The News Thread

[TechnicalBarbarity]

Comic shop raid when?

One of the guys here does live auctions and sales from his shop and would let me in whenever he was there but he doesnt carry some of the indie books i get and ive slowly dropped most of my marvel and DC titles so the only reason i would usually pop up there was to grab back issues and chop it up about comics and sports. But yeah most of the shops opened up today although the main one i go to is "making sure their safety protocols are up to standards" before they open.

 

[CiG]

Sounds like it's going down in Minneapolis right now. Apparently there are riots, fires being started, violence, Aldi's and Target have been looted.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

One looter shot and killed by a pawn shop owner, apparently. Interestingly, that store hasn't been burned down. Really makes you think.

 

[TechnicalBarbarity]

Sounds like it's going down in Minneapolis right now.

 

[CiG]

All those people that were shitting on the Michigan anti-lockdown protests on my social media ain't saying shit right now. "Hur hur dumb rednecks complaining about needing a haircut during a pandemic hur" looks reasonable now compared to some fool bumrushing a new TV and some pillow covers at Target.

Maybe they can pour some of that Aldi's loot out on the sidewalk for whichever black male they're using as an excuse to run amok.

That was amazingly good.

 

[Einherjar86]

 

[TechnicalBarbarity]

not that it matters, but it turned out that one of the cops from that incident is also black.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

https://www.vice.com/amp/en_us/arti...t-your-web-browsing-history-without-a-warrant

The feds are pushing to substantially broaden the powers of the Patriot Act and an amendment to significantly curtail it by senator Ron Wyden (a rare principled civil libertarian Democrat) failed by just one vote. One of the senators who wasn't present? Fucking Bernie Sanders

Mike Lee (an above-average if not ideal Republican) is pushing a different, somewhat weaker amendment tomorrow, which might pass considering the narrow gap. Rand Paul is pushing the strongest amendment on Thursday, but I'm not sure if it will pass unless the lazy pieces of shit in the Senate get off their asses.

Based Trump threatened a veto and scared the House into abandoning the bill after it was returned from the Senate. Best thing he's done all year.

 

[Einherjar86]

Based Trump threatened a veto and scared the House into abandoning the bill after it was returned from the Senate. Best thing he's done all year.

Actually, it sounds like this probably leaves governmental authority about as extensive as if he'd signed it. The proposed bill contained new restrictions on federal power; so Trump is basically retaining the PA as is.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/28/us/politics/fisa-surveillance-fbi-trum.html

...even as Mr. Trump vents his skepticism of the government surveillance powers, Attorney General William P. Barr has been pushing Republicans in the opposite direction. He warned on Wednesday that he would tell Mr. Trump to veto the bill because he thought it would impose too many restrictions on law enforcement and national security authorities.

The result is a complicated spectacle of political and policy dysfunction. Traditionally, Democrats have tended to be somewhat more reluctant than Republicans to grant broad national security powers to the government; but here, Democrats appear to be the ones more eager to see the legislation passed.


That is in part because some Republicans, like Mr. Barr, would apparently rather see the tools remain expired than accept the new limits included in the bill. The operational effect of the expiration is limited, because it only matters for potential investigations into new threats that may emerge. The F.B.I. can still use the authority to obtain court orders for ongoing cases, and it has open-ended investigations into major adversaries like the Islamic State, Russia and China.

The ideal thing would be for the PA to be reduced dramatically or eliminated. Trump's veto threat doesn't really do much of anything.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

His veto threat delays the signing of a bill that would allow mass surveillance of American's internet activities. His motive doesn't matter as long as it results in a far better bill ultimately being signed. But of course the NYT's analysis barely touches on that, while framing it in the context of muh Russia. The Lee amendment which made it into the Senate bill is most likely window dressing, as all supposed oversight committees seem to be.

For example, the bill would expand guidelines that instruct FISA judges — who normally hear only from the Justice Department when weighing surveillance applications — to appoint an outsider to critique the government’s arguments. In a component the House previously approved in March and then the Senate expanded earlier this month, it would generally require the appointment of such an outsider when an investigation relates to First Amendment-protected activity like political campaigns or religious organizations.

Like WOW, not only will FISA judges (who have a 99.99% approval record for warrants) rubberstamp things, there will be a second rubber stamp from some "independent" think tank! And it will apply to FIRST AMENDMENT-PROTECTED ACTIVITIES, holy fuck our government is so generous, we really don't even deserve our Bill of Rights yet here they are paying respect to it.

 

[Einherjar86]

His veto threat delays the signing of a bill that would allow mass surveillance of American's internet activities. His motive doesn't matter as long as it results in a far better bill ultimately being signed. But of course the NYT's analysis barely touches on that, while framing it in the context of muh Russia. The Lee amendment which made it into the Senate bill is most likely window dressing, as all supposed oversight committees seem to be.

Just so I'm clear, you know it's the republicans who objected to the amendment that would have restricted internet surveillance? The democrats wrote it in; but of course, this gets painted as dems wanting to spy on Americans. It's republicans who wanted to spy on Americans. Barr says the bill is too restrictive because he wouldn't be allowed to investigate Trump's perceived enemies at a whim. Trump shoots the bill down for purportedly being the opposite--an invasion of privacy. No, the reason he shot it down is so that Barr can investigate his perceived enemies.

This wasn't a defense of individual freedom, it was a political power move.

 

[CiG]

It's always the faggot Republicans doing that shit, especially with regards to the Internet. I don't think anybody is pretending like for example the Patriot Act wasn't introduced and overwhelmingly supported by Republicans, only like 3 or 4 of them dissented.

His motive doesn't matter as long as it results in a far better bill ultimately being signed.

^

 

[HamburgerBoy]

Just so I'm clear, you know it's the republicans who objected to the amendment that would have restricted internet surveillance? The democrats wrote it in; but of course, this gets painted as dems wanting to spy on Americans. It's republicans who wanted to spy on Americans. Barr says the bill is too restrictive because he wouldn't be allowed to investigate Trump's perceived enemies at a whim. Trump shoots the bill down for purportedly being the opposite--an invasion of privacy. No, the reason he shot it down is so that Barr can investigate his perceived enemies.

This wasn't a defense of individual freedom, it was a political power move.

Well aware, and tried to imply as such in my initial post regarding Mike Lee and Rand Paul being above-average exceptions. Though Dems absolutely love spying on Americans too, as the Obama admin proved. Judging either party on the whole purely along the lines of privacy protections/civil libertarianism, I'd give the Dems the edge, but it's not a massive one in practice. ~75% Reps are consistently pro-FISA expansion (until Trump told them to oppose it), ~33% of Dems are consistently pro-FISA expansion, and of the remainders, sufficient numbers will be pro-FISA expansion in favor of the incumbent president. True civil libertarians have been a minority in the government for about a century, with just a handful of exceptions (like Congress immediately following Nixon's resigning passing the FOIA).

The specific issue from Barr isn't really clear to me in either that NYT article or elsewhere. I certainly haven't read the full bill and even if I did I'd probably get the legalese wrong, but I'm talking about the widely-reported issue of how the bill allows warrantless surveillance of American's internet activities. I do agree that it was a power move on Trump's end though; Rand pushed his amendment by kissing Trump's ass over 'Obamagate', it ended up only getting a dozen votes (none of them Democrats), and was useful as a further wedge between Trump and the bill. With Trump anything could change, but for now, it was a great (and rare) move from him when even Bernie Sanders cucked and couldn't be bothered to sign the Wyden amendment.

 

[CiG]

Republicans are usually bold enough to introduce anti-privacy acts and once they're in place the Democrats have no problems taking advantage of them.

 

[Einherjar86]

Well aware, and tried to imply as such in my initial post regarding Mike Lee and Rand Paul being above-average exceptions. Though Dems absolutely love spying on Americans too, as the Obama admin proved. Judging either party on the whole purely along the lines of privacy protections/civil libertarianism, I'd give the Dems the edge, but it's not a massive one in practice. ~75% Reps are consistently pro-FISA expansion (until Trump told them to oppose it), ~33% of Dems are consistently pro-FISA expansion, and of the remainders, sufficient numbers will be pro-FISA expansion in favor of the incumbent president. True civil libertarians have been a minority in the government for about a century, with just a handful of exceptions (like Congress immediately following Nixon's resigning passing the FOIA).

The specific issue from Barr isn't really clear to me in either that NYT article or elsewhere. I certainly haven't read the full bill and even if I did I'd probably get the legalese wrong, but I'm talking about the widely-reported issue of how the bill allows warrantless surveillance of American's internet activities. I do agree that it was a power move on Trump's end though; Rand pushed his amendment by kissing Trump's ass over 'Obamagate', it ended up only getting a dozen votes (none of them Democrats), and was useful as a further wedge between Trump and the bill. With Trump anything could change, but for now, it was a great (and rare) move from him when even Bernie Sanders cucked and couldn't be bothered to sign the Wyden amendment.

I actually don't have any material objection to any of that. I just wouldn't describe it as a great move by Trump. If anything, I'd call it a non-move. Unlike a senator (like Sanders), he had to either sign or veto. He picked one.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

I actually don't have any material objection to any of that. I just wouldn't describe it as a great move by Trump. If anything, I'd call it a non-move. Unlike a senator (like Sanders), he had to either sign or veto. He picked one.

Sanders literally didn't move (he was absent from Congress during the week of the amendments and hasn't issued a single statement regarding them), and somehow that's more of a move than Trump issuing a rare veto threat to convince a majority of Republicans to immediately bail? lmao

 

[Einherjar86]

That’s not at all what I said. A senator has the option to abstain; the president doesn’t. It isn’t really a “move” when it’s structurally mandated.

But this is a dumb argument. I don’t think it’s worth praising Trump for this. He had two options and picked one. Big whoop.

 

[TechnicalBarbarity]

I don’t think it’s worth praising Trump for this.

have you ever praised Trump though?

 

[HamburgerBoy]

That’s not at all what I said. A senator has the option to abstain; the president doesn’t. It isn’t really a “move” when it’s structurally mandated.

But this is a dumb argument. I don’t think it’s worth praising Trump for this. He had two options and picked one. Big whoop.

How are vetoes "structurally mandated"? Some presidents have issued several hundred, others never issued any. It's an explicit discretionary power of presidents, and while Trump is relatively lazy overall using the veto pen, his use of it now has potentially significant and positive ramifications. By contrast, I'm pretty sure abstention isn't an explicit choice written into the Constitution; it's obviously not illegal to be absent for votes in Congress, but it's certainly less of a move to not move your hand than it is to cast a veto.

 

[Einherjar86]

Again, not what I meant. A senator can abstain; a president can’t. They have to sign or veto. It’s structurally mandated.

have you ever praised Trump though?

Haven’t found anything worth praising him for.