|
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. |
CLIVE, Iowa — Donald Trump’s parade of policy speeches will continue on Tuesday night outside Philadelphia, where he’ll roll out a proposal for paid family leave and hope to win over a key group of swing voters, suburban women, who continue to elude him.
But for that appeal to succeed, Trump’s female critics will not only have to forgive the GOP nominee's litany of crude, misogynistic statements, they’ll also have to pocket their calculators. Because Trump’s proposal to pay for his plan without increasing the budget deficit doesn’t add up.
Trump is suggesting the federal government guarantee six weeks of paid maternity leave for new mothers and is fleshing out the child-care tax cut plan he put forth last month. A campaign adviser said the new leave benefit would be funded by “eliminating fraud” in unemployment insurance, which one 2013 Federal Reserve study estimated to be $3.3 billion a year — but even the most bare-bones family leave program would likely cost three times that amount, according to independent budget analysts.
It’s the latest in a string of Trump's high-cost promises to voters that have been vague, or misleading, on how he plans to fund them. Mexico says it won’t give a dime for Trump’s border wall, but Trump says it will pay for all of it. Trump also says he’ll triple the number of Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents, preserve entitlements, grow the military and make child care tax-deductible, all while sweeping in large-scale tax cuts.
“Promising the electorate the world in the campaign with every intention of working out the details after the election is hardly a new phenomenon, but it used to be one that Republicans rejected,” Noah Rothman, a conservative columnist, wrote Tuesday in Commentary Magazine. “Today, under Trump’s corrupting umbra, the GOP has become the party of wild assurances and cascading spending proposals with no intention of ever making good on them.”
By comparison, Hillary Clinton’s proposal to have the federal government cover 12 weeks of paid leave, with workers earning two-thirds of their salary while away, carries a price tag of $300 billion over 10 years — but she’s proposed a specific means of absorbing that cost: raising taxes on the rich.
Source
|
Trump has demonstrated restraint over Hillary's health disaster. I'm honestly shocked. If he goes against the bravado of not preparing for the debates and actually prepares for the debates, he stands an even chance of winning them.
|
On September 14 2016 14:20 Danglars wrote:
Trump has demonstrated restraint over Hillary's health disaster. I'm honestly shocked. If he goes against the bravado of not preparing for the debates and actually prepares for the debates, he stands an even chance of winning them.
Even? That's a little optimistic.
But yes, his restraint is quite impressive and makes him look respectable. Granted, that doesn't fix the endless parade of things he's done in the past, but it's definitely an improvement, and it should help him come debate time.
|
On September 14 2016 14:20 Danglars wrote:
Trump has demonstrated restraint over Hillary's health disaster. I'm honestly shocked. If he goes against the bravado of not preparing for the debates and actually prepares for the debates, he stands an even chance of winning them.
Intentionally or not, Trump has set the bar so low for himself at the debate that so long as he doesn't come out in a hood and give a Nazi salute, appears to have even a slight grasp on policy, and is able to show the restraint we've seen around Hillary's health, much of America will be surprised, confused, and impressed.
|
Hillary enabled the bar to be pretty low by virtue of being terrible as well.
Also, saw this one from the "Hillary PR Team" spoof Twatter:
+ Show Spoiler +
|
On September 14 2016 01:41 Sent. wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2016 23:46 Cheesare Borgia wrote:On September 13 2016 23:21 Sent. wrote:On September 13 2016 22:50 levelping wrote:On September 13 2016 21:42 farvacola wrote:
The nuts and bolts of American politics, as opposed to the flair associated with the presidential election, are incredibly boring and very much unlike reality television. As this thread makes clear, the vast majority of both US citizens and foreigners focus in on a very narrow slice and, to be frank, that's a huge part of the problem facing American politics generally. I don't know. Maybe reality TV show is an inaccurate way of describing it. However I do feel, as an outsider, that American government is ridiculously political as an institution. The idea that your highest judicial body is clearly split along political lines is just... incomprehensible to me. Your civil service is similarly ideological. I'm not even sure how apolitical the army is, given that veterans and military might are such huge polical topics. The police is also tangled up in political issues. The office of the president wouldn't be so scary if it could reliably be balanced with a politically neutral civil service and judiciary. But that doesn't seem to be present. It's absolutely normal. Usually the best judges are good at pretending they're just explaning the law but sometimes the law is (and has to be) so vague that multiple interpretations are viable. The Supreme Court is there to pick the "best" interpretation and make it binding for everyone to avoid chaos in the legal system. Full political neutrality of judiciary is unattainable. That's a really good point, but I submit that there are differences in degree of neutrality. While it is true that full neutrality is indeed unattainable (and judges are human), I think one can clearly differentiate between more or less neutral systems*, and the public expectation that judges explain their rulings in terms that are publicly justifiable does (on a sociological level) indeed lead most judges to behave in a neutral way that gives an equal and fair hearing to both sides and to all reasonable interpretations of the law (thus, I mostly reject legal realism in its extreme forms). With that being said, I'm not convinced that the Supreme Court's problem is its neutrality in this narrow sense. But that it reeks more of partisanship than most other western courts is quite true, from my perspective, and is a real problem in the long run.* Of course, no system of law and its interpretation is normatively neutral in the final analysis. Neutrality, as most of us understand it, is a very strong normative commitment and is actually founded on the the idea of equal freedoms, or some such idea. The neutrality I'm talking about is one of justification: No law may be made or interpreted in a way that presupposes the inherent superiority of a certain way of life, dogma, political ideology, etc (other then the foundation of equal freedoms, again). My guess is that the American Supreme Court has much bigger influence on the system than it's European counterparts. Europeans don't complain about their judges as much not because they're less biased, but because their power is much smaller. I bet the average European moderately interested in politics can't even name a single member of his supreme (or constitutional) court. Example of difference in supreme court power: I don't know a lot about American or Western European legal systems but I'm convinced that European courts (maybe excluding ECHR but that's a different topic) wouldn't be able to "legalize" gay marriage in the same way as the American Supreme Court did in 2015. A change as big as that would require changing the constitution or at least enacting a law that explicitly allows same-sex marriages.
You're definitely right that Supreme Court justices here are much less well known - to the point, I could name all SC justices in the US, but not all of (16) German constitutional court justices. And at least in terms of public perception, that's a good thing: It at least enables the feeling that smart jurists are trying to apply the law in an impartial way, so that personal preferences do not matter.
I'm sure that the US SC has enormous power, and I don't know much about many European court systems. I'm just a German jurist, but as such I would say that our court has decided quite a few very important cases: End of life decisions, abortion, tax equality for same-sex couples, Muslim veils in schools, Christian crosses in schoolrooms, all that stuff.
One difference may be that German constitutional law is built around the idea of proportionality, which the American system is not. German jurists are used to the idea that fundamental rights always conflict, and that a balance has to be struck - which perhaps enables (principled) compromise, in contrast to the all-or-nothing-rhetoric that seems to prevail in the American system (gross oversimplification, sorry). How are things in Poland?
|
We copy paste everything you do 
|
On September 14 2016 15:33 Cheesare Borgia wrote:Show nested quote +On September 14 2016 01:41 Sent. wrote:On September 13 2016 23:46 Cheesare Borgia wrote:On September 13 2016 23:21 Sent. wrote:On September 13 2016 22:50 levelping wrote:On September 13 2016 21:42 farvacola wrote:
The nuts and bolts of American politics, as opposed to the flair associated with the presidential election, are incredibly boring and very much unlike reality television. As this thread makes clear, the vast majority of both US citizens and foreigners focus in on a very narrow slice and, to be frank, that's a huge part of the problem facing American politics generally. I don't know. Maybe reality TV show is an inaccurate way of describing it. However I do feel, as an outsider, that American government is ridiculously political as an institution. The idea that your highest judicial body is clearly split along political lines is just... incomprehensible to me. Your civil service is similarly ideological. I'm not even sure how apolitical the army is, given that veterans and military might are such huge polical topics. The police is also tangled up in political issues. The office of the president wouldn't be so scary if it could reliably be balanced with a politically neutral civil service and judiciary. But that doesn't seem to be present. It's absolutely normal. Usually the best judges are good at pretending they're just explaning the law but sometimes the law is (and has to be) so vague that multiple interpretations are viable. The Supreme Court is there to pick the "best" interpretation and make it binding for everyone to avoid chaos in the legal system. Full political neutrality of judiciary is unattainable. That's a really good point, but I submit that there are differences in degree of neutrality. While it is true that full neutrality is indeed unattainable (and judges are human), I think one can clearly differentiate between more or less neutral systems*, and the public expectation that judges explain their rulings in terms that are publicly justifiable does (on a sociological level) indeed lead most judges to behave in a neutral way that gives an equal and fair hearing to both sides and to all reasonable interpretations of the law (thus, I mostly reject legal realism in its extreme forms). With that being said, I'm not convinced that the Supreme Court's problem is its neutrality in this narrow sense. But that it reeks more of partisanship than most other western courts is quite true, from my perspective, and is a real problem in the long run.* Of course, no system of law and its interpretation is normatively neutral in the final analysis. Neutrality, as most of us understand it, is a very strong normative commitment and is actually founded on the the idea of equal freedoms, or some such idea. The neutrality I'm talking about is one of justification: No law may be made or interpreted in a way that presupposes the inherent superiority of a certain way of life, dogma, political ideology, etc (other then the foundation of equal freedoms, again). My guess is that the American Supreme Court has much bigger influence on the system than it's European counterparts. Europeans don't complain about their judges as much not because they're less biased, but because their power is much smaller. I bet the average European moderately interested in politics can't even name a single member of his supreme (or constitutional) court. Example of difference in supreme court power: I don't know a lot about American or Western European legal systems but I'm convinced that European courts (maybe excluding ECHR but that's a different topic) wouldn't be able to "legalize" gay marriage in the same way as the American Supreme Court did in 2015. A change as big as that would require changing the constitution or at least enacting a law that explicitly allows same-sex marriages. You're definitely right that Supreme Court justices here are much less well known - to the point, I could name all SC justices in the US, but not all of (16) German constitutional court justices. And at least in terms of public perception, that's a good thing: It at least enables the feeling that smart jurists are trying to apply the law in an impartial way, so that personal preferences do not matter. I'm sure that the US SC has enormous power, and I don't know much about many European court systems. I'm just a German jurist, but as such I would say that our court has decided quite a few very important cases: End of life decisions, abortion, tax equality for same-sex couples, Muslim veils in schools, Christian crosses in schoolrooms, all that stuff. One difference may be that German constitutional law is built around the idea of proportionality, which the American system is not. German jurists are used to the idea that fundamental rights always conflict, and that a balance has to be struck - which perhaps enables (principled) compromise, in contrast to the all-or-nothing-rhetoric that seems to prevail in the American system (gross oversimplification, sorry). How are things in Poland?
I think that most apex courts in a democratic system do wield a lot of constitutional power. However judicial restraint is (I feel) better observed outside the US.
For example, I love RBG. But when she came out saying stuff about trump, that was something I could never imagine a judge doing. Commenting directly on politics.
|
http://edition.cnn.com/2016/09/13/politics/us-israel-military-aid-package-mou/index.html
Largest-ever US military aid package to go to Israel
Washington (CNN)The Obama administration is upping aid to Israel as part of the largest pledge of military assistance in US history.
Israel is set to get about $38 billion over 10 years, according to congressional and administration sources, up from the approximately $30 billion decade-long deal that expires in 2018.
The Memorandum of Understanding sealing the arrangement will be signed Wednesday at the State Department.
|
On September 14 2016 17:41 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:http://edition.cnn.com/2016/09/13/politics/us-israel-military-aid-package-mou/index.htmlLargest-ever US military aid package to go to Israel Show nested quote +Washington (CNN)The Obama administration is upping aid to Israel as part of the largest pledge of military assistance in US history.
Israel is set to get about $38 billion over 10 years, according to congressional and administration sources, up from the approximately $30 billion decade-long deal that expires in 2018.
The Memorandum of Understanding sealing the arrangement will be signed Wednesday at the State Department.
But why???
|
Brutal
![[image loading]](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CsBaFl6XEAAwLhi.jpg)
|
tbh, Obama should hold his next Hillary rally at a golf course. He could give his speech in between shots and have the crowd follow him.
|
On September 14 2016 17:58 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:Brutal
The irony of Trump retweeting that is brutal.
|
On September 14 2016 20:36 OuchyDathurts wrote:The irony of Trump retweeting that is brutal.
Yeah I'm kind of shocked he did... even if Hillary said that half of Trump supporters are deplorable (which means less than 1/4 of our country), Trump has marginalized far, far more Americans (and non-Americans) lol.
|
On September 14 2016 20:46 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On September 14 2016 20:36 OuchyDathurts wrote:On September 14 2016 17:58 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:Brutal The irony of Trump retweeting that is brutal. Yeah I'm kind of shocked he did... even if Hillary said that half of Trump supporters are deplorable (which means less than 1/4 of our country), Trump has marginalized far, far more Americans (and non-Americans) lol.
I think we all underestimate the Reality Distortion Field Trump lives in.
|
On September 14 2016 14:20 Danglars wrote:
Trump has demonstrated restraint over Hillary's health disaster. I'm honestly shocked. If he goes against the bravado of not preparing for the debates and actually prepares for the debates, he stands an even chance of winning them.
It's not bravado, it's impatience and attention span. But I can understand why you would want it to be bravado instead, it's hard to support Trump without applying a certain reality distortion field  .
|
On September 14 2016 17:58 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:Brutal
Fascinating that Trump believes half his supporters constitutes almost half the country. If he really thinks that's how much support he has it's no surprise he thinks polls and the election will be rigged.
|
On September 14 2016 22:30 TheTenthDoc wrote:Fascinating that Trump believes half his supporters constitutes almost half the country. If he really thinks that's how much support he has it's no surprise he thinks polls and the election will be rigged.
Trump has complained several times that the reporters “pay too much attention to the polls and not his rallies.” I bet he feels that the polls are not catching all of his supporters and there are of them out there, in secret. He is the type of person that simple assumes data is flawed if it disagrees with the views he wants to hold.
|
On September 14 2016 16:09 levelping wrote:Show nested quote +On September 14 2016 15:33 Cheesare Borgia wrote:On September 14 2016 01:41 Sent. wrote:On September 13 2016 23:46 Cheesare Borgia wrote:On September 13 2016 23:21 Sent. wrote:On September 13 2016 22:50 levelping wrote:On September 13 2016 21:42 farvacola wrote:
The nuts and bolts of American politics, as opposed to the flair associated with the presidential election, are incredibly boring and very much unlike reality television. As this thread makes clear, the vast majority of both US citizens and foreigners focus in on a very narrow slice and, to be frank, that's a huge part of the problem facing American politics generally. I don't know. Maybe reality TV show is an inaccurate way of describing it. However I do feel, as an outsider, that American government is ridiculously political as an institution. The idea that your highest judicial body is clearly split along political lines is just... incomprehensible to me. Your civil service is similarly ideological. I'm not even sure how apolitical the army is, given that veterans and military might are such huge polical topics. The police is also tangled up in political issues. The office of the president wouldn't be so scary if it could reliably be balanced with a politically neutral civil service and judiciary. But that doesn't seem to be present. It's absolutely normal. Usually the best judges are good at pretending they're just explaning the law but sometimes the law is (and has to be) so vague that multiple interpretations are viable. The Supreme Court is there to pick the "best" interpretation and make it binding for everyone to avoid chaos in the legal system. Full political neutrality of judiciary is unattainable. That's a really good point, but I submit that there are differences in degree of neutrality. While it is true that full neutrality is indeed unattainable (and judges are human), I think one can clearly differentiate between more or less neutral systems*, and the public expectation that judges explain their rulings in terms that are publicly justifiable does (on a sociological level) indeed lead most judges to behave in a neutral way that gives an equal and fair hearing to both sides and to all reasonable interpretations of the law (thus, I mostly reject legal realism in its extreme forms). With that being said, I'm not convinced that the Supreme Court's problem is its neutrality in this narrow sense. But that it reeks more of partisanship than most other western courts is quite true, from my perspective, and is a real problem in the long run.* Of course, no system of law and its interpretation is normatively neutral in the final analysis. Neutrality, as most of us understand it, is a very strong normative commitment and is actually founded on the the idea of equal freedoms, or some such idea. The neutrality I'm talking about is one of justification: No law may be made or interpreted in a way that presupposes the inherent superiority of a certain way of life, dogma, political ideology, etc (other then the foundation of equal freedoms, again). My guess is that the American Supreme Court has much bigger influence on the system than it's European counterparts. Europeans don't complain about their judges as much not because they're less biased, but because their power is much smaller. I bet the average European moderately interested in politics can't even name a single member of his supreme (or constitutional) court. Example of difference in supreme court power: I don't know a lot about American or Western European legal systems but I'm convinced that European courts (maybe excluding ECHR but that's a different topic) wouldn't be able to "legalize" gay marriage in the same way as the American Supreme Court did in 2015. A change as big as that would require changing the constitution or at least enacting a law that explicitly allows same-sex marriages. You're definitely right that Supreme Court justices here are much less well known - to the point, I could name all SC justices in the US, but not all of (16) German constitutional court justices. And at least in terms of public perception, that's a good thing: It at least enables the feeling that smart jurists are trying to apply the law in an impartial way, so that personal preferences do not matter. I'm sure that the US SC has enormous power, and I don't know much about many European court systems. I'm just a German jurist, but as such I would say that our court has decided quite a few very important cases: End of life decisions, abortion, tax equality for same-sex couples, Muslim veils in schools, Christian crosses in schoolrooms, all that stuff. One difference may be that German constitutional law is built around the idea of proportionality, which the American system is not. German jurists are used to the idea that fundamental rights always conflict, and that a balance has to be struck - which perhaps enables (principled) compromise, in contrast to the all-or-nothing-rhetoric that seems to prevail in the American system (gross oversimplification, sorry). How are things in Poland? I think that most apex courts in a democratic system do wield a lot of constitutional power. However judicial restraint is (I feel) better observed outside the US. For example, I love RBG. But when she came out saying stuff about trump, that was something I could never imagine a judge doing. Commenting directly on politics.
it should be noted that it's also extremely rare here for a judge to comment like that; and it created quite a stir here as RBG's comments were so unusual.
|
Considering she said almost nothing during both of Bush’s terms, people should assume she didn’t make that comment lightly.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
