US Politics Mega-thread - Page 8993

On October 14 2017 08:22 Howie_Dewitt wrote:

Manafort is so boned lmao

On October 14 2017 08:11 zlefin wrote:

I'm not surprised you need to dissemble to cover for the misconduct of the republicans, and are unable to own up to their gross failure to do their job.
It coudln't get 67 votes because, exactly as I had already stated, the rpeublicans chose ot play cheap politics at the expense of america's national security.
so it remains entirely the fault of the republicans. If they weren't damaging the country for petty partisanship, then it would've been submitted as a treaty, and approved as one.
so do try to keep up, instead of pretending with nonsense points like you just did wherein you falsely try to put the onus on obama rather than the actual guilty party.

On October 14 2017 08:15 Danglars wrote:

Yeah, you can never have the full win with Trump.

And that would be "Congress Corker did some gymnastics, came up with the Corker bill that ceded Senatorial treaty power, and convinced enough pussyfooting senators to wuss out with him. Naturally, they all can come together with tough words condemning the deal later!

On October 14 2017 08:22 Plansix wrote:

That is because congressional republicans didn't want to approve Obamas deal, but also didn't want to be the ones to kill it. They don't have a problem with the deal except that Obama made it. A few have objections, but not strong enough to be the ones who kill the deal with Iran. So they punted and put the burden on the executive branch. So now they have to deal with it now because Trump is a child.

On October 14 2017 08:45 Introvert wrote:


Trump's actions are enabled because this deal is a "executive agreement" and thus subject to the will of the executive. It's an executive agreement because that was the logic Obama used because he wanted it hell or high water.He also then signed the Corker-Cardin bill.



Don't forget Ben Sasse. Someone I want to like but it seems like twitter is his primary mode of activism, while not really doing a whole lot and of course passing off on this deal.



You are free to continue looking at this entirely through the lens of Obama hatred, it works for me because if one doesn't know the problems he/she has they make wrong diagnoses and let the other side in the door.

On October 14 2017 07:57 Introvert wrote:


Don't forget Ben Sasse. Someone I want to like but it seems like twitter is his primary mode of activism, while not really doing a whole lot and of course passing off on this deal.

On October 14 2017 06:02 fish_radio wrote:
==

https://www.washingtonpost.com/video/politics/trump-says-he-met-with-the-president-of-the-virgin-islands/2017/10/13/7d3d9362-b024-11e7-9b93-b97043e57a22_video.html

To the newsroom:

The New York Times has been a dominant force on social media for years. Our newsroom accounts have tens of millions of followers. Many of our journalists are influential voices on Twitter, Facebook, Instagram and other platforms. The voices of our readers, listeners and viewers inform and improve our reporting.

Continue reading the main story
RECENT COMMENTS

LWF 3 hours ago
There are many comments here saying this policy is a waste of time because everyone already knows that Times reporters are terribly biased...
D10S 3 hours ago
Just report and I mean report (state facts not opinions) and everything will fall in place. Why will anyone trust you if 90% of your...
Shelley 3 hours ago
You're wrong on this. A professional can cover a story dispassionately and still have strong personal opinions. More importantly, you're...
SEE ALL COMMENTS WRITE A COMMENT
We believe that to remain the world’s best news organization, we have to maintain a vibrant presence on social media.

But we also need to make sure that we are engaging responsibly on social media, in line with the values of our newsroom.

That’s why we’re issuing updated and expanded social media guidelines.

The guidelines were developed in a collaborative way by Cliff Levy, Phil Corbett and Cynthia Collins, and are rooted in the very experiences of our journalists.

Please read them closely, and take them to heart.

— Dean Baquet, Executive Editor

• In social media posts, our journalists must not express partisan opinions, promote political views, endorse candidates, make offensive comments or do anything else that undercuts The Times’s journalistic reputation.

• Our journalists should be especially mindful of appearing to take sides on issues that The Times is seeking to cover objectively.

• These guidelines apply to everyone in every department of the newsroom, including those not involved in coverage of government and politics.

• If you are linking to other sources, aim to reflect a diverse collection of viewpoints. Sharing a range of news, opinions or satire from others is usually appropriate. But consistently linking to only one side of a debate can leave the impression that you, too, are taking sides.

On October 14 2017 13:05 Plansix wrote:
https://twitter.com/ShaunKing/status/918644789645635584

I expect to see more of these.

On October 14 2017 11:31 zlefin wrote:
sounds like pretty typical standards already in use; I'm not seeing much of a difference from standard operating procedures everywhere already.

On October 14 2017 13:24 Danglars wrote:

I want to see a first amendment case if they try it at a public college. It could get interesting.

On October 14 2017 13:24 Danglars wrote:

I want to see a first amendment case if they try it at a public college. It could get interesting.

The Court held, in a 6-to-3 decision delivered by Justice Jackson, that it was unconstitutional for public schools to compel students to salute the flag. It thus overruled its decision in Minersville School District v. Gobitis, finding that the flag salute was "a form of utterance" and "a primitive but effective means of communicating ideas." "Compulsory unification of opinion," the Court wrote, was doomed to failure and was antithetical to the values set forth in the First Amendment. The Court eloquently stated: "If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein."

On October 14 2017 13:47 Nevuk wrote:
I'm pretty sure the court has ruled in the past that high schoolers don't have constitutional rights so it would be a very boring case.

On October 14 2017 13:26 Danglars wrote:

Pretty funny, zlefin. But we’ll see if they’ll change from this. Trump obsession and paranoia is very much in vogue.

https://twitter.com/jpodhoretz/status/918800458013138946