United States Biden administration policies and actions - megathread

[Battlegrinder]

It's not a case of convicting someone, it's searching for evidence. If the standards you're suggesting were actually applied, it would be ridiculous! Imagine if in order to surveil a suspected terrorist or foreign intelligence agent you had to provide them: "Notice of the proposed action", or "The right to know the opposing evidence." It's ludicrous to suggest that's reasonable, let alone necessary.

So again, you're admitting FISA court does not use due process.

"I ignored evidence that supports your position, because I disagree with your position." I mean... Wow, I guess that's one way to stick your head in the sand and call it victory.

The constitution explicitly says, in plain English, that it is illegal for the government to search you and your property without a warrant, for which they need probable cause. The NSA is conducting surveillance without either, therefor it is illegal, period. There is no possible way to twist and distort the plain meaning of the 4th amendment to wiggle in a "unless it's to fight what we deem terrorism, then you can do anything" loophole.

It's also not what's happening, so I don't see your point.

Really, the NSA hasn't been conducting massive survillance of american citizens, tapping their phones, intercepting emails and other electronic communications? That's very strange, I was under the impression Snowden was wanted by the government for the crime of exposing that very program, rather than inventing it out of whole cloth and lying about it's existence.

Yeah, it was meant to contrast and compare with your own earlier post, saying that you wouldn't expect someone from my "side" to hold a particular position. It's part of my ongoing effort to highlight the stupidity of the false dichotomy. Left and right, Democrat and Republican, they're at best useful generalisations and most the time they're actively detrimental rather than useful. It seems to manifest most often in a belief that one's own side is a rich tapestry of different views and opinions, working and striving together, whereas the "others" are basically relegated to cardboard cut-outs with identical thoughts and feelings, and often the ridiculous belief that they recognise the same "truth" their side holds too, but they're denying or ignoring it for nefarious purpose.

Put bluntly, you would be vastly better served by me just assuming you're just a cardboard liberal cutout, because they usually have the good sense to object to a totally illegal spy program, and don't say things like "it's totally fair to let the most secretive and least accountable parts of the government do whatever they want in the name of "national security", there's no way they might abuse that sort of far reaching power and lack of oversight".

 

[Megadeath]

You know @Battlegrinder I'm a bit lost in this twisty mess now, and I'd like to relate this back to how are discussion started. You said that the "right to privacy" was fictitious, and held up as evidence that if it did exist then NSA surveillance would be illegal.

On the one hand, I disagree. I don't think that the government violating some rights under some circumstances in a manner consistent with the law somehow means you never had those rights.

On the other hand, you now seem to be saying that what the NSA does is illegal? So... That would seem to invalidate the part of your argument I initially disagreed with anyway?

 

[Zachowon]

So again, you're admitting FISA court does not use due process.



The constitution explicitly says, in plain English, that it is illegal for the government to search you and your property without a warrant, for which they need probable cause. The NSA is conducting surveillance without either, therefor it is illegal, period. There is no possible way to twist and distort the plain meaning of the 4th amendment to wiggle in a "unless it's to fight what we deem terrorism, then you can do anything" loophole.



Really, the NSA hasn't been conducting massive survillance of american citizens, tapping their phones, intercepting emails and other electronic communications? That's very strange, I was under the impression Snowden was wanted by the government for the crime of exposing that very program, rather than inventing it out of whole cloth and lying about it's existence.



Put bluntly, you would be vastly better served by me just assuming you're just a cardboard liberal cutout, because they usually have the good sense to object to a totally illegal spy program, and don't say things like "it's totally fair to let the most secretive and least accountable parts of the government do whatever they want in the name of "national security", there's no way they might abuse that sort of far reaching power and lack of oversight".

Is there q way to twist and distort it but j can not say how.
But besides that way? Yeah no it isn't allowed.

 

[Battlegrinder]

You know @Battlegrinder I'm a bit lost in this twisty mess now, and I'd like to relate this back to how are discussion started.

If this so called right to privacy existed as a real concept, rather than something that applied only to abortion, it would be trivial to simply file suit over it being violated by the NSA, or the fact that the NSA's programs violate it in addition to the 4th amendment would be committed on. Neither is the case.

I would also note that even within the context of the right to privacy as applied to abortion, IE, women have the right to not have their personal medical decisions second guessed by the state, that this alleged right is not consistently applied. There are multiple states (including california and new york) where a minor can get an abortion without any involvement from her parents, but is legally required to have them involved if she wants a tattoo, and of those states, several flat out ban anyone under 18 from getting a tattoo at all. There also multiple states and organizations that will fight any effort to increase regulation on abortion providers, on the theory that such regulations are attempts to damage the industry and intrude on people's right to make this decision in privacy. Those same states will require mountains of paperwork and expensive licensing and certification to be a hairdresser.

I understand, though I do not agree with, the reasoning behind the stance those states hold on abortion. However, it is not possible to say the right to privacy bars the state from taking action on the termination of a human life (or potential human life), while that same right somehow does not bar the state from interfering in people's ability to get their hair done or get a tattoo.

 

[ShadowArxxy]

There definitely is not a clear-cut right to privacy in the way there is a right to free speech.

On the other hand, it's not accurate to say that a right to privacy was concocted solely for Roe v. Wade, because the first case to assert a right to privacy was Griswold v. Connecticut in 1965, where SCOTUS ruled that a limited Constitutional right of privacy was indirectly asserted as a penumbra of the Constitution.

 

[Urabrask Revealed]

That doesn't really follow. Rights aren't absolute, and the government is entirely within its rights and powers to abrogate your rights for a whole host of reasons.

Well, by your reasoning, LGBT, anti-discrimination or women rights aren't absolute either. So I see no reason why we shouldn't suspend these privileges for states security reasons either.

 

[Prince Ire]

I disagree. Adding four to bring SCOTUS to 13 is quite defensible in principle because there are thirteen federal circuit courts. This would bring us back to the historical practice of one SCOTUS justice per federal circuit.

Perhaps if they agreed to a rule stating that none of the newly created seats would be filled until after the next presidential election, or maybe even phased in over a fairly lengthy period of time, to prove that its for the reasons of matching circuit courts rather than for partisan reasons.

 

[ShadowArxxy]

Well, by your reasoning, LGBT, anti-discrimination or women rights aren't absolute either. So I see no reason why we shouldn't suspend these privileges for states security reasons either.

Even the explicit Constitutional rights are not held to be absolute, but restrictions on those rights are held to very stringent limitations (the legal term being "strict scrutiny") in order to be ruled Constitutionally acceptable. "State security reasons" as a generic handwave does not remotely satisfy strict scrutiny, of course, but actual state security reasons can satisfy it. That is why it is Constitutional to arrest and convict spies, as opposed to allowing them to claim that spying is a Constitutionally protected exercise of free speech.

 

[Urabrask Revealed]

Even the explicit Constitutional rights are not held to be absolute, but restrictions on those rights are held to very stringent limitations (the legal term being "strict scrutiny") in order to be ruled Constitutionally acceptable. "State security reasons" as a generic handwave does not remotely satisfy strict scrutiny, of course, but actual state security reasons can satisfy it. That is why it is Constitutional to arrest and convict spies, as opposed to allowing them to claim that spying is a Constitutionally protected exercise of free speech.

Perhaps, but the Left uses "state security" as an excuse for pretty much any obstacle.

 

[Captain X]

How is it cheating? Congress has always had this authority, it's in the Constitution itself.

As in, cheating in the mid-term elections. You know, like they did in the Presidential election.

 

[Megadeath]

As in, cheating in the mid-term elections. You know, like they did in the Presidential election.

Unless you ask Giuliani, Sidney Powell, OAN, newsmax, any judges who tried the cases bought, the group charged with monitoring election integrity, or most GOP officials, who've all said they don't have and haven't seen evidence of any meaningful election fraud.

But yeah, internet randos and the pillow guy. That's where I get my absolute truth.

 

[Largo]

Now we're arguing that 2018 was cheated as well? How far back does it go? Shall we argue that 2012 was cheated, or 2008, or 2006, or 1996? How far back does the cheating rabbit hole go, anyhow?

 

[Zachowon]

Now we're arguing that 2018 was cheated as well? How far back does it go? Shall we argue that 2012 was cheated, or 2008, or 2006, or 1996? How far back does the cheating rabbit hole go, anyhow?

I think a lot of us are realizing 2018 may have been cheated, butn2020 for sure was.
Steven Crowder went and proved at least in one state it was fraud

 

[Megadeath]

I think a lot of us are realizing 2018 may have been cheated, butn2020 for sure was.
Steven Crowder went and proved at least in one state it was fraud

Lol, I'll be impressed when he can "prove" it to a court of law, rather than just captive public opinion. Hell, I'd have to respect him at least a little if he has had the strength of his convictions and made that effort? Or, is he only happy to lay his "evidence" out in diatribe, full of sound and fury but signifying nothing?

 

[Aldarion]

Unless you ask Giuliani, Sidney Powell, OAN, newsmax, any judges who tried the cases bought, the group charged with monitoring election integrity, or most GOP officials, who've all said they don't have and haven't seen evidence of any meaningful election fraud.

But yeah, internet randos and the pillow guy. That's where I get my absolute truth.

Here in Croatia, it is basically public knowledge that we have head dead people* voting since the first democratic elections until today, plus the people voting who didn't actually vote, who somehow voted twice in two places, who voted in two places despite being dead... yet if you ask basically anyone in the government or judiciary, they will tell you "Oh no, nothing irregular to see here, no sir!". Apparently, US can learn a lot of Croatia when necessary.

Democracy is a joke. And a very bad one, to boot.

*Read: Commie zombies

 

[DocSolarisReich]

Here in Croatia, it is basically public knowledge that we have head dead people* voting since the first democratic elections until today, plus the people voting who didn't actually vote, who somehow voted twice in two places, who voted in two places despite being dead... yet if you ask basically anyone in the government or judiciary, they will tell you "Oh no, nothing irregular to see here, no sir!". Apparently, US can learn a lot of Croatia when necessary.

Democracy is a joke. And a very bad one, to boot.

*Read: Commie zombies

Are there any parties that aren't members in good standing of the NATO Empire to vote for anyway? I mean with proportional representation the usual case in Europe, there can at least be nationalist parties in principle, but they're usually faced with a cordon sanitare from the suddenly united 'left' and 'right' when it looks like they might actually win.

 

[Aldarion]

Are there any parties that aren't members in good standing of the NATO Empire to vote for anyway? I mean with proportional representation the usual case in Europe, there can at least be nationalist parties in principle, but they're usually faced with a cordon sanitare from the suddenly united 'left' and 'right' when it looks like they might actually win.

HSP, and... that's it, I think.

 

[Zachowon]

Lol, I'll be impressed when he can "prove" it to a court of law, rather than just captive public opinion. Hell, I'd have to respect him at least a little if he has had the strength of his convictions and made that effort? Or, is he only happy to lay his "evidence" out in diatribe, full of sound and fury but signifying nothing?

I have posted in another thread conservative comedien and investigative commentator Steven Criwder went and proved there was fraud in a state.
He literally had undeniable proof of at the very least fake addresses.
Aka, fraud

 

[Bigking321]

It's rather hard to prove things in a court when they absolutely refuse to hear the case and let things be entered into evidence.

The Supreme Court was especially bad, no standing before the inauguration and a moot case immediately after. I guess everyone needed to file their case in the middle of the confirmation or something like that.

What utter nonsense. You've not been murdered yet so no crime and now you're dead so it's moot. That's not how anything is supposed to work but here we are...

 

[ShadowArxxy]

It's rather hard to prove things in a court when they absolutely refuse to hear the case and let things be entered into evidence.

Sidney Powell is now asserting *as her formal legal position* that she never had any evidence, but that she can't be accused of slander because no one could possibly take any of her accusations as a factual claim.