|
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. |
On March 30 2017 02:45 Buckyman wrote:Show nested quote +On March 30 2017 02:33 Buckyman wrote:
The result is two sets of people that consider each others' beliefs to be unthinkable, and who cannot have a productive conversation with each other on those topics. -> Show nested quote +On March 30 2017 02:36 farvacola wrote:
Unadorned lip service to concepts like federalism are precisely the stuff of folks who would have seen Brown v. Board go the other way, and it will be on the grave of Justices like Rehnquist that we will hopefully lay the body of such vacuous notions. The notion that it has weakened over time is laughable. Thank you for immediately demonstrating my point. Care to supply arguments rather than just dismissing my position?
Haha, I'm working on an article about this right now and these things tend to be stern in their language, so my apologies for what looked like an invective turn. Yada yada yada, the Supreme Court has vastly overstated the legal immunities constitutionally afforded states and this hyper-federalistic distortion in liability has created an entire class of politicians who are mostly immune to the effects of general political accountability a la the electoral process. In other words, Supreme Court 10th and 11th Amendment decisions have led to the development of indolent, stupid, and entirely captured state/local governments.
|
On March 30 2017 02:47 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On March 30 2017 02:33 Buckyman wrote:On March 30 2017 01:57 LightSpectra wrote:
A third of our country is far-right, and so ultrapartisan that they refuse to cooperate with the other two-thirds of the country even when it's mutually beneficial. I think what actually happened was a split Overton window on several topics. Public discourse, as represented in the mainstream media, moved leftwards much faster than actual viewpoints. The people whose beliefs went from uncontroversial to demonized in the span of about a decade reformed their own conversation. The result is two sets of people that consider each others' beliefs to be unthinkable, and who cannot have a productive conversation with each other on those topics. This is a direct consequence of media bias. any evidence on the mainstream media moving leftward faster than actual viewpoints? it's an interesting question, rather hard ot measure of course; and most people's perceptions on it would be highly unreliable. it need not be a direct consequences of media bias, more likely media fragmentation, or simply holding very different views and incompatible views.
I believe the model example one gives for that viewpoint is that the media, in this example Hollywood, was open to gay right/marriage at a fast pace the the general public.
|
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2017/03/28/trump-business-past-ties-russian-mobsters-organized-crime/98321252/
To expand his real estate developments over the years, Donald Trump, his company and partners repeatedly turned to wealthy Russians and oligarchs from former Soviet republics — several allegedly connected to organized crime, according to a USA TODAY review of court cases, government and legal documents and an interview with a former federal prosecutor.
The president and his companies have been linked to at least 10 wealthy former Soviet businessmen with alleged ties to criminal organizations or money laundering.
|
|
|
On March 30 2017 03:15 ShoCkeyy wrote:http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2017/03/28/trump-business-past-ties-russian-mobsters-organized-crime/98321252/Show nested quote +To expand his real estate developments over the years, Donald Trump, his company and partners repeatedly turned to wealthy Russians and oligarchs from former Soviet republics — several allegedly connected to organized crime, according to a USA TODAY review of court cases, government and legal documents and an interview with a former federal prosecutor.
The president and his companies have been linked to at least 10 wealthy former Soviet businessmen with alleged ties to criminal organizations or money laundering.
Trump has shady ties to Russia, has had them for a long time, and he's a con through and through.
|
On March 30 2017 03:12 Gahlo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 30 2017 02:47 zlefin wrote:On March 30 2017 02:33 Buckyman wrote:On March 30 2017 01:57 LightSpectra wrote:
A third of our country is far-right, and so ultrapartisan that they refuse to cooperate with the other two-thirds of the country even when it's mutually beneficial. I think what actually happened was a split Overton window on several topics. Public discourse, as represented in the mainstream media, moved leftwards much faster than actual viewpoints. The people whose beliefs went from uncontroversial to demonized in the span of about a decade reformed their own conversation. The result is two sets of people that consider each others' beliefs to be unthinkable, and who cannot have a productive conversation with each other on those topics. This is a direct consequence of media bias. any evidence on the mainstream media moving leftward faster than actual viewpoints? it's an interesting question, rather hard ot measure of course; and most people's perceptions on it would be highly unreliable. it need not be a direct consequences of media bias, more likely media fragmentation, or simply holding very different views and incompatible views. I believe the model example one gives for that viewpoint is that the media, in this example Hollywood, was open to gay right/marriage at a fast pace the the general public.
that would not be an example though.
the claim was of mainstream media moving leftward faster than the average viewpoint.
hollywood has been more liberal than the average viewpoint for a very long time now, and that has been reflected in media. just as urban areas tend to be more liberal than rural areas, and have been for a long time now. and mainstream media tend to be centered in urban areas.
and just as some states are more liberal than others, and have been for a long time.
There's no evidence yet presented of earlier acceptance of gay marriage being a result of a faster shift, rather than simply a result of having started further to the left.
also importnat to be claer, normally "mainstream media" in political fora refers to the news media, rather than the entertainment media. not sure what he was referring to.
|
the case set a powerful precedent for presidents who misbehave in their private lives — one that could get a workout under Trump’s administration. Jones v. Clinton is “horrible news” for Donald Trump, says Northeastern University law professor Daniel Urman. By far the most litigious president in American history, Trump and his various business entities have been involved in as many as 4,000 lawsuits over the years. Despite paying $25 million to settle three fraud lawsuits against Trump University just days before his inauguration, the new president faces, according to a USA Today count two weeks prior to the inauguration, 75 ongoing cases.
As the Jones case makes clear, Trump will not be able to lean on his duties as president to excuse himself from the proceedings in these cases or to shield himself from liability. The pending litigation will take up time, draw additional scrutiny to his business practices and give political opponents plenty of opportunities to conduct discovery and dig up more dirt, including perhaps a Lewinsky-level smoking gun. And, let’s face it, as with Clinton, one major weapon for attacking the policies of a sitting president is through litigating his private conduct, both in court and in the court of public opinion.
Source
|
This isn't even a SNL skit....
|
The Senate intelligence committee has asked 20 people to be questioned in its investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election, the panel's chairman said Wednesday.
"This one is one of the biggest investigations the Hill has seen in my time here," Chairman Richard Burr, a North Carolina Republican, said at a news conference with committee vice-chairman Mark Warner. Burr's been in the Senate since 2005, and served in the House since 1995.
CNN
Mark Warner has said it's the most important thing he's done in public life, based on what he's seen so far.
|
On March 30 2017 02:46 LightSpectra wrote:Show nested quote +On March 30 2017 02:33 Buckyman wrote:On March 30 2017 01:57 LightSpectra wrote:
A third of our country is far-right, and so ultrapartisan that they refuse to cooperate with the other two-thirds of the country even when it's mutually beneficial. I think what actually happened was a split Overton window on several topics. Public discourse, as represented in the mainstream media, moved leftwards much faster than actual viewpoints. The people whose beliefs went from uncontroversial to demonized in the span of about a decade reformed their own conversation. The result is two sets of people that consider each others' beliefs to be unthinkable, and who cannot have a productive conversation with each other on those topics. This is a direct consequence of media bias. I agree with that, but it doesn't fully explain the picture. The same situation has happened to social conservatives in lots of countries, but it hasn't driven them into the psychiatric ward like what happened with the Republican Party around 2009. Show nested quote +The Constitution is deliberately structured to keep a majority from stepping on the minorities. This is a critical feature. Part of that is federalism; although federalism has weakened over time, general power is supposed to rest in the states, which are free to set their own policies on most topics. Yes, the Constitution was designed in order to prevent mob rule over a minority. It does that effectively. EDIT: But what the current system does is distribute representation based off of geographical dispersion as opposed to population. There is no good reason why New York and California, who have about a quarter of America's population, should only have 4% of the Senators between them. That's not a structure "to keep a majority from stepping on the minorities", that's outright nonsense based off of a mistaken, anti-democratic, anti-humanist notion of what federalism means.
I think it largely is due the thing the Constitution does poorly.
The big mistake of the founders was not slavery or witchcraft, those were either solved in the Constitution or fundamentally not solvable in a constitution for that society...got solved later in extraconstitutional ways and then ratified by the Constitution.
Instead their big mistake was thinking political parties could be avoided*.
If they had worked in mechanisms for ensuring that multiple viable parties would develop then we wouldn't have the 51-49 split that switches back and forth..
Where Congress empowers the President (if of the same party)
and Congress can't disempower a President (of the opposing party) [instead it can only refuse to give them more power]
which means it is either single party rule or maximum gridlock.
If you had multiple parties, then the President would always have to work with a different party in Congress (but they president would have multiple options of which Other party to work with so there would be some room for negotiation..and some people voting for the bill wouldn't want to give this President a blank check)
*There is constant warning of the dangers of factions, but either they thought they could be avoided, or couldn't think of a way to deal with them, or couldn't come up with a way to deal with them that would be agreeable.
|
On March 30 2017 05:12 Krikkitone wrote:Show nested quote +On March 30 2017 02:46 LightSpectra wrote:On March 30 2017 02:33 Buckyman wrote:On March 30 2017 01:57 LightSpectra wrote:
A third of our country is far-right, and so ultrapartisan that they refuse to cooperate with the other two-thirds of the country even when it's mutually beneficial. I think what actually happened was a split Overton window on several topics. Public discourse, as represented in the mainstream media, moved leftwards much faster than actual viewpoints. The people whose beliefs went from uncontroversial to demonized in the span of about a decade reformed their own conversation. The result is two sets of people that consider each others' beliefs to be unthinkable, and who cannot have a productive conversation with each other on those topics. This is a direct consequence of media bias. I agree with that, but it doesn't fully explain the picture. The same situation has happened to social conservatives in lots of countries, but it hasn't driven them into the psychiatric ward like what happened with the Republican Party around 2009. The Constitution is deliberately structured to keep a majority from stepping on the minorities. This is a critical feature. Part of that is federalism; although federalism has weakened over time, general power is supposed to rest in the states, which are free to set their own policies on most topics. Yes, the Constitution was designed in order to prevent mob rule over a minority. It does that effectively. EDIT: But what the current system does is distribute representation based off of geographical dispersion as opposed to population. There is no good reason why New York and California, who have about a quarter of America's population, should only have 4% of the Senators between them. That's not a structure "to keep a majority from stepping on the minorities", that's outright nonsense based off of a mistaken, anti-democratic, anti-humanist notion of what federalism means. I think it largely is due the thing the Constitution does poorly. The big mistake of the founders was not slavery or witchcraft, those were either solved in the Constitution or fundamentally not solvable in a constitution for that society...got solved later in extraconstitutional ways and then ratified by the Constitution. Instead their big mistake was thinking political parties could be avoided*. If they had worked in mechanisms for ensuring that multiple viable parties would develop then we wouldn't have the 51-49 split that switches back and forth.. Where Congress empowers the President (if of the same party) and Congress can't disempower a President (of the opposing party) [instead it can only refuse to give them more power] which means it is either single party rule or maximum gridlock. If you had multiple parties, then the President would always have to work with a different party in Congress (but they president would have multiple options of which Other party to work with so there would be some room for negotiation..and some people voting for the bill wouldn't want to give this President a blank check) *There is constant warning of the dangers of factions, but either they thought they could be avoided, or couldn't think of a way to deal with them, or couldn't come up with a way to deal with them that would be agreeable.
You would also need a Motion of No Confidence system as well, to force the government bodies to actually come to compromise on important legislature. Otherwise more parties could increase the gridlock.
|
He didn't make a mistake. Chuck was at fault there, he interrupted Ken.
|
In 2015, when Barack Obama signed the nation’s clean power plan, more than 300 companies came out in support, calling the guidelines “critical for moving our country toward a clean energy economy”. Now, as Donald Trump moves to strip those laws away, Mars Inc, Staples and The Gap are just a few of those US corporations who are challenging the new president’s reversal on climate policy.
“We’re disappointed the administration has decided to roll back climate regulations such as the clean power plan and others,” Edward Hoover, senior manager of Corporate Communications for Mars, told the Guardian. “Corporations can’t do it alone. Governments play a critical role in mitigating the effects of climate change on our economy.”
The responses come just a day after Trump, flanked by cheering coalminers, signed a sweeping executive order that begins to dismantle steps taken by the Obama administration to cut emissions under the Paris agreement negotiated in 2015. Under the agreement the US had agreed to cut its greenhouse gas emissions 26-28% by 2025 as compared with 2005 levels.
“We will continue to support the EPA’s clean power plan and the reduction of carbon emissions associated with electrical power generation,” added Mark Buckley, vice-president of environmental affairs for Staples, calling it “smart business”.
The centerpiece for this reduction was the clean power plan, billed in 2015 as the strongest action ever on climate change by a US president but criticised by some for targeting coal-fired power plants, which release more carbon and fine particulate material than other fossil fuels.
That was when some of the nation’s most recognizable brands signed a letter to the National Governors Association backing their commitment to the reductions, arguing that better regulation would drive innovation and create jobs, rather than stifle them, as Trump went on to repeatedly suggest during the 2016 campaign.
“We believe that investing in a low-carbon economy will not only help foster a healthier environment, it is also a key to unlocking new business growth potential for the US and around the world,” said Gap Inc spokesperson Laura Wilkinson. The clothing manufacturer produces the popular Gap, Old Navy and Banana Republic brands. Wilkinson added that the company would continue to “advocate for low carbon policies that will help ensure a healthier and more prosperous future”.
Hoover, whose company is the maker of candies like M&Ms, Skittles, Snickers and Twix, added: “We believe the science is clear and unambiguous: climate change is real and human activity is a factor. As a food business, our supply chain and those who work in it are threatened by its impacts.”
Trump, for his part, has called climate change a “hoax”. Asked by the Guardian this week if Trump accepted the science of manmade climate change, a senior White House official replied: “Sure, yes, I guess.”
Levi Strauss and the eco-oriented Seven Generations cleaning and paper supply company also confirmed their commitment to the 2015 agreement in statements to the Guardian. “We stand firm in our support of the clean power plan,” said Ashley Orgain, manager of mission advocacy for Seven Generations. “Climate change is harming our health now, some of us more than others.”
Even fossil fuel giant Exxonmobil has chimed in to recommend the US stay on course with the Paris agreement, calling it “an effective framework for addressing the risks of climate change” in a letter to Trump last week. It’s worth noting though, that the energy conglomerate deals mainly in oil and natural gas, not coal, and hopes to gain market share under an agreement that would phase out coal-fired plants.
Source
|
On March 30 2017 05:43 JinDesu wrote:He didn't make a mistake. Chuck was at fault there, he interrupted Ken.
I only have that clip to look at, but he put his hand on Chuck's arm, looked at him and said go ahead Ken. Wouldn't that those first two things imply he thought Chuck was Ken?
|
On March 30 2017 07:00 Saryph wrote:Show nested quote +On March 30 2017 05:43 JinDesu wrote:He didn't make a mistake. Chuck was at fault there, he interrupted Ken. I only have that clip to look at, but he put his hand on Chuck's arm, looked at him and said go ahead Ken. Wouldn't that those first two things imply he thought Chuck was Ken?
It's Chuck's fault for not being named Ken.
|
in reality Ken is just an asshole leftover from Obama. He's really named Ken but said Chuck to fuck with Trump
|
United States43262 Posts
On March 30 2017 07:34 Toadesstern wrote:
in reality Ken is just an asshole leftover from Obama. He's really named Ken but said Chuck to fuck with Trump
Fake Chucks.
|
Ivanka Trump, Shifting Plans, Will Become a Federal Employee
Ivanka Trump during a meeting with female small-business owners at the White House on Monday. Stephen Crowley/The New York Times
Ivanka Trump, the elder daughter of President Trump, is becoming an official government employee, joining her husband in serving as an unpaid adviser to her father in the White House.
Ms. Trump already has an office in the West Wing, and she said last week that she would serve as an informal adviser to her father. But that plan prompted criticism from ethics experts, who said it would allow her to avoid some rules and disclosures.
“I have heard the concerns some have with my advising the president in my personal capacity while voluntarily complying with all ethics rules, and I will instead serve as an unpaid employee in the White House office, subject to all of the same rules as other federal employees,” Ms. Trump said in a statement on Wednesday.
“Throughout this process I have been working closely and in good faith with the White House counsel and my personal counsel to address the unprecedented nature of my role,” she said.
Ms. Trump’s title will be assistant to the president. Her husband, Jared Kushner, has the title of senior adviser.
“We are pleased that Ivanka Trump has chosen to take this step in her unprecedented role as first daughter and in support of the president,” a spokeswoman for the president said in an email. “Ivanka’s service as an unpaid employee furthers our commitment to ethics, transparency, and compliance and affords her increased opportunities to lead initiatives driving real policy benefits for the American public that would not have been available to her previously.”
Ms. Trump’s lawyer, Jamie S. Gorelick, said that her decision stemmed from “her commitment to compliance with federal ethics standards and her openness to opposing points of view.”
“She will file the financial disclosure forms required of federal employees and be bound by the same ethics rules that she had planned to comply with voluntarily,” Ms. Gorelick said.
Source
Wohoo, dynasties!
|
On March 30 2017 07:23 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On March 30 2017 07:00 Saryph wrote:On March 30 2017 05:43 JinDesu wrote:He didn't make a mistake. Chuck was at fault there, he interrupted Ken. I only have that clip to look at, but he put his hand on Chuck's arm, looked at him and said go ahead Ken. Wouldn't that those first two things imply he thought Chuck was Ken? It's Chuck's fault for not being named Ken.
No, Chuck's mother is an illegal immigrant radical that named him for this purpose. We know this from Trumps sources, which are the best sources, trust me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
