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 28 2017 03:14 Mohdoo wrote: I don't understand why people would advocate for discrimination based on sexual orientation. What a bizarre thing to fight for.
Because laws have meaning. You can't just read shit into a law because it leads to a better result. You need to change the law. Title VII has never classified sexual orientation as a protected class. There is a reason why state anti-discrimination codes do.
Sessions is basically forcing the federal government to either update Title VII or lets states discriminate however they want. From a strict reading of Title VII, he is pretty much correct. The law is silent as to sexual orientation and transgender people.
This is how discrimination works. By doing this, the it clears the path gays to be treated different in different states. There was no real push to publish this review, as far as I can tell. Sessions just decided it was important to make sure that no one would try to use Title VII to protect gays.
But I am sure the states will handle this just fine. Just like they did voting laws after the voters rights act was gutted.
Sessions favouring states rights when it comes to discrimination? Surely not. Not from the man who said that felon disenfranchisement (as a tool used specifically to discriminate against African Americans) was an old and proud Alabama tradition that should not be encroached upon by the Federal government.
Geez. I didn't realize just how popular Collins and Murkowski are in their states across the board until 538 mentioned that both of them would have won their last campaigns even if not a single self-identified Republican voted for them, even though they're Republicans. Talk about impressive! Truly big league.
I knew Murkowski won a write-in campaign, but that's another level of impressive.
The transgender military tweets and the Mooch's antics on TV and Twitter are just distractions by the Trump admin from the really important event today.
Bill Browder's testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee is very clear and easy to follow. It also helps reveal some of the financial motivations for Putin's and Trump's actions. Fascinating stuff, I recommend everyone watch it.
On July 28 2017 04:14 TheTenthDoc wrote: Geez. I didn't realize just how popular Collins and Murkowski are in their states across the board until 538 mentioned that both of them would have won their last campaigns even if not a single self-identified Republican voted for them, even though they're Republicans. Talk about impressive! Truly big league.
I knew Murkowski won a write-in campaign, but that's another level of impressive.
A shame because Miller would have been a much better Senator than Murkowski. It was quite close too (4% difference). The Democrats are pretty non-existent in Alaska...considering that in 2016 Miller ran as a Libertarian instead of GOP and received 30% of the vote. I mean, look at the Democrats money on hand for that race - 0$ lmao. The Democrat even lost to the (I) candidate who received 13% of the vote. I think that tells you all you need to know about Alaska and that "statistic".
Haven't watched it yet, but i didn't know Bill Browder so i googled.
In 2006, after ten years doing business in the country, Browder was blacklisted by the Russian government as a "threat to national security" and denied entry to the country. The Economist wrote that the Russian government blacklisted Browder because he interfered with the flow of money to "corrupt bureaucrats and their businessmen accomplices". Browder had been a supporter of Russian president Vladimir Putin before, though.[13]
As reported by The New York Times in 2008, "over the next two years several of his associates and lawyers, as well as their relatives, became victims of crimes, including severe beatings and robberies during which documents were taken". In June 2007 dozens of police officers "swooped down on the Moscow offices of Hermitage and its law firm, confiscating documents and computers. When a member of the firm protested that the search was illegal, he was beaten by officers and hospitalized for two weeks, said the firm’s head, Jamison R. Firestone." Hermitage became "victim of what is known in Russia as 'corporate raiding': seizing companies and other assets with the aid of corrupt law enforcement officials and judges". Three Hermitage holding companies were seized on what the company's lawyers insist were bogus charges.[2]
The raids in June 2007 enabled corrupt law enforcement officers to steal the corporate registration documents of three Hermitage holding companies, permitting them to perpetrate a fraud, claiming (and receiving) the $230 million of taxes paid by those companies to the Russian state in 2006. In November 2008 one of Hermitage's lawyers, Sergei Magnitsky, was arrested. He was charged with the very tax evasion that he had uncovered.[14] Magnitsky died on November 16, 2009, after eleven months in pretrial detention.[15] His death eventually led directly to the passage, by the U.S. Congress, of the Magnitsky Act, signed into law by President Barack Obama on December 14, 2012. The act directly targeted individuals involved in the Magnitsky affair by prohibiting their entrance to the United States and their use of its banking system, and prompted the Russian government to retaliate by prohibiting adoption of Russian children by American citizens, and prohibiting certain individuals from entering Russia.
In February 2013, Russian officials announced that Browder and Magnitsky would both be put on trial for evading $16.8 million in taxes. Furthermore, as announced in March 2013, Russian authorities will be investigating Hermitage's acquisition of Gazprom shares worth $70 million. The investigation will be focusing on whether Browder violated any Russian laws when Hermitage used Russian companies registered in the region of Kalmykia to buy shares. (An investigation by the Council of Europe's Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights cleared Browder of the accusations of improprieties that surfaced at this time.)[16] At the time, according to the Russian law, foreigners were barred from directly owning Gazprom shares. Browder has also been charged with trying to gain access to Gazprom's financial reports.[17] Browder admitted having sought influence in Gazprom but denied any wrongdoing;[18] in his view, purchasing Gazprom shares was an investment in the Russian economy, while the desire to influence the Gazprom management was driven by the need to expose a "huge fraud going on at the company", and the scheme with Russian-registered subsidiaries entitled to tax advantages was practised by other foreign investors at the time and was not illegal.[19] He also said that he believed the trial was in response to the United States passing the Magnitsky Act, which had blacklisted Russian officials involved in Magnitsky's death from entering the U.S. As claimed by The Financial Times, this trial was deemed to be the first in Russian history over a dead defendant.[20] Amnesty International described the trial as “a whole new chapter in Russia’s worsening human rights record” and a “sinister attempt to deflect attention from those who committed the crimes Magnitsky exposed.”[21]
On 11 July 2013, Browder was convicted in absentia by a district criminal court in Moscow on charges under article 199 of the RF Criminal Code (tax-evasion by organisations), and sentenced to nine years.[22][23] In May 2013 and again in July 2013, Interpol rejected requests by Russia's Interior Ministry[24] to put Browder on its search list and locate and arrest him, saying that Russia's case against him was "predominantly political".[25]
In April 2014, the European Parliament unanimously passed a resolution to impose sanctions on over 30 Russians complicit in the Magnitsky case; the first time in the parliament's history that a vote has been held to establish a public sanctions list.[26]
For people as clueless as me. Quite the journey in russia that guy had.
On July 28 2017 03:14 Mohdoo wrote: I don't understand why people would advocate for discrimination based on sexual orientation. What a bizarre thing to fight for.
Because laws have meaning. You can't just read shit into a law because it leads to a better result. You need to change the law. Title VII has never classified sexual orientation as a protected class. There is a reason why state anti-discrimination codes do.
Right, I get that. But I feel like the conversation that comes after looks like this:
Person A: Ok, so let's change the law so that it IS protected. Person B: No.
I am saying I think it is really bizarre that person B says no.
On July 28 2017 03:14 Mohdoo wrote: I don't understand why people would advocate for discrimination based on sexual orientation. What a bizarre thing to fight for.
Because laws have meaning. You can't just read shit into a law because it leads to a better result. You need to change the law. Title VII has never classified sexual orientation as a protected class. There is a reason why state anti-discrimination codes do.
Right, I get that. But I feel like the conversation that comes after looks like this:
Person A: Ok, so let's change the law so that it IS protected. Person B: No.
I am saying I think it is really bizarre that person B says no.
That goes for many laws and brings us back to earlier. It's what makes legal legislation hard. Not changing laws to something simple and easy: it's the appealing to all sides while still at least somewhat do what it was supposed to that is hard.
edit: jesus that hearing is 3 1/2 hours, does that come as a audiobook? Oo
On July 28 2017 03:14 Mohdoo wrote: I don't understand why people would advocate for discrimination based on sexual orientation. What a bizarre thing to fight for.
Because laws have meaning. You can't just read shit into a law because it leads to a better result. You need to change the law. Title VII has never classified sexual orientation as a protected class. There is a reason why state anti-discrimination codes do.
Right, I get that. But I feel like the conversation that comes after looks like this:
Person A: Ok, so let's change the law so that it IS protected. Person B: No.
I am saying I think it is really bizarre that person B says no.
Is it? B wants to discriminate or allow others to discriminate for him.
Why do they want it? Because the 'others' make him uncomfortable or are not human in his eyes. Never underestimate mans ability to hate one another without reason.
lmao what. Done with someone, but not firing them, means what exactly?
Probably ice him out so he quits.
Did you never have a job where someone got their hours cut closer and closer to 0 until they quit? That was done with but not firing
I can't help but think Trump treating incredibly distinguished members of government like this is going to make someone snap at one point. This is how people defect. There's going to be one person who is finally like "Welp, this is unacceptable. Hello? New York Times? Let's meet."
You can treat a teenager like garbage because they *are* garbage. Priebus isn't garbage and he knows he's not.
I mean, people are joking about this, but the government controlling what is true or false is basically the step toward authoritarianism.
And 45% of Republican voters are in favour of that, and Democrat voters may be close behind (if they view this as an opportunity to shut down Fox News, Breitbart, Inforwars, etc.).
Fortunately your Supreme Court would still be the check and balance to eviscerate any attempt at the government shutting down the free press.
EPT
