American Politics Thread V: We're Just Biden Our Time ...

[Kowani]

Florida GOP pushes bill to secretly record professors, equire faculty to complete annual surveys on their political beliefs

Florida Republicans have passed a controversial bill that claims to protect ideological freedom in the state’s public colleges and universities.

House Bill 233, which now heads to Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) for consideration, would require schools to survey the personal political views of faculty and students on their campuses and produce an annual report analyzing “the extent to which competing ideas and perspectives are presented.”

If the surveys describe an academic environment lacking in what the bill describes as “viewpoint diversity,” the state university system’s Board of Governors and the State Board of Education ― both of which are controlled by political appointees ― could remedy the situation by forcing institutions to “adopt codes of conduct.”

Additionally, the legislation would permit students to secretly record professors for the purpose of reporting them, should they be under the impression their right to free speech is being violated.

Only one Republican lawmaker voted against the bill in the state Senate, where it passed 23-15 on Wednesday. Lawmakers in the state House passed the bill by a vote of 77-42 last month.

Barney Bishop, a lobbyist who argued in favor of the bill, told the Miami Herald he believes the “cards are stacked” against conservative viewpoints in higher education and he hopes HB 233 can tilt the system away from “liberal ideology and also secularism.”

Bishop, who refused to name his clients, added that he hopes the effort will expand to K-12 education as well. [...] Thompson noted the bill could also limit college administrators’ ability to respond to disruptive events on campus. If the Ku Klux Klan decided to march through one of Florida’s historically Black college and universities, for instance, HB 233 might limit how the college could legally respond.

[Shrillland]

Florida GOP pushes bill to secretly record professors, equire faculty to complete annual surveys on their political beliefs

Florida Republicans have passed a controversial bill that claims to protect ideological freedom in the state’s public colleges and universities.

House Bill 233, which now heads to Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) for consideration, would require schools to survey the personal political views of faculty and students on their campuses and produce an annual report analyzing “the extent to which competing ideas and perspectives are presented.”

If the surveys describe an academic environment lacking in what the bill describes as “viewpoint diversity,” the state university system’s Board of Governors and the State Board of Education ― both of which are controlled by political appointees ― could remedy the situation by forcing institutions to “adopt codes of conduct.”

Additionally, the legislation would permit students to secretly record professors for the purpose of reporting them, should they be under the impression their right to free speech is being violated.

Only one Republican lawmaker voted against the bill in the state Senate, where it passed 23-15 on Wednesday. Lawmakers in the state House passed the bill by a vote of 77-42 last month.

Barney Bishop, a lobbyist who argued in favor of the bill, told the Miami Herald he believes the “cards are stacked” against conservative viewpoints in higher education and he hopes HB 233 can tilt the system away from “liberal ideology and also secularism.”

Bishop, who refused to name his clients, added that he hopes the effort will expand to K-12 education as well. [...] Thompson noted the bill could also limit college administrators’ ability to respond to disruptive events on campus. If the Ku Klux Klan decided to march through one of Florida’s historically Black college and universities, for instance, HB 233 might limit how the college could legally respond.

But "free speech on campus" or some shit.

[Necroghastia]

Florida GOP pushes bill to secretly record professors, equire faculty to complete annual surveys on their political beliefs

Florida Republicans have passed a controversial bill that claims to protect ideological freedom in the state’s public colleges and universities.

House Bill 233, which now heads to Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) for consideration, would require schools to survey the personal political views of faculty and students on their campuses and produce an annual report analyzing “the extent to which competing ideas and perspectives are presented.”

If the surveys describe an academic environment lacking in what the bill describes as “viewpoint diversity,” the state university system’s Board of Governors and the State Board of Education ― both of which are controlled by political appointees ― could remedy the situation by forcing institutions to “adopt codes of conduct.”

Additionally, the legislation would permit students to secretly record professors for the purpose of reporting them, should they be under the impression their right to free speech is being violated.

Only one Republican lawmaker voted against the bill in the state Senate, where it passed 23-15 on Wednesday. Lawmakers in the state House passed the bill by a vote of 77-42 last month.

Barney Bishop, a lobbyist who argued in favor of the bill, told the Miami Herald he believes the “cards are stacked” against conservative viewpoints in higher education and he hopes HB 233 can tilt the system away from “liberal ideology and also secularism.”

Bishop, who refused to name his clients, added that he hopes the effort will expand to K-12 education as well. [...] Thompson noted the bill could also limit college administrators’ ability to respond to disruptive events on campus. If the Ku Klux Klan decided to march through one of Florida’s historically Black college and universities, for instance, HB 233 might limit how the college could legally respond.

There's no way this jives with the first amendment, right?

[The Greater Ohio Valley]

Florida GOP pushes bill to secretly record professors, equire faculty to complete annual surveys on their political beliefs

Florida Republicans have passed a controversial bill that claims to protect ideological freedom in the state’s public colleges and universities.

House Bill 233, which now heads to Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) for consideration, would require schools to survey the personal political views of faculty and students on their campuses and produce an annual report analyzing “the extent to which competing ideas and perspectives are presented.”

If the surveys describe an academic environment lacking in what the bill describes as “viewpoint diversity,” the state university system’s Board of Governors and the State Board of Education ― both of which are controlled by political appointees ― could remedy the situation by forcing institutions to “adopt codes of conduct.”

Additionally, the legislation would permit students to secretly record professors for the purpose of reporting them, should they be under the impression their right to free speech is being violated.

Only one Republican lawmaker voted against the bill in the state Senate, where it passed 23-15 on Wednesday. Lawmakers in the state House passed the bill by a vote of 77-42 last month.

Barney Bishop, a lobbyist who argued in favor of the bill, told the Miami Herald he believes the “cards are stacked” against conservative viewpoints in higher education and he hopes HB 233 can tilt the system away from “liberal ideology and also secularism.”

Bishop, who refused to name his clients, added that he hopes the effort will expand to K-12 education as well. [...] Thompson noted the bill could also limit college administrators’ ability to respond to disruptive events on campus. If the Ku Klux Klan decided to march through one of Florida’s historically Black college and universities, for instance, HB 233 might limit how the college could legally respond.

What the fuck.

[Major-Tom]

Florida GOP pushes bill to secretly record professors, equire faculty to complete annual surveys on their political beliefs

Florida Republicans have passed a controversial bill that claims to protect ideological freedom in the state’s public colleges and universities.

House Bill 233, which now heads to Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) for consideration, would require schools to survey the personal political views of faculty and students on their campuses and produce an annual report analyzing “the extent to which competing ideas and perspectives are presented.”

If the surveys describe an academic environment lacking in what the bill describes as “viewpoint diversity,” the state university system’s Board of Governors and the State Board of Education ― both of which are controlled by political appointees ― could remedy the situation by forcing institutions to “adopt codes of conduct.”

Additionally, the legislation would permit students to secretly record professors for the purpose of reporting them, should they be under the impression their right to free speech is being violated.

Only one Republican lawmaker voted against the bill in the state Senate, where it passed 23-15 on Wednesday. Lawmakers in the state House passed the bill by a vote of 77-42 last month.

Barney Bishop, a lobbyist who argued in favor of the bill, told the Miami Herald he believes the “cards are stacked” against conservative viewpoints in higher education and he hopes HB 233 can tilt the system away from “liberal ideology and also secularism.”

Bishop, who refused to name his clients, added that he hopes the effort will expand to K-12 education as well. [...] Thompson noted the bill could also limit college administrators’ ability to respond to disruptive events on campus. If the Ku Klux Klan decided to march through one of Florida’s historically Black college and universities, for instance, HB 233 might limit how the college could legally respond.

There's no way this jives with the first amendment, right?

I imagine this will result in some spicy lawsuits, but nothing that would override the legislation. Then again, the enforceability of this is pretty moot, as I don't imagine most colleges will comply either.

It's partisan grandstanding, but still fucking obnoxious, like most things that come out of the great puzzling State of Florida.

[Senkaku]

There's no way this jives with the first amendment, right?

I imagine this will result in some spicy lawsuits, but nothing that would override the legislation. Then again, the enforceability of this is pretty moot, as I don't imagine most colleges will comply either.

It's partisan grandstanding, but still fucking obnoxious, like most things that come out of the great puzzling State of Florida.

Doesn't matter that much if they comply or not, I guarantee there will be at least one asshole on every campus who tries to record their professors saying something they can recut to sound "too woke" or whatever and then they'll complain to the state if their school is like "lol whatever go away" and it'll be a whole thing that will probably cost quite a few academics their jobs and launch the right wing media careers of a whole new generation of Matt Gaetzs and Laura Loomers.

[The Black Forrest]

There's no way this jives with the first amendment, right?

I imagine this will result in some spicy lawsuits, but nothing that would override the legislation. Then again, the enforceability of this is pretty moot, as I don't imagine most colleges will comply either.

It's partisan grandstanding, but still fucking obnoxious, like most things that come out of the great puzzling State of Florida.

Well? The GOP started missing the USSR. They started calling themselves reds and now it's like they are changing into them.

[Major-Tom]

I imagine this will result in some spicy lawsuits, but nothing that would override the legislation. Then again, the enforceability of this is pretty moot, as I don't imagine most colleges will comply either.

It's partisan grandstanding, but still fucking obnoxious, like most things that come out of the great puzzling State of Florida.

Doesn't matter that much if they comply or not, I guarantee there will be at least one asshole on every campus who tries to record their professors saying something they can recut to sound "too woke" or whatever and then they'll complain to the state if their school is like "lol whatever go away" and it'll be a whole thing that will probably cost quite a few academics their jobs and launch the right wing media careers of a whole new generation of Matt Gaetzs and Laura Loomers.

Yeah, I suppose that's true. Where else but Florida, right?

[Senkaku]

Doesn't matter that much if they comply or not, I guarantee there will be at least one asshole on every campus who tries to record their professors saying something they can recut to sound "too woke" or whatever and then they'll complain to the state if their school is like "lol whatever go away" and it'll be a whole thing that will probably cost quite a few academics their jobs and launch the right wing media careers of a whole new generation of Matt Gaetzs and Laura Loomers.

Yeah, I suppose that's true. Where else but Florida, right?

Literally anywhere the GOP has a trifecta, probably, if they keep getting their way. This will definitely be replicated, they'll take anything they can when it comes to stuff that lets them hamper the functioning and reduce the cultural power of the academy.

[United Dependencies]

If company A makes a product and sells said product to company B, who then sells it to the customer and said customer misuses said product, how is Company A or B liable for the misuse of a legal product? The fault lies with the customer and thats where it needs to stop.

Firearm manufacturers adhere to federal product liability laws and firearm laws as set forth in the gca68 and transfers the firearm(s) to an FFL, the FFL then is required to conduct a background check on a potential buyer, if said buyer passes the bgc and criminally misuses the product, how is the manufacturer liable?

I just explained the theory of liability. But here it is again from the article:

Each ATF trace places the manufacturer on notice both that one of its guns was used in a crime and which distribution channel, usually a distributor, led to a criminal use. There were about 200,000 traces a year. Since it turned out that more than half of the guns used in crimes were sold by less than 1 percent of the dealers, this information could have been used to limit or eliminate the supply of handguns to crime-prone distribution channels.

The primary city lawsuit claim was based on long-established law: The manufacturers' marketing and distribution practices created or contributed to a public nuisance, defined for hundreds of years as an unreasonable interference with public health or safety.

Such a claim advances not based on the violation of a statutory law but on the common law theories of nuisance and products liability.

Either way this gun control thing makes it clear that the Democratic Party has no interest in actually winning the Midterms. Why I don't fucking know, maybe they think they'll be a recession before 2024 and they don't want the blame.

November 2022 is some time away. Partisan division has increased, and depending on what is actually passed, there may not be as much opposition to certain reform efforts as you think.
https://news.gallup.com/opinion/polling ... apons.aspx

[Major-Tom]

Yeah, I suppose that's true. Where else but Florida, right?

Literally anywhere the GOP has a trifecta, probably, if they keep getting their way. This will definitely be replicated, they'll take anything they can when it comes to stuff that lets them hamper the functioning and reduce the cultural power of the academy.

Yeah, Florida just always seems like the swampy, murky breeding ground of ghoulish GOP brain blasts. We might get three candidates out of there come 2024.

I'll give them credit, they've completely weaponized a "culture war," but it's just so endlessly annoying.

[United Dependencies]

There's no way this jives with the first amendment, right?

Which provision are you referring to? I don't see anything that involves abridging or preventing speech. Making colleges survey students isn't prohibiting speech. Recording speech isn't a prohibition on speech. Maybe the codes of conduct could be a violation, but it depends on what's in the code and what it allows or forbids.

It all seems rather foolish, but I don't see a 1st amendment violation based solely on that quote.

[Major-Tom]

There's no way this jives with the first amendment, right?

Which provision are you referring to? I don't see anything that involves abridging or preventing speech. Making colleges survey students isn't prohibiting speech. Recording speech isn't a prohibition on speech. Maybe the codes of conduct could be a violation, but it depends on what's in the code and what it allows or forbids.

It all seems rather foolish, but I don't see a 1st amendment violation based solely on that quote.

Any lawsuit to stem out of this would focus more on infringements of personal privacy than anything else, yes.

[United Dependencies]

Any lawsuit to stem out of this would focus more on infringements of personal privacy than anything else, yes.

Seems like the recording portion would fit in with the theory of one party consent for recording. As long as the student is doing the recording. I suppose we could get into a wire-tap problem if the student is recording others speaking, but that still has the problem that universities themselves often record lectures (at least the lectures I attend are recorded).

[San Lumen]

https://week.com/2021/04/08/latest-resu ... oral-race/

In an update to results from Tuesday Rita Ali now leads Jim Montelongo by 23 votes in the election for Mayor of Peoria, Illinois. 354 mail in ballots are left outstanding. Count will resume Monday.

Nation States decision desk is still not able to make a call in this race and likely won't be able to until April 20th when results will be final.

[Shrillland]

https://week.com/2021/04/08/latest-results-show-rita-ali-is-up-23-votes-over-jim-montelongo-in-peoria-mayoral-race/

In an update to results from Tuesdaym Rita Ali now leads Jim Montelongo by 23 votes in the election for Mayor of Peoria, Illinois. About 350 mail in ballots are left outstanding. Count will resume Monday.

Nation States decision desk is still not able to make a call in this race and likely won't be able to until April 20th when results will be final.

She'd be the first Democratic mayor since the 80s if that happened. Strictly speaking, it's non-partisan, but all the mayors in my lifetime have been Republicans.

[San Lumen]

https://week.com/2021/04/08/latest-results-show-rita-ali-is-up-23-votes-over-jim-montelongo-in-peoria-mayoral-race/

In an update to results from Tuesdaym Rita Ali now leads Jim Montelongo by 23 votes in the election for Mayor of Peoria, Illinois. About 350 mail in ballots are left outstanding. Count will resume Monday.

Nation States decision desk is still not able to make a call in this race and likely won't be able to until April 20th when results will be final.

She'd be the first Democratic mayor since the 80s if that happened. Strictly speaking, it's non-partisan, but all the mayors in my lifetime have been Republicans.

Mail in ballots tend to favor Democrats so its very possible that will happen. Has Peoria ever had a female mayor?

[Shrillland]

She'd be the first Democratic mayor since the 80s if that happened. Strictly speaking, it's non-partisan, but all the mayors in my lifetime have been Republicans.

Mail in ballots tend to favor Democrats so its very possible that will happen. Has Peoria ever had a female mayor?

Nope. She'd be the first woman and the first Black mayor. Montelongo would be the first Hispanic.

[Kowani]

We have obtained documents of Joel Greenberg's (the accused Tax collector and sex trafficker) Venmo transactions.

In 2018, Matt Gaetz paid Greenberg $900, with the memo reading "hit up____," using a nickname for one of the girls. Six hours later, Greenberg paid three young women $900.

Gaetz's formerly public list of Venmo transactions has now disappeared

[San Lumen]

Mail in ballots tend to favor Democrats so its very possible that will happen. Has Peoria ever had a female mayor?

Nope. She'd be the first woman and the first Black mayor. Montelongo would be the first Hispanic.

Hopefully she wins

In Anchorage city Assembly member Forrest Dunbar and businessman Dave Bronson are currently in the top two spots. No one is likely going to get the 45 percent required to avoid a runoff. It will likely be several days before we have final results in Alaska's largest city. Although non partisan Dunbar is a Democrat and Bronson a Republican. If there is a runoff it will be held May 11th.

[Shrillland]

The Amazon union counting's at the halfway point...and the union's losing: https://finance.yahoo.com/news/amazon-union-election-tally-expected-123238827.html?.tsrc=fp_deeplink

The vote is currently at 1,100-463 against.

[Borderlands of Rojava]

The Amazon union counting's at the halfway point...and the union's losing: https://finance.yahoo.com/news/amazon-union-election-tally-expected-123238827.html?.tsrc=fp_deeplink

The vote is currently at 1,100-463 against.

Not surprising considering Amazon rigged the vote. This ladies and gentlemen is what tyranny in action looks like.

[Kowani]

Ted Cruz accused of illegally using campaign funds to promote his new book

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) broke campaign finance law in using donations to fund promotions for his book, a government watchdog alleged Wednesday.

The Campaign Legal Center (CLC) filed complaints with the Federal Election Commission (FEC) and the Senate Ethics Committee alleging that Cruz spent up to nearly $18,000 in campaign money on Facebook advertisements exclusively promoting his book last year. It urged viewers to “order your copy today” or “buy my new book” CLC says, and included a link to buy the book from third-party sellers like Amazon.

The ads all included a disclaimer saying “Paid for by Ted Cruz for Senate,” both complaints say. The book was released in September, and the campaign ran ads between September 24 and October 5, 2020, CLC said. According to a financial disclosure report, Cruz gets 15 percent in royalties on sales of hardcover copies of his book and received a $400,000 advance from his publisher. The CLC says that because Cruz benefits financially from sales of the book the advertisements were a “blatant disregard” of campaign finance laws and violated the rules of the Senate.

“Because Cruz receives royalties from book sales, his campaign crossed a legal line by spending donor funds on Facebook ads promoting sales of that book,” said Brendan Fischer, CLC director of federal reform, in a statement. The FEC prohibits the use of campaign funds for personal gain. In some cases, campaigns may use campaign funds to buy books as a donor gift, as long as royalties are withheld, CLC says.

Fischer adds that it’s possible that Cruz spent campaign money on advertising the book on platforms other than Google and Facebook that aren’t publicly viewable.

The Senate’s rules against using donations for personal reasons are “crystal clear,” said Delaney Marsco, senior legal counsel for ethics at CLC, in a statement. “Voters must be able to trust that when they are donating to political campaigns, they are doing so to help their favored candidate win or retain their office, not financing their personal endeavors,” Marsco said.

“In light of these facts, Campaign Legal Center respectfully requests that you investigate whether Senator Cruz has violated FECA, FEC regulations, and Senate rules,” said CLC in its letter to Ethics Committee Chairman Sen. Chris Coons (D-Delaware).

Cruz also came under scrutiny for a similar issue regarding book purchases in February. Earlier this year, a leadership PAC connected with Cruz paid $1.2 million to a company that appeared to have spent the money on buying Cruz’s book. Cruz, then, could have collected royalties on the book sales. An adviser to Cruz has denied the story.

An attorney for Cruz has also denied the CLC’s allegations, saying in a statement that Cruz “has not received any royalties whatsoever for these book sales.”

But Fischer said that that was not possible for Cruz or his attorneys to ascertain. “There seems to be no legitimate way for Cruz to know how many books were purchased as a result of these Facebook ads,” Fischer told CNBC, “and therefore it’s impossible to say that Cruz is not receiving royalties on the books sold as a result of the ads.”

The FEC, CLC notes, allows candidates to use a trivially small amount of money to promote their book on their campaign website. But, they write, “Ted Cruz for Senate did not post a single sentence of promotional material on a campaign website at little to no cost; rather, the committee spent thousands of dollars of campaign funds on standalone ads that were entirely focused on promoting the sale of Cruz’s book.”

[Great Algerstonia]

The Amazon union counting's at the halfway point...and the union's losing: https://finance.yahoo.com/news/amazon-union-election-tally-expected-123238827.html?.tsrc=fp_deeplink

The vote is currently at 1,100-463 against.

Not surprising considering Amazon rigged the vote. This ladies and gentlemen is what tyranny in action looks like.

How do you know that Amazon rigged the vote? Not doubting you, just interested in more information.

[Necroghastia]

There's no way this jives with the first amendment, right?

Which provision are you referring to? I don't see anything that involves abridging or preventing speech. Making colleges survey students isn't prohibiting speech. Recording speech isn't a prohibition on speech. Maybe the codes of conduct could be a violation, but it depends on what's in the code and what it allows or forbids.

It all seems rather foolish, but I don't see a 1st amendment violation based solely on that quote.

Surveying students (and faculty) with the aim of making sure there's a certain proportion of political stances seems like it would de facto be a restriction of speech.