|
Now that we have a new thread, 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 complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On January 21 2022 23:25 WombaT wrote:
Iirc McDonald’s were serving coffee stupid hot, as a big portion of their clientele were people buying it to go and consuming later on the road, so they served it overly hot, with time to cool down.
This particular lady unfortunately got it fresh and spilled it almost immediately, hence the burns.
It’s hard to gauge a temperature of a beverage through insulating layers, there’s a reason she won the case.
You should not be served coffee that can burn you to the pubic bone, or if you are you should be informed that it’s too hot to consume and needs time to cool.
Wasn’t the first time someone got burned, McDonald’s subsequently stopped serving coffee at those temperatures.
There is a limit to the temperature that a water-based liquid like coffee can have, namely 100°C. And that is not "stupid hot", that is normal for boiling water based drinks.
When i make tea at home, i get water to a boil, and pour the boiling water into a cup or pot with tea leaves in it, then carry said cup or pot with the water slightly below boiling (so probably ~95°) to another room (the room where i intend to drink the tea) and wait for two minutes, then i remove the leaves. I am pretty sure that if i were to pour said nearly boiling water into my lap, i would also get hurt. But i don't do that, because i am not an idiot.
And i don't think that a company should be required to only serve liquids or foods that are save when an idiot pours them into their lap. Food and drink are for eating and drinking, not for pouring into your lap. Most people learn this at age 4.
I am not a fan of big companies and their bullshit, i think that should be clear to anyone reading my posts. But i still think it is absurd to sue a company which sold you coffee if you pour your coffee into your lap.
But of course, this is the US, where the medical costs would probably ruin you for the rest of your life, so i kind of get it. Here in Germany, you would still be very annoyed, it would hurt like hell, but then you get treatment without financial ruin attached to it.
|
|
|
One reason politicians or Trump can't be sued simply for lying is the First Amendment. There would also be a ton of frivolous and partisan lawsuits that would drown out politicians. It's not a good idea to say that Trump should be financially punished for lying. I know people really want Trump to somehow be taken down, but that doesn't mean the law should be bent and abused to make it happen.
|
On January 22 2022 02:39 Doc.Rivers wrote:
One reason politicians or Trump can't be sued simply for lying is the First Amendment. There would also be a ton of frivolous and partisan lawsuits that would drown out politicians. It's not a good idea to say that Trump should be financially punished for lying. I know people really want Trump to somehow be taken down, but that doesn't mean the law should be bent and abused to make it happen.
That only goes so far.
Trump is allowed to say that the elections were stolen.
However, if he asks for my money to take back the elections that were stolen, and then it turns out that they (1) weren't stolen, and (2) he never really believed they were and was just using it to get my money, I'm pretty sure he can be sued.
Proving (2) is obviously hard. But you'd think it's possible, given all the plans that poured out of the white house in this committee investigation.
|
On January 22 2022 02:49 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On January 22 2022 02:39 Doc.Rivers wrote:
One reason politicians or Trump can't be sued simply for lying is the First Amendment. There would also be a ton of frivolous and partisan lawsuits that would drown out politicians. It's not a good idea to say that Trump should be financially punished for lying. I know people really want Trump to somehow be taken down, but that doesn't mean the law should be bent and abused to make it happen. That only goes so far. Trump is allowed to say that the elections were stolen. However, if he asks for my money to take back the elections that were stolen, and then it turns out that they (1) weren't stolen, and (2) he never really believed they were and was just using it to get my money, I'm pretty sure he can be sued. Proving (2) is obviously hard. But you'd think it's possible, given all the plans that poured out of the white house in this committee investigation. That is where the fine print on the donation page comes in.
|
|
|
A pleasant surprise - a court halted the federal employee vaccine mandate for the time being. Hope this stay survives up the court hierarchy, even though I don't think it will.
A Texas federal judge on Friday blocked the Biden administration from enforcing a vaccine mandate for federal employees, dealing another blow to President Joe Biden's campaign to increase the country's lackluster vaccination rate.
Judge Jeffrey Vincent Brown called the mandate an overstep of presidential authority and cited the recent Supreme Court decision to strike down a separate administration mandate that had applied to private sector workers.
"The President certainly possesses 'broad statutory authority to regulate executive branch employment policies,'" Brown wrote. "But the Supreme Court has expressly held that a COVID-19 vaccine mandate is not an employment regulation. And that means the President was without statutory authority to issue the federal worker mandate."
The federal worker mandate, which applied to some 3.5 million workers, required full vaccination by the end of November, although the administration said it would first counsel employees who resisted vaccination rather than discipline or fire them. On December 9, the Office of Management and Budget said that the federal workforce was 97.2% compliant with the mandate -- a figure that includes people who had a pending or approved exemption.
Source
Unfortunately too little too late, since they already strong-armed or fired just about everyone who didn't get vaccinated. But perhaps better late than never?
|
On January 22 2022 05:41 LegalLord wrote:A pleasant surprise - a court halted the federal employee vaccine mandate for the time being. Hope this stay survives up the court hierarchy, even though I don't think it will. Show nested quote +A Texas federal judge on Friday blocked the Biden administration from enforcing a vaccine mandate for federal employees, dealing another blow to President Joe Biden's campaign to increase the country's lackluster vaccination rate.
Judge Jeffrey Vincent Brown called the mandate an overstep of presidential authority and cited the recent Supreme Court decision to strike down a separate administration mandate that had applied to private sector workers.
"The President certainly possesses 'broad statutory authority to regulate executive branch employment policies,'" Brown wrote. "But the Supreme Court has expressly held that a COVID-19 vaccine mandate is not an employment regulation. And that means the President was without statutory authority to issue the federal worker mandate."
The federal worker mandate, which applied to some 3.5 million workers, required full vaccination by the end of November, although the administration said it would first counsel employees who resisted vaccination rather than discipline or fire them. On December 9, the Office of Management and Budget said that the federal workforce was 97.2% compliant with the mandate -- a figure that includes people who had a pending or approved exemption. SourceUnfortunately too little too late, since they already strong-armed or fired just about everyone who didn't get vaccinated. But perhaps better late than never?
Barring the rare medical exemption, I'd prefer to have everyone vaccinated. Ideally, through education and discussion, but if that doesn't work, I don't mind adding "and you must be vaccinated" to the list of a hundred other sensible prerequisites for jobs.
|
On January 22 2022 05:51 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On January 22 2022 05:41 LegalLord wrote:A pleasant surprise - a court halted the federal employee vaccine mandate for the time being. Hope this stay survives up the court hierarchy, even though I don't think it will. A Texas federal judge on Friday blocked the Biden administration from enforcing a vaccine mandate for federal employees, dealing another blow to President Joe Biden's campaign to increase the country's lackluster vaccination rate.
Judge Jeffrey Vincent Brown called the mandate an overstep of presidential authority and cited the recent Supreme Court decision to strike down a separate administration mandate that had applied to private sector workers.
"The President certainly possesses 'broad statutory authority to regulate executive branch employment policies,'" Brown wrote. "But the Supreme Court has expressly held that a COVID-19 vaccine mandate is not an employment regulation. And that means the President was without statutory authority to issue the federal worker mandate."
The federal worker mandate, which applied to some 3.5 million workers, required full vaccination by the end of November, although the administration said it would first counsel employees who resisted vaccination rather than discipline or fire them. On December 9, the Office of Management and Budget said that the federal workforce was 97.2% compliant with the mandate -- a figure that includes people who had a pending or approved exemption. SourceUnfortunately too little too late, since they already strong-armed or fired just about everyone who didn't get vaccinated. But perhaps better late than never? Barring the rare medical exemption, I'd prefer to have everyone vaccinated. Ideally, through education and discussion, but if that doesn't work, I don't mind adding "and you must be vaccinated" to the list of a hundred other sensible prerequisites for jobs.
I too would prefer to have everyone vaccinated; it's just a matter of what lengths you're willing to go to make that happen. Evidently people didn't like my "send in the Feds to vaccinate by force" approach, which should at the very least establish that there is a limit here. The federal employee "vaccinate, no alternatives and almost no exemptions" mandate exceeds the threshold of what I find acceptable as well.
|
United States44195 Posts
The Supreme Court found that it wasn’t up to OSHA, individual employers should decide. Then this judge cited that conclusion in saying that it wasn’t up to the President (their employer)? Not sure that makes sense.
|
On January 22 2022 06:05 KwarK wrote:
The Supreme Court found that it wasn’t up to OSHA, individual employers should decide. Then this judge cited that conclusion in saying that it wasn’t up to the President (their employer)? Not sure that makes sense.
It doesn’t, the president’s authority to issue and enforce employment standards for those who work for the federal government is certainly not unlimited, but it is both superficially and legally different from OSHA’s regulatory authority over employers writ large. The Texas judge’s opinion is not well-written and its legal analysis is extremely thin, but it’ll go through the Fifth Circuit so it’ll probably be upheld at the intermediate level were it appealed. At SCOTUS it may still survive, but only on grounds alternative to those relied on by the district court, the dissimilarity with the OSHA ruling would be obvious to everyone on SCOTUS.
|
Russian Federation102 Posts
On January 18 2022 01:30 KwarK wrote:
That is the worst possible take.
Trump harmed a shitton of people and was stopped from harming even more by the narrowest of margins (fucking deathbed McCain blocked the repeal of the ACA). The fact that you can’t tell the difference between before Trump and after Trump doesn’t mean that they’re all the same, it means you’re not very observant.
If I couldn’t tell the difference between chocolate syrup and diarrhea you wouldn’t want me pouring one over your ice cream and telling you that it’s all basically the same.
What did you actually notice change in your day to day life? Please tell me and do not mention a single thing you read on article or news.
I noticed I paid a little less on Medicare taxes but that was it. Please remember to ignore articles because articles cannot be trusted. Media is biased. That is why Republicans think Trump was so great because they read different media than you. Only I don't lack the self awareness to realize it's all biased bullshit. Only data and research study can be trusted. So only answer with your own experience because it seems like whenever I ask this question people say "Omg concentration camp!" but those were going on since Obama no matter what CNN or Washington Post tell you. Or maybe you say "He did muslim ban!" yet the two countries with the highest number of muslim were not banned. But again these are not things you noticed in your day to day life. So focus on that because I do not want to get into useless debate with someone who gets their information from journalists and media. Only research study and sometimes polling can be used to make a point. Thank you.
You people say I am nihilist, cynic, but it is just realistic. I think not many people actually make into politics with good intentions. Remember how big of a role nepotism plays in US government. Thank you.
|
United States24782 Posts
I also think the best way to measure what effect Trump actually had on the USA is to perform a longitudinal study of all the changes that occurred in KwarK's life between January 2017 and January 2021.
|
Russian Federation102 Posts
On January 23 2022 00:58 micronesia wrote:
I also think the best way to measure what effect Trump actually had on the USA is to perform a longitudinal study of all the changes that occurred in KwarK's life between January 2017 and January 2021.
You talk about longitudinal study but then you say he "harmed a shit ton of people" so where is your longitudinal study on that?
EDIT: sorry I got my hammers confused
|
United States44195 Posts
On January 23 2022 00:55 confusedzerg wrote:Show nested quote +On January 18 2022 01:30 KwarK wrote:
That is the worst possible take.
Trump harmed a shitton of people and was stopped from harming even more by the narrowest of margins (fucking deathbed McCain blocked the repeal of the ACA). The fact that you can’t tell the difference between before Trump and after Trump doesn’t mean that they’re all the same, it means you’re not very observant.
If I couldn’t tell the difference between chocolate syrup and diarrhea you wouldn’t want me pouring one over your ice cream and telling you that it’s all basically the same. What did you actually notice change in your day to day life? Please tell me and do not mention a single thing you read on article or news. I noticed I paid a little less on Medicare taxes but that was it. Please remember to ignore articles because articles cannot be trusted. Media is biased. That is why Republicans think Trump was so great because they read different media than you. Only I don't lack the self awareness to realize it's all biased bullshit. Only data and research study can be trusted. So only answer with your own experience because it seems like whenever I ask this question people say "Omg concentration camp!" but those were going on since Obama no matter what CNN or Washington Post tell you. Or maybe you say "He did muslim ban!" yet the two countries with the highest number of muslim were not banned. But again these are not things you noticed in your day to day life. So focus on that because I do not want to get into useless debate with someone who gets their information from journalists and media. Only research study and sometimes polling can be used to make a point. Thank you. You people say I am nihilist, cynic, but it is just realistic. I think not many people actually make into politics with good intentions. Remember how big of a role nepotism plays in US government. Thank you.
Still the worst possible take. If you say something idiotic and I say that it's a really bad opinion why would you just repeat it and hope that it sounds better the second time. Medicare taxes didn't even change.
|
Northern Ireland27209 Posts
You don’t have the self awareness to realise ‘biased’ is not the same as ‘completely useless as a tool’. There’s people of good journalism out there that just gets thrown out the window if the ‘media is bad’ is your lens.
My personal study involves chatting to this Kwark, and a Kwark I know from a parallel dimension where Trump didn’t win in 2016. I’ll let you know what I find.
That said I don’t think how a President directly affected you is a good way to judge anyway. It can be hard to gauge the effects of wider policy trickle down to an individual.
Plus plenty of people care about things that don’t effect them, but have plenty of impact on others, including many of the topics discussed here.
|
On January 23 2022 00:55 confusedzerg wrote:Show nested quote +On January 18 2022 01:30 KwarK wrote:
That is the worst possible take.
Trump harmed a shitton of people and was stopped from harming even more by the narrowest of margins (fucking deathbed McCain blocked the repeal of the ACA). The fact that you can’t tell the difference between before Trump and after Trump doesn’t mean that they’re all the same, it means you’re not very observant.
If I couldn’t tell the difference between chocolate syrup and diarrhea you wouldn’t want me pouring one over your ice cream and telling you that it’s all basically the same. What did you actually notice change in your day to day life? Please tell me and do not mention a single thing you read on article or news. I noticed I paid a little less on Medicare taxes but that was it. Please remember to ignore articles because articles cannot be trusted. Media is biased. That is why Republicans think Trump was so great because they read different media than you. Only I don't lack the self awareness to realize it's all biased bullshit. Only data and research study can be trusted. So only answer with your own experience because it seems like whenever I ask this question people say "Omg concentration camp!" but those were going on since Obama no matter what CNN or Washington Post tell you. Or maybe you say "He did muslim ban!" yet the two countries with the highest number of muslim were not banned. But again these are not things you noticed in your day to day life. So focus on that because I do not want to get into useless debate with someone who gets their information from journalists and media. Only research study and sometimes polling can be used to make a point. Thank you. You people say I am nihilist, cynic, but it is just realistic. I think not many people actually make into politics with good intentions. Remember how big of a role nepotism plays in US government. Thank you.
No doubt the media is biased and frequently peddles misinformation for ratings purposes, but some of their trump scandals must be acknowledged as fair and accurate. Family separation certainly appears to be one.
That said, there is a good faith argument that trump did not cause more harm to people than other presidents. For example, trump did not cause calamity in any foreign countries. By contrast, Obama through acts of folly caused calamity in Libya and Iraq, resulting in rape and death by the thousands. So as a utilitarian analysis, it is not cut and dry that trump caused more harm to people than other presidents.
|
On January 23 2022 02:44 Doc.Rivers wrote:Show nested quote +On January 23 2022 00:55 confusedzerg wrote:On January 18 2022 01:30 KwarK wrote:
That is the worst possible take.
Trump harmed a shitton of people and was stopped from harming even more by the narrowest of margins (fucking deathbed McCain blocked the repeal of the ACA). The fact that you can’t tell the difference between before Trump and after Trump doesn’t mean that they’re all the same, it means you’re not very observant.
If I couldn’t tell the difference between chocolate syrup and diarrhea you wouldn’t want me pouring one over your ice cream and telling you that it’s all basically the same. What did you actually notice change in your day to day life? Please tell me and do not mention a single thing you read on article or news. I noticed I paid a little less on Medicare taxes but that was it. Please remember to ignore articles because articles cannot be trusted. Media is biased. That is why Republicans think Trump was so great because they read different media than you. Only I don't lack the self awareness to realize it's all biased bullshit. Only data and research study can be trusted. So only answer with your own experience because it seems like whenever I ask this question people say "Omg concentration camp!" but those were going on since Obama no matter what CNN or Washington Post tell you. Or maybe you say "He did muslim ban!" yet the two countries with the highest number of muslim were not banned. But again these are not things you noticed in your day to day life. So focus on that because I do not want to get into useless debate with someone who gets their information from journalists and media. Only research study and sometimes polling can be used to make a point. Thank you. You people say I am nihilist, cynic, but it is just realistic. I think not many people actually make into politics with good intentions. Remember how big of a role nepotism plays in US government. Thank you. No doubt the media is biased and frequently peddles misinformation for ratings purposes, but some of their trump scandals must be acknowledged as fair and accurate. Family separation certainly appears to be one. That said, there is a good faith argument that trump did not cause more harm to people than other presidents. For example, trump did not cause calamity in any foreign countries. By contrast, Obama through acts of folly caused calamity in Libya and Iraq, resulting in rape and death by the thousands. So as a utilitarian analysis, it is not cut and dry that trump caused more harm to people than other presidents.
Thousands of rapes through Obama's actions? Do you have a source for that?
I mean, normally people blame Obama for continuing the drone strikes and so on, but that one I hadn't heard before.
|
Norway28866 Posts
I mean it's not really a stretch to say that there have been thousands of rapes in Libya following Gaddafi being ousted. Not sure it's really 'Obama' though - UNSCresolution 1973 was championed by France, UK and Lebanon.
|
On January 23 2022 02:44 Doc.Rivers wrote:
That said, there is a good faith argument that trump did not cause more harm to people than other presidents. For example, trump did not cause calamity in any foreign countries. By contrast, Obama through acts of folly caused calamity in Libya and Iraq, resulting in rape and death by the thousands. So as a utilitarian analysis, it is not cut and dry that trump caused more harm to people than other presidents.
I suppose he was unlucky to have covid happen during his presidency, but he caused an incredible amount of death and harm by downplaying and then politicizing the virus. Then there are the more insidious harms of undermining trust in journalism and elections, inflaming racial/class tensions, and normalizing compulsive lying and conspiracy theories. Do you not consider those harms?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
