Bay 12 Games Forum

Quote from: martinuzz on November 22, 2016, 04:05:50 am

I thought that did not apply for anything he does before being inaugurated

Any cases against him would still get suspended when he enters into Presidency and until he stops being the Lawgiver President.

This is explicitly untrue, serg. Anything already in process will continue, any charges or suits from before the at-least election will still be in play. It's pretty strongly arguable that anything not done specifically as part of his presidential duties is similarly unprotected, which means it's significantly likely further lawsuits (beyond the few dozen he's currently involved in) may be pressed before his term ends.

The precedent that exists on the subject came from clinton's term, amusingly enough. Extra points that it was apparently conway's husband that did a fair bit of the legal work that got it to and through the SCOTUS.

We... pretty regularly find out new things about "natural" stuff that we didn't know about before. Harmful often enough. Folk stuff and non-systematic testing does a lot but it doesn't do everything, and to a large extent most of the newer, "artificial" stuff has been getting as much or more scrutiny worth a damn for as long as much of the older stuff has. We haven't had dedicated attempts to figure out what the hell food is doing to us, or the machinery, tools, and methodology needed to actually do it, until pretty recently.

This sentiment that seems to be being echoed here that we were somehow particularly good at finding out what was dangerous in the past is... sketchy. Lot of stuff that doesn't kill us immediately will kill us 20-30 years down the road, and humans are pretty incredibly bad at noticing that thing they've been eating for the last couple decades without apparent harm isn't actually particularly safe to eat, or all sorts of things of similar nature. And that's not even getting into stuff like what japa mentions, where something's edible or even relatively good for you but it's naturally bundle with stuff you probably don't really want in your system.

What it comes down to is that folks really kinda' need to just toss this natural and artificial shit out the window and start warning about harmful/untested ingredients, and the presence of particularly important chemicals and components and whatnot. Like allergy warnings, but a bit more wide ranging. The ingredient list itself is a good start, but something a bit more aggressive on that front probably wouldn't be amiss.

... thing is, wierd, that first bit wasn't neutral, either. Violent clashes imply it's coming from both sides and fairly equitably, which is a tough proposition to support considering what's going on. Consortium also downplays just who it is on the enforcing end, and rather severely.

It is possible to report on things neutrally but stuff like what's been going on related to these protests make it substantially harder than normal. Kinda' like the whole thing with history where there's not really a way to frame a massacre that's not either negative or downplaying mass killing.

Which is in no way related to the media throwing integrity out the window and wholesale supporting the protesters.

I mean... it kinda' is? Sometimes one side is in fact just kinda' flat out in the wrong and there's not really any other way you can frame it without throwing your integrity out the window.

Though that said if you're expecting integrity out of the media, the only appropriate response is to ask you to imagine an indefinite repetition of ahaha after this sentence that ends several miles of screen real estate later with a punctuation of FTFE.

*grumbles vaguely* I still haven't had to adjust to wearing fairly form fitting clothes, and I'm not looking forward to it. Always wore shirts that were a bit oversized and loose, and have long preferred pants that need a belt. Don't like tight clothing, like just about anything that conceals (even just a little) body shape/tells/etc. (less to do with body image and more to do with mild paranoia, on that end). Also nice if they got some swoosh to them. Give me cotton jellyfish shirts any day of the week for they are comfy and breezy and billow nicely and can be used as a decent blanket in a pinch. Totally would wear robes if they were socially acceptable, heh.

So...uh, given the religious biased undertones...isn't it also possible to...um, counter all that (in those links) by religion itself? It's pretty obvious that those religious precedents are both incomplete and pretty much not in the spirit or what the religion itself does given the implications of those prepositions (given the states being noted being really...conservative? [?])

Not quite sure what you mean, here. One religion can't exactly press suit against another for doing things they consider counter to their religion's principles. The only one that gets to decide what religious beliefs are in the states is the person holding them, full stop, and they need neither evidence nor defense. If someone wants to interpret something that's a complete distortion of whatever they're basing their religion off of, that's their prerogative and there's pretty much no legal way to call them on it (non-legal, yes, such as talking to them or loudly proclaiming they're heretics or something, but nothing in a court of law). You could theoretically make it so all the religions in the US just don't do the sort of stuff folks are worried about, but (and I kinda' hate to put it this way but it's not going to stop me) if you think that's actually a thing that's going to be possible I would be contractually obligated to laugh at you derisively for no fewer than five straight minutes. Please don't. My throat can't handle that ;_;

I mean given several examples of statements, those can be used for pretty much beneficial situations rather than persecution, as far as it comes off over here ._.;

Quote from: Like here

“A parent has the right to full and total information on their child’s academic performance, physical, mental, and emotional health, and more. My legislation will make it expressly against state law for a district to adopt policies designed to undermine a parent’s right to know,” Burton said.

This right to know also includes mandatory education towards whatever their child tells them. Or at least that's the implication I've seen upon first reading it.

Right to know, especially with that particular wording, would also likely be able to be used to fight for disclosure in stuff like abuse allegations as well, though. There's reasons schools aren't really required to disclose any and every thing a parent might request. Schools in this country are sometimes the only relief a kid gets, and that requires the school being able to tell the parent "No." on certain things.

Just... let me put it this way. If the religious right, or just chunks of the conservative legislature in general, think something is a good idea it probably isn't. It may look like it, but these are demographics that have within them groups that very literally have made it their goal to get on the books legal precedent they can abuse and twist to get what they want, which is often pretty ugly. True to a degree about this kind of thing in general, but the US right have been making a nastier reputation than average for themselves on that front for a long while now.

Weather guy says he has never seen such a deviation from average temperature on the North Pole in his career.

That's because there hasn't been one, particularly for as long as it's been holding, in living memory. Things are looking a fair bit like we're going to have an ice free arctic (or close enough it doesn't matter) before the end of the decade, heh. Iirc the predictions were more like 2025 or somethin'.

... which, uh. Yeah, isn't good. Plenty of likely knock-on effects. Forgot exactly what a lot of them were but it'd be worse than we were expecting, in any case.