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.
After desantis, your next highest choices are Chris Christie, who once apon a time seemed like a "reasonable republican" and Ramaswamy, who seems as insane as trump but even more so.
This is still not ok. So many people/families were stressed out over the possibility of not getting a paycheck, and they have to face that again in 45 days. Meanwhile the paychecks of those "responsible" for "representing" their constituents faced no such stress. It's a broken system.
Ya gotta applaud those bunnies for sacrificing their hearing just so some guy in Yonkers can have better TV reception.
Of course it’s broken. They system was designed by 18th century dudes who assumed everyone would act like gentlemen and work for the common good of the nation. They couldn’t imagine a future where “working for the common good of the nation” meant “working to end the nation” to a bunch of extremists.
Not sure how you fix it, though. Maybe get a bill through that would make the pay and benefits for elected representatives the first thing that ends in cases like this?
It could become very interesting. R's cannot work with the hardliners. It's either their way, or the highway.
So it's either going to be the hardliners in charge (most Rs cannot seem to stomach this) or a power-sharing arrangement with Ds to shut out the hardliners. Either way, a lot of hair will fly as they work the problem.
Will the United States as a democracy survive long enough for the Republican Party to realise that they MUST spin off the fascists into a separate party?
The problem, of course, is that if they do that, they may be a minority party for a looooong time — however, the Democrats will still need them in House and Senate to generate majorities. Effectively, it may mean coalition government.
Cats and dogs laying together, while the madmen outside try to fuck the donkey and burn the house down.
I think if they split the MAGA sect off, they could easily pick up the centrists and ‘old school’ dems, e.g. Manchen voters.
Easier said than done. They're almost all "MAGA" to one degree or another, if only because that was the language they used to get elected. Moving against the obvious extremists will almost certainly result in being primaried by a dyed-in-the-wool MAGA. Do you do what you know, deep in your bones, is right for the nation, or do you sit on your thumbs, hope it all works itself out, and hang onto your sweet congressional seat?
They don't have a chance before these elections. It's far too late. That needed to happen after their last candidate attempted a fascist coup — that would have been the chance to weed out his remaining supporters as explicitly enemies of the state and kick them out of the party.
Two years down the line, it's gonna take a little more work to divest themselves of the fascist usurpers and reëstablish themselves as an actual democratic party.
They don't have a chance before these elections. It's far too late. That needed to happen after their last candidate attempted a fascist coup — that would have been the chance to weed out his remaining supporters as explicitly enemies of the state and kick them out of the party.
Two years down the line, it's gonna take a little more work to divest themselves of the fascist usurpers and reëstablish themselves as an actual democratic party.
But it HAS to happen at some point.
I fear you are trying to convince yourself that this is a small faction of the GOP. But the reality is that even after that “attempted fascist coup” and a litany of criminal charges leveled against him Trump still has 62% support among GOP voters. He is in a statistical dead heat with Biden at the moment. And this is not despite his antics … it’s because of them. This is no longer the “Party of Reagan”. The “Country Club Republicans” are no longer in the majority nor in control. Particularly at the state and local level. And those remaining at the federal level have either been sidelined, retired, or kowtowed into complicity out of fear of being primaried.
So it seems they want Trump to be speaker of the house, at least for a while. If he were to agree to that, would that open him up to more lawsuits from different states a lot sooner than expected to have him banned from holding office under the 14th amendment section 3? I'm sure I read that in most states someone has to have standing in order to file such a suit (I want to say there was three states where anyone at any time could file and one of those was Colorado), and in most places they couldn't file until he actually ran for an office in an official capacity. Holding any office would also do the trick though right? Does it even matter if theres more of these suits though? I presume one at the most will make it to SCOTUS?
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status:
Offline
Oct 6, 2023, 09:10 AM
Originally Posted by OAW
I fear you are trying to convince yourself that this is a small faction of the GOP. But the reality is that even after that “attempted fascist coup” and a litany of criminal charges leveled against him Trump still has 62% support among GOP voters.
Go look at prominent Republicans' statements on Jan 6th and 7th, then look at what they're saying today. They thought it was going to be a big deal and condemned it immediately. But when they realized that most voters were in favor of the coup, they all walked back everything they said.
The Constitution is silent on the Speaker of the House's status in the House of Representatives, thus, perhaps it could be someone who is not a member. It's unlikely that SCOTUS would rule on that question if it comes up. It would probably take a constitutional amendment to specify, most likely, that the SOTH must be an elected representative.
Ya gotta applaud those bunnies for sacrificing their hearing just so some guy in Yonkers can have better TV reception.
The leader of the Senate is vPOTUS, who is not a member of the Senate. She does get a vote in case of ties.
The Speaker of the House could be anyone, though it should be a US citizen. And one could argue the age limits for being elected to the House should apply, along with the age and other limits for President. Because the Speaker could become President if the current Prez & Vice were to die.
Hmm ... I wonder if this is why Trump is joshing for Speaker. Maybe he has 2x murders in mind, which could get him a (less-than) half term as POTUS. Which would still leave him eligible to run for a full term. After all, his pal Putin just got away with a plane-crash murder that decapitated the Wagner group.
If the Speaker were a non-member, they would not get a vote under any circumstances.
Trump is pining for the Speakership only because of ego. During the voting that eventually led to McCarthy being elected, Gaetz voted Trump. No one else did. Trump's ego was wounded, so he sent a text to Gaetz saying that he had only gotten one vote because he had not been nominated. So Gaetz nominated Trump and again was the only one to vote for him.
Ya gotta applaud those bunnies for sacrificing their hearing just so some guy in Yonkers can have better TV reception.
Doesn’t he have some kind of pseudo-brown-shirt “security force” following him around for intimidation? He also now has an “election police” whose directive is to root-out and deal with “voting fraud,” however they happen to define it. I can’t imagine how that might be used improperly, though
Now, let’s look at abortion. During a legislative hearing, state Sen. Graig Meyer (D) asked lawmakers, in a hypothetical scenario, if Gov Ops could access personal health records (like ultrasounds) that are required by the state to receive abortion pills. Sen. Meyer found that Gov Ops, with its widespread ability to investigate with zero oversight, could release information like this “to the public in a hearing” if it wanted to.
I watched the clip this linked to. In it, Meyer notes these ultrasounds are stripped of all identifying information. If they weren’t, complying with the request would be a HIPPA violation.
I have two questions:
This is a pertinent detail, no?
What exactly is the problem with the state publicly releasing ultrasounds that have no identifying information?
What exactly is the problem with the state publicly releasing ultrasounds that have no identifying information?
Anonymization of data is known to be glitchy. Also, should we assume competence? I recall that PDF the government released some years ago. With redacted info blacked over. People loaded it in PDF editor software, and removed the black bars. I think Select-Copy-Paste also produced a full copy of the text.
In my opinion, medical records belong to the patient. If the patient OK'd releasing their ultrasound scans, then I don't see a problem. Oh wait, you mean releasing women's ultrasounds without their consent? Will men's ultrasounds - of beer pregnancies - be released too, or is this just another ignore-womens-rights decision?
I can see anonymized medical records released in science studies, or for teaching in medical schools. Government bodies should stick to anonymized data about tax cheating. And stay out of personal or medical matters.
Video below is SFW, though the first few seconds will suggest a NSFW video. It's from the recent Ohio Issue-1 election. I think it was broadcast on TV as a political ad.
(
Last edited by reader50; Oct 11, 2023 at 03:07 PM.
)
1) Request anonymous ultrasounds from another state agency, which they can only do because they’re anonymous, but they won’t because there’s no reason to.
2) Then decide to make these ultrasounds public, which they won’t because there’s no reason to.
This is a danger because:
A) The other agency might be fuckups and violate HIPPA.
It’s a breach of several principles: there is no judge (i.e. no subpoena or similar) involved and no oversight. Would you want this for mental health patient records, gun purchases, adult store receipts and other things some people find objectionable? The chilling effect is the only purpose I see.
PS There is plenty of identifying left. My wife’s ultrasounds from different doctors are very different in quality and layout. Even in cases where you’d have machines from the same maker, but of different generations. Not to speak of the developmental stage of the fetus.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
I'll bet that the "if you aren't guilty, you have nothing to hide" mantra gets rolled out quite quickly in defence of such things.
Chris. T.
"... in 6 months if WMD are found, I hope all clear-thinking people who opposed the war will say "You're right, we were wrong -- good job". Similarly, if after 6 months no WMD are found, people who supported the war should say the same thing -- and move to impeach Mr. Bush." - moki, 04/16/03
PS There is plenty of identifying left. My wife’s ultrasounds from different doctors are very different in quality and layout. Even in cases where you’d have machines from the same maker, but of different generations. Not to speak of the developmental stage of the fetus.
How would one be able to identify either your wife or child from an ultrasound with no names on it?
How would one be able to identify either your wife or child from an ultrasound with no names on it?
You're assuming competence. That they don't screw up and leave the metadata intact.
Also, the owner of the ultrasound (if they kept copies) may realize their pics or video was published without consent. Shouldn't anonymization include the victim not knowing their medical info was used for political purposes, and can now be seen by any Tom, Dick, or Harry in Mongolia?
Praise the Buddha! The Savior will soon be born! They have the foretold birthmark. We still have to find the Savior, somewhere in North Carolina. Summon the secret warriors, they will pose as insurance agents.
Also, the owner of the ultrasound (if they kept copies) may realize their pics or video was published without consent. Shouldn't anonymization include the victim not knowing their medical info was used for political purposes, and can now be seen by any Tom, Dick, or Harry in Mongolia?
Are you sure they didn’t consent? I always have to sign a consent form before I have a medical procedure. I don’t read it of course, but I’d be shocked if there wasn’t a clause wherein I’ve consented to them using my data as long as it’s anonymized.
I don’t think it’s possible to have anonymized information without the potential of the subject knowing it was used. If this agency publishes the ultrasounds, and a person had an abortion during the period the ultrasounds cover, then that person knows anyone can see it.
ps - read more of those TOS documents. Please. Before you give away the immortal soul of your firstborn. ie - agree to binding arbitration. Before a company-hired "judge".
*Did the fetus consent? Is it too young (under 18) to enter into a consent agreement? If we agree that rights begin at birth, then the mom signing off is enough. But if you think rights begin with conception, then the ultrasound pictures two people. So you'd need both to consent before public release. Check back in 18 years for the second consent signature, and you're all good.
1) I don’t know if one needs to consent to having anonymous medical information being used. It’s probably in the consent form because CYA, but I’m not sure it’s a HIPPA requirement.
2) Assuming the identifying information has in fact been scrubbed, why should we be concerned about any given piece of data about ourselves being revealed? Honest question.
How would one be able to identify either your wife or child from an ultrasound with no names on it?
Let’s say you find out what machine a particular clinic is using, e. g. the last clinic in the state that provides abortion services. You can determine the size, age and developmental status of the fetus. You might see abnormalities on some, which may or may not be the reason for a termination. E. g. an abnormally large neck fold is a strong indicator or trisomnia. If you combine that with other data, you might be able to narrow down significantly who was the patient.
It is like blurring out a license plate, but if you drive a McLaren F1, you’d still have a relatively easy time to locate an owner.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
Are you sure they didn’t consent? I always have to sign a consent form before I have a medical procedure. I don’t read it of course, but I’d be shocked if there wasn’t a clause wherein I’ve consented to them using my data as long as it’s anonymized.
I don’t know about the US, but in Germany there is zero chance of that. Even different systems within the same hospital are not allowed to exchange all data. E. g. my mom was involved when they modernized the IT infrastructure in her hospital. The privacy laws were a huge factor when planning and implementing it.
My mom also had a rare liver disease and her case was part of research. Pretty sure she had to sign a special waver, and even then everything was carefully anonymized.
I don’t know what the situation in the US is, but I have a hard time believing that patients are routinely allowing their data to be made public.
Originally Posted by subego
I don’t think it’s possible to have anonymized information without the potential of the subject knowing it was used. If this agency publishes the ultrasounds, and a person had an abortion during the period the ultrasounds cover, then that person knows anyone can see it.
Tracking people is a huge industry. Look at the companies that are at the forefront of machine learning, the majority of them make their money with ads (Google, Facebook, Dentsu). They can track us using several sources of metadata and data. Whether you consider the anonymized ultrasound images data or metadata doesn’t matter.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
Let’s say you find out what machine a particular clinic is using, e. g. the last clinic in the state that provides abortion services. You can determine the size, age and developmental status of the fetus. You might see abnormalities on some, which may or may not be the reason for a termination. E. g. an abnormally large neck fold is a strong indicator or trisomnia. If you combine that with other data, you might be able to narrow down significantly who was the patient.
It is like blurring out a license plate, but if you drive a McLaren F1, you’d still have a relatively easy time to locate an owner.
Especially when data mining corporations combine the images with location data and other tracking data from other sources.
I think it is quite likely given how few clinics typically provide abortions. That analysis doesn’t have to be done by the state either. Note that identifying patients need not be the only goal, identifying clinics and doctors might be another aim that might require less information.
The main purpose is to intimidate women and medical workers.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
Top