|
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. |
Canada11354 Posts
So any thoughts on Resolution 34 that just passed House and will inevitably be signed by Trump?
Was innovation that stagnated that it warranted allowing the ISP's to sell the browsing history of its citizens to corporations? My hope is that as America goes one direction, the rest of the world flies in the opposite direction. Great experiment. We'll see who's better off.
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/03/for-sale-your-private-browsing-history/
http://www.theverge.com/2014/3/10/5491908/comcast-buys-congress http://www.theverge.com/2017/3/29/15100620/congress-fcc-isp-web-browsing-privacy-fire-sale
These votes were so close- 15 broke ranks in the House, so only passed by 10. I wish Rand Paul had the guts to break ranks and vote no rather than not vote, but Isakson would still have been needed to tie the vote in the Senate.
edit. My favourite part is that a bunch of people are raising money so they can buy the browsing history of members of Congress. Dunno how they intend to do so, or what the hell one of them needs $500M, but the one campaign got $146,000 out of its desired $10,000. Lots of emotion, but it's not so clear to me you can actually walk in and buy the browsing history of a person by name, nor that the ISP is obligated to do so. I doubt these campaigns are actually viable, but it does demonstrate people's outrage.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
The only thing that surprised me is how quietly this bill passed. As if no one cared to voice their protest.
|
Canada11354 Posts
Yeah, I recall a big stink being raised with similar issues in regards to the invasion of privacy and the internet. But I guess persistence can win the day once outrage has been expended on previous efforts.
|
On March 30 2017 17:18 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On March 30 2017 17:14 RealityIsKing wrote:On March 30 2017 11:44 KwarK wrote:On March 30 2017 11:03 RealityIsKing wrote:On March 30 2017 10:55 KwarK wrote:On March 30 2017 10:34 RealityIsKing wrote: As long as the ties with Russia doesn't negatively affect the lives of American citizens, there is not much wrong with having Russian ties.
We need to see our neighbors as collaborators instead of competitors. The allegation is that there is a serious conflict of interest within the American government. People don't object to peace with Russia, they object to senior politicians being accountable to foreign interests rather than the American people. The basic idea of democracy is that the politicians are held to account by the electorate at the ballot box and therefore the politicians must serve the people or be replaced by others who will. The issue with Trump is that a foreign power intervened in the American election to help propel him into the job and so we must ask what, if anything, he offered them in return. Not that you'll understand any of this, but that's the issue. It is generally not a good idea to insult people if you want people to follow your logic. It doesn't move the conversation in anywhere positive. I understand your worries. But until Trump prioritize Russian gains over American gains, there is no reason to have fear monger. Meanwhile everybody needs stay vigilant and investigate on their own instead of reading articles that have "a poll says, or a study shows". None of the links have been studies or polls. They've been things like a Russian oligarch bailing Trump out from bankruptcy by overpaying for a house Trump had been unable to sell to give him a cash injection (similar to when Trump's casino got bailed out by a large purchase of casino chips which were then taken out of the casino and not gambled with). The Trump-Russia links aren't based on idle speculation or rumour, the only thing lacking is a smoking gun. No I'm saying in general. Yeah those things you've listed are very suspicious but let's hope for the best that Trump is putting Americans first. "Its very suspicious but lets just hope that a man who has been proven to be a compulsive liar is telling the truth". How about we have an independent investigation into finding out if Trump is putting Americans first? Well... not first, the best we can hope for is second after Trumps own pockets.
Well, Trump after all, is an American.
User was warned for this post
|
Can someone explain to me who is Steve Bannon and why there is a lot of fuzz around him? I keep hearing that he is the "Actual President" and Trump is just a puppet.
|
Former CEO of Breitbart "news" Want's to destroy the state Is chief advisor of the POTUS, the brain Trump is supposedly lacking (i.e. he talks to Trump who then says out loud what he heard)
|
On March 30 2017 17:27 opisska wrote: Don't you guys think that the Trump-Russia issue is overplayed? Wouldn't it be better to attack Trump on actual policy than this stuff? Maybe if it was an otherwise sane presidency, then it would make sense to nosy around the Russia ties, but as it is know, there are plenty issues with more immediate practical impact that should be in focus. It almost seems like a clever smokescreen (unless it backfires too far). Because Trump is being attacked on actual policy? (see Muslim ban, AHCA ect) But its hard to stop all of his insane actions because the Republicans control the House, Senate and Presidency. The only way anything is stopped is if Republicans vote against their own party or the Judiciary steps in.
As for overplayed. There is a dozen sources of smoke and the Republicans are desperately running around trying to stop people from looking if there is a fire. How is it overplayed?
If Trump advisors stopped lying and Republicans stopped acting wholly inappropriately with regards to investigations (Nunez) then there would be nothing to report on until the investigation was included.
|
On March 30 2017 17:34 Falling wrote:So any thoughts on Resolution 34 that just passed House and will inevitably be signed by Trump? Was innovation that stagnated that it warranted allowing the ISP's to sell the browsing history of its citizens to corporations? My hope is that as America goes one direction, the rest of the world flies in the opposite direction. Great experiment. We'll see who's better off. https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/03/for-sale-your-private-browsing-history/http://www.theverge.com/2014/3/10/5491908/comcast-buys-congresshttp://www.theverge.com/2017/3/29/15100620/congress-fcc-isp-web-browsing-privacy-fire-saleThese votes were so close- 15 broke ranks in the House, so only passed by 10. I wish Rand Paul had the guts to break ranks and vote no rather than not vote, but Isakson would still have been needed to tie the vote in the Senate. edit. My favourite part is that a bunch of people are raising money so they can buy the browsing history of members of Congress. Dunno how they intend to do so, or what the hell one of them needs $500M, but the one campaign got $146,000 out of its desired $10,000. Lots of emotion, but it's not so clear to me you can actually walk in and buy the browsing history of a person by name, nor that the ISP is obligated to do so. I doubt these campaigns are actually viable, but it does demonstrate people's outrage. It is important to note that this was not typical repeal legislation; in fact, the resolution that was passed in both the house and senate is a joint resolution issued pursuant to an obscure statute known as the Congressional Review Act. Passed in '96, the CRA allows Congress to bypass the normal notice-and-comment rule rescinding process as outlined in the APA and instead invalidate rules/regs through low threshold House and Senate votes along with the President's signature. It's worth noting that up until Trump's election, the CRA had only been successfully invoked once since its passage. However, it has now been used to invalidate seven rules already this Congress. Fortunately, the CRA has a lookback period of only 60 legislative days, so the damage that can be done through it is limited, though as you point out, stuff like internet privacy got a swift chop.
|
On March 30 2017 19:19 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On March 30 2017 17:27 opisska wrote: Don't you guys think that the Trump-Russia issue is overplayed? Wouldn't it be better to attack Trump on actual policy than this stuff? Maybe if it was an otherwise sane presidency, then it would make sense to nosy around the Russia ties, but as it is know, there are plenty issues with more immediate practical impact that should be in focus. It almost seems like a clever smokescreen (unless it backfires too far). Because Trump is being attacked on actual policy? (see Muslim ban, AHCA ect) But its hard to stop all of his insane actions because the Republicans control the House, Senate and Presidency. The only way anything is stopped is if Republicans vote against their own party or the Judiciary steps in. As for overplayed. There is a dozen sources of smoke and the Republicans are desperately running around trying to stop people from looking if there is a fire. How is it overplayed? If Trump advisors stopped lying and Republicans stopped acting wholly inappropriately with regards to investigations (Nunez) then there would be nothing to report on until the investigation was included.
Generally speaking, politicians should only be loyal to their constituents.
It is a big problem if they owe other people favours. Now, of course, in the US you already have a system of legal bribery of politicians in place, so you already have lots of conflicts of interest. I don't know if owing favors to foreign governments is worse than owing favors to domestic corporations. Both are very problematic, but US citizens seem to be confusingly fine with one of them.
|
Why is this woman giving interviews or even appearing in public?
Everytime she speaks the GOP gets a political ad out of it.
|
|
(CNN)Sen. John McCain said Wednesday he will do whatever it takes to make sure that military spending is increased in the next spending bill even if that means shutting down the government.
The Arizona Republican told CNN he wouldn't vote for a continuing resolution, a funding bill that maintains the previous spending levels. When asked how far he would go, McCain said he only had one vote, but that he wouldn't rule out a shutdown.
"If that's the only option. I will not vote for a CR no matter what the consequences because passing a CR destroys the ability of the military to defend this nation, and it puts the lives of the men and women in the military at risk," McCain said. "I can't do that to them."
McCain's comments come as leaders are making a serious effort to negotiate the remaining appropriations bills for Fiscal Year 2017 that would likely include some of the new military spending that McCain is pushing for.
Congressional leaders are up against a tight deadline. After last week's failure to pass the health care bill out of the House, there are questions about how much leaders can get passed even if their goal remains to finish appropriations bills instead of passing a continuing resolution. Congress has to come to an agreement before the government runs out of money April 28.
Raising the stakes? Congress is on recess for two weeks in mid-April.
McCain has long been an advocate for increased military spending and has voted for continuing resolutions in the past, but this time, McCain says he just won't do it and that the military would be set back by another CR.
"I will not vote for a CR. I don't care what's in it," he said.
McCain's comments may put pressure on leaders to see that some rank-and-file members are serious. They won't accept just another, last minute continuing resolution. If that's the only option, there could be a shutdown ahead.
Source
|
Maverick rides wild one last time.
|
On March 30 2017 21:34 farvacola wrote: Maverick rides wild one last time. A shining example for why we need term limits in congress and the senate.
|
Actually, I think legislative term limits are not the solution and would only worsen special interest capture of the legislative process, but I'll say more on this later if you'd like to hear more. Here in Michigan, legislative term limits have crippled the state government, for example.
|
Pastor Jerry Morrell was not playing to his audience. “I was asked if Donald Trump is a man of God,” the evangelical preacher told the congregation of The Way of Holiness church on the outskirts of Buckhannon, West Virginia. “I said: ‘No, I don’t see him as a man of God. Or, at this point, a godly man. I think he’s a man whose heart can be touched by God. I think he may be open to that’.”
A silence fell. The cries of acclamation greeting much of the Pentecostal pastor’s sermon drained away.
“Y’all got real quiet when I said that but I have to tell it like it is,” Morrell pressed on. “I’m praying for our president. Let him have the wisdom not to say some things and not to put some things out on Twitter,” he said. “We ask you to set a guard over Mr Trump’s mouth and Twitter”.
On that, there was agreement. Eighty percent of white evangelicals backed Trump for president, but worshippers at The Way of Holiness church were not without their doubts.
“To be honest with you, I voted for Trump but if I’d had another choice I probably would not have,” said Thrayron Morgan, a grandmother from a military family attending church that day. I pointed out there was another choice: Hillary Clinton. “No! That’s not my other choice. We’ve had enough of that,” she said with a laugh. “It was very difficult for me. Very difficult. In fact it was a toss-up between not voting at all and voting for him. I really had to pray about that.”
Morgan had lots of problems with Trump but a big one was the way he spoke about women and immigrants. “I don’t think he should talk about people like that. Even the homosexuals, you hate the sin not the sinner. As a Christian, I don’t believe in treating people the way he treated some people,” she said.
Morgan’s mind was made up by the supreme court. She wants to see a court “following Godly principles” and she had little doubt that Clinton would have nominated the wrong kind of justices. “That’s important to me. On abortion number one. Same-sex marriage. Anything to do with either one of those. And I have a feeling there may be some issues come up even later that may touch on Christian principles too. I have no clue what, but you never know when something might come up that’s against my beliefs,” she said.
In parts of West Virginia, it is said there are two reasons to vote: God and coal. Both have been in retreat for years. In a state where families still pray at the restaurant dinner table, and mines were once the engine of prosperity, Trump won with the promise of revival.
But there’s a paradox. Evangelicals may doubt Trump’s commitment to God, but they calculate he will be good for their push to inject more religion into American life. On the other hand, those who voted for Trump because he promised to bring back coalmines often admire his business skills – but they do have doubts about whether he can deliver.
So far, conservative Christians have not had reason to be disappointed. Trump’s appointment of evangelicals to his cabinet – including an attorney general who advocates an end to the wall between church and state, and an education secretary who wants to “advance God’s kingdom” through public funding of religious schools – has sent the right signals. And just in case Trump veers off course, evangelicals are counting on Mike Pence, an advocate of teaching creationism alongside Darwinism, to steer the president straight.
The most eye opening of this article:
The belief that America’s leaders have been more interested in foreign adventures than looking after those at the bottom of the pile back home runs through many West Virginia communities.
Ricky Farnsworth flies a Confederate battle flag from an improvised steel rod flagpole outside his trailer home. When I ask why he’s hoisted such a divisive symbol in a state mostly carved out of Virginia to join the Union cause, he smiles.
“I will not fly an American flag other than that one. I would rather have a Chinese flag, a Japanese flag, a Russian flag. Fuck the United States. They’re the most cruelest country there is. Letting your own people starve and sending aid overseas. Going over and killing people in other countries and then building them back up. What business did we have in Vietnam? What business did we have in Iraq?” he said.
Farnsworth used to work on oil rigs but the toll of injuries, including a lost finger, and the general wearing down of his body forced him out of a job. Now, at 59, he lives on a little more than a $1,000 a month in disability payments. Farnsworth is an unflinching if maverick Trump supporter. He denounces the rich but believes the billionaire president will Make America Great Again. He speaks of Obama as “the black guy” and said he knows for sure the former president is not American. Yet he supports Obamacare and doesn’t understand why the US can’t replicate Canada’s health system.
“Money don’t excite me. I don’t worry about it even though I don’t have it. I don’t hardly buy food because it’s too damn expensive,” he said. “I go to the diner and eat a little bit. Two beets, a half spoonful of bacon bits, a half spoonful of shredded cheese. I’ll put a little bit of coleslaw, a little bit of cottage cheese. Four peaches. I’ll eat that. I ate that yesterday. I ain’t eaten nothing since that. I won’t eat nothing today. That’s what I live on.” That and a steady supply of chewing tobacco.
Farnsworth sees Trump’s wealth as evidence that he is looking out for ordinary Americans.
“Why would he downgrade himself if he didn’t want to help the United States? His home was more valuable than the White House,” he said.
The retired oil worker regards taxes with the same scorn as much of conservative America, although his objection comes with a twist not so often heard among Republicans. Why, he asks, should the poor pay taxes when the rich don’t contribute their fair share? Yet Farnsworth doesn’t blame Trump for avoiding taxes with his business maneuverings.
Source
That is how terrorism is born and far right militias take hold.
|
On March 30 2017 17:33 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On March 30 2017 17:27 opisska wrote: Don't you guys think that the Trump-Russia issue is overplayed? Wouldn't it be better to attack Trump on actual policy than this stuff? Maybe if it was an otherwise sane presidency, then it would make sense to nosy around the Russia ties, but as it is know, there are plenty issues with more immediate practical impact that should be in focus. It almost seems like a clever smokescreen (unless it backfires too far). The leftists and the right-wingers would agree with you. Those who bet the farm on Clinton still need some desperate validation of the delusion that the race was stolen from them, though, so this will continue until the end of the presidency. Though to be fair, they basically attack him on literally anything and everything. Russia is just one of many angles of attack.
~20% of the people who voted for Trump want a full investigation into any possible connections to the Kremlin, so you're wrong there. I don't think the race was stolen, but I do think conspiring with a foreign power is essentially treason.
I don't see how anybody could say that the issue should be dropped. If Trump's being honest for once in his life and he made no such deal with the Kremlin, then the Democrats end up with egg on their face, and Trump gets a shred of credibility back. The fact that people like Nunes are actively impeding the investigation is 100x more suspicious than anything that happened during the campaign.
(CNN)Sen. John McCain said Wednesday he will do whatever it takes to make sure that military spending is increased in the next spending bill even if that means shutting down the government.
My god man. Wtf is wrong with you? Are we going to go to war with every other country on earth?
Total insanity. If we cut our military budget by 10% we could still have a dreadfleet that could annihilate every other warship in the waters right now, but also feed, shelter, and medicate every homeless and jobless person in America. Our militarism makes no sense at all.
|
On March 30 2017 21:41 farvacola wrote: Actually, I think legislative term limits are not the solution and would only worsen special interest capture of the legislative process, but I'll say more on this later if you'd like to hear more. Here in Michigan, legislative term limits have crippled the state government, for example.
Dont get me wrong, I think there is a place for a seasoned lawmaker, and term limits that are too short would have a negative impact on knowledge transfer as I think it takes quite a long time to build up the knowledge of the internal workings of the legislative system, but I think either term limits or age limits should be imposed such that its not a bunch of 60 and 70 year olds making decisions on technology and industries that they dont understand simply because they are too old to care to learn. There needs to be a definite lifespan for a politician so that A) they dont stay in so long that they get jaded towards the system, and start making self destructive decisions. B) there is a constant injection of new ways of thinking that are more current with today's lifestyles C) their decision making doesn't devolve into "re-election or bust"
What are your thoughts on age limits rather than term limits?
|
Someone needs to represent the seniors, so I wouldn't say an unconditional age limit is a good idea.
Maybe certain Congressional committees or Cabinet posts should have age limits though, particularly technological ones (e.g. the director of the NSA) or ones that are subject to changes in societal values (e.g. the drug czar).
|
If people don't like having old representatives, they can just not vote for them, can't they? I don't think prescribing this opinion to them for their own benefit is a democratic method.
|
|
|
|