|
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. |
When it comes to picking fights with Republicans over Cuba, Barack Obama has apparently decided he's only a lame-duck, second-term president once.
The president announced Tuesday that he has nominated Jeffrey DeLaurentis, the top U.S. diplomat currently serving in Cuba, to serve as America's official ambassador to the communist-led country.
The move is sure to draw howls of protest from some hard-core opponents of the Cuban government, including Sens. Marco Rubio of Florida and Ted Cruz of Texas, who have vowed to block any ambassador nomination for Cuba.
Still, Obama's decision suggests he's willing to take on the risk of a dragged-out fight over a topic — Cuba-U.S. relations — that has increasing bipartisan support.
The island nation restored diplomatic ties with the U.S. in July 2015 after more than 50 years of hostility, and Obama considers America's new relationship with Cuba one of his signature foreign policy achievements.
DeLaurentis is a career member of the U.S. foreign service who has been the chief of mission in Havana since 2015. He was widely believed to be the frontrunner for the ambassador's job should Obama select a nominee.
"The appointment of an ambassador is a common sense step forward toward a more normal and productive relationship between our two countries," Obama said in a statement announcing his decision.
Source
|
On September 28 2016 07:52 zf wrote:Arbitrary, yes. Ambiguous, no, at least not this particular question. Direct federal control over state police is about as close to an unambiguously impermissible scheme as you'll find. If you don't believe me, the other lawyers in the thread can set you straight. 
Who said anything about direct control? The federal organization would merely provide a more nationalized structure for dealing with situations that are in common between the states. Including policy for situations such as those that are commonly discussed in this thread.
|
On legal's fed police topic ->
I think it'd be very hard to do politically without stepping on a lot of toes.
And tricky to do in a way that's constitutional.
More oversight is good, preferably from multiple sources though.
|
On September 28 2016 06:12 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2016 06:05 Plansix wrote:On September 28 2016 06:00 Mohdoo wrote:On September 28 2016 05:45 GreenHorizons wrote:
Is there any reason cops who are raising their hoods to block dash cams shouldn't be arrested on sight? I would be absolutely terrified if I saw a cop raise his hood to block the dash cam. In fact, it may make me feel like my life was in danger and that I needed to do whatever it takes to get out alive. There are a number pictures of cops cop with the hoods raised floating around the internet. They are without context or any further information, so I am waiting on more information. But police also drive real cars that break down and sometimes help people by providing jump to the battery. I've literally been refused several times for specifically that. Cop said they weren't allowed to. Wouldn't be even slightly surprised to find out they lied though. But we know criminal cops have been manipulating what the cameras see since they first started getting used. At this point though I don't know what could actually get people to give enough of a damn to actually do something about these criminals acting on behalf of the government.
Anecdotally along the same vein of my experiences with law enforcement vs the average American black experience. I have been boosted when I stalled while the officers joked to me and each other about how its against policy and how often they break policy to serve the community. I goes right along with an underage drunken me being taken home by the police and an adult me swinging a samurai sword cutting fruit in a city park with no problems.
Those are the cops I defend and it disgusts me when I see videos of law enforcement betraying that trust on video.
|
On September 28 2016 07:32 Nyxisto wrote:
that video isn't even available in Germany, that can't be good LegalLord
The website links to a blog about 'white genocide' and the New World Order, you sure about that centrism claim?
You're not missing much. The point of the video is to equate "ethnic/cultural group becoming minority through imigration" with genocide.
|
On September 28 2016 07:58 zlefin wrote:
On legal's fed police topic ->
I think it'd be very hard to do politically without stepping on a lot of toes.
And tricky to do in a way that's constitutional.
More oversight is good, preferably from multiple sources though.
It wouldn't be an issue I'd be willing to go Obamacare-style all-in on as a politician, that's for sure. The opposition is substantial and it doesn't have nearly the same impact as something like socializing healthcare or education.
|
On September 28 2016 08:03 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2016 07:58 zlefin wrote:
On legal's fed police topic ->
I think it'd be very hard to do politically without stepping on a lot of toes.
And tricky to do in a way that's constitutional.
More oversight is good, preferably from multiple sources though. It wouldn't be an issue I'd be willing to go Obamacare-style all-in on as a politician, that's for sure. The opposition is substantial and it doesn't have nearly the same impact as something like socializing healthcare or education.
it's also much easier from a legal standpoint to push national healthcare or education than it is for policing. since the police are necessary enforcing laws, many of which should necessarily be from the state level.
while the others can be entirely about spending money, which has more leeway.
|
United States44108 Posts
On September 28 2016 08:02 Sbrubbles wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2016 07:32 Nyxisto wrote:
that video isn't even available in Germany, that can't be good LegalLord
The website links to a blog about 'white genocide' and the New World Order, you sure about that centrism claim? You're not missing much. The point of the video is to equate "ethnic/cultural group becoming minority through imigration" with genocide.
I thought it was quite funny in a "wow, someone actually thought this was a valid argument" way.
In a world without critical thinking... one man will stop at nothing to achieve white genocide...
I've not watched it since it was last posted, probably about a year ago, but basically Hitler comes back and decides that between the alt-right, who are literal neo-Nazis, and the SJWs his best option for wiping out the Jews is the SJWs. Because I guess they're more fascist. He then proceeds to make arguments on the level of "you say you're not homophobic but heterosexuality is nothing more than an expression of your own internalized hatred of homosexuals so the only way to not be homophobic is to suck another guy's dick". And in this fictional world that kind of logic actually passes as acceptable because Hitler's elite legion of SSJWs (see what I did there?) represses all opposition with an endless chorus of "racist".
They spent however many minutes long the video is basically trying to say "the real Nazis are SJWs because being called a racist is basically Auschwitz". It's like when GGTemplar says that the real racists are the ones calling him out for calling black people monkeys. You read it, you sigh and you move on with your life, albeit with a lower view of humanity than you had before.
|
So trump won in large majority of online polls
Hillary just here ( )
And in a CNN one that had biased focus group to begin with
|
United States15743 Posts
On September 28 2016 08:26 LemOn wrote:So trump won in large majority of online polls Hillary just here ( ) And in a CNN one that had biased focus group to begin with
You know who else won a large majority of online polls? Ron Paul. You know who else? Bernie Sanders.
Turns out certain types benefit significantly from open, online polls. Turns out it has never once meant anything.
|
United States44108 Posts
On September 28 2016 08:26 LemOn wrote:So trump won in large majority of online polls Hillary just here ( ) And in a CNN one that had biased focus group to begin with
Did you actually watch the debate? Trump had a total meltdown. I think the online polls are not representative of the general population. The election itself will not allow the denizens of /r/The_Donald to vote over and over with bots. We will see though.
|
Lets all be shocked now. Trump wins on the internet again. Yet, people seem to be catching on this weird trend. But online polls are pretty garbage.
Trump's sugar daddy in Russia should is trying hard to make his baby look good. I just think people might have seen this before.
|
On September 28 2016 08:30 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2016 08:26 LemOn wrote:So trump won in large majority of online polls Hillary just here ( ) And in a CNN one that had biased focus group to begin with Did you actually watch the debate? Trump had a total meltdown. I think the online polls are not representative of the general population. The election itself will not allow the denizens of /r/The_Donald to vote over and over with bots. We will see though.
Agreed.
That was the most abysmal performance I've ever seen out of Trump. If you watched that, there's no way you can absolutely think Trump won.
I'm a Trump supporter, but maybe the polls are more even than they should be, since people can't be objective, and they want to support their candidate.
|
Also this, coming to a Clinton ad near you:
Like holy shit. But this guy loves and respects women.
|
I have an inkling that Fox has gone more pro-Trump since Ailes departed. Their website is an absolute cheerleading portal. There's a difference in honestly level between Fox and the liberal networks.
|
On September 28 2016 07:56 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2016 07:52 zf wrote:Arbitrary, yes. Ambiguous, no, at least not this particular question. Direct federal control over state police is about as close to an unambiguously impermissible scheme as you'll find. If you don't believe me, the other lawyers in the thread can set you straight. Who said anything about direct control? The federal organization would merely provide a more nationalized structure for dealing with situations that are in common between the states. Including policy for situations such as those that are commonly discussed in this thread.
How about civilian oversight instead? Much better than federal or internal affairs IMO. But that's just my view as a small government kinda guy.
Kinda like how we do it here.
https://www.solgps.alberta.ca/programs_and_services/public_security/ASIRT/Pages/default.aspx
|
On September 28 2016 08:29 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2016 08:26 LemOn wrote:So trump won in large majority of online polls Hillary just here ( ) And in a CNN one that had biased focus group to begin with You know who else won a large majority of online polls? Ron Paul. You know who else? Bernie Sanders. Turns out certain types benefit significantly from open, online polls. Turns out it has never once meant anything.
Because all they really show is which side has more trolls submitting multiple votes through proxies.
|
On September 28 2016 08:20 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2016 08:02 Sbrubbles wrote:On September 28 2016 07:32 Nyxisto wrote:
that video isn't even available in Germany, that can't be good LegalLord
The website links to a blog about 'white genocide' and the New World Order, you sure about that centrism claim? You're not missing much. The point of the video is to equate "ethnic/cultural group becoming minority through imigration" with genocide. I thought it was quite funny in a "wow, someone actually thought this was a valid argument" way. In a world without critical thinking... one man will stop at nothing to achieve white genocide...I've not watched it since it was last posted, probably about a year ago, but basically Hitler comes back and decides that between the alt-right, who are literal neo-Nazis, and the SJWs his best option for wiping out the Jews is the SJWs. Because I guess they're more fascist. He then proceeds to make arguments on the level of "you say you're not homophobic but heterosexuality is nothing more than an expression of your own internalized hatred of homosexuals so the only way to not be homophobic is to suck another guy's dick". And in this fictional world that kind of logic actually passes as acceptable because Hitler's elite legion of SSJWs (see what I did there?) represses all opposition with an endless chorus of "racist". They spent however many minutes long the video is basically trying to say "the real Nazis are SJWs because being called a racist is basically Auschwitz". It's like when GGTemplar says that the real racists are the ones calling him out for calling black people monkeys. You read it, you sigh and you move on with your life, albeit with a lower view of humanity than you had before.
By your description I think you're refering to a different video, but you got the gyst of it. Seen one seen them all
|
Is there anyone here in support of the iran deal? I don't understand the logic behind it. We gave them a bunch of cash so we could completely control their nuclear production (not a guarantee), so they just wait 10 years and then what? Are we going to do a nuclear deal with north korea next?
|
Yes.
Ill talk about it in detail after DnD.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
