|
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. |
Did anyone mention the Japan-US fiasco that's brewing yet? If, can you give me a page number?
|
|
|
Remember when Trump made a big deal about stamina during the campaign? Now he's hanging up on the Australian PM at 5:30 PM of his second week on the job because he had a long day and got tired?
What a joke.
|
Germany16350 Posts
On February 02 2017 16:15 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
Did anyone mention the Japan-US fiasco that's brewing yet? If, can you give me a page number?
i didn't know of anything, so I googled and I see
Top government and finance chiefs scrambled Wednesday to defend themselves against accusations by U.S. President Donald Trump that Japan is manipulating currency markets to guide its currency lower.
In Washington on Tuesday, Trump lambasted Tokyo and Beijing for devaluing their currencies, a clear signal of his belief that the two countries are currency manipulators.
“You look at what China’s doing, you look at what Japan has done over the years. They play the money market, they play the devaluation market and we sit there like a bunch of dummies,” he said in a meeting with pharmaceutical company executives.
[...]
and just have to scratch my head... Isn't the big problem with the Yen in particular that it's way too strong for them and that they can't get people to stop buying it as a safe haven every time there's volatility?
Don't think that counts as something that big though. So did I miss something?
|
On February 02 2017 16:14 Blisse wrote:Or if the Right would stop trivializing the disgusting actions that Republicans and the Trump administration does while trying to sit on their high horses and proclaim themselves superior, they would understand why the Left is continually so outraged at the stupidity. Maybe the Left is justified in being angry because the Right does stupid shit all the time, and not because they're so easily "triggered", as you would use to insult them. Christ. Maybe we're all sick and tired of waking up and reading the new discriminatory crap that Trump has decided to say for the last 5 years, and now sign off on. In the meantime I can't wait to see whether this turns out to be fake or not. Show nested quote +
Leaked Draft of Trump’s Religious Freedom Order Reveals Sweeping Plans to Legalize Discrimination
A leaked copy of a draft executive order titled “Establishing a Government-Wide Initiative to Respect Religious Freedom,” obtained by The Investigative Fund and The Nation, reveals sweeping plans by the Trump administration to legalize discrimination.
This article was reported in partnership with the Investigative Fund at the Nation Institute.
The four-page draft order, a copy of which is currently circulating among federal staff and advocacy organizations, construes religious organizations so broadly that it covers “any organization, including closely held for-profit corporations,” and protects “religious freedom” in every walk of life: “when providing social services, education, or healthcare; earning a living, seeking a job, or employing others; receiving government grants or contracts; or otherwise participating in the marketplace, the public square, or interfacing with Federal, State or local governments.”
The draft order seeks to create wholesale exemptions for people and organizations who claim religious or moral objections to same-sex marriage, premarital sex, abortion, and trans identity, and it seeks to curtail women’s access to contraception and abortion through the Affordable Care Act. The White House did not respond to requests for comment, but when asked Monday about whether a religious freedom executive order was in the works, White House spokesman Sean Spicer told reporters, “I’m not getting ahead of the executive orders that we may or may not issue. There is a lot of executive orders, a lot of things that the president has talked about and will continue to fulfill, but we have nothing on that front now.”
Language in the draft document specifically protects the tax-exempt status of any organization that “believes, speaks, or acts (or declines to act) in accordance with the belief that marriage is or should be recognized as the union of one man and one woman, sexual relations are properly reserved for such a marriage, male and female and their equivalents refer to an individual’s immutable biological sex as objectively determined by anatomy, physiology, or genetics at or before birth, and that human life begins at conception and merits protection at all stages of life.”
...
In particular, said Lupu, the draft order “privileges” a certain set of beliefs about sexual orientation and gender identity—beliefs identified most closely with conservative Catholics and evangelical Christians—over others. That, he said, goes beyond “what RFRA might authorize” and may violate the Establishment Clause.
Lupu added that the language of the draft “might invite federal employees,” for example, at the Social Security Administration or Veterans Administration, “to refuse on religious grounds to process applications or respond to questions from those whose benefits depend on same sex marriages.” If other employees do not “fill the gap,” he said, it could “lead to a situation where marriage equality was being de facto undermined by federal employees, especially in religiously conservative communities,” contrary to Supreme Court rulings.
www.thenation.com/article/leaked-draft-of-trumps-religious-freedom-order-reveals-sweeping-plans-to-legalize-discrimination/
In 2015 Mike Pence signed into law a "religious freedom" act in Indiana that allowed businesses to legally turn away LGBT people. It did not go well, and was met with a bunch of criticism and boycotts. They later backpedaled and "An additional bill acting as an amendment intended to protect LGBT people was signed into law on April 2, 2015"
The White House just said they were going to keep some of Obama's LGBT protections, which makes the timing on this leak rather...weird? I'm not buying into it yet, but I would absolutely not be surprised. Well, I'd be surprised that they're trying to do the same damn thing Mike Pence tried to do on an even grander scale, but when you give the president's ear to religious zealots, religious legislation is going to get passed. Called this out on my last post even! This is a terribly bold move though and has the potential to backfire tremendously. There are quite a few Trump supporters out there who are still under the impression that he's some bastion of LGBT rights. Might be in for a rude awakening.
Have to wait and see I suppose.
|
We'll have to see what it is. You know, pressuring religious people to take part in religious ceremonies that contradict their religious beliefs is a valid concern too. It's not like being gainfully employed and keeping your first amendment rights was always a choose-one option; these things must be balanced, and frankly, I'm not into banning people from industries all willy nilly because religion is all-or-none legally.
Granted; the source presumes a verdict. Clearly discrimination. But it's "The Nation," what do you expect? Another outlet might appreciate the rich history of balancing interests in this matter. Like a religious pacifist learns those are military tank turrets he's been building, and gets out but still wants unemployment? Maybe you end up with Thomas vs the Review Board of the Indiana Employment Security division et al. I can see a lot of discrimination going the other way too ... namely, that religious people are discriminated against in exercising their first amendment rights that others, say atheists or native americans preserve for their conscience. + Show Spoiler +And no, I'm not arguing these first amendment rights extend limitlessly to everything someone might do in the name of religion. Let's just go a tiny distance forward in understanding legitimate burdens and prudence in what we call unacceptable discrimination.
|
Well this is a bit weird
Trump can't find Giuliani, sitting straight across him at the table.
|
Are there any Republican congrssmen who took some distance with Trump since he's elected? Is it a thing in the US to try to differentiate oneself from the government even if it's from your party? I can't believe none of the hundreds of Republican congressmen did not state he did not support at least some of Trump's politics, specially that many of them were not kind to him during the primary. I've tried to search for it but it's hard given the insane amount of articles.
|
Canada11412 Posts
Or he was looking at Kushner and Kelly for any number of reasons.
|
The main distinction I see between random members of the extreme right and left is that the "leftist anarchists" form mobs and break stuff, whereas the extreme right seems to call a few buddies with guns to open fire on crowds of innocent people. They're both insane, but I know which one I think is worse.
My only direct experience with either side of that equation is that I used to hang out with a lot of self-proclaimed anarchists when I was younger. They were by far some of the most illogical and generally unintelligent people I've ever met.
|
I mean Rudy's there but there's probably a dozen heads right behind him. But when Trump does these things he sounds like a high school kid who's talking about a report he's reading for the first time as he says it. Sometimes he sounds legitimately surprised by what he's reading, but still trying to pretend it's his idea. Maybe I'm just too used to how polished Obama got at it.
|
On February 02 2017 16:14 Blisse wrote:In the meantime I can't wait to see whether this turns out to be fake or not. Show nested quote +
Leaked Draft of Trump’s Religious Freedom Order Reveals Sweeping Plans to Legalize Discrimination
A leaked copy of a draft executive order titled “Establishing a Government-Wide Initiative to Respect Religious Freedom,” obtained by The Investigative Fund and The Nation, reveals sweeping plans by the Trump administration to legalize discrimination.
This article was reported in partnership with the Investigative Fund at the Nation Institute.
The four-page draft order, a copy of which is currently circulating among federal staff and advocacy organizations, construes religious organizations so broadly that it covers “any organization, including closely held for-profit corporations,” and protects “religious freedom” in every walk of life: “when providing social services, education, or healthcare; earning a living, seeking a job, or employing others; receiving government grants or contracts; or otherwise participating in the marketplace, the public square, or interfacing with Federal, State or local governments.”
The draft order seeks to create wholesale exemptions for people and organizations who claim religious or moral objections to same-sex marriage, premarital sex, abortion, and trans identity, and it seeks to curtail women’s access to contraception and abortion through the Affordable Care Act. The White House did not respond to requests for comment, but when asked Monday about whether a religious freedom executive order was in the works, White House spokesman Sean Spicer told reporters, “I’m not getting ahead of the executive orders that we may or may not issue. There is a lot of executive orders, a lot of things that the president has talked about and will continue to fulfill, but we have nothing on that front now.”
Language in the draft document specifically protects the tax-exempt status of any organization that “believes, speaks, or acts (or declines to act) in accordance with the belief that marriage is or should be recognized as the union of one man and one woman, sexual relations are properly reserved for such a marriage, male and female and their equivalents refer to an individual’s immutable biological sex as objectively determined by anatomy, physiology, or genetics at or before birth, and that human life begins at conception and merits protection at all stages of life.”
...
In particular, said Lupu, the draft order “privileges” a certain set of beliefs about sexual orientation and gender identity—beliefs identified most closely with conservative Catholics and evangelical Christians—over others. That, he said, goes beyond “what RFRA might authorize” and may violate the Establishment Clause.
Lupu added that the language of the draft “might invite federal employees,” for example, at the Social Security Administration or Veterans Administration, “to refuse on religious grounds to process applications or respond to questions from those whose benefits depend on same sex marriages.” If other employees do not “fill the gap,” he said, it could “lead to a situation where marriage equality was being de facto undermined by federal employees, especially in religiously conservative communities,” contrary to Supreme Court rulings.
www.thenation.com/article/leaked-draft-of-trumps-religious-freedom-order-reveals-sweeping-plans-to-legalize-discrimination/
I wonder if the entirety of the next four years are going to be conducted through speculation and "leaks" that may or may not be genuine.
Sounds like fun, and chaos.
|
On February 02 2017 18:38 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2017 16:14 Blisse wrote:In the meantime I can't wait to see whether this turns out to be fake or not.
Leaked Draft of Trump’s Religious Freedom Order Reveals Sweeping Plans to Legalize Discrimination
A leaked copy of a draft executive order titled “Establishing a Government-Wide Initiative to Respect Religious Freedom,” obtained by The Investigative Fund and The Nation, reveals sweeping plans by the Trump administration to legalize discrimination.
This article was reported in partnership with the Investigative Fund at the Nation Institute.
The four-page draft order, a copy of which is currently circulating among federal staff and advocacy organizations, construes religious organizations so broadly that it covers “any organization, including closely held for-profit corporations,” and protects “religious freedom” in every walk of life: “when providing social services, education, or healthcare; earning a living, seeking a job, or employing others; receiving government grants or contracts; or otherwise participating in the marketplace, the public square, or interfacing with Federal, State or local governments.”
The draft order seeks to create wholesale exemptions for people and organizations who claim religious or moral objections to same-sex marriage, premarital sex, abortion, and trans identity, and it seeks to curtail women’s access to contraception and abortion through the Affordable Care Act. The White House did not respond to requests for comment, but when asked Monday about whether a religious freedom executive order was in the works, White House spokesman Sean Spicer told reporters, “I’m not getting ahead of the executive orders that we may or may not issue. There is a lot of executive orders, a lot of things that the president has talked about and will continue to fulfill, but we have nothing on that front now.”
Language in the draft document specifically protects the tax-exempt status of any organization that “believes, speaks, or acts (or declines to act) in accordance with the belief that marriage is or should be recognized as the union of one man and one woman, sexual relations are properly reserved for such a marriage, male and female and their equivalents refer to an individual’s immutable biological sex as objectively determined by anatomy, physiology, or genetics at or before birth, and that human life begins at conception and merits protection at all stages of life.”
...
In particular, said Lupu, the draft order “privileges” a certain set of beliefs about sexual orientation and gender identity—beliefs identified most closely with conservative Catholics and evangelical Christians—over others. That, he said, goes beyond “what RFRA might authorize” and may violate the Establishment Clause.
Lupu added that the language of the draft “might invite federal employees,” for example, at the Social Security Administration or Veterans Administration, “to refuse on religious grounds to process applications or respond to questions from those whose benefits depend on same sex marriages.” If other employees do not “fill the gap,” he said, it could “lead to a situation where marriage equality was being de facto undermined by federal employees, especially in religiously conservative communities,” contrary to Supreme Court rulings.
www.thenation.com/article/leaked-draft-of-trumps-religious-freedom-order-reveals-sweeping-plans-to-legalize-discrimination/ I wonder if the entirety of the next four years are going to be conducted through speculation and "leaks" that may or may not be genuine. Sounds like fun, and chaos.
Well, the way it's going currently, there's going to be a lot of unhappy people willing anonymously leak stuff before it comes out, and I would hope that doesn't change.
Then again, I wouldn't be too surprised if Trump creates an echo chamber in a few months once he's cleaned the dissidents out. That'd be super dangerous to have though.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
these leaks help to introduce public debate and produce positive policy and political impact.
i'll oppose all leaks when snowden is hanging from a tree and assange is in jail
|
On February 02 2017 19:25 Amui wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2017 18:38 LegalLord wrote:On February 02 2017 16:14 Blisse wrote:In the meantime I can't wait to see whether this turns out to be fake or not.
Leaked Draft of Trump’s Religious Freedom Order Reveals Sweeping Plans to Legalize Discrimination
A leaked copy of a draft executive order titled “Establishing a Government-Wide Initiative to Respect Religious Freedom,” obtained by The Investigative Fund and The Nation, reveals sweeping plans by the Trump administration to legalize discrimination.
This article was reported in partnership with the Investigative Fund at the Nation Institute.
The four-page draft order, a copy of which is currently circulating among federal staff and advocacy organizations, construes religious organizations so broadly that it covers “any organization, including closely held for-profit corporations,” and protects “religious freedom” in every walk of life: “when providing social services, education, or healthcare; earning a living, seeking a job, or employing others; receiving government grants or contracts; or otherwise participating in the marketplace, the public square, or interfacing with Federal, State or local governments.”
The draft order seeks to create wholesale exemptions for people and organizations who claim religious or moral objections to same-sex marriage, premarital sex, abortion, and trans identity, and it seeks to curtail women’s access to contraception and abortion through the Affordable Care Act. The White House did not respond to requests for comment, but when asked Monday about whether a religious freedom executive order was in the works, White House spokesman Sean Spicer told reporters, “I’m not getting ahead of the executive orders that we may or may not issue. There is a lot of executive orders, a lot of things that the president has talked about and will continue to fulfill, but we have nothing on that front now.”
Language in the draft document specifically protects the tax-exempt status of any organization that “believes, speaks, or acts (or declines to act) in accordance with the belief that marriage is or should be recognized as the union of one man and one woman, sexual relations are properly reserved for such a marriage, male and female and their equivalents refer to an individual’s immutable biological sex as objectively determined by anatomy, physiology, or genetics at or before birth, and that human life begins at conception and merits protection at all stages of life.”
...
In particular, said Lupu, the draft order “privileges” a certain set of beliefs about sexual orientation and gender identity—beliefs identified most closely with conservative Catholics and evangelical Christians—over others. That, he said, goes beyond “what RFRA might authorize” and may violate the Establishment Clause.
Lupu added that the language of the draft “might invite federal employees,” for example, at the Social Security Administration or Veterans Administration, “to refuse on religious grounds to process applications or respond to questions from those whose benefits depend on same sex marriages.” If other employees do not “fill the gap,” he said, it could “lead to a situation where marriage equality was being de facto undermined by federal employees, especially in religiously conservative communities,” contrary to Supreme Court rulings.
www.thenation.com/article/leaked-draft-of-trumps-religious-freedom-order-reveals-sweeping-plans-to-legalize-discrimination/ I wonder if the entirety of the next four years are going to be conducted through speculation and "leaks" that may or may not be genuine. Sounds like fun, and chaos. Well, the way it's going currently, there's going to be a lot of unhappy people willing anonymously leak stuff before it comes out, and I would hope that doesn't change. Then again, I wouldn't be too surprised if Trump creates an echo chamber in a few months once he's cleaned the dissidents out. That'd be super dangerous to have though.
If I were a party interested in spreading chaos I would take to the Twitterverse and make thousands of "rogue" accounts and peddle conspiracy theories disguised as leaks. I couldn't possibly be the only one to have this idea.
|
On February 02 2017 19:33 oneofthem wrote:
these leaks help to introduce public debate and produce positive policy and political impact.
i'll oppose all leaks when snowden is hanging from a tree and assange is in jail
Explain please?
|
|
|
Was it satirical? It sounds like it was; presumably with the implication that his left-wing professors were Stalinists or so? If so, who cares? Young kids does something silly with 0 real consequences. More news at 11.
In fact, the more I read about this guy, the more I like him. I disagree with him ideologically, but he sounds like an honest and intelligent man who is willing to fight for his principles. I'm increasingly surprised Trump nominated him.
|
|
|
My guess is that Trump asked Ben Ghazi before sending in the Seals and therein lay the error.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
