Political Discussion Thread (READ FIRST POST)

[ijuin 572]

2 hours ago, PSadlon said:

He doesn't have the power, that said the Congress (technically Congress is both the Senate & House even though many use it to refer to only the House) and it's key supporter may find that proposal attractive and they DO have the power.

QFT, I'll also note studio/efficiency apartments in my area start at $480 unless you qualify for low income housing or section 8.

$480 is less than half of what it would cost for a single room with no private toilet anywhere within two hours' drive of where I am, unless you like living in the really dangerous areas where it's not safe to walk around.

[PSadlon 88]

It's also about ²/₃ what I get a month meaning a whole $253 for utilities, food, transportation, etc but then SSI provides just enough to live at 74% of poverty.

[ijuin 572]

Ouch. My brother is on SSI (low-functioning autism), and they give him about one thousand a month.

[PSadlon 88]

The maximum the federal government provides a month for SSI is $733 for individuals and $1100 to couples (increasing to $735 & $1103 respectively in 2017) but if someone needs an essential person to help in their care they get up to $367 for that person's benefit (increasing to $368 in 2017). SSDI can be higher and/or can be paid concurrently and some states (notably Alaska) have programs to further assist SSI recipients.

[ijuin 572]

Ah, well my brother is essentially permanently a mental four year old, so he can't be left unsupervised or else he will do all of the hazardous things that a small child will do, in addition to being unable to care for himself.

[PSadlon 88]

So the essential person addition is highly likely.

[Scotty 1,061]

27 minutes ago, ijuin said:

Ah, well my brother is essentially permanently a mental four year old, so he can't be left unsupervised or else he will do all of the hazardous things that a small child will do, in addition to being unable to care for himself.

There's currently a case up here where a mother is fighting for continued child support for her son who is essentially a 2 year old mentally, but the ex husband and father believes that because the child just turned 21 that he's free and clear of any more responsibilities.

[mlooney 3,417]

3 hours ago, PSadlon said:

The maximum the federal government provides a month for SSI is $733 for individuals and $1100 to couples (increasing to $735 & $1103 respectively in 2017) but if someone needs an essential person to help in their care they get up to $367 for that person's benefit (increasing to $368 in 2017). SSDI can be higher and/or can be paid concurrently and some states (notably Alaska) have programs to further assist SSI recipients.

I get SSDI, which at it's full value is the amount you would get if you waited until you were to retire at 66

[PSadlon 88]

Unfortunately I was older than 18 when it was suggested by a psychiatrist that my mental illness was indeed severe enough to probably qualify for disability.

[Tobyc 22]

http://www.triplem.com.au/melbourne/stuff/pub-talk/2016/12/an-mp-has-spent-today-arguing-with-a-simpsons-meme-page-for-some-reason/

[Vorlonagent 442]

On 12/3/2016 at 3:03 AM, Tobyc said:

http://www.triplem.com.au/melbourne/stuff/pub-talk/2016/12/an-mp-has-spent-today-arguing-with-a-simpsons-meme-page-for-some-reason/

Any legislature with that kind of idle time on its hands is scary...

[ProfessorTomoe 1,308]

The [CENSORED] who run the State of Texas have apparently not learned from the [CENSORED] who run North Carolina:

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/texas-bathroom-bill-unveiled-ahead-2017-session-44577982

In my personal opinion, this is ridiculous beyond belief.

[CritterKeeper 1,102]

Take comfort in the fact that society's attitudes have shifted far enough that jerks like this feel the need to legislate against what more and more people think is obviously the right thing to do.  Used to be, there was no "need" for such laws because everyone bought into the bigoted attitude without being told they had to.  Now, people rise up in protest and boycott entire states over LGBT rights!

[Scotty 1,061]

1 hour ago, ProfessorTomoe said:

The [CENSORED] who run the State of Texas have apparently not learned from the [CENSORED] who run North Carolina:

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/texas-bathroom-bill-unveiled-ahead-2017-session-44577982

In my personal opinion, this is ridiculous beyond belief.

Funny how the Lt Gov. responded to the suggestion of the bill hurting the economy by stating that the Superbowl is being hosted in Texas this year.

Well, PAX South is at the end of this month and I wouldn't be surprised if that community had something to say about it.

[Vorlonagent 442]

Even if the bill is made state law, it is a temporary thing.  It's an attempt to hold back the tide which will fail in the end.  In this case expect it to end in a Supreme Court decision against.  Moreover, people are fair-minded as a rule.  Something that intentionally calls out and censures a group without some practical reason behind it is not something to bet the farm on.

I'd caution against attempting to penalize Texas too soon.  Expend your arsenal before the bill becomes law, and the people trying to pass the law have nothing left to lose.

What concerns me most is how this bill could possibly be enforced.  It represents a huge incursion into personal privacy to answer a non-existent problem.

[ProfessorTomoe 1,308]

4 hours ago, Vorlonagent said:

What concerns me most is how this bill could possibly be enforced.  It represents a huge incursion into personal privacy to answer a non-existent problem.

A spokesperson for the man behind the bill said, "We will not have bathroom police." She said the bill is intended to give people a way to do something if they're uncomfortable about the situation.

I call BS on the whole deal.

[Vorlonagent 442]

Just now, ProfessorTomoe said:

A spokesperson for the man behind the bill said, "We will not have bathroom police." She said the bill is intended to give people a way to do something if they're uncomfortable about the situation.

I call BS on the whole deal.

I tend to agree.  If policing there must be, I'd much prefer a law that allows or proscribes behavior. 

That would mean someone who is being polite and keeping to themselves is protected.  If someone else throws open the bathroom stall door acting as some self-appointed bathroom police, I'd rather they be the ones charged with the crime, even if the individual in the stall is using the "wrong" bathroom.

[CritterKeeper 1,102]

I'm tempted to organize a campaign by women with Poly-Cystic Ovarian Syndrome, which tends to cause excessive facial hair in women, to stop shaving/plucking/lasering and start teaming up with trans women to provide some cover (and possibly a few lawsuits if self-appointed bathroom police hassle the"men using the ladies' room").  The ADA would likely come into play pretty fast if women with a verifiable medical condition were being denied free access to the women's bathroom because of their condition.

[mlooney 3,417]

30 minutes ago, CritterKeeper said:

I'm tempted to organize a campaign by women with Poly-Cystic Ovarian Syndrome, which tends to cause excessive facial hair in women, to stop shaving/plucking/lasering and start teaming up with trans women to provide some cover (and possibly a few lawsuits if self-appointed bathroom police hassle the"men using the ladies' room").  The ADA would likely come into play pretty fast if women with a verifiable medical condition were being denied free access to the women's bathroom because of their condition.

My ex would join that in a heartbeat.

[Scotty 1,061]

54 minutes ago, CritterKeeper said:

I'm tempted to organize a campaign by women with Poly-Cystic Ovarian Syndrome, which tends to cause excessive facial hair in women, to stop shaving/plucking/lasering and start teaming up with trans women to provide some cover (and possibly a few lawsuits if self-appointed bathroom police hassle the"men using the ladies' room").  The ADA would likely come into play pretty fast if women with a verifiable medical condition were being denied free access to the women's bathroom because of their condition.

What gets me though, are that these laws seem to be focused on keeping Trans-females out of the female restrooms. What about Trans-males though? If you have Trans-males forced to continue to use female restrooms because their birth certificate says they're female, I would imagine there'd be complaints about that as well. Same goes for Trans-females forced to use the male restrooms, they're likely to be harrassed as well.

The law seems to be built on the idea of privacy, implying that Trans people would attempt to take peeks at other restroom users. The problem with that is, it's more likely that non-trans people do that kind of stuff but maybe there was that one case (I don't know if there actually was one) that would validate claims despite the fact that is was just one case in like 5 or 10 years whereas there's probably 10 or more cases per year of non-trans people getting caught trying to peek or worse.

[CritterKeeper 1,102]

Unfortunately, I think the sort of people who promote these laws would see Trans-folk getting harrassed as a result to be a plus, not a minus.

[PSadlon 88]

Indeed

[Scotty 1,061]

I'll admit, I haven't been paying too much attention to this beyond what I see on twitter, but did Trump use Pandora Logic during a press conference when asked about the legality of some of the things he's done?

Edit: adding context:

 

[Pharaoh RutinTutin 1,586]

The idea that a King can not break the law is ancient.

But the defining American example comes from David Frost interview of Richard Nixon.

 

Edited January 11, 2017 by Pharaoh RutinTutin
spelling

[ijuin 572]

Louis XIV said it best: "L'etat, c'est moi".