|
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. |
Oh, it'll be great, I'm just curious at what Trump et al will do when the first executive overreach gets reversed. Also, how many in total get smacked down versus those upheld. Executive orders relating to immigration where judges seek to use campaign statements as guidance is sure to be a fun one. And we're just getting started!
I've had to content myself on small fare like Patel vs TDLR "the threaders" against an agency I wish was called TL;DR in the meantime.
I think the Dems will be a little too wise to raise a big stink in the hearings.
On March 19 2017 15:32 LegalLord wrote:
I mean, yeah, it's pretty damn shitty how they torpedoed the Garland nomination. But Gorsuch is a perfectly qualified SCOTUS judge and there is little to be gained by playing obstructionist since it won't work for four years.
That is legitimately the only thing I can easily name that McConnell did right in his tenure.
|
On March 19 2017 15:32 LegalLord wrote:
I mean, yeah, it's pretty damn shitty how they torpedoed the Garland nomination. But Gorsuch is a perfectly qualified SCOTUS judge and there is little to be gained by playing obstructionist since it won't work for four years.
As much as I want the Dems to play the "Trump is campaigning and we refuse to vote during a campaign." strategy it would be incredibly stupid. But yeah I'd say raise questions about his stance on stuff like LGBT rights and stuff but let him through. Go back to killing him over budget and health care. And get the entire Sesame street cast to give congressional testimony.
|
On March 19 2017 15:38 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote:Show nested quote +On March 19 2017 15:32 LegalLord wrote:
I mean, yeah, it's pretty damn shitty how they torpedoed the Garland nomination. But Gorsuch is a perfectly qualified SCOTUS judge and there is little to be gained by playing obstructionist since it won't work for four years. As much as I want the Dems to play the "Trump is campaigning and we refuse to vote during a campaign." strategy it would be incredibly stupid. But yeah I'd say raise questions about his stance on stuff like LGBT rights and stuff but let him through. Go back to killing him over budget and health care. And get the entire Sesame street cast to give congressional testimony.
Should be interesting to see who gives him a vote. It's one of those lose-lose situations Democrats have worked themselves into.
There's a lot of Democrats that have it easy, just saying he needs 60 votes, knowing they won't be one of them, but he'll get them from somewhere.
|
|
|
if you want the actual graph. We're still a point above Russia though. I don't think making everyone hate you is a good strategy for negotiating with people.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
Trump is worse than Bush at his worst. Heh.
Also Turkey certainly went down the shitter since the coup.
|
It's hardly surprising though, i don't actually think that it's even "do you trust the US" when it boils down to it, but "do you trust Trump". Which you can demonstrably not.
Turkey was declining before the coup already, once it dawned on people who/what Erdogan is, turning a west-leaning liberal country into a islamist shithole one step at a time.
|
I know i've brought up the issue before, but I never ran a poll on it, so:
Should political party/who you vote be added to the list of things covered by non-discrimination laws?
https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/statutes/
There were some people during the election that were feeling very uncomfortable in their workplace due to the politicization there, dunno if there's been any actual discrimination from it or not.
There's a decent argument that it's better for social cohesion to have a non-discrimination rule on this; and that everyone needs jobs/housing/etc.
On the other hand, voting is very much a choice, unlike most of the things covered by these laws, which you are born with. The closest analogue would seem to be religion, which is covered by such laws.
Poll: Add voting preference/political party to non-discrimination laws?No (13) 76% Yes (3) 18% Other (1) 6% 17 total votes Your vote: Add voting preference/political party to non-discrimination laws? (Vote): Yes
(Vote): No
(Vote): Other
|
LGBTQ folk don't even get suspect classification status.....seriously, that's a terrible idea.
|
no, if you vote for something stupid people should be allowed to call you out on voting for something stupid
|
On March 19 2017 23:53 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:
no, if you vote for something stupid people should be allowed to call you out on voting for something stupid
non-discriminations laws are not about stopping you from calling a Trump voter stupid. Its about not being able to reject you for a job application on the basis that you voted Trump.
|
I don't see why you would tell your employer what you voted though
|
Then we just need someone to refuse to bake a cake/host a trump rally, and we have an interesting case.
|
On March 20 2017 00:06 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:
I don't see why you would tell your employer what you voted though
You can probably figure it out by looking at social media.
|
On March 20 2017 00:06 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:
I don't see why you would tell your employer what you voted though
So don't ask, don't tell 
Could your job application have a little check box (I do not now and never have supported the Republican Party)?
Or NINA (no Independents need apply)
...basically its already a semi-protected class (because I don't think that either of those would fly legally)
|
I guess a follow-up on that:
German Defense Minister Ursula von der Leyen on Sunday rejected U.S. President Donald Trump's claim that Germany owes NATO and the United States "vast sums" of money for defense.
"There is no debt account at NATO," von der Leyen said in a statement, adding that it was wrong to link the alliance's target for members to spend 2 percent of their economic output on defense by 2024 solely to NATO.
"Defense spending also goes into UN peacekeeping missions, into our European missions and into our contribution to the fight against IS terrorism," von der Leyen said.
She said everyone wanted the burden to be shared fairly and for that to happen it was necessary to have a "modern security concept" that included a modern NATO but also a European defense union and investment in the United Nations.
Trump said on Twitter on Saturday - a day after meeting German Chancellor Angela Merkel in Washington - that Germany "owes vast sums of money to NATO & the United States must be paid more for the powerful, and very expensive, defense it provides to Germany!"
Trump has urged Germany and other NATO members to accelerate efforts to meet NATO's defense spending target.
German defense spending is set to rise by 1.4 billion euros to 38.5 billion euros in 2018 - a figure that is projected to represent 1.26 percent of economic output, Finance Minister Wolfgang Schaeuble has said.
In 2016, Germany's defense spending ratio stood at 1.18 percent.
During her trip to Washington, Merkel reiterated Germany's commitment to the 2 percent military spending goal.
source: www.reuters.com
he really has to be the one winning no matter what, doesn't he?
Seriously, if he actually cared about making it look like it was a swell meeting just post that first tweet and end it before you write that "Nevertheless..." phrase to hammer it home.
Of course you're going to get a response to that and it's not going to make it look like a good meeting at all...
|
nobody denies that trump can't stand neither truth nor even appearing to be failing.
|
On March 20 2017 00:48 Toadesstern wrote:
They really should take his phone away before he does more damage. He keeps making up stuff to hate his allies for. UK spied on us, Germany owns us money, France is a hellhole. It's disturbing.
Meanwhile Russia is the best country in the world
|
On March 20 2017 01:06 Artisreal wrote:
nobody denies that trump can't stand neither truth nor even appearing to be failing.
I know of at least one person who would deny such a claim.
It's funny though, all this complaining about NATO/defense spending. As if the US would spend less on its military if all European nations paid 2% of their economic output into NATO.
|
On March 20 2017 01:46 a_flayer wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2017 01:06 Artisreal wrote:
nobody denies that trump can't stand neither truth nor even appearing to be failing. I know of at least one person who would deny such a claim. It's funny though, all this complaining about NATO/defense spending. As if the US would spend less on its military if all European nations paid 2% of their economic output into NATO.
Do you at least register how insulting it is to spend so much on defense and our military alliances can't even meet a 2% target? Because I'm not on board with much of Trump's rhetoric on NATO, but I do know something has to change over there. We provide three quarters of funding, and only four countries at last check hit 2%, all the while the European nations included total more population and GDP than us? Hardly. And anyone not sufficiently partisan should know it.
Speaking of which, people who's minds are not made up may read more here.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
