Random Thoughts (Political Edition)

The amazing thing is that the RNC is probably drawing up plans to do the same with their own primary behind the scenes in the future. They weren't prepared to rig it for Jeb so when the time came, they clumsily did it out in the open so it was a) guaranteed to fail and b) over so quickly there was nothing to talk about.
 
Your bias is showing:

In France Saturday, there is near silence about 9 gigabytes of leaked documents from the campaign of presidential candidate Emmanuel Macron.

The collection of emails, spending spreadsheets, and more, appeared on the internet Friday night. Yet Saturday morning, there is absolutely nothing on French TV or radio, and very little on the websites of major newspapers.

This is due to a French law that says the day before an election should be a day of reflection. Starting at midnight Saturday and continuing until the polls close Sunday, campaigning is prohibited along with any kind of speech meant to influence the race. Hence the silence.

...


The French electoral commission has warned the media they can be prosecuted for publishing false information. Without the ability to verify the documents, they may be in violation of the law. And Macron's team put out a statement Friday night, just minutes before midnight, stating some of the documents were false and that journalists should not cover them.

If you can read French, the actual law is here. Ctrl+F for "L'interdiction de la propagande ?lectorale ? partir de la veille du scrutin"
 
the fourth estate, ladies and gentleman[...]

Deliberately misrepresenting what is happening after first engineering the situation itself - the Internet's Alt-right, ladies and gentlemen!


What he said. It's the law. Which is deliberately broken and undermined right now by Mrs Le Pens Followers/Benefactors in an last ditch effort to throw the election. And then they are trying to discredit the press over following the law while simultaneously they themselves are the ones abusing this law, using for their own agenda that the Candidate in Question simply cannot defend himself right now.

And we can surely discuss if this law makes sense in 2017 or not, just like we discuss the electoral college or other stuff from ye olde times - but it is the law right now. And the ones breaking it right now is not Macron or the press, it's those people abusing this (so called) media blackout to spread rumors knowing they cannot be commented on by the parties, candidates or the press.
 
Last edited:


wraps self in US flag, holding up the Constitution and pointing to the First Amendment

Fair to say.


If you can read French, the actual law is here. Ctrl+F for "L'interdiction de la propagande ?lectorale ? partir de la veille du scrutin"

What he said. It's the law.

I wasn't aware of the law, though it rings a bell now from discussing foreign (probably French) elections years ago. And it's a good enough excuse for Le Monde (and the rest of the French press); I shouldn't have criticized them for staying quiet.


And we can surely discuss if this law makes sense in 2017 or not, just like we discuss the electoral college or other stuff from ye olde times - but it is the law right now. And the ones breaking it right now is not Macron or the press, it's those people abusing this (so called) media blackout to spread rumors knowing they cannot be commented on by the parties, candidates or the press.


Yeah, I agree my focus should be on that shit law which I find unconsionable (American bias). In any case, no one outside of France is breaking it by publishing the leaks, nor (as I understand) anyone inside France who only reads about it.

Since you say "parties, candidates or the press" then am I right to conclude that the law doesn't apply to average citizens posting on the internet (thanks PH but no, I can't read French)? Or has this even been tested?
 
[...] In any case, no one outside of France is breaking it by publishing the leaks, nor (as I understand) anyone inside France who only reads about it.
The first part is debateable. And I think Mr Assange can tell you how publishing information even from far away can get you into trouble in other countries. Is that right? That's a difficult question ... but as I said, I think this french law (dates back to 1962) as it is has shown this year that it's not really adapted to our times.

[...]Since you say "parties, candidates or the press" then am I right to conclude that the law doesn't apply to average citizens posting on the internet (thanks PH but no, I can't read French)? Or has this even been tested?
The law applies to every form of publication, but the press, parties and candidates are the ones which are under the focus of the CSA, the french version of the FCC which is tasked with monitoring said law.
And a lot of average citizens have been breaking it this time around and it will be interesting to see how the current outgoing administration (Hollande) handles this now. But theoretically a lot of average citizens could get into trouble with the law now for tweeting, facebooking or blogging the day before the election.
 
The first part is debateable. And I think Mr Assange can tell you how publishing information even from far away can get you into trouble in other countries. Is that right? That's a difficult question

Touch?.

removes flag

I disagree with how the US government harrasses Assange (including via other governments), and we only do it because we can get away with it as the world hegemon; in fact, it's embarrassing that Wikileaks' HQ is not in the middle of NYC right along with other new outlets.

That said, it's not a comparable situation. AFAIK these campaign docs aren't classified info like some of what Assange has published, and even for actual "state secrets" leaks the US gov isn't going after the general public just for discussing them, Chris Cuomo's delusions notwithstanding.
 
I think this fits here the most, and I found it interesting enough to share:

Germany made a new national record with producing 85% of the needed electricity out of renewable energie sources on one day

On April 3o, Germany established a new national record for renewable energy use. On that day and throughout the long May 1 weekend, 85% of all the electricity consumed in Germany was produced from renewables such as wind, solar, biomass, and hydroelectric power. Patrick Graichen of Agora Energiewende Initiative says a combination of breezy and sunny weather in the north and warm weather in the south saw Germany?s May 1 holiday weekend powered almost exclusively by renewable resources.

(ok, it was a sunday, but still)
 
I got a call from a pollster organization in light of the upcoming state election in Northrhine-Westphalia. I actually took the time to take part in the survey.
I guess this means I'm officially an old person now. But well, this was an opportunity to have my political opinions have some kind of (very small) impact...
 
While waiting for a luggage cart in a hotel lobby in Vermont, a completely random conversation took place with someone also waiting for one:

Stranger: I've been traveling quite a bit lately.
LeVeL: Sounds like fun!
S: Yeah, I'm just glad to finally be back to civilization.
L: (thinking he came back from India or the Amazon) Oh yeah? Where have you been lately?
S: Down South. They have Fox news playing on every TV, it's sickening.
L: Oh...


1) Is progressivism like veganism? You never miss an opportunity to mention it even when it's irrelevant?
2) We're in a hotel lobby. For all he knew, I was from the South and he just offended me for no reason.
3) What if I watch Fox? Why randomly offend me?
4) Why does watching Fox make someone uncivilized? What a weird choice of words.

WTF?
 
Depending on the tone, he may have believed he was making a cheeky joke or he will not be making much in the way of career advancement on whatever he works on, loose lips sink ships and all that.
 
While waiting for a luggage cart in a hotel lobby in Vermont, a completely random conversation took place with someone also waiting for one:

Stranger: I've been traveling quite a bit lately.
LeVeL: Sounds like fun!
S: Yeah, I'm just glad to finally be back to civilization.
L: (thinking he came back from India or the Amazon) Oh yeah? Where have you been lately?
S: Down South. They have Fox news playing on every TV, it's sickening.
L: Oh...


1) Is progressivism like veganism? You never miss an opportunity to mention it even when it's irrelevant?
2) We're in a hotel lobby. For all he knew, I was from the South and he just offended me for no reason.
3) What if I watch Fox? Why randomly offend me?
4) Why does watching Fox make someone uncivilized? What a weird choice of words.

WTF?

That's the outspoken of any bent. If I had a dollar for every yinzer that with zero prompting brought up "Obummer" or "dem libruls", I could afford a boat.
 
That's the outspoken of any bent. If I had a dollar for every yinzer that with zero prompting brought up "Obummer" or "dem libruls", I could afford a boat.
Maybe it depends on the part of the country. Up here there's a lot of left-wing rhetoric to the point where it's just regular banter you overhear, but it's rarely so... directed, I guess.
 
Maybe it depends on the part of the country. Up here there's a lot of left-wing rhetoric to the point where it's just regular banter you overhear, but it's rarely so... directed, I guess.

Nah it's just South is basically a Mad Maxian wasteland, everyone drives souped up V8s, football armor and speaks only in grunts.
 
Shrug. I like the South.

To be honest as a New Yorker every time I end up outside NYC it seems like a wasteland, doesn't matter if it's south or even upstate. When I go on Yelp and there are only 2-3 pages of restaurants I get confused.
 
To be honest as a New Yorker every time I end up outside NYC it seems like a wasteland, doesn't matter if it's south or even upstate. When I go on Yelp and there are only 2-3 pages of restaurants I get confused.

I could easily see why you'd think that. While I found NYC mentally overwhelming at times, I also loved how busy it was, how there was always something to do.
 
Ah, the free market - how I love thee.
Georgia Supreme Court Rules Taxis Must Compete With Uber, Have No Right To An 'Unalterable Monopoly'

The Georgia Supreme Court became the latest court to reject a demand for a bailout by the taxi industry when it unanimously upheld a state law that permits ridesharing companies, like Uber and Lyft. The case centered on Atlanta?s taxi medallion system, which requires a medallion or ?certificate of public necessity and convenience? (CPNC) to legally operate a cab.

More than two decades ago, Atlanta capped the number of taxis at 1,600. But demand outstripped supply, forcing medallion prices to soar, reaching as much as $80,000 in a secondary market in recent years. Those unable to afford their own medallion reportedly have to pay $500 a month to rent a CPNC. (Compared with other cities though, Atlanta?s medallions were a bargain: One medallion in Chicago fetched almost $360,000, while in New York City, medallions once sold for $1 million apiece.)

But those peaks began to fall, thanks to greater competition from Uber and Lyft. In order to free ridesharing companies on the state level, and to preempt many local (and burdensome) ordinances, Georgia lawmakers overwhelmingly approved HB 225 back in 2015. Although the reform banned cities and counties from creating new medallion systems, it did leave existing medallion programs in place.

Able to operate more freely, ridesharing has quickly overtaken traditional cabs. For instance, in the first few months after Atlanta allowed Uber and Lyft to pick up riders at Hartsfield-Jackson International Airport, the two companies transported over 250,000 passengers?more than twice as many riders that taxis picked up.

Drivers also seem to prefer ridesharing. According to the Brookings Institution, the ground transportation industry added almost 3,000 jobs in the ?gig economy,? a rise by 64.5 percent. In contrast, payroll employment fell by 4.2 percent, during the same period, from 2012 to 2014.

Meanwhile, in a trend that mirrors other cities, taxi medallion value has now plummeted to under $10,000 in Atlanta. But instead of trying to innovate or offer a better service to their customers, several taxi drivers took the state to court.

The drivers claimed that by deregulating Uber and Lyft, Georgia was responsible for the drop in medallion value. In turn, that decline amounted to a deregulatory ?taking? under the Georgia Constitution, which would be akin to the government seizing private property by eminent domain. And whenever the government authorizes eminent domain (like for a highway or bridge), the property owner must receive ?just and adequate compensation.?

In other words, the taxi drivers were asking for a government bailout as ?compensation? for their losses. Federal courts have already rejected that absurd argument in Boston, Chicago, Miami, Milwaukee, Minneapolis and New York City.

And in just nine pages, the Georgia Supreme Court also ripped apart that claim. Writing for a unanimous court, Justice Carol Hunstein noted that while HB 225 ?may have diminished the value of the CPNCs,? taxi drivers are ?not entitled to an ?unalterable monopoly.??

Since nothing prevents either the City of Atlanta or state lawmakers from raising the medallion cap (and adding more drivers), ?there is no reasonable basis to conclude that any property interest Appellants may have in their respective CPNCs extends to exclusivity or a limited supply of CPNCs.? Simply put, compensation for a lost monopoly ?is not amongst the rights associated with the taxi medallion.?

In reaching her decision, Justice Hunstein cited two federal appellate cases litigated by the Institute for Justice, which rejected takings claims brought by taxi owners in Chicago and Minneapolis. She even relied on an 1887 Georgia Supreme Court decision that mocked those who wish to make the state ?an insurer against all shrinkage of values that might result from the passage of laws intended for the public good.?

One of the main sponsors behind HB 225 had similar thoughts on the taxi drivers? demands. ?I don?t know what the hell they?ve got to sue for. We didn?t take anything,? state Rep. Alan Powell told the Atlanta Journal-Constitution last year. ?If their medallions lost value, it is because of an outdated system.?

Meanwhile, in Taxachusetts...

Taxing Uber and Lyft to bailout their flailing taxi competitors makes about as much sense as taxing car makers to rescue the horse-and-buggy industry or taxing DVDs to save VHS tapes. Massachusetts did it anyway.

Under a new law signed by Massachusetts Gov. Charlie Baker, the state will impose a 5-cent fee on every trip taken with Uber and Lyft and funnel that money as ?financial assistance? to their taxi competitors. The collected fees would ?encourage the adoption of new technologies? and ?support workforce development? for taxi businesses.

[continues at link]
 
Top