In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up!
NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action.
On June 24 2015 13:44 QuantumTeleportation wrote: I have a feeling that Hilary Clinton will be the next US president in 2016.
Donald Trump may have a lot of media influence, however I don't think most people take him seriously. However a lot of alternative media are siding with him:
What does everyone else think?
Trump doesn't have a chance, and I think Hillary is most likely to become president.
Trump is just an attention whore who will do anything to be in the spotlight. I doubt he even believes half of what he says but he knows it will evoke a big response.
President Obama is poised for one of the biggest victories of his second term after the Senate voted Tuesday to advance legislation enhancing his trade powers.
The Senate’s 60-37 vote sets the stage for passage on Wednesday of the trade-promotion authority (TPA) bill, or fast-track, which House GOP leaders ushered through the lower chamber last week. If the Senate approves the measure, as expected, it heads to the White House for Obama’s signature.
After the vote, liberal trade opponents on and off Capitol Hill acknowledged fast-track is all but certain to become law, throwing in the towel after a months-long legislative brawl that saw Obama siding with GOP leaders against his own Democratic base.
The opponents are instead moving the battle lines back in preparation to fight an emerging Pacific trade deal the fast-track power is designed to foster.
As part of the strategic switch, Democrats in both chambers are lining up to vote in favor of a worker aid bill — known as Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) — which House liberals killed earlier this month as a means to block fast-track.
Public Citizen, among the most vocal opponents of Obama’s trade agenda, also indicated Tuesday that it will reserve its firepower for the coming fight over the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), an accord with Japan and 10 other nations that could affect as much as 40 percent of the global economy.
Obama had said he would not sign a fast-track bill without assurances that there is a strategy for getting TAA to his desk as well.
That stipulation left open the question of whether liberal fast-track opponents would repeat their earlier effort to sink TAA, a program long-championed by Democrats, in a bid to stall TPA once more. But even the staunchest Democratic critics said Tuesday that there’s no such plan in the works.
“I don’t think too many members want to go home having taken care of corporate interests with TPA and then falling short on taking care of workers,” said Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio), who led the Democratic opposition to fast-track in the Senate.
He said he would vote for TAA but that pro-union Democrats will make their next stand against the TPP. Brown and other Democrats acknowledged, however, that it will be tougher to fight the multilateral pact because of Obama’s fast-track authority.
The TPA bill would grant Congress an up-or-down vote on Obama’s trade deals but prohibit amendments or a filibuster in the Senate. The administration has portrayed the extra authority as a necessary step in the president’s bid to finalize the TPP, which has emerged as the top economic priority of his second term.
White House spokesman Josh Earnest on Tuesday declined to say if Obama would sign the fast-track bill before the worker aid measure reached his desk, but he did not rule out that possibility.
“The president has made clear both of them are a priority,” Earnest told reporters. “I don’t have a time frame to lay out for you right now in terms of when the president will sign one bill or the other.”
Such vague comments have made Democratic critics of TPA even more wary of the president’s approach. Asked if there’s a fear among Democrats that Obama would sign TPA even without concrete assurances that TAA would follow, one House Democratic aide minced no words.
“Not a fear, a belief,” said the aide, whose boss opposes fast-track. “His whole sentiment the entire time has been ‘trust us.’ But we know what he’s saying doesn’t jibe with reality. So, no, there’s not much trust.”
Tuesday’s Senate vote is a huge win for Obama and his unlikely ally, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), who has been better known as the president’s persistent foil over the past six and a half years.
Obama’s second term has been largely devoid of legislative accomplishment after immigration reform and gun control legislation faltered in the last Congress.
McConnell predicted earlier this year that trade legislation would be the biggest legislative achievement of the new Senate GOP majority, bolstering his argument to voters that Republicans know how to govern.
“We have demonstrated we can work together on a bipartisan basis to achieve something that is extremely important for America,” McConnell said after the vote.
Thirteen Democrats joined 47 Republicans in supporting the measure, while only six Republicans voted no.
Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), a 2016 presidential contender, surprised GOP leaders by announcing his last-minute opposition. The move left fellow Republicans scratching their heads because Cruz, along with House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), had penned a Wall Street Journal op-ed in April expressing support for fast-track.
Senate aides speculated it was an effort to persuade other Republicans to join him and hand the GOP establishment an embarrassing loss.
McConnell, meanwhile, is aiming to pass the worker aid bill later in the week as an attachment to an African trade bill.
In the House, Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) is also vowing to move the remaining pieces of the trade package through the lower chamber and to Obama before week’s end.
“Our goal is to get TPA and TAA to the president’s desk this week and deliver this win for the American people,” he said Tuesday in a statement.
That would be a victory for Boehner and Ryan, who has led the GOP effort in the House.
They don’t have much time. GOP leaders have canceled Friday’s scheduled votes to allow lawmakers to attend funerals in Charleston, S.C., in the wake of last week’s fatal shooting at a historic black church in the city.
On June 24 2015 14:16 Slaughter wrote: Trump is just an attention whore who will do anything to be in the spotlight. I doubt he even believes half of what he says but he knows it will evoke a big response.
I actually think he does believe almost everything he says.
On June 24 2015 13:44 QuantumTeleportation wrote: I have a feeling that Hilary Clinton will be the next US president in 2016.
Donald Trump may have a lot of media influence, however I don't think most people take him seriously. However a lot of alternative media are siding with him:
On June 24 2015 13:44 QuantumTeleportation wrote: I have a feeling that Hilary Clinton will be the next US president in 2016.
Donald Trump may have a lot of media influence, however I don't think most people take him seriously. However a lot of alternative media are siding with him:
I think Nader had some interesting points to make on it lol:
1.Many American voters love to vote for very rich candidates, whether they are Republicans or Democrats. They believe they can’t be bought. They love business success stories. And being very rich, the media keeps the very rich candidates in the limelight, as do the national polls.
2.He can pay for his own media. Remember billionaire Ross Perot and his purchase of national television to show his charts on deficits. People laughed. But Mr. Perot got 19 million votes in 1992, even after dropping out of the campaign in the summer and being labeled a conspiracy theorist before again becoming a candidate in the fall!
3.Trump regularly and personally attacks the other candidates, which makes for regular news. The other candidates do not like to engage in personal attacks unless under political duress.
4.Trump turns liabilities into assets, including his vaunted forthcoming disclosures of his net worth – he focused on assets, while ignoring many complex liabilities. While Jeb Bush and Mitt Romney before him tried to play down their wealth, Trump insists he’s worth over ten billion dollars. He even ridiculed Bush who announced for president without wearing a suit and tie. To accusations that he has taken public subsidies and eminent domain protections for his giant projects, Trump replies that capital and tax money create jobs and more businesses.
5.Trump will crowd other candidates out from valuable TV, radio (Rush Limbaugh thinks highly of him) and print space. To adjust, they may have to become more flamboyant, further expanding the circus-like atmosphere of the Republican Primaries, while the Democratic Party leaders chortle.
6.Some of Trump’s positions have sizable support among Republican voters. He believes in public works programs on a big scale. He talks jobs, jobs, jobs and says he’s the only one among the candidates, who has been creating jobs. He objects strongly to the trade agreements, including the proposed Trans-Pacific deal now in the news, on the grounds that other countries, such as Japan and China, are superior negotiators and are taking us to the cleaners. He wants to build a tall wall on the Mexican border. He is against Common Core and federalizing education. He warned against invading Iraq in some detail, predicting it would expand Iran’s influence. He is for a strong military and talks about the mistreatment of veterans. He exudes self-confidence and attaches it to American national interests.
7. Having survived tough, acidic New York journalism for years, he is almost scandal-proof. Attacks from his business and political enemies have helped to immunize the big-time scapper from serious reporting. He feeds off public cynicism about politics.
8. If the Republican bigwigs try to exclude or humiliate him, Trump has the means to run as an Independent candidate for president – as Mr. Perot essentially did under the banner of his Reform Party. Just the prospect of that added nightmare might induce caution at the top levels of the GOP.
9. He is not going to run out of money and, unlike his competitors, he doesn’t have to spend any precious campaign time dialing for dollars or making campaign promises. He can hire the smart strategists, speech-writers, election lawyers and primary delegate-seekers.
On June 24 2015 13:57 IgnE wrote: You kind of write like a poor man's Clarence Thomas, Danglars. It's not really a retreat so much as a quotidian practicality. Why bother with the stay? In bad taste not to give the bigots their temporary reprieve?
Have you listened to Obama on Marc Maron's podcast? When you listen to something like that do you hear a reasonable person?
The 'left' have always been rabid Nationalists except for a notable respite in the 1960s, or whenever their personal beliefs are in contrast (e.g. marijuana prohibition). So, yeah, nothing new here. The thing I've never understood is if you hate a bunch of the states, why do they so rabidly defend being apart of a union with them? Some sort of sick Stockholm syndrome.
On June 24 2015 14:16 Slaughter wrote: Trump is just an attention whore who will do anything to be in the spotlight. I doubt he even believes half of what he says but he knows it will evoke a big response.
We were all programmed extensively in high school to be nationalists. It's not an opinion at this point but instinct Plus federalism is there to help the country to stay as one while allowing states to their own business when and only when the federal level doesn't care.
What Trump doesn't understand is that he's just entertainment for most people, and that there's a line between entertainment and reality/ politics, even though it's quite hidden at times.
I think there's a >25% chance that Trump is getting an intentional boost from the GOP backbone so that the other candidates look less nutso than he does.
As long as he's on the table saying outrageous things, the gaffes that characterized Perry, Santorum, et al in the 2012 primaries won't hit nearly as hard. I mean, who cares if someone misspeaks about having a binder full of women when you have Trump out there?
On June 24 2015 22:36 Sermokala wrote: We were all programmed extensively in high school to be nationalists. It's not an opinion at this point but instinct Plus federalism is there to help the country to stay as one while allowing states to their own business when and only when the federal level doesn't care.
I agree with today's instinct towards a strong central government; it's hard to find a millennial that doesn't argue for federal legislation to correct perceived wrongs rather than state laws. I emerged from high school and college more convinced that structural limits on power were of prime importance in the preservation of liberty, both in a federal system and in separate branches nationally. The current trend of state laws struck down by federal district courts is disturbing, and like in the case before, ought to generally be granted stays when the Supreme Court has granted writ of certiorari. It disrespects the people's most immediate representatives (if local councils are laid aside for the moment) on important issues.
Specifically, federalism as originally conceived allowed the states great latitude in their laws, and only justified intrusion in limited cases. Now, that's been largely trashed by broadly interpreted clauses and an amendment.
On June 24 2015 13:57 IgnE wrote: You kind of write like a poor man's Clarence Thomas, Danglars. It's not really a retreat so much as a quotidian practicality. Why bother with the stay? In bad taste not to give the bigots their temporary reprieve?
Have you listened to Obama on Marc Maron's podcast? When you listen to something like that do you hear a reasonable person?
The 'left' have always been rabid Nationalists except for a notable respite in the 1960s, or whenever their personal beliefs are in contrast (e.g. marijuana prohibition). So, yeah, nothing new here. The thing I've never understood is if you hate a bunch of the states, why do they so rabidly defend being apart of a union with them? Some sort of sick Stockholm syndrome.
[Citation needed] Unless you are referring to this then I see some merit but you seem to be pulling ridiculous statements from gos knows where.
My boy Bobby (aka Piyush) is running for president. Oh god, what a disaster-- he had so much potential. Then he made a hard right turn and crashed and burned. He doesn't even know that he had an accident.
I have a very off-topic question: when employees of a company or a branch of the government protest or go on strike, why can't (I assume they can't) their employees fire them and hire new employees? What law is this? Also, what is the reasoning behind closed-shops existing? I don't really know much about unions except that my father is a big unionist.
I was thinking about this after reading the thread about the dutch government worker protests and to me it didn't make sense that people could do that and just get away with it.
I don't see why an employer should have to submit to their employees, purposefully preventing the business from functioning, rather than hiring new employees that are fine with the pay
On June 25 2015 05:02 Chocolate wrote: I have a very off-topic question: when employees of a company or a branch of the government protest or go on strike, why can't (I assume they can't) their employees fire them and hire new employees? What law is this? Also, what is the reasoning behind closed-shops existing? I don't really know much about unions except that my father is a big unionist.
I was thinking about this after reading the thread about the dutch government worker protests and to me it didn't make sense that people could do that and just get away with it.
They can't legally fire people for protesting,or attempting to collectively bargain, but it's not hard to find another 'reason' to fire them if they do. + Show Spoiler +
Most businesses just have rules that are regularly broken by everyone in order to meet the basic job requirements, so that if they need a reason they just write you up for what everyone is doing.
On June 25 2015 05:02 Chocolate wrote: I have a very off-topic question: when employees of a company or a branch of the government protest or go on strike, why can't (I assume they can't) their employees fire them and hire new employees? What law is this? Also, what is the reasoning behind closed-shops existing? I don't really know much about unions except that my father is a big unionist.
I was thinking about this after reading the thread about the dutch government worker protests and to me it didn't make sense that people could do that and just get away with it.
They can't legally fire people for protesting,or attempting to collectively bargain, but it's not hard to find another 'reason' to fire them if they do. + Show Spoiler +
Most businesses just have rules that are regularly broken by everyone in order to meet the basic job requirements, so that if they need a reason they just write you up for what everyone is doing.
I don't think people should be fired for bullshit reasons but in my opinion being an employee and refusing to work is a good enough reason by itself to fire someone, is it not?
On June 25 2015 05:02 Chocolate wrote: I have a very off-topic question: when employees of a company or a branch of the government protest or go on strike, why can't (I assume they can't) their employees fire them and hire new employees? What law is this? Also, what is the reasoning behind closed-shops existing? I don't really know much about unions except that my father is a big unionist.
I was thinking about this after reading the thread about the dutch government worker protests and to me it didn't make sense that people could do that and just get away with it.
They can't legally fire people for protesting,or attempting to collectively bargain, but it's not hard to find another 'reason' to fire them if they do. + Show Spoiler +
Most businesses just have rules that are regularly broken by everyone in order to meet the basic job requirements, so that if they need a reason they just write you up for what everyone is doing.
I don't think people should be fired for bullshit reasons but in my opinion being an employee and refusing to work is a good enough reason by itself to fire someone, is it not?