Nobody Cares: PRS

[Govi]

Devoting any of our government's resources to protecting Trump is pure waste. He strove to damage our nation extensively, and now he seems to have recruited sufficient persons of malicious intent to turn our nation into a stinking pile if he gets re-elected. No protection for Trump.

 

[Veritable Quandry]

The most likely outcome of the New York fraud trial would be house arrest, which would be possible because of the Secret Service, not in spite of them. They may not act as jailors but you can't just slip off your ankle monitor and take a stroll when every exit that an overweight geriatric could conceivably use is under 24/7 watch.

The documents case has the most serious potential sentences, and if that ever gets tried then there are several high security prisons with national security wings such as Fort Leavenworth that could hold him. The Secret Service could easily work with them on security.

 

[Cindy Claveau]

There's a misunderstanding here. I do not wish protection withdrawn while they are outside the prison after serving their sentence. I'm sure within prison Trump will be protected, but after serving his sentence I don't want a former president, however vile, to fear for his life by living without secret service protection.

I hope you didn't think I was suggesting that. I agree with you on the part quoted.

He represents the United States: it would be rather tawdry if he got mugged & robbed at gunpoint. The image of the USA has already taken several hits because of him, we should not compound it by telling world we are not safe even for the (formerly) most powerful political office holders. Playing with the safety of elected officials inevitably leads down a slippery path I've seen far too often historically and in the current world; this is not Rome under Sulla.

He is now "Ex" President, which only accords him the Secret Service detail and a yearly stipend (which he now apparently needs). I don't feel we owe him anything after his flagrant abuse of laws and customs generally granted to former Pres. He's made his bed, he can lay in it for all I care.

 

[Soen Eber]

Once the security of high office holders is in play, the Republican's typical tit-for-tat responses will surely work their way down the chain of command. Removing protection from the top will inevitably put into play a progressive endangerment of of everyone down the line who is found to be "disagreeable", for some sham reason or another.

Imagine if security protection from the police at city council meetings, for example, becomes "voluntary", leaving a progressive city council without protection at meetings. Imagine a state legislature mandating that courthouse officials must pay for their own protection details while at work, with well-funded "citizen's groups" offering to cover for judges who are aligned only with their own financial or partisan interests?

We've all seen how the rightists and corporate interests have eroded basic protections, should people like Ilhan Omar or Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and so forth be afraid to run for office or become financially impovershed by paying for their own security? Once it starts at the top safety becomes politicized.

This is a slippery slope the Republicans will leap on with unfettered glee. I don't give one whit about Trump's safety, he made his bed and must lie in it, but it's a camel's nose under the tent which will make us all unsafe, leaving governance more and more only accessible to plutocratic interests.

 

[Cindy Claveau]

I never like to project my fears into the future and on other people. That feels like what this is - I hereby release Donnie J. to the depths of history's trashbin. Let the photos fall where they may.

 

[Katheryne Helendale]

There's a misunderstanding here. I do not wish protection withdrawn while they are outside the prison after serving their sentence. I'm sure within prison Trump will be protected, but after serving his sentence I don't want a former president, however vile, to fear for his life by living without secret service protection.

He represents the United States: it would be rather tawdry if he got mugged & robbed at gunpoint. The image of the USA has already taken several hits because of him, we should not compound it by telling world we are not safe even for the (formerly) most powerful political office holders. Playing with the safety of elected officials inevitably leads down a slippery path I've seen far too often historically and in the current world; this is not Rome under Sulla.

Thankfully, this is an entirely academic matter, as Trump is not likely to outlive his sentences.

 

[Lexxi]

Once the security of high office holders is in play, the Republican's typical tit-for-tat responses will surely work their way down the chain of command. Removing protection from the top will inevitably put into play a progressive endangerment of of everyone down the line who is found to be "disagreeable", for some sham reason or another.

I've been hearing "the Republicans! The REPUBLICANS! Will respond similarly if the Democrats do x" for decades. It's a reasonable idea/argument. You don't want to do something that breaks a rule (written or not written), and/or crosses a line that starts a 'war' that leads us directly to a hellish political environment.

1) I keep wondering when someone will tell the Republicans about this "deal" to not cross particular lines/break unwritten rules;
2) The Republicans cross lines, break unwritten rules all the time.

 

[Argent Stonecutter]

this is not Rome under Sulla

Trump thinks it is.

 

[Bartholomew Gallacher]

Stating the obvious: Microsoft is a national security threat, says ex-White House cyber policy director. With little competition at the goverment level, Windows giant has no incentive to make its systems safer.

Microsoft has a shocking level of control over IT within the US federal government – so much so that former senior White House cyber policy director AJ Grotto thinks it's fair to call Redmond's recent security failures a national security issue.

[...]

"The government needs to focus on encouraging and catalyzing competition," Grotto said. He believes it also needs to publicly scrutinize Microsoft and make sure everyone knows when it messes up.

"At the end of the day, Microsoft, any company, is going to respond most directly to market incentives," Grotto told us. "Unless this scrutiny generates changed behavior among its customers who might want to look elsewhere, then the incentives for Microsoft to change are not going to be as strong as they should be." ®

Question is: why do these people only tell such things when not employed by the government any longer?

Why Microsoft is a national security threat

With little competition at the goverment level, Windows giant has no incentive to make its systems safer

www.theregister.com

 

[Free]

The gloves are coming off.

GOP Lawmaker Eviscerates His Own Party: ‘Some Real Scumbags’

Rep. Tony Gonzales (R-TX) pulled no punches when talking about a colleague’s sex scandal and some lawmakers’ recent embrace of neo-Nazis.

www.thedailybeast.com

“It’s my absolute honor to be in Congress, but I serve with some real scumbags,” Gonzales said. “Matt Gaetz, he paid minors to have sex with him at drug parties. Rep. Bob Good (R-VA) endorsed my opponent, a known neo-Nazi. These people used to walk around in white hoods at night. Now they’re walking around with white hoods in the daytime.”

 

[Isabeau]

Calls for answers after train on fire rolls through downtown London, Ont.

 

[Free]

Holy crap.

Toxic smoke from burning garbage mountain blankets India’s capital

Ghazipur landfill receives 2,000 tons of garbage daily and may soon grow taller than Taj Mahal

www.independent.co.uk

 

[Soen Eber]

Trump thinks it is.

That's why I like it here: people understand my archaic references

 

[Dakota Tebaldi]

FTC bans noncompete clauses

Noncompete clauses are parts of someone's initial employment contract which say that if they ever leave the company, then for a certain amount of time - often one or two years - they're not allowed to get another job at a different company that is considered a competitor in the same industry, nor start their own business in that industry.

Companies that use them say they're necessary to prevent a situation where larger companies can rampantly scalp skilled employees from smaller up-and-coming ones by offering more money, and the time limits are needed to allow any proprietary knowledge an employee has from his time at the company to expire or lose competitive value.

In practice though, non-compete clauses make leaving your job for any reason impossible because if you've been educated and trained in a particular industry you just...aren't allowed to work in it for up to two years, forcing you into the unskilled labor pool for at least that long and threatening your chances of working in your industry even afterwards since you're not using your skills or getting continuing education to keep up with trends and all that for that whole time.

 

[Bartholomew Gallacher]

 

[detrius]

FTC bans noncompete clauses

Noncompete clauses are parts of someone's initial employment contract which say that if they ever leave the company, then for a certain amount of time - often one or two years - they're not allowed to get another job at a different company that is considered a competitor in the same industry, nor start their own business in that industry.

Companies that use them say they're necessary to prevent a situation where larger companies can rampantly scalp skilled employees from smaller up-and-coming ones by offering more money, and the time limits are needed to allow any proprietary knowledge an employee has from his time at the company to expire or lose competitive value.

In practice though, non-compete clauses make leaving your job for any reason impossible because if you've been educated and trained in a particular industry you just...aren't allowed to work in it for up to two years, forcing you into the unskilled labor pool for at least that long and threatening your chances of working in your industry even afterwards since you're not using your skills or getting continuing education to keep up with trends and all that for that whole time.

NDAs and non-compete clauses have also been used in more odious way to harass former employees.

Here's a particularly abhorrent example, brought to you by serial abuser Steven Crowder:

Ex-Steven Crowder Staffer Claims He’s Being ‘Legally Abused’ After Quitting ‘Toxic and Abusive’ Show

Jared Monroe, a former employee of Steven Crowder, accused the right-wing pundit of subjecting him to years of “legal abuse” after he left the company.

www.mediaite.com

However, my sympathies for this guy are limited, because he still at some point in time chose to produce stuff like this.

 

[Free]

Awww.

George Santos ends comeback bid for Congress after raising no money

Former U.S. Rep. George Santos says he's dropping his longshot bid to return to Congress, months after he was expelled from the House while facing a slew of federal fraud charges.

apnews.com

 

[Free]

That's a lot of states.

 

[Kamilah Hauptmann]

Up from Obama’s 57.

 

[Katheryne Helendale]

California must've finally splintered, county by county.