New Yorkers Sue Trump and FEMA To Stop Presidential Alert (cnet.com) 511
Not everyone is pleased to hear that President Trump has the power to use communications systems in case of an emergency. According to CNET, three New York residents recently filed a lawsuit against President Trump and William Long, administrator of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, to halt FEMA's new Presidential Alert messaging system.
The lawsuit reads in part: "Plaintiffs are American citizens who do not wish to receive text messages, or messages of any kind, on any topic or subject, from defendant Trump. [Trump's] rise to power was facilitated by weaponized disinformation that he broadcast into the public information sphere via Twitter in addition to traditional mass media." From the report: Presidential Alerts are similar to Amber or other emergency alerts on your phone -- you hear a loud noise comes along with vibration. The messages come from the Integrated Public Alert and Warning System (IPAWS), which attempts to send the alert to every cell phone within the U.S. operating on a network run by a carrier opting into the Wireless Emergency Alert system. IPAWS is used in the event of natural disasters, acts of terrorism or other disasters or threats to public safety. The plaintiffs' main complaint is that Presidential Alerts are compulsory -- there's no way to opt-out of receiving them. They argue that under civil rights law, government cannot use cellular devices to compel listening, "trespass into and hijack" devices without a warrant or individual consent.
The plaintiffs are also concerned Trump might use the alerts to spread disinformation because IPAWS doesn't regulate the content of the messages. That means Trump may be free to define "act of terrorism" and "threat to public safety," and may broadcast "arbitrary, biased, irrational" messages to "hundreds of millions of people," the plaintiffs say in the lawsuit.
The lawsuit reads in part: "Plaintiffs are American citizens who do not wish to receive text messages, or messages of any kind, on any topic or subject, from defendant Trump. [Trump's] rise to power was facilitated by weaponized disinformation that he broadcast into the public information sphere via Twitter in addition to traditional mass media." From the report: Presidential Alerts are similar to Amber or other emergency alerts on your phone -- you hear a loud noise comes along with vibration. The messages come from the Integrated Public Alert and Warning System (IPAWS), which attempts to send the alert to every cell phone within the U.S. operating on a network run by a carrier opting into the Wireless Emergency Alert system. IPAWS is used in the event of natural disasters, acts of terrorism or other disasters or threats to public safety. The plaintiffs' main complaint is that Presidential Alerts are compulsory -- there's no way to opt-out of receiving them. They argue that under civil rights law, government cannot use cellular devices to compel listening, "trespass into and hijack" devices without a warrant or individual consent.
The plaintiffs are also concerned Trump might use the alerts to spread disinformation because IPAWS doesn't regulate the content of the messages. That means Trump may be free to define "act of terrorism" and "threat to public safety," and may broadcast "arbitrary, biased, irrational" messages to "hundreds of millions of people," the plaintiffs say in the lawsuit.
idiots, not from Trump, not authorized by Trump (Score:5, Informative)
how clueless, President Barack Obama signed the Integrated Public Alert and Warning System Modernization Act of 2015.
And the messages are from FEMA.
Beside this fools in major media outlets are embarrassing themselves with their ignorance, spewing about "Trump's messages"
Re: idiots, not from Trump, not authorized by Trum (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
I recall this being set up during the Obama Administration
What part of "being set up during" didn't you understand? He didn't say it was tested then.
Re: (Score:3)
"It would be nice if it were possible for millions of Americans to simultaneously tell Trump what we really thought of him in a way he had to listen to."
Well, there was an election in 2016 where 65M people said they agreed with him enough so that he should be President. There's another coming up in 2020.
"Elections have consequences, and at the end of the day, I won."
Re: idiots, not from Trump, not authorized by Trum (Score:4, Insightful)
And when it was signed into law under Obama, I think I remember the Republican-leaning part of the population being equally outraged at it.
This "we must be outraged *just* because Trump was named in describing the thing" feels just as bad as "we must be outraged *just* because Obama was named in describing the thing" from a few years ago. The only thing that's changed is who is being outraged.
(Sure, this administration may be saying/doing a lot of things there's a real non-partisan reason to be outraged at, but this isn't one of them.)
Re: idiots, not from Trump, not authorized by Trum (Score:5, Insightful)
It's sad that people even give a flying fuck about this message. Oh, test message. Not an Amber Alert, no hurricane or earthquake.
The EAS has messages at least once a week on your favorite radio station. No one gets outraged. Same principal.
The electronic trespass rubric seems like a sham to me. If there were a tornado coming through, you'd want to know. A national emergency like some fool N Korean lobbing stuff at the USA, yeah, a real one (not the stupid fake one of recent memory) is important.
Gonna be earthquake? Sunspots of biblical magnitude (just before most transistors get clobbered) would be nice. I'd break out the candles.
Of many things to give a crap about, this is not one of them.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And the same outraged people would be outraged again if some disaster stuck and they weren't notified.
"Why didn't the government warn us?? WHYYYY!?"
Re: idiots, not from Trump, not authorized by Trum (Score:4, Insightful)
Exactly.
These days, half the people are raging that it's sun-up, while the others wondered why couldn't night time be longer.
If there was a concerted effort to make everyone touchy MFers, it worked.
Re: (Score:3)
>"The electronic trespass rubric seems like a sham to me. If there were a tornado coming through, you'd want to know"
Indeed. Too bad every one of those tornado alerts I got were hundreds of miles away from me and always at some insane time, and with an EXTREMELY loud and frightening alarm. And so I turned that portion off. Don't even get me started about "amber alerts"...
And yet we are not "allowed" to turn off "Presidential Alerts"
The real issue here is one of principle. I don't think the government
Re: (Score:2)
Although I truly and sincerely desire you to have control over your devices and your privacy, you and I do not.
Could the alerts be tighter? Sure. I get Amber alerts from 200mi away. I shrug. You should, too.
You are mightily deceived if you don't understand privacy, LBS tracking, and the sins of the telcos. This is truly chump change compared to the flapping pile of data dirt already stored on you, and I. Living in a crazy world is a grey scale of death by a thousand cuts. This is just one cut. Save the crie
Re: (Score:2)
>"This is truly chump change compared to the flapping pile of data dirt already stored on you, and I. Living in a crazy world is a grey scale of death by a thousand cuts. This is just one cut. Save the cries for the really deep ones."
I am very, very aware of how much spying and data collection is going on. Way before people like Snowden started raising eyebrows. Indeed this is just a small cut... but I tend to stand against all the cuts; they all hurt, and they are all additive. But don't think my ire
Re: (Score:2)
sure you can, it's called "cancelling service".
As an interesting side note, in theory the message that comes through could be something like: Due to state of emergency, 24 hour curfew in effect. Troops ordered to shoot on sight, shoot to kill.
Or: Nuke inbound to . LEAVE IMMEDIATELY.
Still don't want the alert?
Martial law would require advanced notice through multiple channels and media. There would be ample time to prepare accordingly.
On the other hand, an inbound nuclear warhead means you're gonna die immediately or some time in the next few days. Presuming you have 30 minutes advanced warning (it's more likely to be 5-10) you might have just enough time to get limber and kiss your ass goodbye.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Nuclear attacks are survivable. Heck, there is one unfortunate guy who was in Hiroshima when it got bombed, survived, went to Nagasaki and got another one. He died not very long ago. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org].
Basically, and I am no expert, a few minutes could give you enough time to go into a bunker which would protect you from the initial explosion and irradiation, and from there, you might be able to plot an escape from the fallout zone.
Re: idiots, not from Trump, not authorized by Trum (Score:4, Informative)
Well, they can be but it depends on a several factors such as distance, yield and number of hits.
I built a a high end bomb shelter (decontamination showers, weapon lockers, air handling, etc.) when I was a contractor in the 80's. If you're far enough away from a single blast, you can survive the flash burn in almost any building. Even then, the serious problem comes from multiple hits, e.g., a sporadic exchange. Very difficult to deal with that. The fallout is actually the easiest to deal with. The over pressure is the problem from a construction standpoint.
>>Basically, and I am no expert, a few minutes could give you enough time to go into a bunker which would protect you from the initial explosion and irradiation, and from there, you might be able to plot an escape from the fallout zone.
Step 1: Build a serious bunker. Oops, don't have one and your very cooperative neighbors don't either? Screwed, you are..
Re: (Score:2)
I don't trust the current guy, but this is just a tiny dick move among dick moves that are clearly gargantuan. It's a matter of penises. He wants to have a big one, and now, he thinks he does, especially when people complain loudly and severely.
Re: idiots, not from Trump, not authorized by Trum (Score:5, Funny)
I say let him. When people are woken up at 3AM with a message from FEMA reading "CROOKED HILLARY BENGAZGATE ROBERT MUHLER IS FIRED" , the straight up outrage that'd cause against him would be worth the price of the interuption alone.
Re: (Score:3)
Then you need anger management lessons.
If you're that touchy, try quitting coffee. Something's inherently wrong here. Your phone buzzed once. Did you get your pistol? Throw something? See a professional.
Re: idiots, not from Trump, not authorized by Trum (Score:5, Insightful)
And when it was signed into law under Obama, I think I remember the Republican-leaning part of the population being equally outraged at it.
Really? I don't remember any outrage about it at all. It was an extension/upgrade to the existing EAS system and back then people understood that a notification system was a Good Thing. Of course there were people who don't want to get any messages they don't want, like the presidential alert, and are unhappy that there is no way to turn them off. (I am one of those.) It's hardly "outrage" at "Obama" or "Trump" to feel that way. I feel the same way about useless Amber alerts, and even the Everbridge calls that our local Sheriff's office sometimes send out.
The only thing that's changed is who is being outraged.
No. There were no lawsuits from morons who wanted to predict all kinds of nonsense about how it would be misused when it was created. This is a lawsuit that is many years too late, because nothing has changed about the system itself. It's only who is now authorized to send the message, and that message is not coming straight from the cellphone of the President, it's coming through FEMA.
This lawsuit nonsense is a whole 'nother level of derangement. No, Trump is not going to declare a national emergency just so he can trigger a national alert. It just ain't gonna happen.
Re: idiots, not from Trump, not authorized by Tru (Score:3)
That's right. They are not the same. Few people had Obama Derangement Syndrome compared to tens of millions with TDS. But this madness is not over, it needs to play out further. It's going to be a neurotic society's Primal Scream.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That's right. They are not the same. Few people had Obama Derangement Syndrome compared to tens of millions with TDS. But this madness is not over, it needs to play out further. It's going to be a neurotic society's Primal Scream.
Can we stop with the "Trump Derangement Syndrome"?
It's propaganda intended to dismiss the legitimate opinions about an elected official.
Trump is by all measures a terrible steward of the economy, the environment, diplomatic relations, the truth, etc. etc. It makes sense people are furious about his executive actions which to date amount to grift, corruption, dishonesty, and cronyism.
People upset about Trump's executive actions are not necessarily deranged. They're responding as one should to someone who wie
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
What is spectacular is your confirmation of the principle. To illustrate it to you, consider a hypothetical Wife Derangement Principle:
Bob: "Is there anything your wife has done that you think is good? If you can't name anything, then you have Wife derangement syndrome."
Chris: "You forgot to account for the most likely explanation there, sport: my wife is just a gigantic piece of shit. And given what I know about her, that's the likeliest explanation. Literally everything she has done which has not been har
Re: idiots, not from Trump, not authorized by Tru (Score:2, Insightful)
How can you be sure? He's known for doing or saying whatever just to get what he wants.
Re: idiots, not from Trump, not authorized by Tru (Score:3, Insightful)
Your memory [thegatewaypundit.com] isn't the only thing that matters, and some of us remember the numerous birther lawsuits, the endless haranging that Obama was going to FEMA camp us into martial law, and all sorts of other nonsense which you were and are conspicuously silent about, but somehow expect the country to be "patriotic" and not badmouth the CURRENT occupant of the White House as he shoots his mouth off.
Re: (Score:2)
The idea is older than that. The extension of EAS to cell phones was publicly announced in 2009 (prior to Obama) - http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs... [fcc.gov] but the actual order to FCC was given in 2006.
Re: idiots, not from Trump, not authorized by Tru (Score:2, Insightful)
??? Testing a new system before it is needed is pretty standard. Not sure Iâ(TM)d call it abuse..., Dems on a hair trigger and disgusted before they even know why theyâ(TM)re upset.
Re: (Score:3)
So having an emergency system during 9/11 or some other major incident is useless? Got it.
The request for a TRO was already rejected... (Score:5, Informative)
...because it is idiotic, and could apply to EAS, or EBS before it, delivered via any medium, including radio and TV, or even warning sirens.
https://nypost.com/2018/10/03/... [nypost.com]
One of the chief purposes and reasons for being for EAS (and EBS) is for the President to get a message directly to the American people in the event of a major national emergency.
It's a system that is desperately needed, and was expanded to include Wireless Emergency Alerts (WEA) via the IPAWS legislation signed into law by President Obama.
And though we hope the system is never used, it does need to be tested.
https://slate.com/technology/2... [slate.com]
Re:The request for a TRO was already rejected... (Score:5, Insightful)
Trump may be a jackass, but this is his job. If he abuses the powers and access of his job, then people have a right to be pissed, but you can't preemptively take the tools of his job away.
Re: (Score:2)
IPAWS modernization was signed into law by Bush (2006), a version of the WEA was announced by FCC in 2009.
Re: (Score:2)
agreed, this has got to be the worst case of 'i'm going to take my ball and go home' I have ever seen. Forget about WHO ordered the message. This is an emergency alert system. If he didn't run tests, they would accuse him of the same bullshit they accused bush jr of with new orleans. Damned if you do, damned if you dont. Why do they even pretend its about more than being butt hurt?
That's Crazy (Score:2, Funny)
The plaintiffs are also concerned Trump might use the alerts to spread disinformation because IPAWS doesn't regulate the content of the messages. That means Trump may be free to define "act of terrorism" and "threat to public safety," and may broadcast "arbitrary, biased, irrational" messages to "hundreds of millions of people," the plaintiffs say in the lawsuit.
I think the plaintiffs should have to present some evidence why they believe it is likely the President would abuse this forum to broadcast "arbitrary, biased, irrational" messages.
To what individual tendency they'd even reference?
Re: (Score:2)
https://twitter.com/realDonald... [twitter.com]
Re:That's Crazy (Score:5, Funny)
I think the plaintiffs should have to present some evidence why they believe it is likely the President would abuse this forum to broadcast "arbitrary, biased, irrational" messages.
I received the following alert this morning, just before noon PST.
"Presidential Alert
THIS IS A TEST of the National Wireless Emergency Alert System. No action is needed.
Christine Blasey Ford is a skank."
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
I think the plaintiffs should have to present some evidence why they believe it is likely the President would abuse this forum to broadcast "arbitrary, biased, irrational" messages.
I received the following alert this morning, just before noon PST.
"Presidential Alert THIS IS A TEST of the National Wireless Emergency Alert System. No action is needed.
Christine Blasey Ford is a skank."
Like no steak should ever, not ever, be served; well done, sir.
Re: (Score:2)
The plaintiffs are also concerned Trump might use the alerts to spread disinformation because IPAWS doesn't regulate the content of the messages.
Sounds like they're asking for prior restraint, something that the courts frown quite deeply upon.
No damages, no lawsuit (Score:2)
The messages are free, so there are no damages.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
How do you determine emotional trauma for something that has never and may never happen?
Re:There are more than two arthropods (Score:5, Interesting)
I want to know why alerts don't go into a history like text messages. Personally I think they should just go into the normal SMS history.
When I clear an alert to make the phone be quiet I lose the ability to see the alert. That's some of the dumbest planning I've seen.
Re: (Score:3)
They do on my phone (Galaxy). Maybe you just have a cappy phone.
Re: (Score:2)
Now I'm curious what brand phone you have. Sounds poorly designed.
Re:There are more than two arthropods (Score:5, Informative)
Apps & Notifications -> Emergency Alerts -> Emergency alert history
Re: (Score:2)
i think thats a problem with the device manufacturer. Once the content is delivered to the device, its the device that caches your notifications for review. Aparently they didnt think this type needed to be cached. I agree with you, but I am not sure there is much the feds can do. Not every device that is designed to recieve this actually has the feature you are talking about. Believe it or not but there are still a few 'dumb' phones still in ciculation.
We get it... (Score:5, Informative)
...you guys are still butt hurt over the 2016 election.
But really, you don't want FEMA messages because they "come from Trump"? You know this system was authorized by President Obama, right?
Re: We get it... (Score:5, Insightful)
You don't get it. Trump is that badly distrusted.
But yes, we remember your hysterical anti-Obama actions. Birtherism, Jade Dragon, FEMA in general, and even a letter to Iran from members of the Senate. So sow what you reap.
The bad thing for you is that Trump has a record of needing adult supervision. His own staff documented it.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
...you guys are still butt hurt over the 2016 election.
I'm butt hurt over the fact that I live in a country where half of the population is stupid enough to vote for Trump.
Re:We get it... (Score:4, Funny)
Good news! Only about a third of the country is stupid enough to vote for Trump.
Unfortunately, another third of the country looked at their choices in 2016 and said "I'm not gonna bother".
Re: (Score:2)
Correct, I almost certainly don't want FEMA messages. I'm not sure the use case where it would be helpful, and in an emergency my phone is probably going to be put away. If my phone makes noise during a hurricane, I would expect it to be a friend/family member in trouble.
Origin was in 2006 (Score:5, Informative)
The original bill that created this national FEMA alert was passed in 2006. Bush then signed a bill that modified it in 2008. The original test was scheduled to happen during the hurricane Florence. So it was moved to today. Just another opportunity to smear Trump.
Re: (Score:3)
The original bill that created this national FEMA alert was passed in 2006. Bush then signed a bill that modified it in 2008. The original test was scheduled to happen during the hurricane Florence. So it was moved to today. Just another opportunity to smear Trump.
Fortuitously, they've been quite few.
Re: (Score:2)
Fine! I'm gonna take my ball and go home...
The F stands for? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Biased media (Score:4, Insightful)
> [Trump's] rise to power was facilitated by weaponized disinformation that he broadcast into the public information sphere via Twitter in addition to traditional mass media.
This is rich considering the objectively lopsided reporting by the media who did their best to elect Hillary. You can't complain about Russian trolls when you have the power of mass media and tech companies behind you.
Amazingly they still don't understand why Trump won. The fact is, Hillary was an awful candidate, and no propping her up by the powerful elites was going to change that.
Re: (Score:2)
How many voted against Donald, and not /for/ Hillary?
I voted for Clinton, but if the republicans had put up almost anyone but Trump, I would have voted for them.
Gotta say, that's kind of dumb (Score:5, Insightful)
Look, I hate Trump probably as much as anyone. But this lawsuit is dumb.
It's just an emergency alert. The weather service can issue weather alerts, emergency services can issue alerts for wildfires and earthquakes and such. They're an obvious public good - informing the public of imminent dangers to life and limb.
Could it be abused? In theory, yeah. Not quite sure how you'd do it in practice - it's not like there's a special console in the Oval Office that controls it, any message has to pass through lines of people before it goes out, any one of which would be required to refuse it. I'd be more worried about some FEMA staffer accidentally running something in prod instead of test and spamming the country than the Tangerine Toddler using it as an unblockable twitter.
More to the point, if you're worried that the President is likely to abuse a top-level emergency warning system to shovel propaganda at an unwilling public... the solution is not "don't let the president do that", it's "don't let that person be president". Such an untrustworthy person should not have been elected in the first place, and such a breach of public trust is cause for immediate removal from office, whether by impeachment or 25A or any other means necessary.
After all, we trust the president with nukes. If we can't trust someone with an emergency broadcast system, how the hell can we trust them with thermonuclear weapons?
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Look, I hate Trump probably as much as anyone. But this lawsuit is dumb.
You do not need to qualify it. Just say it:
This is dumb. The people doing it are dumb or partisan.
That is it. Adding in the wink and nod means you are trying to impress people who, if they do not agree with you on this stupidly obvious point, are not going to be convinced anyway.
Hey wimps (Score:5, Funny)
Constitution does not require you to buy a phone.. (Score:2)
Amber Alerts? (Score:2)
This was no more invasive than the Amber alert for kidnapped children. I've gotten those at 4:30 AM, talk about invasive. I don't remember any lawsuits being filed on them.
Re: (Score:3)
You can block Amber Alerts. I did immediately after I found out about them. I'm going to be zero use in those scenarios because I don't pay any more attention to children than it takes to avoid tripping over them. As a single middle-aged man, it doesn't pay for me to pay attention to them at any level. And I don't give a shit about a vehicle with a kidnapped kid on the other end of the state anyhow. I'll never be there and they're not going to be headed here. I DO NOT FUCKING CARE. (it's probably the non-cu
You can opt out of Amber alerts (Score:2)
You can opt out of Amber and other alerts. But not this one. That's a difference.
I was in O'Hare Airport when it dropped (Score:2)
Freaked the shit out of people for a few seconds. Thousands of phones went off at once in a very busy airport, a few people sought cover/shelter.
Now I expect regular Tweets but not via Twitter...
Of course they do (Score:2, Insightful)
Of course they do ...
And these are the folks who think they are smarter than us dumb flyover hicks.
Insurrection Coordination System (Score:2)
Reply button (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Reply button (Score:5, Funny)
"To everybody, please stop sending reply-to-all messages".
"To Lisa, I love you".
I'm convinced more and more (Score:2)
That humans have run their course, time to give the dinosaurs another chance...
Good, keep at it. (Score:2)
Americans are funny (Score:5, Funny)
This group of people want to avoid "arbitrary, biased, irrational" messages by filing an arbitrary, biased, irrational lawsuit.
Re: (Score:2)
But that's probably not your question, it's probably "can someone successfully sue you for something that you haven't yet done?". So next, you're
Stupid (Score:2, Insightful)
This is so butthurt, stupid, and such a waste of effort and thought. It's perfect for the millennial snowflake crowd. It let's them signal virtue with no effort, and while accomplishing nothing at all of value.
In fact it's basically:
It is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.
Re: (Score:2)
So all these net neutrality lawsuits are pointless?
Declaratory judgement (Score:5, Interesting)
I am not a lawyer, but there is something called a "declaratory judgement". You could think of a declaratory judgement as being about something that could happen but hasn't yet.
Wikipedia [wikipedia.org]:
A declaratory judgment, also called a declaration, is the legal determination of a court that resolves legal uncertainty for the litigants. It is a form of legally binding preventive adjudication by which a party involved in an actual or possible legal matter can ask a court to conclusively rule on and affirm the rights, duties, or obligations of one or more parties in a civil dispute...
I'm your neighbour, and for years I've been yelling at you about how your driveway goes over my land, and that I'm going to sue you one of these days sonny boy see if I don't. You think I'm full of crap and would have no case. Now you want to do an expensive paving job on your driveway. The scenario you fear is: you pay lots of money for the job, then I get annoyed and actually get around to suing, and to your surprise I win, and you have to tear up the expensive job and have it redone. If you could be guaranteed I'd sue you in the near future, it would be fine: you'd fight the case, and at the end you'd know exactly what you could or could not do. But I'll probably never sue, so you face the prospect of never paving your driveway.
The declaratory judgement allows you to force this case into court, even though you are not the putatively wronged party. You ask the court to make a declaratory judgement that your driveway is not on my land, and then the court finds either for you or for me, and either way you have clarity.
So rather than waiting for Trump to use the text alert and then sue him for inappropriate use, you might seek a declaratory judgement as to what an appropriate use is. As mentioned above, I am not a lawyer, so I don't know whether this falls within the stuff you can get a declaratory judgement over.
Re: (Score:3)
FD
Sadly, no current party properly represents me. I am neither aligned with the Party of Lord Donald, nor the Clinton's political affiliation. I believe a candidate for office chooses a political side too often based on electability. Dems don't win in Texas (sorry, Beto) and Conservatives don't serve in Vermont (you know I'm right, Bernie.
There are certainly women who've been taken advantage of by powerful men, and not so powerful men, for aeons.
There are just as certainly, clever and unscrupulous modern wo
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
> You can also, as amply demonstrated by yourself, falsely claim that any witnesses at all(let alone every one of them) refute and deny claims even as what they really said is that they don't remember any specific incidents
So why doesn't Ford's life long friend remember the party where her friend was almost raped, where she had to flee down a short, narrow stairwell, and where she had no way home, due to cell phones not existing yet?
âoeSimply put, Ms. Keyser does not know Mr. Kavanaugh and she has n
You're complaining about being refuted by facts (Score:3, Insightful)
> Because none of that applies to the friend who had no traumatic encounter and no knowledge of this Kavanaugh person.
> For her, it was apparently just another party.
Where her friend mysteriously disappeared, despite having to go past her to get to the door and having no way to arrange a ride home?
> That people who are apologists for Kavanaugh are making it out as if Keyser refuted the claim, that she denied aby incident, discredits them, and by extension Kavanaugh.
She doesn't even remember how man
Re: Huh???? (Score:4, Informative)
Talk about blind fanatics.
So we'll believe she has "indelibly etched in her hippocampus" fantastically detailed, second by second replay memory of events in a closed room, which no one else was privy to, but then cannot remember where it was, when it was, how she got there, who drove her home. If she was in fact so traumatized as to be "afraid he'd kill me", she would definitely remember these details, but she can only remember those things which cannot be verified or debunked. Isn't that convenient. Her own best friends says she has no idea what she's talking about. There are no verifiable facts to work with here, nothing but her heresay.
Therefore he has no way to "prove innocence" as many say he must (a disgusting term to begin with, and leftists bitch about Russia??) because there is NO evidence to work with.
False accusations happen, but particularly when politics are at stake.
Stop watching CNN and their "drunken frat boy" character assassination. Just about every college kid drinks. Obama smoked weed and snorted coke, but he became POTUS. So I guess he wasn't fit for his job either, by this same logic.
Re: (Score:3)
Because you claim that experts claim this? Where are your citations? I call BS in this case, she wasn't actually raped, just pushed, and briefly groped according to her. If that is reportedly enough to scramble someone's memories so they don't need to provide more information of a useful nature, then no man is safe from a woman who wants to claim you sexually assualted her but doesn't have to provide any verifiable type details at all.. a selective memory, heresay, is enough. My wife was raped from a gr
Re:Such a misguided idea... (Score:5, Informative)
"Presidential" alerts actually go back to the 1960s when people were afraid of nuclear attack by Russia. It gave the president (Kennedy) the power to alert Americans "We are under attack. Held to your shelters."
Fast-forward to now, it's still the same system to provide Fast warning to the citizens, but expanded from TV and radio to include cellphones.
Big deal.
Re: (Score:2)
Such a misguided idea connecting safety alerts to the president.
Yep, it's mostly a marketing failure... I mean even the official site says [fcc.gov]:
What alerts does WEA deliver?
Alerts from WEA cover only critical emergency situations. Consumers may receive only three types of alerts:
Alerts issued by the President
Alerts involving imminent threats to safety or life
Amber Alerts
Participating carriers may allow subscribers to block all but Presidential alerts.
I mean it is natural that it's the President addressing the country in a crisis, but they could have just called it "National Security alerts" for example. Like you can't opt out of the warning that WWIII just started. It's kinda hard for me to think of a "critical emergency" that doesn't fit any of those three.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah. Call them "FEMA Alerts" or "National Emergency Alerts" instead. This is not something you want tied to anything political.
Those that dislike the current President will be annoyed by the message. And the next time there's a Democratic president, Trump's fans will be annoyed by the message.
Re: (Score:3)
So your suggestion is that the most critical of emergency broadcasts should be more subtle, so as not to disturb any meetings?
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, I understand that the carriers can't ensure that these alerts are received at exactly the same time. Yes, I understand that there may be a legitimate need for them, and in an emergency, it can be critical. But the implementation leaves much to be desired. It doesn't need to be as disruptive as it is; it doesn't need to be as obnoxious as they are.
If you actually understood the need you'd know why they have to be as disruptive and obnoxious as they are. The system isn't designed to be delivering messages like "sorry to bother you, if you aren't busy or otherwise occupied, but here is a bit of information you might find interesting..." It's intended for a message that is critical enough that you need to stop what you are doing and listen.
We've never had one -- yet -- but when we need it it needs to be there and noticed. What would it be used for? W
Re: (Score:2)
Really? Then why has the current disruptive obnoxious usage been used to report things like heavy rain condition
Re: (Score:2)
Not everyone is dumb enough to not know how to disable amber alerts.
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, kids, but you won't change that undeniable reality no matter how many spite-mods you pile on. Reminds me of a lawsuit I was just reading about, now that I think about it.
Re: Yeah, I am a trump supporter... (Score:4, Informative)
Because he is using the federal emergency system to test.... the federal emergency system?
This is why I fucking hate the Democrats. It's not a "good thing" or "bad thing" with them. It's a bad person, and EVERY SINGLE THING HE DOES is resisted and casted in the worst possible light, every time. It gets old.
Besides, you can't sue the president for something the law essentially requires him to do.
I'd understand if people hated some of the things he says or does, and I've been a supporter of democratic candidates, but such unbridled hatred towards him has made me so fed up, I hope he just crushes them in the mid terms, gets his judge appointed, and is re-elected in 2020. Not because I am a fan or care, but because I think it's not as bad as the democratic behavior which is purely obstructionism and hatred at this point. I want to see them lose just because of the vitriol they spew.
Ultimately, he won the election. No matter who does, I want them to succeed, because success is success for my country.
Re: Yeah, I am a trump supporter... (Score:5, Insightful)
What the hell makes you think that just because we hate president Dumpsterfire that anyone likes the Democrats a ton better? They're all awful, which is how we got this orange orangutan in the first place.
I think most of us would be thrilled with a "Fire them all" button where we could start over with all new people. The corrupt bastards from my state are some of the worst. I vote against them every 2 years, and nothing ever comes of it.
Re: Yeah, I am a trump supporter... (Score:3, Insightful)
Through our collective consent, this is the leadership we ended up with. Now, I prefer to balls and strikes the guy. If he does something I like, I cheer. If he does something I don't, I cry foul.
What bothers me is most people can't name three things he did that they like, or at least agree with.
He supports changing the repliblican platform to support abortion for women in three circumstances (from 0 today).
He supports the use of medical marijuana (a first for republican president).
He struck back at an air
Re: (Score:3)
He supports the use of medical marijuana (a first for republican president).
Where's the proposed policy on this, and why pick one of the most anti-marijuana people around to be the Attorney General?
Re: Yeah, I am a trump supporter... (Score:3)
I'm not telling you to support it, I'm saying if your argument is based on who is making a case or arguing a point, then I don't give a rats ass what your cnn-brainwashed idiot head thinks. It's soaked with "I'm an angel and my values are better than this persons" bleach.
I'm saying, give me substance. What do you not like? Which policy direction? What law? Which executive order. A president does dozens of things every day. This "dumpster fire" is rearranging global supply chains. He is changing the way Amer
Re: Yeah, I am a trump supporter... (Score:4, Insightful)
This is why I fucking hate the Democrats. It's not a "good thing" or "bad thing" with them. It's a bad person, and EVERY SINGLE THING HE DOES is resisted and casted in the worst possible light, every time. It gets old.
This isn't really a "Democrat"-specific thing. A lot of Republicans treated Obama like the boogeyman, and everything he did was somehow nefarious. They tried to roadblock everything he did. They spent years hammering the Affordable Care Act-- which was largely a Republican bill, put forward as a compromise.
And not to say that Obama was perfect, but his behavior was, at the very least, much more in line with normal, respectable, Presidential behavior. Trump is a legitimate problem. He's a criminal and a walking disaster who has abused power at every turn.
You say you're not a fan, but I don't believe you. You say you don't care, but then you hope he "crushes them". If you're a Trump fan, at least admit it. Maybe you don't want to because you yourself know that he's a legitimate problem.
Re: Yeah, I am a trump supporter... (Score:5, Interesting)
Doesn't matter who signed it, I actually think it was a good bill, until the individual mandate entered into it. And I don't care which political party you say you are, no one gets to tell me I have to buy anyone's product by force. And I'm sorry, it's by force. If I don't I get fined. If I don't pay or agree to pay it, it's prison. If I resist prison, I get killed by police.
Re: Yeah, I am a trump supporter... (Score:4, Informative)
Oh my goodness. No. I live in Los Angeles. Jokes on you.
Besides. I didn't say I supported Trump, I said I don't support the vitriol and obstructionism. I'm sorry, but Obama never was sued for issuing alerts. This is just pure bullshit.
Re: (Score:3)
The message will be "Covfefe". Your response should be to duck and cover.
Re: (Score:3)
What event woyld(sic) justify sending such a message and will it explain what people must do in that event.
Ask Hawaii.
Re: (Score:2)
America tolerates idiots, and allows them to speak. We don't need to censor our dumbest three citizens to impress some foreigner.
We have tanks and ICBMs and stuff to impress foreigners.