
Sessions being dragged in front of the House Judiciary the 14th. Stock up on popcorn as appropriate
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 14, 2017, 09:39 AM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
Sessions being dragged in front of the House Judiciary the 14th. Stock up on popcorn as appropriate
At this point I'm waiting for Sessions to assert executive privilege over exchanges he had with Trump during the campaign. Anyway will be listening to the last ve stream.
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 14, 2017, 11:24 AM
 
Sessions is investigating appointing a special counsel to look into the pay to play scheme known as the Clinton Foundation and the Uranium One deal.
( Last edited by Chongo; Nov 14, 2017 at 11:57 AM. )
"The blood of the martyrs is the seed of the church" Saint Tertullian, 197 AD
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 25, 2017, 07:20 PM
 
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 4, 2018, 09:48 AM
 
Three days after CA legalized recreational pot, DOJ is supposed to be rescinding it's policy of non interference
     
reader50
Administrator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: California
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Jan 4, 2018, 01:09 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
Three days after CA legalized recreational pot, DOJ is supposed to be rescinding it's policy of non interference
Jeff Sessions has issued the memo. However, it doesn't do anything by itself.

Ken White, a lawyer and former federal prosecutor, has done a lawsplainer on this. Cliff notes: Congress has forbidden spending money on marijuana enforcement, if state laws are being complied with. And federal prosecutors don't have the resources to prosecute more than a handful of examples, even if Congress changed the law.
     
Thorzdad
Moderator
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Nobletucky
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 4, 2018, 04:41 PM
 
The US prosecutor for Colorado has said Sessions' move will not change how his office approaches the issue.
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 4, 2018, 05:26 PM
 
Originally Posted by reader50 View Post
Cliff notes: Congress has forbidden spending money on marijuana enforcement, if state laws are being complied with. And federal prosecutors don't have the resources to prosecute more than a handful of examples, even if Congress changed the law.
That leaves me scratching my head. Why do this? Is this something that can be overturned in the upcoming funding negotiations?
     
Thorzdad
Moderator
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Nobletucky
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 7, 2018, 02:05 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
That leaves me scratching my head. Why do this? Is this something that can be overturned in the upcoming funding negotiations?
There's concern in the industry that, now that there are actually financial institutions beginning to pop-up that are willing to work with (i.e. take their deposits) marijuana producers/distributors/retailers, that gives Sessions an indirect, fully Federal, path to hurt the industry by seizing their financial assets. Even state-chartered credit unions and the like have to have a master account with the Federal Reserve (in order to tap into the nation's monetary stream.) Once they receive a master account, the banking institution would now be subject to Federal law which forbids financial institutions doing transactions with the industry due to MJ's Schedule 1 status.

It's possibly a sneaky back-door way to hurt the industry without directly running afoul of state laws or, it is hoped, the Congressional mandate not to spend money on marijuana enforcement. Tearing-up the memo just removes a possible impediment.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 7, 2018, 09:52 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
That leaves me scratching my head. Why do this? Is this something that can be overturned in the upcoming funding negotiations?
Session's opinion on Mary Jane is well-known, I think it is just a boondoggle for his fans and himself. But more importantly, I think it points to the central problem, namely that federal and state laws as they are now are incompatible. Cannabis should IMHO be legalized and regulated, and that requires an act of Congress.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
Thorzdad
Moderator
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Nobletucky
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 10, 2018, 11:20 PM
 
Colorado congressional delegation aims to stop Sessions. Cory Gardner vows to block Justice Department nominees.
     
Thorzdad
Moderator
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Nobletucky
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 7, 2018, 04:57 PM
 
So, Magoo has formally announced his federal lawsuit against California over the state’s stance on immigration, sanctuary areas, and the recently-enacted state law restricting law enforcement from helping the feds. Gov. Brown’s response is that the lawsuit will last longer than the Trump administration. I have to wonder if Sessions is jonesing for a ruling clearly finding that Federal law always has primacy over state law, no matter what. He might see that as a green light to go after the legal weed states, too.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 7, 2018, 07:14 PM
 
Originally Posted by Thorzdad View Post
So, Magoo has formally announced his federal lawsuit against California over the state’s stance on immigration, sanctuary areas, and the recently-enacted state law restricting law enforcement from helping the feds. [...] I have to wonder if Sessions is jonesing for a ruling clearly finding that Federal law always has primacy over state law, no matter what. He might see that as a green light to go after the legal weed states, too.
Legally speaking, the situation on immigration is very different from that on weed: local law enforcement is not obliged to cooperate with ICE as immigration is a federal matter. And in the past the Supreme Court has placed limits on ways that the federal government can coerce or entice state governments to do act the way they want them to (by making federal funding contingent on compliance with other, perhaps unrelated federal policies). Have a listen to Episode 18 of What Trump Can Teach Us About Con Law.

I'm very much in favor of the legalization of weed, but here the story is a lot more murky. I find it quite weird that there may be such a large rift (to put it mildly) between federal and state laws. Citizens aren't served by this, businesses aren't served by this and the faith in government suffers. As a matter of legal principle, I think that here federal laws should trump state laws. At the very least, Congress should delegate the authority to legalize weed completely to the states. Or better: legalize it outright everywhere. (Here, the fact that federal law should supersede state law works to the advantage of legalization advocates.)
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
reader50
Administrator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: California
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Mar 7, 2018, 09:11 PM
 
It would be nice if Congress did that. But ATM, the federal government is significantly out of step with the majority of voters. In general, states are seen as closer to the public (and local government closer still) allowing some relief from blanket federal policies.

I view the rift as a healthy response. The feds are ignoring the public, while state governments are somewhat more responsive. It's making it harder for the feds to ignore how far out of touch they are, while it gives some relief to the citizenry. If the states didn't have some degree of independence, ignored citizens would feel shut out of policy. Matters would stew, until civil disobedience turns into rebellion. Other countries have followed this route, while we have a safety valve.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 7, 2018, 10:05 PM
 
Originally Posted by reader50 View Post
It would be nice if Congress did that. But ATM, the federal government is significantly out of step with the majority of voters. In general, states are seen as closer to the public (and local government closer still) allowing some relief from blanket federal policies.

I view the rift as a healthy response. The feds are ignoring the public, while state governments are somewhat more responsive.
If we are on the subject of how things ought to be and how to best effect change, I'm on your side. But ultimately the problem is the broken political system, and this feels like an unstable loophole at best. What kind of protections can states afford to, say, people who run businesses to grow Mary Jane and are compliant with state law? It also prevents such business from trading across state lines. Operating under this, well, loophole seems more like jerry rigging the US's political system than finding a good solution to a political problem.
Originally Posted by reader50 View Post
It's making it harder for the feds to ignore how far out of touch they are, while it gives some relief to the citizenry. If the states didn't have some degree of independence, ignored citizens would feel shut out of policy. Matters would stew, until civil disobedience turns into rebellion. Other countries have followed this route, while we have a safety valve.
I'm all for federalism, I'm a big fan. (Germany has a very strong notion of federalism for historical reasons, but its political system is flexible enough to re-balance the responsibilities of federal governments and states.) But as far as I can tell drug laws are federal laws in the US, and I don't know under which constitutional or legal provision state laws would carve out exceptions here.

Overall, I think it is more important to be consistent here than convenient. A lot of other things that I agree with could be squashed if states carved out exceptions to counteract federal laws.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:24 PM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,