Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

FBI Monitored Aretha Franklin for Years, File Shows

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

261–270 of 276 posts

Re: FBI Monitored Aretha Franklin for Years, File Shows

#261

Post by landemva »

scarface74 wrote: post #257
landemva wrote: post #256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Constitution had the House grow with increase in population. Congress stopped that growth so now lobbyists have the access. Two Senators per State worked ok when appointed by State because Senators would get recalled and replaced if they voted against State's interests. Now the people vote on Senators and the lobbyists have the access and control.

So you’re saying it was better when the state legislators had control? That’s even less democratic. You realize that the “states interest” back in the 60s was the continuing of Jim Crow laws in the South. How many Trump supporting states would have recalled Senators in the 2020 for not agreeing to give him the Presidency?

Do you think it would be good to follow the Constitution and have the House grow with population?

Re: FBI Monitored Aretha Franklin for Years, File Shows

#262

Post by stjohnswarts »

techwizrd wrote: post #138
RetpolineDrama wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They also have the seemingly unique and blatantly unconstitutional power to imprison you for ""lying"" to them. The actual wording/charge is "providing false statements", which means anything that they can later suggest is untrue . This is why you should never, ever speak with anyone associated with the FBI even if they are being "friendly". Say they knock at the door and have questions for you about your shady neigh…

I don't believe this is the case, but I am also not a lawyer. The _actual_ wording of 18 USC § 1001 is "[...] knowingly and willfully" "(1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact; (2) makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; [...]" [0], not simply "providing false statements." The DOJ must show that the statement was false, the fact…

It is the case. They weaponize "lying" to the FBI and can get you several years in federal prison just for that. It is a common tactic in banana republics and the USA (something we are quickly approaching). They then use this as leverage to get what they want out of you.

Re: FBI Monitored Aretha Franklin for Years, File Shows

#263

Post by scarface74 »

landemva wrote: post #261
scarface74 wrote: post #257

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So you’re saying it was better when the state legislators had control? That’s even less democratic. You realize that the “states interest” back in the 60s was the continuing of Jim Crow laws in the South. How many Trump supporting states would have recalled Senators in the 2020 for not agreeing to give him the Presidency?

Do you think it would be good to follow the Constitution and have the House grow with population?

It would have been untenable as the country grew. Originally, a representative shouldn’t have represented more than 30K people. If that had continued, we would now have 10,000 representatives.

You could always reduce the size of the government like conservatives want - at least until they realize that for the most part, conservative states are smaller more rural states that are a net beneficiary of federal income taxes.

Re: FBI Monitored Aretha Franklin for Years, File Shows

#264

Post by landemva »

scarface74 wrote: post #263
landemva wrote: post #261

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you think it would be good to follow the Constitution and have the House grow with population?

It would have been untenable as the country grew. Originally, a representative shouldn’t have represented more than 30K people. If that had continued, we would now have 10,000 representatives. You could always reduce the size of the government like conservatives want - at least until they realize that for the most part, conservative states are smaller more rural states that are a net beneficiary of federal income tax…

As it is now, the lobbyists and special interests have control.

30,000 sounds like real representation, would make gerrymandering pointless, and the lobbyists would find it difficult to control even 1/5 of the 30,000. I support this bigger government! They can do zoom calls, meet regionally, or meet in a baseball stadium.

If instead we optimize this democratic republic for cost, then a king will do.

Re: FBI Monitored Aretha Franklin for Years, File Shows

#265

Post by scarface74 »

landemva wrote: post #264
scarface74 wrote: post #263

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It would have been untenable as the country grew. Originally, a representative shouldn’t have represented more than 30K people. If that had continued, we would now have 10,000 representatives. You could always reduce the size of the government like conservatives want - at least until they realize that for the most part, conservative states are smaller more rural states that are a net beneficiary of federal income tax…

As it is now, the lobbyists and special interests have control. 30,000 sounds like real representation, would make gerrymandering pointless, and the lobbyists would find it difficult to control even 1/5 of the 30,000. I support this bigger government! They can do zoom calls, meet regionally, or meet in a baseball stadium. If instead we optimize this democratic republic for cost, then a king will do.

So how would that have worked in 1939 when they capped the number of representatives?

Re: FBI Monitored Aretha Franklin for Years, File Shows

#266

Post by landemva »

scarface74 wrote: post #265
landemva wrote: post #264

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As it is now, the lobbyists and special interests have control. 30,000 sounds like real representation, would make gerrymandering pointless, and the lobbyists would find it difficult to control even 1/5 of the 30,000. I support this bigger government! They can do zoom calls, meet regionally, or meet in a baseball stadium. If instead we optimize this democratic republic for cost, then a king will do.

So how would that have worked in 1939 when they capped the number of representatives?

You earlier brought up gerrymandering, electoral college, protests and your "white shields". Now you avoid the solution to the present day lack of representation, a solution which would make gerrymandering and lobbyists irrelevant in the House, by undoing the cap on the House. You instead want to go into 1930s whataboutism with an unexplained reference to Trump.

We can fix this together and everyone could have better representation in the federal House. Neither of the big parties, nor you, will discuss it. America is addicted to arguing for their team, while the lobbyists and special interests feed at our tax trough.

> how would that have worked in 1939

About the same as 1839 and 1937 and 1938.

Re: FBI Monitored Aretha Franklin for Years, File Shows

#267

Post by AaronFriel »

throwaway894345 wrote: post #98
AaronFriel wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which municipalities in the US enacted "defund the police" programs?

Hi Aaron, let me quote myself: > Not that we actually defunded them, but we have sharply reduced the quantity of policing (not usually through official policy as much as pressure on police departments to sharply reduce discretionary, proactive policing) which is what 'defund the police' aimed to do

I don't think there's any evidence of that occurring.

Re: FBI Monitored Aretha Franklin for Years, File Shows

#268

Post by scarface74 »

landemva wrote: post #266
scarface74 wrote: post #265

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So how would that have worked in 1939 when they capped the number of representatives?

You earlier brought up gerrymandering, electoral college, protests and your "white shields". Now you avoid the solution to the present day lack of representation, a solution which would make gerrymandering and lobbyists irrelevant in the House, by undoing the cap on the House. You instead want to go into 1930s whataboutism with an unexplained reference to Trump. We can fix this together and everyone could have better…

> You instead want to go into 1930s whataboutism with an unexplained reference to Trump.

It’s not whataboutism or about Trump. When it came time to certify the electoral votes for the election, there was a huge push for Republican representatives and senators not to certify the votes because of the “stolen election” much of that came from state houses. If the states (not the voters) could arbitrarily recall representatives, many of the Republican representatives who did do the right thing wouidnt have.

Besides, there is all types of coercion that could happen remotely that wouldn’t happen when everyone is one place.

Re: FBI Monitored Aretha Franklin for Years, File Shows

#269

Post by throwaway894345 »

AaronFriel wrote: post #267
throwaway894345 wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hi Aaron, let me quote myself: > Not that we actually defunded them, but we have sharply reduced the quantity of policing (not usually through official policy as much as pressure on police departments to sharply reduce discretionary, proactive policing) which is what 'defund the police' aimed to do

I don't think there's any evidence of that occurring.

There's plenty of evidence of this occurring.

> The leading hypothesis for why these [police shooting protests] increase homicides and total crime is an abrupt change in the quantity of policing activity. In Chicago, the number of police-civilian interactions decreased by almost 90% in the month after the investigation was announced. In Riverside CA, interactions decreased 54%. In St. Louis, self-initiated police activities declined by 46%.

This is from a 2020 paper from Harvard’s Roland Fryer and Tanaya Devi: https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w27324/w273...

I've read similar in other papers as well, but I can't recall them off the top of my head.

Maybe you mean "there isn't evidence that the reduction in policing is caused by 'pressure'", which seems kind of absurd considering the near-decade of nationwide protests. What's the alternative hypothesis? That police around the country spontaneously and abruptly reduced their discretionary policing and it's merely a coincidence that it happened following major protests aimed at reducing the quantity of policing?

Re: FBI Monitored Aretha Franklin for Years, File Shows

#270

Post by 2devnull »

wmeredith wrote: post #47
2devnull wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Until it’s not?

Yes? That's a glib statement that applies so widely that it's not really relevant.

My thought about the parent was the same, that it was sort of a truism. So I was trying to probe for what conditions or parameters would make the statement more meaningful, basically some prinicpals to assess how much big brother is the right amount of big brother. We all agree oversight is good sometimes and to some extent. The question is what is that extent.
Post reply on HN