|
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 July 27 2017 12:53 Danglars wrote:
Since we were on Trump's recent religious/state worship tweet recently.
This made me realize what a different meaning the word "religious freedom" has to people like Trump, compared to other people.
I am almost certain that to him "religious freedom" means "no one can interfere if you discriminate against gay people based on your christian beliefs", while to me it means "Be whatever religion you like"
I'd be very surprised if religious freedom to Trumpsters would have anything to do with, for example, the idea that it is fine to be a muslim.
|
On July 27 2017 16:36 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote:
how can a state's future be in jeopardy? are they going to try to sell it back to Russia or something? You can't fire Alaska from the United States.
Alaska is an odd state to be taking a firm stance on ACA repeal. From my cursory understanding, the state was in a "death spiral" of rising premiums in the individual marketplace. Not enough people bought into it, and the costs of the sick outweighed what they made from the healthy insured. Numerous health insurers left the state market, leaving the residents with just 1 remaining option. Costs for residents soared, and so the state taxed all other insurance plans in order to subsidize the individual market to keep costs down. Alaska subsequently sought and was approved subsidies from the federal government to cover the individual market, and is expected to see a further decrease in premiums in the future.
They are one of the most unfortunate of all states when it came to rising costs due to the ACA. I guess killing it could fuck up the solution they just found for themselves? They still don't seem to be left in too good a position. If any state was gonna fight the ACA, Alaska would have one of the better reasons to.
|
On July 27 2017 10:36 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
That's a completely packed stadium. For football (proper football, not handegg)? In the USA? Wow. And it's a huge stadium too. That's impressive!
|
On July 27 2017 18:17 Acrofales wrote:That's a completely packed stadium. For football (proper football, not handegg)? In the USA? Wow. And it's a huge stadium too. That's impressive!
Given that the World Cup with the by far largest average atendance was in the US... And this was one of the stadiums used, including for the final... Is it really a surprise there a pictures of it packed during a footie game?
|
On July 27 2017 13:59 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2017 13:45 NewSunshine wrote:On July 27 2017 13:41 Danglars wrote:On July 27 2017 13:36 NewSunshine wrote:On July 27 2017 13:20 Danglars wrote:On July 27 2017 12:57 Plansix wrote:I'm sure Kansas is thrilled. On July 27 2017 12:57 Danglars wrote:On July 27 2017 12:31 Plansix wrote:On July 27 2017 12:26 Danglars wrote:On July 27 2017 12:18 Plansix wrote:
[quote]
It is a weird claim he is making, because the White House has released a lot of those forms to the press. Did he just not get the email they were going to do it? Sure, the claim is. Truth is, though, Priebus is a pretty natural tag in this. As I think I understand you to know. https://twitter.com/ChadSDay/status/890408313682354179
Also, they are not classified. The public can just request them. Is your stance that you can leak financial documents that also have a public request channel? I don't really know if he's right on the felony charge, but this still seems like an easy call. We do have the FOIA process for a reason, for example. I am of the opinion that govermetn officials should not claim things are a felony unless they are sure. No matter if their personal information was leaded or not. And non-classified information reaching the press isn't a leak. That is just public information reaching the press. Much like racism, people need to stop throwing around leak. The word is becoming meaningless. I mean, I suppose that subverting the process doesn't matter is a valid opinion. The negative impact of the subversion is minimal and the "wronged" party is going to have a tough time showing substantive harm. The process has merit, but that does not mean the absence of process is wrong by default. Or to put it another way: It's no big thing. The document was going to get out there at some point. TBH I consider your "non-classified information reaching the press isn't a leak" and "negative impact is minimal" is pretty synonymous to me with "the process is meritless," because you haven't shown any reason you'd recommend following it. A process is not always a law by which you can leverage criminal charges, so I find your equivocation unfounded. If he didn't say it, probably don't assume that's what he meant. My equivocation? I'm unequivocally asserting that his complacence at subverting the process is identical to claiming the process is meritless. Why bother following it if you might as well leak (in his case, it's not even leaking) it to the press and P6 calls it identical? Yeah, that's what I'm referring to. Thanks for making that easy on me. You can't say that, because he didn't say it, and he didn't imply it or mean it either. If you're going to act in bad faith, don't expect someone to do better for you. Right. Just because he can't see the logical conclusion means it isn't implied. I have a different view. Namely, if leaking something is just fine as following FOIA procedures, then he doesn't consider the procedures to have any merit in and of themselves. Follow the law, or don't, whatever. The ends are the same; and the ends justify the means. Pathetic.
I think you meant:
Sad!
But I'm trying to understand your PoV here. You think Scaramucci is a scumbag, but has a point? Or you don't think Scaramucci is a scumbag at all? Or you don't care and just want to pick a fight with P6? I'm confused why you care enough, because all this bickering says to me is that Trump keeps bringing more warring factions into his WH, which will not lead anywhere except more internal strife and less getting done.
|
Lol. I'm sure that will go down well world-wide. "Ambassador" for religious freedom is a bible-thumping twat who signed an anti-muslim bill into state law. Why is this abject failure of a governor given a cushy job anyway? Shouldn't the GOP be dropping him in the dumpster as fast as they possibly can?
|
On July 27 2017 18:25 mahrgell wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2017 18:17 Acrofales wrote:That's a completely packed stadium. For football (proper football, not handegg)? In the USA? Wow. And it's a huge stadium too. That's impressive! Given that the World Cup with the by far largest average atendance was in the US... And this was one of the stadiums used, including for the final... Is it really a surprise there a pictures of it packed during a footie game?
Actually, yes. Unless that is a photo of the World Cup finals 
I guess Pasadena is easy to reach for Mexicans as well as having lots and lots of local Mexican immigrants in SoCa, so if that was the Gold Cup semi finals, it could also make sense.
|
On July 27 2017 18:55 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2017 13:59 Danglars wrote:On July 27 2017 13:45 NewSunshine wrote:On July 27 2017 13:41 Danglars wrote:On July 27 2017 13:36 NewSunshine wrote:On July 27 2017 13:20 Danglars wrote:On July 27 2017 12:57 Plansix wrote:I'm sure Kansas is thrilled. On July 27 2017 12:57 Danglars wrote:On July 27 2017 12:31 Plansix wrote:On July 27 2017 12:26 Danglars wrote:
[quote]
Sure, the claim is. Truth is, though, Priebus is a pretty natural tag in this. As I think I understand you to know.
[quote]
Is your stance that you can leak financial documents that also have a public request channel? I don't really know if he's right on the felony charge, but this still seems like an easy call. We do have the FOIA process for a reason, for example. I am of the opinion that govermetn officials should not claim things are a felony unless they are sure. No matter if their personal information was leaded or not. And non-classified information reaching the press isn't a leak. That is just public information reaching the press. Much like racism, people need to stop throwing around leak. The word is becoming meaningless. I mean, I suppose that subverting the process doesn't matter is a valid opinion. The negative impact of the subversion is minimal and the "wronged" party is going to have a tough time showing substantive harm. The process has merit, but that does not mean the absence of process is wrong by default. Or to put it another way: It's no big thing. The document was going to get out there at some point. TBH I consider your "non-classified information reaching the press isn't a leak" and "negative impact is minimal" is pretty synonymous to me with "the process is meritless," because you haven't shown any reason you'd recommend following it. A process is not always a law by which you can leverage criminal charges, so I find your equivocation unfounded. If he didn't say it, probably don't assume that's what he meant. My equivocation? I'm unequivocally asserting that his complacence at subverting the process is identical to claiming the process is meritless. Why bother following it if you might as well leak (in his case, it's not even leaking) it to the press and P6 calls it identical? Yeah, that's what I'm referring to. Thanks for making that easy on me. You can't say that, because he didn't say it, and he didn't imply it or mean it either. If you're going to act in bad faith, don't expect someone to do better for you. Right. Just because he can't see the logical conclusion means it isn't implied. I have a different view. Namely, if leaking something is just fine as following FOIA procedures, then he doesn't consider the procedures to have any merit in and of themselves. Follow the law, or don't, whatever. The ends are the same; and the ends justify the means. Pathetic. I think you meant: Sad! But I'm trying to understand your PoV here. You think Scaramucci is a scumbag, but has a point? Or you don't think Scaramucci is a scumbag at all? Or you don't care and just want to pick a fight with P6? I'm confused why you care enough, because all this bickering says to me is that Trump keeps bringing more warring factions into his WH, which will not lead anywhere except more internal strife and less getting done.
The dude tried to get the White House chief of staff investigated by the FBI his first week on the job. And if the recent reports are true, possibly fired for being a leaker. That is of course in addition to threatening to fire the entire White House press staff over leaks, and leaking himself that he was going to fire a staffer on air before telling him, allowing him to resign first.
How utterly fantastic this show will be.
|
On July 27 2017 19:07 Acrofales wrote:Lol. I'm sure that will go down well world-wide. "Ambassador" for religious freedom is a bible-thumping twat who signed an anti-muslim bill into state law. Why is this abject failure of a governor given a cushy job anyway? Shouldn't the GOP be dropping him in the dumpster as fast as they possibly can?
That guy is par for the course in terms of the kinds of people (unqualified and/or foxes guarding hen houses) that Trump appoints.
|
Kansas, Illinois, and Oklahoma are such steaming piles in terms of state governance, anyone involved with any of them should be toxic on the (inter)national stage.
|
They keep electing people who say cutting taxes is the way to fix their budget problems. People love to hear about eliminating a mythical amount of wasteful spending and then getting a tax break. It's the golden goose of US politics.
|
El Salvador’s absolute ban on abortion – long considered one of the world’s most ruthless – is facing its greatest challenge in years. Buoyed by shifting public attitudes, reproductive rights activists are making headway on a bill to loosen the law for victims of rape and human trafficking, women carrying nonviable pregnancies, and women who risk death or illness.
But support for keeping the ban is formidable – and may have an outside source of help: a US-based anti-abortion group that has quietly funneled funds to El Salvador’s main advocates for the ban.
The source of those funds is Human Life International, a not-for-profit group based in the rural town of Front Royal, Virginia. According to documents seen by the Guardian, Human Life International has for years directed a steady flow of dollars to Sí a la Vida, the Salvadoran organization principally responsible for the country’s abortion ban.
The funding began in 2000, just as Sí a la Vida had declared victory against legal abortion. Three years earlier, the Salvadoran legislative assembly had banned abortion without exception. In 1999, the assembly added the ban to the country’s constitution.
The impact, human rights groups say, has been devastating.
Thousands of women and girls have been forced to continue pregnancies that are the result of rape. Last month, a 19-year-old who became pregnant after she was raped was sentenced to 30 years in jail after suffering a stillbirth.
The laws have also led directly to the prosecution, imprisonment, and even deaths of scores of women. Under the law, a woman who obtains an abortion or a doctor who performs one – whatever the reason – can be sentenced to several years in prison.
And over the years, Sí a la Vida has remained the abortion ban’s loudest supporter.
Human Life International, the US group, describes its own mission as training and supporting local anti-abortion activists and counselors in foreign countries.
Documents seen by the Guardian show that Human Life International gave $47,360 to Fundación Sí a la Vida from 2000 to 2007.
From 2008 to 2014, the group gave another $615,432 to what it called Central American causes, which may have included Sí a la Vida. In many of its public materials, Human Life International refers to the Salvadoran group as its El Salvador branch.
The documents – forms that Human Life International must file with the IRS as a not-for-profit organization – only date as far back as 2000, meaning the US group may have funded Sí a la Vida at the start of its campaign to ban abortion.
News coverage from that time indicates that Human Life International worked with Sí a la Vida in the 1990s to make El Salvador’s abortion ban a reality. In one example, a 2001 article titled “How to export pro-life activism”, Father Matthew Habiger, then president of Human Life International, said his group was “at the helm” when Sí a la Vida made its push for a constitutional amendment.
Groups opposing the abortion ban reacted with dismay that a US organization was lending its support.
“The abortion ban isn’t about protecting lives, it’s a law based in misogyny in which women’s lives don’t matter, and which encourages sexual and structural violence against women to be accepted,” said Sara Garcia, a campaigner with the Citizen’s Group for Decriminalization of Abortion. “Any group which supports the ban and is against the reform is promoting inequality, imprisonment and hate towards women.”
Officials at Human Life International declined to be interviewed for this article and responded to questions with a copy of the group’s mission statement.
Sí a la Vida did not respond to a request for comment.
Regardless of when its funding began, Human Life International has always been publicly supportive of El Salvador’s abortion laws.
Several years after the passage of the constitutional amendment, the leader of Human Life International at the time, the Rev Thomas Euteneuer, praised El Salvador’s laws as the inevitable reaction of grassroots forces to abortion rights laws passed by the “elite”.
“El Salvador is an inspiration,” Euteneuer told a New York Times reporter.
Sí a la Vida counsels women with unplanned pregnancies, visits schools, and takes out ads – targeted at women considering an illegal procedure – which read: “With an abortion, you die inside”.
Human Life International’s links to Sí a la Vida would seem at odds with the position – adopted in public by virtually every anti-abortion group in the United States – that the punishment for an abortion should never fall on the woman.
Source
|
Who knew that the recent Foxconn deal is complete garbage. Complete garbage in that Terry Gou conned Wisconsin of a couple billion to build a factory filled with robots.
On July 27 2017 19:33 Tachion wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2017 18:55 Acrofales wrote:On July 27 2017 13:59 Danglars wrote:On July 27 2017 13:45 NewSunshine wrote:On July 27 2017 13:41 Danglars wrote:On July 27 2017 13:36 NewSunshine wrote:On July 27 2017 13:20 Danglars wrote:On July 27 2017 12:57 Plansix wrote:I'm sure Kansas is thrilled. On July 27 2017 12:57 Danglars wrote:On July 27 2017 12:31 Plansix wrote:
[quote]
I am of the opinion that govermetn officials should not claim things are a felony unless they are sure. No matter if their personal information was leaded or not. And non-classified information reaching the press isn't a leak. That is just public information reaching the press. Much like racism, people need to stop throwing around leak. The word is becoming meaningless. I mean, I suppose that subverting the process doesn't matter is a valid opinion. The negative impact of the subversion is minimal and the "wronged" party is going to have a tough time showing substantive harm. The process has merit, but that does not mean the absence of process is wrong by default. Or to put it another way: It's no big thing. The document was going to get out there at some point. TBH I consider your "non-classified information reaching the press isn't a leak" and "negative impact is minimal" is pretty synonymous to me with "the process is meritless," because you haven't shown any reason you'd recommend following it. A process is not always a law by which you can leverage criminal charges, so I find your equivocation unfounded. If he didn't say it, probably don't assume that's what he meant. My equivocation? I'm unequivocally asserting that his complacence at subverting the process is identical to claiming the process is meritless. Why bother following it if you might as well leak (in his case, it's not even leaking) it to the press and P6 calls it identical? Yeah, that's what I'm referring to. Thanks for making that easy on me. You can't say that, because he didn't say it, and he didn't imply it or mean it either. If you're going to act in bad faith, don't expect someone to do better for you. Right. Just because he can't see the logical conclusion means it isn't implied. I have a different view. Namely, if leaking something is just fine as following FOIA procedures, then he doesn't consider the procedures to have any merit in and of themselves. Follow the law, or don't, whatever. The ends are the same; and the ends justify the means. Pathetic. I think you meant: Sad! But I'm trying to understand your PoV here. You think Scaramucci is a scumbag, but has a point? Or you don't think Scaramucci is a scumbag at all? Or you don't care and just want to pick a fight with P6? I'm confused why you care enough, because all this bickering says to me is that Trump keeps bringing more warring factions into his WH, which will not lead anywhere except more internal strife and less getting done. The dude tried to get the White House chief of staff investigated by the FBI his first week on the job. And if the recent reports are true, possibly fired for being a leaker. That is of course in addition to threatening to fire the entire White House press staff over leaks, and leaking himself that he was going to fire a staffer on air before telling him, allowing him to resign first. How utterly fantastic this show will be.
Scaramucci is lighting Reince's ass on CNN right now. Practically suggesting that he's a dirty leaker.
|
|
|
Is it just me having trouble with american english or does the WH now have another "politician" that has trouble stringing together a coherent paragraph or understanding that it's not up to the alleged criminal to prove his innocence - he's not money/a car/a house after all.
I assume with "straight shooter" he means "ex military".
|
This Scaramouchey guy is amazing.
|
Also he just quoted Joe Paterno and Honor..
|
On July 27 2017 21:26 m4ini wrote:Is it just me having trouble with american english or does the WH now have another "politician" that has trouble stringing together a coherent paragraph or understanding that it's not up to the alleged criminal to prove his innocence - he's not money/a car/a house after all. I assume with "straight shooter" he means "ex military".
"Straight shooter" is a colloquialism for "honest and forthright person."
|
On July 27 2017 21:29 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2017 21:26 m4ini wrote:Is it just me having trouble with american english or does the WH now have another "politician" that has trouble stringing together a coherent paragraph or understanding that it's not up to the alleged criminal to prove his innocence - he's not money/a car/a house after all. I assume with "straight shooter" he means "ex military". "Straight shooter" is a colloquialism for "honest and forthright person."
You must've missed our excursion into military penis pills a couple of pages back.
sidenote, just realised/read it, did a us general really state in australia that he'll nuke china immediately if trump orders it - because he's sworn an oath to obey?
In my time in the military we had something called a "self think principle", where blind obedience is actually illegal and can get you into as much trouble as someone who gives you an illegal order - does something like that not exist in the US?
|
On July 27 2017 21:32 m4ini wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2017 21:29 LegalLord wrote:On July 27 2017 21:26 m4ini wrote:Is it just me having trouble with american english or does the WH now have another "politician" that has trouble stringing together a coherent paragraph or understanding that it's not up to the alleged criminal to prove his innocence - he's not money/a car/a house after all. I assume with "straight shooter" he means "ex military". "Straight shooter" is a colloquialism for "honest and forthright person." You must've missed our excursion into military penis pills a couple of pages back.
I skimmed it because it was stupid, yes.
Suppose I missed the joke then.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
