All purpose news and politics thread part VI: This Is Not The Time For Posing

[JCAll]

2000 in Florida

That's different, that's Republican shenanigans. Which apparently don't count.

[Mister Mets]

That happened once, in 1876. Rutherford B. Hayes, who had lost the popular vote to Samuel Tilden, won the vote of the Electoral College when what amounted to a deal was struck among the electors, resulting in 20 disputed electoral votes from 4 States all being awarded to Hayes as a <i>quid pro quo</i> in exchange for an understanding that Congress would vote to abolish post-Civil War Reconstruction in the South. You can read about the shenanigans here. As for the 2020 election, not only wasn't it stolen, it wasn't even close enough to steal. The Democratic ticket defeated the Republican ticket by a popular vote of 81M to 73M and by an Electoral vote of 306 to 232, the exact same Electoral College margin by which Donald Trump had defeated Hillary Clinton in 2016, a margin of victory that Trump had termed a "landslide".

When discussing that election it is important to note that Tilden's electoral votes from the South, as well as his popular vote margin, were illegitimate because of the restrictions on black voters.

The closest we have is actually JFK - there were allegedly places in Texas with more votes cast than voters. Nixon wasn't willing to have an election decided in court, despite being urged to do so.

And here we are folks, the Republican Party lacks even the integrity of Richard Nixon. Somehow, I put those words down without it being intended as a punchline.

Nixon was arguably broken by the experience, which contributed to poor decisions in the 1972 election which led to his resignation.

There is another question of whether it demonstrates integrity to keep a potential crime secret. If there were any fraud, we should welcome the courts investigating it.

So I guess the only solution is to simply give up and learn to live with it

Nope.

I have different preferences in terms of which party is going to win, but I do strongly believe the neutral principles are the same in terms of doing the right thing.

An individual is unlikely to make a difference, whether it's a great year for your party or not. However, you can live the way you want others to behave. Steps could be remembering the decency of people you disagree with, and making good-faith arguments, while making sure that you never give moral permission for anyone to go with a bad-faith argument that would hurt your side. For example, one thing that would be harmful for Democrats is if there's too much of a downside for candidates to lose elections. You don't want good candidates to sit out 2022 because a loss would hurt their chances for later office. So if anyone makes that kind of argument, you could push back on it.

Republicans Are Losing Their Minds Because the DOJ Wants to Help Protect Threatened School Officials



This Garland hearing is typical of the GOP. They are twisting themselves in knots trying to be more outraged than the other. He is trying to tell them DOJ is looking into violence against school boards and members, thats all the memo is doing. They are turning it into the base culture war that DOJ is threatening parents and trying to stop them from speaking out on mandates and "critical race theory" boogeyman.

It's a sensitive question. Threats against school boards are bad, but there is also the sense that the problem is exaggerated as a way to shut up concerned parents.

Garland wasn't able to mention specific situations where critics of school boards made terroristic threats, and one of the most high-profile examples others mentioned turns out to be a lot messier: a situation where parents were upset a school district appeared to cover up a politically sensitive sexual assault.

https://wset.com/news/nation-world/l...lt-says-parent

That's different, that's Republican shenanigans. Which apparently don't count.

Also not stolen.

Although I'm not sure Xheight can make that argument if he seems to think Clyburn endorsing Biden is beyond the pale.

[Xheight]

How can there be "another" theft if there wasn't a first?
I checked my history book...but I don't see where it mentioned a presidential election ever being stolen in the United States.

One modern example, says Edward B. Foley, author of Ballot Battles: The History of Disputed Elections in the United States, can be found in Lyndon B. Johnson’s race for the Senate in Texas in 1948.
According to the account by Johnson biographer Robert Caro, the future president won a runoff primary by a mere 87 votes, after 200 extra votes were added to what Foley calls “the infamous Ballot Box 13.” That election may well have seen manipulation beyond that instance too, and on both sides. As Foley points out, though there’s no demonstrable evidence that Johnson himself participated in what happened, there were certainly people in the area who had an interest in his victory and who would have been able to make sure it happened. That sort of planned and intentional manipulation qualifies, for Foley, as rigging an election.

https://www.history.com/news/most-co...tial-elections

My favorite is the 1876, Hayes vs. Tilden which included a insurrection style threat.

[achilles]

Except that the gun wasn't supposed to be empty. It was supposed to have been loaded - carefully - with a blank cartridge. Had Baldwin removed the cartridge and seen that it wasn't a blank, then the accident would have been averted. But on the 99.99% of movies where prop guns are used the way that they are supposed to be, the act of having an amateur fumble around with the loaded pistol, handling the blank that had already been loaded carefully into it. and then re-loading it, would in fact introduce a significant new source of danger into a process that had already been performed in a manner to optimize safety. It would be like letting the actors check the scaffolding, wiring, overhead lighting, and other dangerous items that are a part of every movie set. Lets the pros do their jobs and don't let the actors try to re-do them. As for Baldwin's job as a producer, that's an ambiguous job title that can mean just about anything. Generally speaking, though, it is the producer's job to raise the financing for the movie and to post a "completion bond" showing that the movie's budget has been assured. The producer hires a director to make the movie, and often that's all he does. Some producers micro-manage, but generally spending the money (including hiring the crew) is the first thing a director does.

Why would they load a blank for a rehearsal? Answer, they shouldn't. And you seem to misunderstand the procedure. Which should be for the armorer to keep sole custody of all weapons, (along with their assistants), and handing the weapon BULLET attached to the end. And blanks have a crimp . And...frankly, Baldwin has been doing this how long? He shouldn't be an amateur by now, nor indeed should any actor on such a set, or any director, producer, or anyone responsible in any way for handling guns on set. These are the rules of gun safety, and they apply to anyone at all handling any sort of gun. It isn't something optional that Baldwin and the rest on set might do, it's something mandatory for those who don't want to die or kill someone else. It's entirely possible to handle even real guns safely; but this is an example of people not doing that.

[Xheight]

It's a sensitive question. Threats against school boards are bad, but there is also the sense that the problem is exaggerated as a way to shut up concerned parents.
.

Not really when "threat" is just saying that they know where they live? Protesting in front of someone's house is not a terrorist act. https://reason.com/volokh/2020/08/15...rst-amendment/
I don't see people following Sinema into a bathroom being taken down by security either.

[Xheight]

When discussing that election it is important to note that Tilden's electoral votes from the South, as well as his popular vote margin, were illegitimate because of the restrictions on black voters.

Although I'm not sure Xheight can make that argument if he seems to think Clyburn endorsing Biden is beyond the pale.

Illegitimate? That's what Trump people say about Mail ballots and did we not have a whole impeachment on a quid pro quo?

[seismic-2]

Why would they load a blank for a rehearsal? Answer, they shouldn't. And you seem to misunderstand the procedure. Which should be for the armorer to keep sole custody of all weapons, (along with their assistants), and handing the weapon BULLET attached to the end. And blanks have a crimp . And...frankly, Baldwin has been doing this how long? He shouldn't be an amateur by now, nor indeed should any actor on such a set, or any director, producer, or anyone responsible in any way for handling guns on set. These are the rules of gun safety, and they apply to anyone at all handling any sort of gun. It isn't something optional that Baldwin and the rest on set might do, it's something mandatory for those who don't want to die or kill someone else. It's entirely possible to handle even real guns safely; but this is an example of people not doing that.

I understand the procedure, and Baldwin understood the procedure. However, the procedure does not include the actor's removing the cartridge from the pistol to verify that it is a blank. Actors should not be meddling with the props, even if they have a good intention in doing so. Incidentally, I believe firing a blank is in fact part of a rehearsal, since the actor needs to know what the recoil will feel like, he and the director need to determine at just what point in his motion he is to pull the trigger, the technicians need to know how loud it will sound, etc. In any case, the error took place before the rehearsal, when someone loaded live ammunition into the gun. it was not Baldwin's job to check that.

[seismic-2]

Illegitimate? That's what Trump people say about Mail ballots and did we not have a whole impeachment on a quid pro quo?

And the Trump people are of course wrong about that. Voting by mail is not illegitimate. Trump himself voted by mail when he won the 2016 election. And there is nothing per se wrong with a quid pro quo - after all, every negotiation or legislative compromise is a quid pro quo - it's what goes into the "quid" and the "quo" that can make it illegal. In Trump's case, the "quid" was the release of money that Congress had already approved for Ukraine but that Trump was unilaterally withholding contrary to Congress's direction, and the "quo" was information about a political opponent's family that Trump intended to use for purely personal reasons, namely his re-election campaign. That's a huge no-no, despite Trump's maintaining that it was a "perfect" phone conversation.

[thwhtGuardian]

Illegitimate? That's what Trump people say about Mail ballots and did we not have a whole impeachment on a quid pro quo?

Except mail in ballots aren't legitimate. Come on man, your guy lost there's no reason to put a giant dunce cap on your head.

[worstblogever]

Republicans Are Losing Their Minds Because the DOJ Wants to Help Protect Threatened School Officials



This Garland hearing is typical of the GOP. They are twisting themselves in knots trying to be more outraged than the other. He is trying to tell them DOJ is looking into violence against school boards and members, thats all the memo is doing. They are turning it into the base culture war that DOJ is threatening parents and trying to stop them from speaking out on mandates and "critical race theory" boogeyman.

I don't know how things are gonna be next year, But I got a feeling it won't be good. Voting Districts gerrymandered all to ****, giving republicans an unfair advantage all around, Constant infighting between progressives and centrists that's hurting Biden and the American public at large while the Republicans are foaming at the mouth at their 2022 chances. We got folks out there saying that they will never vote again because their voices aren't being heard which means self-preservation has taken precedent over fighting for social change. How much can We The People take. Just thinking about it makes me hella depressed

I'm concerned Republicans aren't going to WAIT a year for another vote. Last night in Idaho, Charlie Kirk hosted another happy little white nationalist "Talking Points USA" event where said talking points included an attendee asking Kirk, "When do we get to start using the guns? When do we get to KILL PEOPLE?"

[thwhtGuardian]

I'm concerned Republicans aren't going to WAIT a year for another vote. Last night in Idaho, Charlie Kirk hosted another happy little white nationalist "Talking Points USA" event where said talking points included an attendee asking Kirk, "When do we get to start using the guns When do we get to KILL PEOPLE?"

I don't like bloodshed, but I kind of wish they'd go for it already because it would make Shay's Rebellion look like the Hundred Years War. It'd be over and done with in a matter off weeks and then maybe we'd get back to rational politics again after that.

[AnakinFlair]

Here's the fundamental rule in question stated in the way I first heard it, "All guns are ALWAYs loaded". It doesn't mean that literally of course, but rather that you must treat every gun that way. Phrasing it that way underscores that you are dealing with an item that can kill...it is always absolutely serious, (Jon-Erik Hexum died playing around with a gun on set after the take, which is why it is now standard practice to take the gun away from the actor the instant the scene is over, and only giving it to the actor just before the scene).

But there's another, equally serious violation of gun safety rules that Baldwin did here, pointing the gun AT people. It is apparently industry standard to NEVER do that. There's even a word for it, but I don't recall what. But they use camera angles and screens to make the action look real.

There doesn't seem to have been a culture of safety on that set by all accounts.

One other point; there was NO reason for Baldwin to be given a REAL, FUNCTIONING gun, as he was, for a REHEARSAL, which this was.

I get what you are saying, but by all reports they were rehearsing a scene where Baldwin cross draws a gun and points it directly at the camera. In order to get the shot right, the Director and the DP were behind the camera to make sure the shot was lined up correctly. Alec was given a gun provided by an inexperienced armorer by a 2nd AD with a history of safety violations, and was told it was a cold gun, so he didn't expect there to be any rounds (or at the very least live rounds) in the chamber.

Could he have checked the gun first? Sure, he could have. But after 40+ years in the industry, it's probably been drilled into him not to mess with a gun he is given. He probably expected the gun to be unloaded, so he rehearsed the scene, and this tragedy happened. And we can all say that he bears some responsibility as a Producer, but the reality is that we don't know how involved he has been in the production outside of acting; a Producer's credit could just be a contractual maneuver to increase his pay.

You are right that the shouldn't have been given a real, function gun for a rehearsal. But then, the crew shouldn't have been taking prop guns out and shooting beer cans on their lunch break. Those guns should have been under lock and key. And if this armorer wasn't confident in her abilities, then she should have never taken the job, and spent more time apprenticing under someone else.

[achilles]

I understand the procedure, and Baldwin understood the procedure. However, the procedure does not include the actor's removing the cartridge from the pistol to verify that it is a blank. Actors should not be meddling with the props, even if they have a good intention in doing so. Incidentally, I believe firing a blank is in fact part of a rehearsal, since the actor needs to know what the recoil will feel like, he and the director need to determine at just what point in his motion he is to pull the trigger, the technicians need to know how loud it will sound, etc. In any case, the error took place before the rehearsal, when someone loaded live ammunition into the gun. it was not Baldwin's job to check that.

No, again, the actor does NOT touch the rounds. Which should not have been there in a gun declared safe. Which he would have known had he LOOKED, not touched. And again, it should have been handed to him cylinder open, allowing him to look and verify the gun was empty. It WAS absolutely Baldwin's job, as it is for anyone handling a gun. As the actors who have commented on this say is also true on set, (as it would assuming no one wants to die). No, firing a blank isn't part of rehearsal. Blanks come in different charges, which the armorer should know all about, including their sound, and the safe range for them. The actor, if he needs to know what the recoils is like, (hint, if they load blanks like .45 Colt rounds of average historical power, it won't be much, and it will be felt as a slower recoil than more modern rounds), he can do that by pointing it in a safe direction, not directly AT people, another huge and unforgivable gun safety violation that evidently from other testimony doesn't happen on safe sets. And you never should practice a draw like that with a loaded weapon. Which again goes back to Baldwin not checking the gun as he should have.

Since some seem to think it isn't his job to check...it absolutely IS.

[achilles]

I get what you are saying, but by all reports they were rehearsing a scene where Baldwin cross draws a gun and points it directly at the camera. In order to get the shot right, the Director and the DP were behind the camera to make sure the shot was lined up correctly. Alec was given a gun provided by an inexperienced armorer by a 2nd AD with a history of safety violations, and was told it was a cold gun, so he didn't expect there to be any rounds (or at the very least live rounds) in the chamber.

Could he have checked the gun first? Sure, he could have. But after 40+ years in the industry, it's probably been drilled into him not to mess with a gun he is given. He probably expected the gun to be unloaded, so he rehearsed the scene, and this tragedy happened. And we can all say that he bears some responsibility as a Producer, but the reality is that we don't know how involved he has been in the production outside of acting; a Producer's credit could just be a contractual maneuver to increase his pay.

You are right that the shouldn't have been given a real, function gun for a rehearsal. But then, the crew shouldn't have been taking prop guns out and shooting beer cans on their lunch break. Those guns should have been under lock and key. And if this armorer wasn't confident in her abilities, then she should have never taken the job, and spent more time apprenticing under someone else.

Also, I agree that there were huge failures on the part of many people, not just Baldwin. Had any of them not happened, the whole thing wouldn't have happened. They also bear responsibility. I would expect that the AD and the armorer at least might face charges, (Baldwin while he could also face charges, in reality won't as he's a celebrity). And at the least, I would never hire anyone on the crew who took that gun out to plink again for anything. Of course, Baldwin might well have had something to do with hiring them, and probably with setting the way too low to make a movie safely level of budget. Yes, we don't know for sure how he was involved with all that, but it's likely he did have involvement, as the movie seems a bit too low budget to carry him in that role if he did nothing.

Baldwin never had to "mess" with the gun, just "look" at it to see it was indeed safe.

[JCAll]

I'm concerned Republicans aren't going to WAIT a year for another vote. Last night in Idaho, Charlie Kirk hosted another happy little white nationalist "Talking Points USA" event where said talking points included an attendee asking Kirk, "When do we get to start using the guns When do we get to KILL PEOPLE?"

Nothing will stand between the GOP and their God given right to kill us all. Fortunately they're all cowards unless they're absolutely sure they'll suffer no consequences.