|
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. |
So impeaching members of the court would take 2/3.
As far as justification:
Republicans took an appointment away from Obama, therefore it is right to add a seat to rectify that.
Republicans made an appointment (Gorsuch) they should not have so add a seat to rectify that.
In the past what prevented these shenanigans is you needed 60 votes and it was rare for a party to have 60 votes and even when they did, they by definition had a lot of members from swing states. So in 2009 the Democrats had 60, but they had Senators from like Ben Nelson and Mary Landrieu.
Going forward, if you only need 50 senators and the Presiden (and Vice President) then I could see a lot of court packing going on.
|
On April 05 2017 03:49 biology]major wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2017 03:27 Acrofales wrote:On April 05 2017 03:05 xDaunt wrote:On April 05 2017 03:00 zlefin wrote:
There are plenty of such news sources, the problem is most people aren't able to accuratrely tell which news sources are trash; and most people also don't care. Watching actual thoughtful informative reasonable discussion is boring, so most people don't.
Unless people choose to consume better media, the media will not get better. Like I've said before, it is incorrect to have a binary approach to evaluating news sources. Rotely stating that "NYT and FoxNews are acceptable but Huffpo and Breitbart are not" is emblematic of a simpleton's understanding of the media. More critical thinking is required. Each story has to be evaluated on its own merits. Nobody has time for that shit. I think that's the key message here. We just had this discussion this morning in a symposium on scientometrics and peer review. And one of the key reasons why journals hold a key position in scientific publishing is because they are reputable. You want to publish in Science because everybody reads Science, and you will therefore get cited a lot. Science hence receives lots of hopeful articles that they select the best from, and thus maintains their quality, and thus their readership, and thus their reputation. If you are looking for quality scientific publications on a particular topic, you therefore read the top journals in the field first, who maintain their quality through careful curation of what they publish. You don't type random terms into google and read the first random webpage that you get a hit (well, often you do, because Google knows what you're looking for and points to a journal article rather than some crackpot website). Media outlets should play a similar role. You can get your news from some crackpot outlet on youtube (Alex Jones), or you can get your news from a curated outlet that guarantees a certain standard of quality. And of course you have to keep your brain switched on, but the reason people say NYT is a reputable news source and your Facebook stream isn't, is because NYT has a qualified editorial staff selecting what gets published, whereas fake news farms in Macedonia throw their crap on Facebook. How you guarantee NYT maintains such quality is not easy. It costs money, and people are not willing to pay for it (unlike in scientific journals). Wikipedia seems to manage with their donation system. Perhaps the Guardian is doing okay with their similar system as well? WSJ has tossed all their stuff behind a (very easily circumvented) paywall. Another part is the education of the population. Scientists are trained to search for relevant literature in their education. The general population is not necessarily trained to distinguish good news (sources) from bad. And especially sensationalist clickbait stuff that is more entertainment than news takes advantage of this. Entertainment is aimed at being fun (or shocking, or tantalizing, or any manner of emotion-inducing stuff), and thus inherently more interesting than news (and its analysis). Our brain is simply wired that way. Just as we are wired to like sweets more than vegetables. How you overcome this challenge I do not know. Educating people seems important here. Politics and ideology pretty much makes your point moot. Scientific journals are easy to assess by the merit of work being conducted. A narrative on a news source is usually a subconscious process, even the editor is unaware of precisely how their political leanings affect their work. If you asked don lemon how fair you think he is on his show he'd prolly say he does a great job and is just challenging trump. Not saying he's right or wrong, but a lot of ideological debates plus subconscious motives lead to a biased narrative even from "reputable" sources.
there's a lot that can be done to cut down on bias the news process; and a lot is known about how to do that, and a lot is in fact done.
just as with science, using proper techniques can greatly cut down on the amount of bias present.
|
Given that we're on the topic of journalistic bias, we have a great example on display with CNN's willful refusal to cover the Susan Rice Story.
|
|
|
Looks like they finally bowed to pressure. Here's what they previously were doing:
Since news broke Monday that the Obama Administration's National Security Adviser, Susan Rice, directed the "unmasking" of NSA intercepts of Trump associates, CNN has raced to shoot down the blockbuster report.
CNN Tonight's Don Lemon went so far as to announce he would ignore the news at all costs.
While interviewing a Democratic congressman, CNN's Chris Cuomo claimed it was "demonstrably untrue" Rice sought surveillance of the Trump team, even as that's exactly what yesterday's reports prove.
Over the last 24 hours, the network has also repeatedly called on its chief national security correspondent -- who was also a political appointee in the Obama White House -- Jim Sciutto, to dismiss the reports as a non-story; Sciutto has even excused Rice claiming ignorance of the unmasking scandal two weeks ago, arguing Rice "wasn't aware" what unmasking Rep. Devin Nunes (R-Calif.) was referring to.
And on Tuesday's "New Day," anchor Alisyn Camerota openly pleaded with Sen. John McCain to write-off the news as unimportant.
Last night, Lemon began "CNN Tonight" with an announcement that the Rice report a "fake scandal ginned up by right-wing media and Trump" that he would not be baited into justifying with coverage.
"On this program tonight, we will not insult your intelligence by pretending," it's legitimate, he said. "Nor will we aid and abet the people trying to misinform you, the American people, by creating a diversion. Not going to do it."
Source.
Clearly the behavior of a paragon of journalism.
|
He's probably referring to Don Lemon saying this about it and referring to the whole story as a "diversion" :
“Let us be very clear about this. There is no evidence whatsoever that the Trump team… was spied on illegally. There is no evidence that backs up the president’s original claim. And on this program tonight, we will not insult your intelligence by pretending otherwise, nor will we aid and abet the people who are trying to misinform you, the American people, by creating a diversion.”
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/cnns-don-lemon-we-wont-aid-and-abet-the-people-pushing-susan-rice-diversion/
|
President Donald Trump’s attempt to resurrect his failed Obamacare repeal plan is already facing long odds on Capitol Hill.
A renewed bid by the White House to unite fractious Republicans around the bill — left for dead a week ago — briefly raised expectations that a deal was imminent. But by Tuesday afternoon, leaders of the polarized factions of the House GOP were no closer to agreement than they were when talks collapsed last month and delivered an embarrassing blow to Trump and Speaker Paul Ryan.
White House officials privately said they don't expect a deal anytime soon on health care. That’s despite direct entreaties from some of the White House’s heaviest hitters — Vice President Mike Pence, chief of staff Reince Priebus and budget director Mick Mulvaney — who are darting between the Capitol and the West Wing to meet with conservatives and centrists to test the chances for reviving the so-called American Health Care Act.
Trump has been working the phones too, though he’s largely delegated outreach to his senior staff. Pence and chief strategist Steve Bannon have also had separate talks with conservatives, including leaders of the hardline House Freedom Caucus, Reps. Mark Meadows (R-N.C.) and Jim Jordan (R-Ohio.).
The conversations come days after Trump attacked both lawmakers by name on Twitter, arguing the Freedom Caucus has blocked his agenda from advancing. Privately, however, they White House is trying to win them over.
Indeed, White House officials and some senior Republican insiders said they were encouraged that all factions of the 237-member House GOP conference, including conservative hard-liners, were once again in talks.
While new concessions haven’t publicly converted any Freedom Caucus opponents of the GOP bill into supporters, conservatives say they're interested in learning more — and Meadows called the proposal “solid” Monday evening. Most of the group says it will reserve judgment until they see legislative text, which could take days to emerge. Some, however, are signaling they’re still opposed to the legislation.
"There have been no changes from no to yes because we haven't seen the text," Meadows said. "And so at this point there's... only a willingness and an openness to look."
GOP leaders, meanwhile, are keeping their eyes on moderate critics of the original legislation, including many who appeared cool to the negotiations. Some remained concerned leadership will lose the support of additional centrist Republicans because of the changes offered to the far-right.
“I have seen nothing in terms of reported possible changes to American Health Care Act warranting reconsideration. I remain a NO,” tweeted Rep. Frank LoBiondo (R-N.J.), a member of the moderate Tuesday Group.
Rep. Leonard Lance, a New Jersey Republican who previously opposed the legislation, also confirmed that he would still vote "no."
Even if Republicans were to reach an agreement on policy changes, it could take days for House leaders to draft legislative language, conduct a thorough whip count of their members and tee up the bill for passage. And bringing a bill to the floor quickly would likely mean sidestepping an updated analysis of the proposal’s budgetary impact.
That means Trump is likely to go without a significant legislative victory as Congress heads into a two-week recess and he nears the 100-day mark of his presidency.
A senior administration official emphasized that inside the White House, expectations aren’t high for a deal before the Easter recess. This person said many White House officials are disappointed with Ryan's outreach to Republicans during the last go-around, adding, the "White House is taking the lead this time." Ryan aides haven't been made aware of every conversation the White House is having on the bill, two people familiar with the discussions say.
Another White House official said "everyone is cautious" given the last debacle, and that no bill has been written. But this person said the administration has been heartened that a number of the conservative groups — like Heritage Foundation and Americans for Prosperity — have returned to the table for discussions, and some of the conservative members seem more "willing to at least have real talks."
Ryan emphasized to reporters Tuesday that the renewed health care talks are only in the “conceptual” stage.
Among the changes intended to woo conservatives is a proposal to let states seek a federal waiver from key Obamacare regulations they say are driving up health insurance premiums.
One option being considered, for instance, would allow governors to opt out of Obamacare’s “community rating” provision, a protection that prohibits insurers from charging sick people higher premiums. That measure would be coupled with an increase in dedicated funding to bring down premiums for the sick.
It's unclear if that will win over the Freedom Caucus. Some caucus members seem skeptical, saying only that they need to see details of the proposal before deciding whether it improves the bill. Others were downright critical.
Source
|
You said they refused to cover it.
Not “Wrote a story that would meet Xdaunt’s mercurial standards of journalism.”
One of those is false. The other isn’t important enough for me to care about. You should be clearer next time.
On April 05 2017 04:48 Nevuk wrote:He's probably referring to Don Lemon saying this about it and referring to the whole story as a "diversion" : Show nested quote +“Let us be very clear about this. There is no evidence whatsoever that the Trump team… was spied on illegally. There is no evidence that backs up the president’s original claim. And on this program tonight, we will not insult your intelligence by pretending otherwise, nor will we aid and abet the people who are trying to misinform you, the American people, by creating a diversion.”
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/cnns-don-lemon-we-wont-aid-and-abet-the-people-pushing-susan-rice-diversion/
The White House that called the press the enemy and then gets mad when the press actively resists covering the story the White House leaked. This is my complete lack of surprise.
|
xdaunt posting misinformation as usual, not surprising from a trained lawyer.
(not that cnn is that good in general).
|
On April 05 2017 04:51 Plansix wrote:You said they refused to cover it. Not “Wrote a story that would meet Xdaunt’s mercurial standards of journalism.” One of those is false. The other isn’t important enough for me to care about. You should be clearer next time. Show nested quote +On April 05 2017 04:48 Nevuk wrote:He's probably referring to Don Lemon saying this about it and referring to the whole story as a "diversion" : “Let us be very clear about this. There is no evidence whatsoever that the Trump team… was spied on illegally. There is no evidence that backs up the president’s original claim. And on this program tonight, we will not insult your intelligence by pretending otherwise, nor will we aid and abet the people who are trying to misinform you, the American people, by creating a diversion.”
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/cnns-don-lemon-we-wont-aid-and-abet-the-people-pushing-susan-rice-diversion/ The White House that called the press the enemy and then gets mad when the press actively resists covering the story the White House leaked. This is my complete lack of surprise.
Did you even check the fucking date and time on the story that you posted? The Susan Rice story broke over the weekend, and CNN ignored it until today.
|
Misinformation will get you disbarred. Omitting key information because it was not specifically requested and it hurts your argument is the cornerstone of being a good lawyer. Or so I have been informed.
|
On April 05 2017 05:01 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2017 04:51 Plansix wrote:You said they refused to cover it. Not “Wrote a story that would meet Xdaunt’s mercurial standards of journalism.” One of those is false. The other isn’t important enough for me to care about. You should be clearer next time. On April 05 2017 04:48 Nevuk wrote:He's probably referring to Don Lemon saying this about it and referring to the whole story as a "diversion" : “Let us be very clear about this. There is no evidence whatsoever that the Trump team… was spied on illegally. There is no evidence that backs up the president’s original claim. And on this program tonight, we will not insult your intelligence by pretending otherwise, nor will we aid and abet the people who are trying to misinform you, the American people, by creating a diversion.”
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/cnns-don-lemon-we-wont-aid-and-abet-the-people-pushing-susan-rice-diversion/ The White House that called the press the enemy and then gets mad when the press actively resists covering the story the White House leaked. This is my complete lack of surprise. Did you even check the fucking date and time on the story that you posted? The Susan Rice story broke over the weekend, and CNN ignored it until today.
Gotta agree with you, Don Lemon really did say that it was a story that should be ignored and that seemed to be their stance until today.
I think some conservatives are making too much of the story, but that's a different thing from saying it doesn't matter at all.
|
On April 05 2017 05:03 Plansix wrote:
Misinformation will get you disbarred. Omitting key information because it was not specifically requested and it hurts your argument is the cornerstone of being a good lawyer. Or so I have been informed.
Like I said, check the timestamp of the article that you posted. They released it this afternoon.
And you should dispense with the cheap insults, particularly when you're clearly out of line.
|
On April 05 2017 05:01 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2017 04:51 Plansix wrote:You said they refused to cover it. Not “Wrote a story that would meet Xdaunt’s mercurial standards of journalism.” One of those is false. The other isn’t important enough for me to care about. You should be clearer next time. On April 05 2017 04:48 Nevuk wrote:He's probably referring to Don Lemon saying this about it and referring to the whole story as a "diversion" : “Let us be very clear about this. There is no evidence whatsoever that the Trump team… was spied on illegally. There is no evidence that backs up the president’s original claim. And on this program tonight, we will not insult your intelligence by pretending otherwise, nor will we aid and abet the people who are trying to misinform you, the American people, by creating a diversion.”
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/cnns-don-lemon-we-wont-aid-and-abet-the-people-pushing-susan-rice-diversion/ The White House that called the press the enemy and then gets mad when the press actively resists covering the story the White House leaked. This is my complete lack of surprise. Did you even check the fucking date and time on the story that you posted? The Susan Rice story broke over the weekend, and CNN ignored it until today.
Heaven fucking forbid they take a couple days to double check the facts over the weekend.
Once again, you said “Refused to cover”
Not “Posted a story in a time frame that meets my personal approval”
Be clear when you say thing.
On April 05 2017 05:04 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2017 05:03 Plansix wrote:
Misinformation will get you disbarred. Omitting key information because it was not specifically requested and it hurts your argument is the cornerstone of being a good lawyer. Or so I have been informed. Like I said, check the timestamp of the article that you posted. They released it this afternoon. And you should dispense with the cheap insults, particularly when you're clearly out of line.
Xdaunt, I just adopted your school of argument and called into question your reading skilled during the discussion. I’ve learned so much from you.
And its never wrong to google before you post. Don’t let anyone tell you different.
|
On April 05 2017 05:05 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2017 05:01 xDaunt wrote:On April 05 2017 04:51 Plansix wrote:You said they refused to cover it. Not “Wrote a story that would meet Xdaunt’s mercurial standards of journalism.” One of those is false. The other isn’t important enough for me to care about. You should be clearer next time. On April 05 2017 04:48 Nevuk wrote:He's probably referring to Don Lemon saying this about it and referring to the whole story as a "diversion" : “Let us be very clear about this. There is no evidence whatsoever that the Trump team… was spied on illegally. There is no evidence that backs up the president’s original claim. And on this program tonight, we will not insult your intelligence by pretending otherwise, nor will we aid and abet the people who are trying to misinform you, the American people, by creating a diversion.”
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/cnns-don-lemon-we-wont-aid-and-abet-the-people-pushing-susan-rice-diversion/ The White House that called the press the enemy and then gets mad when the press actively resists covering the story the White House leaked. This is my complete lack of surprise. Did you even check the fucking date and time on the story that you posted? The Susan Rice story broke over the weekend, and CNN ignored it until today. Heaven fucking forbid they take a couple days to double check the facts over the weekend. Once again, you said “Refused to cover” Not “Posted a story in a time frame that meets my personal approval” Be clear when you say thing.
You're so full of shit. Multiple news agencies reported on CNN's decision to refuse to cover the story, and you're going to argue that I'm applying my own subjective judgment to the timeliness of CNN's reporting? You should do your own Google search before you start spouting off like this.
|
So wait, this Susan Rice thing is someone in the administration asking for names?
So we went from Obama wiretapping Trump to Obama administration wiretapping Trump to Obama administration surveilling Trump staffers to Obama administration wanting names of Trump staffers being investigated?
On April 05 2017 05:04 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2017 05:03 Plansix wrote:
Misinformation will get you disbarred. Omitting key information because it was not specifically requested and it hurts your argument is the cornerstone of being a good lawyer. Or so I have been informed. Like I said, check the timestamp of the article that you posted. They released it this afternoon. And you should dispense with the cheap insults, particularly when you're clearly out of line.
Lol xDaunt trying to control the language of discourse. Regressive xDaunt?
|
TLADT24920 Posts
Guys, enough. Take it down a notch with the insults or I'm prepared to ban everyone involved. We can discuss whether this Susan Rice should've broken out earlier on CNN in much better terms.
|
On April 05 2017 05:07 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2017 05:05 Plansix wrote:On April 05 2017 05:01 xDaunt wrote:On April 05 2017 04:51 Plansix wrote:You said they refused to cover it. Not “Wrote a story that would meet Xdaunt’s mercurial standards of journalism.” One of those is false. The other isn’t important enough for me to care about. You should be clearer next time. On April 05 2017 04:48 Nevuk wrote:He's probably referring to Don Lemon saying this about it and referring to the whole story as a "diversion" : “Let us be very clear about this. There is no evidence whatsoever that the Trump team… was spied on illegally. There is no evidence that backs up the president’s original claim. And on this program tonight, we will not insult your intelligence by pretending otherwise, nor will we aid and abet the people who are trying to misinform you, the American people, by creating a diversion.”
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/cnns-don-lemon-we-wont-aid-and-abet-the-people-pushing-susan-rice-diversion/ The White House that called the press the enemy and then gets mad when the press actively resists covering the story the White House leaked. This is my complete lack of surprise. Did you even check the fucking date and time on the story that you posted? The Susan Rice story broke over the weekend, and CNN ignored it until today. Heaven fucking forbid they take a couple days to double check the facts over the weekend. Once again, you said “Refused to cover” Not “Posted a story in a time frame that meets my personal approval” Be clear when you say thing. You're so full of shit. Multiple news agencies reported on CNN's decision to refuse to cover the story, and you're going to argue that I'm applying my own subjective judgment to the timeliness of CNN's reporting? You should do your own Google search before you start spouting off like this.
I don’t watch Fox news or read the Federalist. If it didn’t make it to the Wall Street Journal, I wouldn’t have seen it. And frankly, if CNN feels that they don’t have enough information yet, good for them. I have no problem with a news agency saying believe the people pushing them to cover this story have their own motives for pushing it. I wish more news agencies would.
Edit: Understood Bigfan.
|
Okay, so someone (who actually cares about the process and legality) breakdown what the issue with this Susan Rice thing is:
1) Agencies are investigating people in Trump staff for foreign government connections.
2) Reports are given to current security executive.
3) Security exec. asks for people in the reports to be unmasked.
4) Request is...denied? Or approved.
So it the problem at #1, 2, 3 or 4?
|
On April 05 2017 00:00 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On April 04 2017 23:50 Danglars wrote:On April 04 2017 23:11 LightSpectra wrote:On April 04 2017 23:02 Danglars wrote:On April 04 2017 22:34 LightSpectra wrote:On April 04 2017 22:31 Danglars wrote:
Opponents call him racist, like always, and he's already used to that kind of slander so things are good. In other words, racism's okay so long as you tough it out for a really long time and hope that eventually another racist promotes you for it. Sessions thinks it's okay for the government to sell your house because your second cousin in another state is a drug dealer. He also thinks cancer patients using medical marijuana should go to prison. Is this really the hill you want to die on Danglars? Racism's been an empty threat for years and I'm surprised people like you still cling to it. Racists don't stop being racist because other racists have decided to vote for them. But yeah, you happen to be right that it's an "empty threat" insofar that it doesn't really convince Republicans to not vote for them. That being said, it's really not a badge of honor like you make it out to be. If you want to bring up other topics of criticism for justice department policies, I suggest you start in with something other than second cousins and prison for cancer victims and his remarks on the matter. So calm down the unwarranted trolling if you're actually into more depth than top 10 things to hate about Sessions. I say this without exaggeration: Jeff Sessions is the most evil and dangerous person affiliated with Trump, and that's really saying something. There are no informed people who think Sessions deciding to "review" police departments is going to result in anything but more unarmed people being shot in the back without repercussion. If that's the stakes of your engagement I'll give mine. Jeff Sessions is one of th brightest lights in the Trump administration, and a decent and honest man. I could think of few better to undo the despicable leadership of Holder and Lynch who politicized the department beyond belief. There are few criticisms I've seen leveled at the man that haven't subsisted on lies, twisted half-truths, and the most bitter hyperpartisanship as has persisted in the post-Clinton years. You've welcomed identity politics and benefited from false accusations of racism, so I say you deserve another dozen Trump administrations that push white & working class identity politics and cause chaos in the executive branch. Out of curiousity do you think that cannabis is as bad as Sessions says it is or do you recognize it as the continuation of Nixon's Southern Strategy war on drugs associated with minorities?
I'm opposed on the merits not on some grand political strategy.
On April 05 2017 00:48 LightSpectra wrote:Show nested quote +On April 04 2017 23:50 Danglars wrote:On April 04 2017 23:11 LightSpectra wrote:On April 04 2017 23:02 Danglars wrote:On April 04 2017 22:34 LightSpectra wrote:On April 04 2017 22:31 Danglars wrote:
Opponents call him racist, like always, and he's already used to that kind of slander so things are good. In other words, racism's okay so long as you tough it out for a really long time and hope that eventually another racist promotes you for it. Sessions thinks it's okay for the government to sell your house because your second cousin in another state is a drug dealer. He also thinks cancer patients using medical marijuana should go to prison. Is this really the hill you want to die on Danglars? Racism's been an empty threat for years and I'm surprised people like you still cling to it. Racists don't stop being racist because other racists have decided to vote for them. But yeah, you happen to be right that it's an "empty threat" insofar that it doesn't really convince Republicans to not vote for them. That being said, it's really not a badge of honor like you make it out to be. If you want to bring up other topics of criticism for justice department policies, I suggest you start in with something other than second cousins and prison for cancer victims and his remarks on the matter. So calm down the unwarranted trolling if you're actually into more depth than top 10 things to hate about Sessions. I say this without exaggeration: Jeff Sessions is the most evil and dangerous person affiliated with Trump, and that's really saying something. There are no informed people who think Sessions deciding to "review" police departments is going to result in anything but more unarmed people being shot in the back without repercussion. If that's the stakes of your engagement I'll give mine. Jeff Sessions is one of th brightest lights in the Trump administration, and a decent and honest man. I could think of few better to undo the despicable leadership of Holder and Lynch who politicized the department beyond belief. There are few criticisms I've seen leveled at the man that haven't subsisted on lies, twisted half-truths, and the most bitter hyperpartisanship as has persisted in the post-Clinton years. You've welcomed identity politics and benefited from false accusations of racism, so I say you deserve another dozen Trump administrations that push white & working class identity politics and cause chaos in the executive branch. Jeff Sessions is one of th brightest lights in the Trump administration, and a decent and honest man.He automatically cannot be decent because he thinks people who take medication for agonizingly painful diseases like cancer or multiple sclerosis should be thrown in jail. So he's either a clueless moron or thoroughly vile. As to whether he's an honest man, many media sources have already shown his vast history in destroying people's careers for having a D by their name ( here's one such write-up). Considering that he's been doing such things so skillfully for decades, that leans toward the "thoroughly vile" moreso than "clueless moron".
I could think of few better to undo the despicable leadership of Holder and Lynch who politicized the department beyond belief. Neither Holder nor Lynch were good people, but this does not excuse Sessions. There are few criticisms I've seen leveled at the man that haven't subsisted on lies, twisted half-truths, and the most bitter hyperpartisanship as has persisted in the post-Clinton years. He was too racist in 1986 to be confirmed as a federal judge, before any Clinton held any federal office. You've welcomed identity politics and benefited from false accusations of racism, so I say you deserve another dozen Trump administrations that push white & working class identity politics and cause chaos in the executive branch. In other words, because we have actually called a demonstrably racist person a racist, we deserve more racists in office. Got it. Thanks for playing.
Yes if you want to structure society such that sick people in hospitals present a unique moral case for extra-judicial conduct, your morality is bankrupt and you have idiotic views on how to run society. And, that makes you the "clueless moron or thoroughly vile."
And you suspend your critical thinking skills to lap up some very thinly sourced oppo dumps like it was religious text. Yes, when you're passionate about what you do, and desire to exercise your skills in greater offices, you create enemies that will say some pretty vile things about you. And they'll call you an ideologue or too harsh and an assortment. Real people recognize this, drill down to the base truths, and see you've got jack shit.
So he was opposed to the NAACP's agenda at one time. Great, so am I. They support a wide variety of positions, some of which actively harm the very interest group they ostensibly seek to protect. I'm sorry to say that power corrupts. Your interests start to lie with perpetuating your power and influence and not acting morally and doing the right thing. And God, if we're going to let this all hinge on some dirty jokes, shall I say racially insensitive jokes, let's take this US Pol thread to the playground and point fingers like Trump.
Let's be actually clear: You think he's a racist so only read him to find alleged racism and swallow it up. It's a very cynical attitude indeed. The only reality behind all these lies and constructions is that you find it necessary to smear your political opponents and you'd find a teenager that formerly dated his girlfriend as proof in fact. It runs throughout your piece in argumentation, it's shown in your choices of citations you think support it (WaPo rather backwardly illustrates Session's good character), and it's seen in your fingers-in-ear persistence. We'll probably agree on very little in future, we have such little means of agreeing on a moral playing field that we might as well be arguing religion.
On April 05 2017 00:51 Mohdoo wrote:
I imagine Danglars doesn't support Sessions wanting to override states' rights when it comes to marijuana. Who knows, maybe he'll prove me wrong. The whole idea of letting states decide how to handle prohibition seems like a very conservative-friendly position.
States should be able to decide whether or not they want marijuana legal. The fed has a responsibility in interstate commerce to prevent it being carried to a state where it's outlawed. Gonzales vs. Raich is a good first look into how it's hard to regulate a product. + Show Spoiler + By this measure, I think the regulation must be sustained. Not only is it impossible to distinguish “controlled substances manufactured and distributed intrastate” from “controlled substances manufactured and distributed interstate,” but it hardly makes sense to speak in such terms. Drugs like marijuana are fungible commodities. As the Court explains, marijuana that is grown at home and possessed for personal use is never more than an instant from the interstate market–and this is so whether or not the possession is for medicinal use or lawful use under the laws of a particular State.3 See ante, at 23—30. Congress need not accept on faith that state law will be effective in maintaining a strict division between a lawful market for “medical” marijuana and the more general marijuana market. See id., at 26—27, and n. 38. “To impose on [Congress] the necessity of resorting to means which it cannot control, which another government may furnish or withhold, would render its course precarious, the result of its measures uncertain, and create a dependence on other governments, which might disappoint its most important designs, and is incompatible with the language of the constitution.” McCulloch, supra, at 424.
Congress has exercised its power over interstate commerce to criminalize trafficking in marijuana across state lines. The Government contends that banning Monson and Raich’s intrastate drug activity is “necessary and proper for carrying into Execution” its regulation of interstate drug trafficking. Art. I, §8, cl. 18. See 21 U.S.C. § 801(6). However, in order to be “necessary,” the intrastate ban must be more than “a reasonable means [of] effectuat[ing] the regulation of interstate commerce.” Brief for Petitioners 14; see ante, at 19 (majority opinion) (employing rational-basis review). It must be “plainly adapted” to regulating interstate marijuana trafficking–in other words, there must be an “obvious, simple, and direct relation” between the intrastate ban and the regulation of interstate commerce. Sabri v. United States, 541 U.S. 600, 613 (2004) (Thomas, J., concurring in judgment); see also United States v. Dewitt, 9 Wall. 41, 44 (1870) (finding ban on intrastate sale of lighting oils not “appropriate and plainly adapted means for carrying into execution” Congress’ taxing power).
It's a tough issue to tackle judicially and legislatively
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
