Politics And Current Events

[MWB]

Yeah, this isn’t backlash from him being on trial.

[nocera]

Biden challenged Trump to two debates and Trump accepted. Everybody loses.

[faftorial]

Biden challenged Trump to two debates and Trump accepted. Everybody loses.

One of the conditions will be that only the person asked the question will have a live mic, so that will stop Trump from interrupting and talking over Biden.

Also, it won't be before a big audience so disruptions from the crowd won't happen.

Edit: fixed to not confuse c2i.

[count2infinity]

who's mike?

[faftorial]

[Pavel Bure]

I did some research. Hot? Yes. Generic look that all OF girls have? Yes.

[King Colby]

That was a great flashing though. I expected a second or two.

[nocera]

Funniest part is she’s not in the frame of the camera at all so Dublin saw nothing except maybe the top of her head.

[count2infinity]

In today's episode of Democrats shooting themselves in the foot...

https://apnews.com/article/resignation- ... 6ced1af82d

An Interior Department staffer on Wednesday became the first Jewish political appointee to publicly resign in protest of U.S. support for Israel’s war in Gaza.

Lily Greenberg Call, a special assistant to the chief of staff in the Interior Department, accused President Joe Biden of using Jews to justify U.S. policy in the conflict.

Call had worked for the presidential campaigns of both Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris, and was a longtime activist and advocate for Israel in Washington and elsewhere before joining the government.

She is at least the fifth mid- or senior-level administration staffer to make public their resignation in protest of the Biden administration’s military and diplomatic support of the now seven-month Israeli war against Hamas. She is the second political appointee to do so, after an Education Department official of Palestinian heritage resigned in January.

Bro... stop funding Israel.

https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watc ... with-them/

“How do we have a large body of people that are in our city and country that are excellent swimmers, and at the same time we need lifeguards?” he said, reported by The New York Times.

On Wednesday, Adams said he visited migrant shelters in the city and asked people if they knew how to swim. He said he was “blown away” by the number of people who said yes.

“We have these capable people who know how to swim — from West Africa, from Ecuador, from South and Central America, from Mexico — and we have a shortage of lifeguards,” Adams said, responding to a question from a reporter.

He said if the city started its planning now, it could be prepared for next summer.

Adams’ comments drew criticism from immigration advocates for being “racist and divisive.” Murad Awawdeh, the president of the New York Immigration Coalition, told the Times that Adams’ comment is racist and he should not be making light of the journey that migrants take to travel to the United States, since some swim or wade across water in dangerous situations.

Bro... stop being a moron and think before you speak.


https://apnews.com/article/hochul-black ... 02096f8446

New York Gov. Kathy Hochul says she regrets making an offhand remark that suggested Black children in the Bronx do not know what the word “computer” means.

Hochul, a Democrat, made the extemporaneous comment Monday while being interviewed at a large business conference in California to discuss expanding economic opportunities in artificial intelligence for low-income communities.

“Right now, we have young Black kids growing up in the Bronx who don’t even know what the word computer is. They don’t know, they don’t know these things,” Hochul said while on stage at the Milken Institute Global Conference.

Broette... can you and Adams stop drinking the same water?

[nocera]

I assume this would apply to everybody?

[NTP66]

Amazing.

[MR25]

I still cannot believe we have gotten to this point as a country/society where simple public health measures to prevent the spread of diseases become political issues, and one side actively and happily touts how much they are against those measures.

[Shyster]

I assume this would apply to everybody?

I have a feeling you are not aware of the history of these laws. In addition to many cities and other localities, somewhere along the lines of 15 states have anti-mask laws, most of which were passed in the early-to-mid 20th century. For most of them, the purpose of the law was to eliminate the ability of the Ku Klux Klan to intimidate and terrorize black people while staying anonymous by wearing hoods. California, Michigan, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, and Florida make it an offense to wear a mask if a person commits a crime or intends to commit a crime. In Florida, North Dakota, and Oklahoma, it is illegal to wear a mask with the intent to harass or intimidate another person. Laws in Connecticut, Delaware, and New Mexico apply when a person wears a mask with the intent to deprive another person of their constitutional rights.

[Pavel Bure]

I assume this would apply to everybody?

I have a feeling you are not aware of the history of these laws. In addition to many cities and other localities, somewhere along the lines of 15 states have anti-mask laws, most of which were passed in the early-to-mid 20th century. For most of them, the purpose of the law was to eliminate the ability of the Ku Klux Klan to intimidate and terrorize black people while staying anonymous by wearing hoods. California, Michigan, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, and Florida make it an offense to wear a mask if a person commits a crime or intends to commit a crime. In Florida, North Dakota, and Oklahoma, it is illegal to wear a mask with the intent to harass or intimidate another person. Laws in Connecticut, Delaware, and New Mexico apply when a person wears a mask with the intent to deprive another person of their constitutional rights.

Is that why they passed the current law?

[MR25]

I feel like you're smart enough to understand that the NC law is being pushed for medical masks, not masks being used to help facilitate crime.

[nocera]

So you're saying the North Carolina Republican party is advancing this law with the hopes of eliminating the KKK/Proud Boys? Wonder why they included language to allow exceptions for groups such as the KKK or Proud Boys to get permission to wear masks at public events?

[DigitalGypsy66]

Speaking of GOP shenanigans, Governor Big Brain is all in on removing "climate change" verbiage from state law and rolling back environmental regulations.

Climate change will be a lesser priority in Florida and largely disappear from state statutes under legislation signed Wednesday by Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis that also bans power-generating wind turbines offshore or near the state's lengthy coastline.

Critics said the measure made law by the former Republican presidential hopeful ignores the reality of climate change threats in Florida, including projections of rising seas, extreme heat and flooding and increasingly severe storms.

It takes effect July 1 and would also boost expansion of natural gas, reduce regulation on gas pipelines in the state and increase protections against bans on gas appliances such as stoves, according to a news release from the governor's office.

DeSantis, who suspended his presidential campaign in January and later endorsed his bitter rival Donald Trump, called the bill a common-sense approach to energy policy.

"We're restoring sanity in our approach to energy and rejecting the agenda of the radical green zealots," DeSantis said in a post on the X social media platform.

Florida is already about 74% reliant on natural gas to power electric generation, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. Opponents of the bill DeSantis signed say it removes the word "climate' in nine different places, moves the state's energy goals away from efficiency and the reduction of greenhouse gases blamed for a warming planet.

Just ignoring the problem (or not even acknowledging it) won't make it go away.

https://www.npr.org/2024/05/16/12517690 ... change-law

[Shyster]

Is that why they passed the current law?

I would say yes. The title of the bill is "Unmasking Mobs and Criminals," if you look at the various antifa, pro-Hamas, environmental, etc. protests out there these days, pretty much all of the protesters are wearing medical masks. They aren't scared of Covid. They're wearing masks for the same reason that the Klan wore and still wears masks; they want to be able to carry on their activities anonymously. One might disagree whether that is a problem that would justify the law, but the purpose of the law is to unmask protesters.

The mask statute in question dates to 1953. When Covid came along, they added an exemption for medical purposes. This bill removes that exemption and returns the law to its pre-Covid state. I would also note that the law applies when one wearing a mask "appear(s) upon any lane, walkway, alley, street, road, highway or other public way in this State." It only prohibits masking in public, on public roads, sidewalks, etc. It would not prevent an immunocompromised person from putting on a mask to go into Walmart, for example, or wearing a mask at their office, or wearing a mask while in a school classroom.

This isn't a "we want to ban masks because we don't believe in Covid" or anything like that. It's based on a perception that the "medical" exemption had basically gutted the purpose of the law, which was to make it illegal for masked mobs to harass and intimidate people.

I note that there are some 1A questions here, such as whether wearing a mask would be expressive activity or whether there is a right to protest anonymously. I think there are a couple states where state courts struck down mask laws on 1A grounds, and other states where the laws were expressly upheld, but I don't think the SCOTUS has ever weighed in on the question.

[count2infinity]

https://www.ncleg.gov/Sessions/2023/Bil ... H237v4.pdf

Note that the original intent of the law seems to be what Shyster was referring to. The striking of the exception for:
"Any person wearing a mask for the purpose of ensuring the physical health or safety of the wearer or others." is the issue here. Had that remained in the bill... fine, cool, whatever.

Also, seems nocera is right. As long as the KKK and/or Proud Boys fill their paperwork out properly under exception 5, they're allowed to just keep on masking up.

[count2infinity]

Source of the post This isn't a "we want to ban masks because we don't believe in Covid" or anything like that. It's based on a perception that the "medical" exemption had basically gutted the purpose of the law, which was to make it illegal for masked mobs to harass and intimidate people.

One GOP member said he would have voted against allowing the mask for health concerns exemption even in 2020.

Really makes me wonder though... are the number of people abusing this carve out to mask themselves in "mobs to harass and intimidate people" that high that it necessitates not allowing anyone, anywhere the right to wear a mask when they're going into a crowd or public space?

[Shyster]

So you're saying the North Carolina Republican party is advancing this law with the hopes of eliminating the KKK/Proud Boys? Wonder why they included language to allow exceptions for groups such as the KKK or Proud Boys to get permission to wear masks at public events?

If you are referring to paragraph 14-12.11(a)(5), that section is not being added by this bill and has been in the statute since 1953.

[tifosi77]

Yes, that dates to the Jim Crow era.

[CBear3]

But we don't need to end that carve out for people with the "correct" viewpoint.

Since you all have already read the law, is the NC law the same as the ones Shyster mentioned, in that wearing a mask while doing bad things is another charge to tack on to your rap sheet, or is it simply wearing a mask on a public walkway. Although I suppose as written if we assemble in the greenspace of the park with our masks we'd be legit if Shyster's quote covers all of it.

Anecdotally: If you're up to bad stuff, it would be nice if it was easier to identify you. Additionally, if you're making a stand for a cause you believe in you shouldn't have to hide your support for it.

[count2infinity]

But we don't need to end that carve out for people with the "correct" viewpoint.

Since you all have already read the law, is the NC law the same as the ones Shyster mentioned, in that wearing a mask while doing bad things is another charge to tack on to your rap sheet, or is it simply wearing a mask on a public walkway. Although I suppose as written if we assemble in the greenspace of the park with our masks we'd be legit if Shyster's quote covers all of it.

Anecdotally: If you're up to bad stuff, it would be nice if it was easier to identify you. Additionally, if you're making a stand for a cause you believe in you shouldn't have to hide your support for it.

https://www.courthousenews.com/north-ca ... ace-masks/

Senator Danny Britt called the health exception unnecessary, and said each of the statutes that bans face coverings requires the wearer to be using it to disguise themselves. Removing the section concerning health exemptions does not open people to prosecution, he said.

“So long as they are not concealing their identity, intentionally concealing their identity, they are not in violation of this law,” he emphasized on the Senate floor. He also pointed out that the district attorney had not been charging people for wearing masks in the years it was in effect before Covid.

It's interesting that there are exemptions for people wearing holiday costumes in season... there are exemptions for people that need to wear them for their profession... there are exemptions for using masks "in theatrical productions including use in Mardi Gras celebrations and masquerade balls". Why are the exemptions necessary if this is only to target people that are "doing bad things"?

[Shyster]

It's possible that the courts in NC have interpreted the statute to impose an intent requirement. But if not, then I would disagree with Senator Britt that the statute on its face requires intent to conceal identity. The statutes make it illegal to be in public places "while wearing any mask, hood or device whereby the person, face or voice is disguised so as to conceal the identity of the wearer." I read that as making it illegal to wear a mask that does conceal the identity of the wearer, regardless of whether there is an intent to do so.