EPTInternationally Renowned Psychic Predicts Next President & Gives Dire Warning
US Politics Mega-thread - Page 4850
| Forum Index > Closed |
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please. 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. | ||
|
Doodsmack
United States7224 Posts
Internationally Renowned Psychic Predicts Next President & Gives Dire Warning | ||
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
On August 30 2016 13:33 Danglars wrote: Oh you big tease. Name off all the big successes of the progressive movement from a little over a hundred years ago to today. I've been told that it was to create a more just and equitable society. The funding for these projects was not generously donated by citizens, nor found by chance from sunken Spanish galleons. But that seems impractical in the strictest sense. Most of those people are dead. Much better to radically level the field. A reset button if you will. | ||
|
a_flayer
Netherlands2826 Posts
On August 30 2016 20:14 farvacola wrote: Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397, 490-91 (1989). "I'm not a slick big city lawyer like my opponent here. Do you see my hand? No, you don't. I lost my real hand planting the flag when we took back Haley's comet. I love that flag even more than I love my seven wives. Yet I would gladly eat a flag myself if it would protect the freedoms that salute that flag." - Old Man Waterfall, Futurama Who the fuck needs an education when you have cartoons. On August 31 2016 00:10 Doodsmack wrote: Mad World News lead headline: Internationally Renowned Psychic Predicts Next President & Gives Dire Warning Maybe avoid that website... | ||
|
corumjhaelen
France6884 Posts
| ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
Pentagon officials permitted their subordinates to use government charge cards to ring up nearly $100,000 in expenses at strip clubs and “adult entertainment establishments” and almost $1m at casinos, all without serious reprisal, a new report reveals. Even after the US defense department’s official watchdog lambasted the official expenses for adult entertainment and gambling, senior officials did not take “appropriate” disciplinary action, according to a report by the department’s inspector general released on Tuesday. An audit of 30 government charge-card holders determined that defense department officials neither adequately reviewed travel vouchers for reimbursement nor took action to “eliminate additional misuse”. In fact, most of those audited – 22 out of the 29 who retained their travel vouchers – received “overpayments” on their requested reimbursements at the casinos or adult-entertainment centers, totaling $8,544. Government charge cards are supposed to be used for expenses incurred for official government business, particularly during official travel. Beyond the embarrassment of Pentagon officials getting away with using their charge cards in the clubs and casinos, the inspector general found that Pentagon management “did not consider the security implications of improper personal use of the travel card,” the report found. The inspector general found the Pentagon experienced “potential national security vulnerabilities” by supervisors’ late or insufficient notification of the improper expenses. The inspector general first discovered the casino and adult entertainment expenses on official government travel cards in 2015, and conducted the new inquiry to determine how superiors held those incurring the costs accountable. That earlier inquiry found defense department personnel charging the government for 900 “adult entertainment transactions” amounting to $96,576; and 4,437 casino transactions totaling $952,258. Source | ||
|
RvB
Netherlands6248 Posts
On August 31 2016 00:09 Plansix wrote: It is correct in the fact that their stoke holders require that they seek the lowest tax rate possible for their profits. But Apple uses the US economy, infrastructure, labor market, housing and every other aspect of our country. So the only reasonable response from the US is to make the practice illegal if the US wants to collect those taxes. The whole argument that companies are victims of taking the path of least resistance and most profit only works if we assume they have no free will. Every nation isn’t going to play a race to the bottom to be able to tax Apple’s profits, so they maybe need to get used to the idea making a little less. Yet they also use those things in other countries and according to US tax law worldwide profits will be taxed not just what's made in the US. This goes for private citizens as well. If they want to tax them fix the tax code. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On August 31 2016 00:34 RvB wrote: Yet they also use those things in other countries and according to US tax law worldwide profits will be taxed not just what's made in the US. This goes for private citizens as well. If they want to tax them fix the tax code. It is really hard to feel bad for them when I can’t pull the same trick when I am grumpy about the tax code. | ||
|
Rebs
Pakistan10726 Posts
But its soo much information. Also bringing this up again, im sure its been discussed before, considering the war on drugs is an absolute failure and a pretty tool for promoting racial injustices. https://news.vice.com/article/ungass-portugal-what-happened-after-decriminalization-drugs-weed-to-heroin?utm_source=vicenewsfbcaads | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
Senate Republicans could relent on their hard-line stance in opposition to granting Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland a confirmation hearing this year, Senate Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley said Monday. The Iowa Republican said in February that “it only makes sense” that the upper chamber punt into 2017 holding hearings on a replacement for late Justice Antonin Scalia. Nevertheless, President Barack Obama nominated Garland to the high court in March. Holding a Q & A at a meeting of the Sioux City Rotary Club, Grassley on Monday said there’s a widely accepted “understanding” that no Supreme Court vacancies be filled in the final year of a presidential term. “It had nothing to do with Garland,” Grassley said, according to the Globe Gazette, referring to the Senate’s commitment not to give any SCOTUS nominee a confirmation hearing before a new administration takes over in 2017. While unlikely, he added that Senate Republicans could change their position if enough senators push for a hearing after the November election, leaving the door open for Garland’s confirmation before the new Congress takes office should Donald Trump lose to Hillary Clinton. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, however, has no intention of holding a hearing before Obama leaves office, his team told POLITICO on Tuesday. “The leader has been clear, the next president will make this nomination,” said Don Stewart, McConnell’s deputy chief of staff for communications. But Grassley was optimistic that the real estate mogul could prevail over the former secretary of state, citing Ronald Reagan’s 1980 election. “Everybody thought a movie star could not be a president of the United States,” he said. Source | ||
|
Slaughter
United States20254 Posts
| ||
|
CannonsNCarriers
United States638 Posts
EDIT: but EMAILZ amirite? | ||
|
oBlade
United States5756 Posts
| ||
|
SpiritoftheTunA
United States20903 Posts
On August 31 2016 03:26 oBlade wrote: Freedom of the press doesn't mean your press doesn't have consequences. but a functioning legal system involves people being able to bleed others' time and money disproportionately if you have enough money and clout yourself? maybe functioning isnt the right word but you should know what i mean | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On August 31 2016 00:10 IgnE wrote: But that seems impractical in the strictest sense. Most of those people are dead. Much better to radically level the field. A reset button if you will. Well, I don't know your intentions bringing it up again this broadly, but you're striking on the simplest element of the disagreement that spans centuries. I wonder how many hundreds or thousands of books have been written on the subject in the past and how many will in the future. I'm not here to write a political treatise on the practicality of private property rights and their relation to bedrock virtues of the civil society. I'm just saying Donald "I've got the best plans" Trump will be judged on the results of big government solutions if elected. | ||
|
CannonsNCarriers
United States638 Posts
On August 31 2016 03:26 oBlade wrote: Freedom of the press doesn't mean your press doesn't have consequences. So you are cool with Trump's abuse of process lawsuits that he files knowing he will lose just to bleed journalists of money? Trump says he does it because he "has a good deal with his lawyers". Quite the admission on your part. You don't believe in free press or free speech. EDIT: imagine the "good deal with his lawyers" President Trump would have if he had command of the DOJ. Trump could spend the public's money filing harassment lawsuits against all the journalists who call him out. | ||
|
ticklishmusic
United States15977 Posts
On August 31 2016 03:28 SpiritoftheTunA wrote: but a functioning legal system involves people being able to bleed others' time and money disproportionately if you have enough money and clout yourself? maybe functioning isnt the right word but you should know what i mean now peter thiel speaking at the RNC makes more sense | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On August 31 2016 03:28 SpiritoftheTunA wrote: but a functioning legal system involves people being able to bleed others' time and money disproportionately if you have enough money and clout yourself? maybe functioning isnt the right word but you should know what i mean As an attorney, I highly doubt Trump's claim that he's able to bleed others' time and money disproportionately. I all but guarantee that the claim is mere puffery. And it's not like Trump can just sue anyone who says something that he doesn't like. If he doesn't plead a facially valid defamation claim with sufficient specificity, he'll get his ass handed to him at the outset of the case. | ||
|
CannonsNCarriers
United States638 Posts
On August 31 2016 03:33 xDaunt wrote: As an attorney, I highly doubt Trump's claim that he's able to bleed others' time and money disproportionately. I all but guarantee that the claim is mere puffery. And it's not like Trump can just sue anyone who says something that he doesn't like. If he doesn't plead a facially valid defamation claim with sufficient specificity, he'll get his ass handed to him at the outset of the case. Read the quote. Trump says "the judges, they never let it go to court". He didn't plead facially valid. But still drained. You are voting for that man to have command of the DOJ. | ||
|
SpiritoftheTunA
United States20903 Posts
On August 31 2016 03:33 xDaunt wrote: As an attorney, I highly doubt Trump's claim that he's able to bleed others' time and money disproportionately. I all but guarantee that the claim is mere puffery. even if it's not strictly disproportionate relative to the currency itself, it's often disproportionate relative to networth and in terms of personal emotional investment, etc | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
Edit: Xdaunt, you know it is next to impossible to have the court award attorneys fees if a case is dismissed. Or at all. The validity of the defamation case is almost secondary. | ||
| ||
