Trump makes emotionally-charged political statements and people think this is a bad thing. Some high-school students make emotionally-charged political statements and people think this is a good thing. Fascinating.
I am no fan of the NRA--that bunch of hypocrites fought tooth and nail for decades to make sure the government did not keep a database of gun owners despite the NRA keeping just such a database for its own fundraising purposes--but to call them all child murderers is a logical leap we do not want to make. By extension, we could claim that anyone who owns stock in a weapons manufacturing company, even if they own shares in an indexed fund which owns shares in such a company, is complicit in war-related deaths. By extension, anyone who voted for a Democratic Member of Congress who voted to go to war back in the aftermath of 11 Sept is guilty of being a warmonger. No, culpability for a heinous act begins and ends only with the perpetrator--if you didn't do it then you didn't do it.
I do agree that the ammosexuals--you get full credit for inventing that word--are, at this moment, stockpiling even more weapons and rounds in anticipation of what they think will be another round of gun control that will never happen. Remember when Obama was going to start rounding up all the guns by having police go door-to-door? That was actually one of the things the "molon labe" folks were saying back then. Never happened...but they were expecting it to.
*************
Black Panther had a $200 million opening weekend, making it the fifth-largest opening in cinema history and it is on track to beat both Avengers and Jurassic World for largest four-day ticket sales. That isn't politics, of course, but the group Electoral Justice Project registering people to vote at screenings *is* politics. I don't have a problem with that--if a superhero movie is what it takes to get people to register to vote then so be it. I hope those people do their own research and figure out for whom to vote but I am not going to be naive about it--most of them will vote how some celebrity or talking head whom they venerate suggests they vote, just like a majority of my fellow citizens.
You can read the Supreme courts case from 2002, called Sauvé v. Canada to see how this applied to voting rights for prisoners. Basically the government can not show why taking away a prisoners right to vote is justifiable, therefore, prisoners can vote. They do not vote where they are incarcerated but vote for the riding they last resided in prior to being sentenced.
Thanks for posting that @deltago - it's an interesting case .
When I initially read the tests you referred to it seemed clear to me that they were met, so I had to read the case record closely to find why the court held that wasn't the case. The case is a good illustration of the fact that courts don't simply interpret law, they do in practice make it as well. The provision to restrict the rights of prisoners to vote was upheld by the Court of Appeal before being struck down by the Supreme Court on a 5-4 majority decision. The minority in the Supreme Court essentially argued that Parliament had made their intentions on this matter plain and the court should only intervene if what Parliament had done was unreasonable in relation to the Charter. The case involves competing social and political objectives and prioritizing those in a particular way is not per se unreasonable.
The majority view gave a much higher priority to the right to vote and was dismissive about competing social or political objectives. I was struck by one particular point "To deny prisoners the right to vote is to lose an important means of teaching them democratic values and social responsibility." Personally I would have interpreted that point in exactly the opposite way, i.e. that losing the right to vote is a way of teaching the need for social responsibility. That just illustrates though the importance perspective plays in court judgments - which of course is why some people are so annoyed about the change to the make-up of the US Supreme Court and the way that came about.
Prisoner voting has been a long-standing issue in the UK, where there has historically been a blanket ban on voting by any prisoners (a position strongly supported by both Parliament and the public). That was challenged by a 2005 ruling by the European Court of Human Rights that a blanket ban was inconsistent with the European convention of human rights. Since then the UK Parliament has several times voted to maintain the ban despite the court judgment (that argument was actually quite a significant issue in the Brexit debate. Although the ECHR is separate from the European Union some politicians deliberately conflated the European Court of Justice with the ECHR when arguing about the need to re-establish national sovereignty). However, in 2015 another ECHR case clarified that, while a blanket ban was illegal, a ban on voting by prisoners convicted of serious crimes was proportionate and legal, i.e. they are upholding the position struck down in the Canadian case. As a result of that the UK government has now decided to allow prisoners serving less than a year and who are allowed home on day release to vote - that only affects about 100 prisoners, but the ECHR has recently accepted this proposal, ending the 12 year dispute over their original 2005 ruling.
I want to say one thing about "Black Panther" as a political issue. We've already seen fake accounts on Twitter of white people supposedly being beaten up at screenings (people will make a post about such an "incident" on twitter, with a hospital picture of the supposed victim, only to find out the photo is years old related to some other situation). What brings people to do this, the motivation, is beyond comprehension.
But moreover, you're going to see a narrative around concocted by the usual suspects that says "what's the big deal?? Why do we have to celebrate a black superhero movie??" Well, I suppose you don't have to celebrate it. But think back to the movies you watched when you were a kid. Your favorites probably featured characters you could relate to. For me, it was Indiana Jones and The Neverending Story. Indy enjoyed exploring ancient tombs, and finding lost treasures. He also was hero who could take down Nazi Germany. In The Neverending Story, Bastion is just a kid who wants to go up into the attic alone at school and read his book. He saves a world too. As a bookworm, and an introvert, and someone interested in these subject matters, it was wonderful to see people on screen who liked the things you did, and who acted like you might think you would in the same situation. So my advice, while this movie is lighting it up at the box office is this: don't deprive African-American kids (and frankly, alot of adults) of the same joy you felt when you saw a character or subject matter in a movie that related to you on personal level. To many of them, it's important. There is no downside to it. It's a good thing.
Black Panther had a $200 million opening weekend, making it the fifth-largest opening in cinema history and it is on track to beat both Avengers and Jurassic World for largest four-day ticket sales. That isn't politics, of course, but the group Electoral Justice Project registering people to vote at screenings *is* politics. I don't have a problem with that--if a superhero movie is what it takes to get people to register to vote then so be it. I hope those people do their own research and figure out for whom to vote but I am not going to be naive about it--most of them will vote how some celebrity or talking head whom they venerate suggests they vote, just like a majority of my fellow citizens.
I wouldn't have a problem with registering people to vote at all movies or whatever. I'm in the easier to vote camp. Election days should be convenient, holidays for very important ones or weekend or whatever.
I'm a big fan of the Marvel movies. I saw Black Panther. It was okay. Seemed a bit too long to me. I'd put it on par as a movie with Dr. Strange in the "good" category. I understand it's relevance outside the movie itself. I really liked Thor Ragnarok, to me, that was one of the best overall Marvel movies which to me was a surprise after the first two Thor movies were ok not great. Looking forward to Infinity War. Does Panther have that power in the comics that he has in the movie? Energy absorption and release? I guess they couldn't really have him going around and slashing all his foes up with his claws like some kind of Freddy Krueger or something.
But you can't talk about Black Panther without talking about SJW and "racism". I live in a white minority country and here we have affirmative actions to protect the minority from the majority. The justification is "slavery" as if only african was slaved in past. Slavery was a reality in all world and who ended slavery? White man. Who ended slavery in Brazil? A white, blonde, blue eyed princess who lost his power because end slavery was unpopular among elites. And the majority of slaves send to americas was send by other africans.
I was born in a country that is the leftist dream. Guns are insane strict, whites are minority and there are affirmative actions to 'protect' the majority(blacks/mixed race) from the minority(white/asian), despite the fact that was a blonde, blue eyed princess who ended slavery here.
I live in a white minority country and here we have affirmative actions to protect the minority from the majority. The justification is "slavery" as if only african was slaved in past. Slavery was a reality in all world and who ended slavery? White man. Who ended slavery in Brazil? A white, blonde, blue eyed princess who lost his power because end slavery was unpopular among elites.
I was born in a country that is the leftist dream. Guns are insane strict, whites are minority and there are affirmative actions to 'protect' the majority(blacks/mixed race) from the minority(white/asian), despite the fact that was a blonde, blue eyed princess who ended slavery here.
I live in a white minority country and here we have affirmative actions to protect the minority from the majority. The justification is "slavery" as if only african was slaved in past. Slavery was a reality in all world and who ended slavery? White man. Who ended slavery in Brazil? A white, blonde, blue eyed princess who lost his power because end slavery was unpopular among elites.
From the Washington Post (link), referring to the Parkland shooting:
“For everyone, it was a distraction or a reprieve,” said one White House official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to reflect internal conversations. “A lot of people here felt like it was a reprieve from seven or eight days of just getting pummeled.”
The official likened the brief political calm to the aftermath of the October 2017 gun massacre in Las Vegas that left 58 dead and hundreds more injured. That tragedy united White House aides and the country in their shared mourning for the victims and their families.
“But as we all know, sadly, when the coverage dies down a little bit, we’ll be back through the chaos,” the official said.
From the Washington Post (link), referring to the Parkland shooting:
“For everyone, it was a distraction or a reprieve,” said one White House official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to reflect internal conversations. “A lot of people here felt like it was a reprieve from seven or eight days of just getting pummeled.”
The official likened the brief political calm to the aftermath of the October 2017 gun massacre in Las Vegas that left 58 dead and hundreds more injured. That tragedy united White House aides and the country in their shared mourning for the victims and their families.
“But as we all know, sadly, when the coverage dies down a little bit, we’ll be back through the chaos,” the official said.
I don't like these people.
This reminds me of an episode of "The West Wing". It is immediately after Bartlett has revealed to the nation that he has multiple sclerosis, and they are in a PR crisis. The press secretary, played by Allison Janney, is stressed out from hours and hours at the podium, and when the question about the President having to possibly send US troops into Haiti, she says "I think the President is relieved to be thinking about something that matters." She immediately knows she said the wrong thing, the rest of the staff is aghast at the blunder. This group don't have that kind of self-awareness. To them, it isn't a slip of the tongue. It's just how they think. Because this is what happens when you put the worst people in the country in charge of it.
I've been thinking about the "decay of political norms." There are a lot of traditional American political values that have only started being questioned in the past couple years or so.
Do we really want a lot of Americans to vote?
Is it really that important for there to be nine Supreme Court justices?
Is it really that important for the president to be accountable to the law?
Is it really that important for law enforcement to be independent from partisan politics?
Is it really that important for politicians to keep their promises?
Is it really that important for a president to read?
Is it really that important for people to have freedom of assembly?
Is it really that important for politicians to be honest?
Is it really so bad to force yourself on women?
Is it really so bad to prey on another man's wife?
Is it really so bad to cheat on your spouse?
Is it really so bad to profit from public office?
Is it really that important to have independent oversight over politicians?
Is it really that important to have an independent press?
Is it really so bad to threaten a nuclear attack?
Is it really so bad for hostile foreign nations to manipulate American elections for their own personal gain?
Is it really so bad to encourage violence?
Americans disagree on a lot of things, but there are some things we really should be able to agree about.
How long have each of those norms lasted for do you think? Political norms tend to change along with interpretations of political statutes. In part they are a projection of the compromise position which elite groups can agree upon internally, and how far they can control the narratives presented to the wider public. Above all norms tend to be sacrificed when groups feel that their grip on power is slipping since the power to determine norms is a prerequisite to promulgating them. If no one group is sufficiently powerful as to control political narratives then crises will result.,
Meanwhile in the UK the latest target of attack is the Good Friday Agreement, which more or less ended sectarian violence. This is because if the UK diverges from EU customs regulations a hard border will separate the two Irelands, in contravention of the agreement. That agreement was also passed by a referendum of course! So in pursuit of a different idea of the UK, supposedly founded in history, Brexiters are now willing to abrogate an international peace treaty.
Countries in search of identities, sloughing off their skins like some horrible birth, and crushing things as they writhe. Not pretty stuff, and not half done.
How is this even remotely acceptable, much less basically completely ignored?? From Forbes:
The largest American office of China's largest bank sits on the 20th floor of Trump Tower, six levels below the desk where Donald Trump built an empire and wrested a presidency. It's hard to get a glimpse inside. There do not appear to be any public photos of the office, the bank doesn't welcome visitors, and a man guards the elevators downstairs--one of the perks of forking over an estimated $2 million a year for the space.
Trump Tower officially lists the tenant as the Industrial & Commercial Bank of China, but make no mistake who's paying the rent: the Chinese government, which owns a majority of the company. And while the landlord is technically the Trump Organization, make no mistake who's cashing those millions: the president of the United States, who has placed day-to-day management with his sons but retains 100% ownership. This lease expires in October 2019, according to a debt prospectus obtained by Forbes. So if you assume that the Trumps want to keep this lucrative tenant, then Eric Trump and Donald Trump Jr. could well be negotiating right now over how many millions the Chinese government will pay the sitting president. Unless he has already taken care of it: In September 2015 then-candidate Trump boasted to Forbes that he had "just renewed" the lease, around the time he was gearing up his campaign.
It's a conflict of interest unprecedented in American history. But hardly unanticipated. The Founding Fathers specifically built this contingency into the Constitution through the Emoluments Clause, which prohibits U.S. officials from accepting gifts, titles or "emoluments" from foreign governments. In Federalist 75, Alexander Hamilton framed the threat thus: "An avaricious man might be tempted to betray the interests of the state to the acquisition of wealth." Scholars have been debating what exactly constitutes an "emolument" since the moment Trump won the election, and nearly 200 congressional Democrats sued the president over possible violations in June. Much of the yammering in this area surrounds Trump's hotels, especially the one in Washington, D.C., which has billed $268,000 in hotel rooms and catering to the Saudi government, and his international licensing deals, which allow foreign tycoons and hucksters, many with connections to their local governments, to pay the Trump Organization more than $5 million a year in order to profit from the president's name in far-flung locales.
But that's all small potatoes. The real money in the Trump empire comes from commercial tenants like the Chinese bank. Forbes estimates these tenants pay a collective $175 million a year or so to the president. And they do so anonymously. Federal laws, drafted without envisioning a real estate billionaire as president, require Trump to publicly disclose the shell companies he owns--but not the hundreds of businesses pouring money into them or even the extent of the money involved.
Again, the corruption here is so blatant, so out in the open, so massive in the amount of money flowing DIRECTLY into Trump's pocket and the response is......crickets. NO President has ever done anything remotely like this while in office. Trump's continued stake in his international businesses should be the greatest corruption scandal in the history of this country. Even Bush and Cheney had to sever all official ties to their previous companies when they took office.
I think it's naive to think those attracted to political power are sincere ideologues most of the time. Those who want power for themselves are usually self interested by default, and I think the susceptibility of politicians to lobbies proves me right on this. Do I think Obama had a sincere change of heart about gay marriage during the course of his presidency rather than reading the political winds accurately and changing positions accordingly? Not at all.
It seems very likely to me that he had a sincere change of heart. His earlier position was that there should be a separate institution with all the rights of marriage, but called something different. I can certainly understand that position and have sympathy with it. For hundreds of years marriage was specifically defined as being between a man and a woman and I wouldn't want to change that - so long as an acceptable alternative was available.
The problem, however, is that the implementation of 'separate, but equal' does not have a good record - whether you're talking about race equality, or education, or health (or indeed anything else). Reluctantly I've therefore decided that it is indeed better to change the institution of marriage to include gay couples rather than have a different route for them that would include the possibility of institutionalizing prejudice. I see no reason to think that Obama didn't follow a similar train of thought.
As a secular institution recognized by the government for tax purposes and what not I actually agree. It's when they want a religion to recognize it that I don't agree. Religions are generally not inclusive to everybody and if one doesn't like it, they're free to join another religion (or even create one if they're so inclined).
I don't think any religions ARE expected to recognize it, nor should they have to. That said, I also think it's long past time religious institutions lose their tax exempt status. Because most of them are clearly nothing by businesses looking to make money. Thieves and charlatans have been hiding behind God for hundreds if not thousands of years.
I was ok with it, until Trump decided to attempt repeal the Johnson Amendment with an "illegal executive order". (Look at what I did there)
If you want to be a tax-exempt religious institution, fine. But if you want to engage in politics, then you're now a secular institution, and should lose your tax-exempt status. Jesus Christ said it himself. "Render unto Ceasar what is Ceasar's, and render unto God what is God's."
It's a case of religious zealots wanting to eat their cake and have it too.
I don't think any religions ARE expected to recognize it, nor should they have to. That said, I also think it's long past time religious institutions lose their tax exempt status. Because most of them are clearly nothing by businesses looking to make money. Thieves and charlatans have been hiding behind God for hundreds if not thousands of years.
Ouch! I wonder how many people would still tithe if that happened?
It's never going to happen. That being said, the collection plate passing I've seen in my life is almost zombie-like in the first place. It's just something people do without thinking about it.
IRS don't care. Money's easiest, but goods and services are taxable or deductible just the same.
Technically speaking, donating my time for free to a non-profit charity could be tax-deductible, if I'm engaged in an activity for which I would normally be charging. Actually, I do do this by giving chair massages as a Licensed Massage Therapist at Relay for Life events. However, I just hand over the money raised to the event.
I wouldn't have a problem with registering people to vote at all movies or whatever. I'm in the easier to vote camp. Election days should be convenient, holidays for very important ones or weekend or whatever.
If the decision were up to me I would extend the early voting period to two full weeks before the actual election then change "election day" from "the first Tuesday in November" to "the first full weekend of November (both Saturday and Sunday). This way, no matter how Scrooge-like an employer may be the likelihood that a random employee is punished for daring to go vote--you know some employers do this even though they aren't supposed to--is minimized. I can't think of many jobs where someone doesn't have at least one day off during an entire two-week period.
I wouldn't have a problem with registering people to vote at all movies or whatever. I'm in the easier to vote camp. Election days should be convenient, holidays for very important ones or weekend or whatever.
If the decision were up to me I would extend the early voting period to two full weeks before the actual election then change "election day" from "the first Tuesday in November" to "the first full weekend of November (both Saturday and Sunday). This way, no matter how Scrooge-like an employer may be the likelihood that a random employee is punished for daring to go vote--you know some employers do this even though they aren't supposed to--is minimized. I can't think of many jobs where someone doesn't have at least one day off during an entire two-week period.
At this point, having it on a Tuesday is nothing but more suppression of the vote. Yes, it is the law (I think), that your employer has to give you time off to do so. But, depending on your city, precinct, or polling place, that may entail missing 1 hour of work, or 4 hours, or maybe all 8. Some people can't afford to do that. Some people's bosses will hold it against them, and look for any excuse to hit them for something else for missing the time.
And why do we still do it on a Tuesday?? Presumably, as far as I know, it was originally done this because the earliest votes held in America took place in the city, and many people from rural areas and farms needed time to travel to town. They would start on the Sabbath (because it was day of rest) and they didn't want to have it on Wednesday (which was a big day for buying and trading at the market). Thus, because of arcane 18th century economic and religious practices, we have the one day year when we can make our voice heard smack-dab at the beginning of the work week. There is NO reason this shouldn't take place on a Saturday. But there is no way this is ever going to be changed. It would simply cause the voter participation to go up too far, and Republicans would never allow it to happen. Thus, we'll continue to do it on Tuesday, where time parameters are BARELY longer than a typical business day (I think it's 7 am to 7 pm in most places).
Beyond that, there isn't a single day more worthy of a national holiday than Election Day. We have time off for religious and ceremonial holidays left and right in this country, but the one holiday that would actually make a tangible difference in how this country functions isn't even on the table. The simple fact is that the people most likely to be unable to get away from work (for financial or work security reasons), are those on the lower end of the income ladder. This whole dynamic is never even discussed.
If you are anywhere west of TX State Highway 87 (it runs from Amarillo down though Lubbock, Big Spring, and on into San Angelo) and south of I40 (again, Amarillo going west through Albuquerque all the way to Barstow) then the landscape does often resemble the post-apocalyptic world which Max inhabits. Interestingly, in recent years many cartel drivers have taken to outfitting their trucks in Mad Max raider style--spikes welded to the doors, weapons bolted to the back bed, etc.
*************
Something which still bugs me about the recent Mueller Investigation indictments.... How is being an Internet troll a crime? When is political speech merely political speech and when does it become "attempting to influence the outcome of an election"? Isn't *all* political speech ultimately an attempt to influence the outcome of an election, whether that speech is committed by a citizen or by some foreign agent pretending to be a citizen? Also, I still maintain that any voter in the United States who blindly believed something they read on Facebook and cast a vote accordingly is a "stupid person" problem, not a "foreign agent trying to influence an election" problem.
If I put up a picture of a cat eating toothpaste (it was actually the filling from an Oreo cookie, but I *told* you it was toothpaste and in the picture it looks like it) then I hire a "like farm" to spread this meme across social media platforms and you, in your infinite wisdom, decide to try and feed your cat toothpaste to see if it likes it...that lapse in judgement is on you, not me. I am not the one trying to feed my cat toothpaste because some nameless person on the Internet said "cats like toothpaste". This same logic applies to political posts on social media. Just because the group Saving Historical Infrastructure for Tomorrow (figure out the acronym for yourself) is holding a rally in support of political candidate x (or against candidate y, as the case may be) doesn't mean that the group actually exists or that it supports either candidate. The people who show up ready to hurrah for their guy or harrumph against the other guy have proven only that they are easily led.
If Mueller *really* wanted to hand out indictments to the people who drove the last major election off the rails then he should indict every person who allowed themselves to be driven into an illogical fervor over something they saw and either agreed or disagreed with on the Internet.
*************
Seven people closely connected to Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu have been arrested as the corruption investigation being held there widens its scope. The primary accusation is that politically-connected people influenced government regulators to make certain that media giant Bezeq Group gave more favorable coverage for Netanyahu.
*************
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has redrawn the district maps in that State.
If you are anywhere west of TX State Highway 87 (it runs from Amarillo down though Lubbock, Big Spring, and on into San Angelo) and south of I40 (again, Amarillo going west through Albuquerque all the way to Barstow) then the landscape does often resemble the post-apocalyptic world which Max inhabits. Interestingly, in recent years many cartel drivers have taken to outfitting their trucks in Mad Max raider style--spikes welded to the doors, weapons bolted to the back bed, etc.
*************
Something which still bugs me about the recent Mueller Investigation indictments.... How is being an Internet troll a crime? When is political speech merely political speech and when does it become "attempting to influence the outcome of an election"? Isn't *all* political speech ultimately an attempt to influence the outcome of an election, whether that speech is committed by a citizen or by some foreign agent pretending to be a citizen? Also, I still maintain that any voter in the United States who blindly believed something they read on Facebook and cast a vote accordingly is a "stupid person" problem, not a "foreign agent trying to influence an election" problem.
If I put up a picture of a cat eating toothpaste (it was actually the filling from an Oreo cookie, but I *told* you it was toothpaste and in the picture it looks like it) then I hire a "like farm" to spread this meme across social media platforms and you, in your infinite wisdom, decide to try and feed your cat toothpaste to see if it likes it...that lapse in judgement is on you, not me. I am not the one trying to feed my cat toothpaste because some nameless person on the Internet said "cats like toothpaste". This same logic applies to political posts on social media. Just because the group Saving Historical Infrastructure for Tomorrow (figure out the acronym for yourself) is holding a rally in support of political candidate x (or against candidate y, as the case may be) doesn't mean that the group actually exists or that it supports either candidate. The people who show up ready to hurrah for their guy or harrumph against the other guy have proven only that they are easily led.
If Mueller *really* wanted to hand out indictments to the people who drove the last major election off the rails then he should indict every person who allowed themselves to be driven into an illogical fervor over something they saw and either agreed or disagreed with on the Internet.
*************
Seven people closely connected to Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu have been arrested as the corruption investigation being held there widens its scope. The primary accusation is that politically-connected people influenced government regulators to make certain that media giant Bezeq Group gave more favorable coverage for Netanyahu.
*************
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has redrawn the district maps in that State.
Interesting point about political posts. I guess the distinction is state sponsored troll farm vs. just normal crazy people. Supposedly these trolls had a budget of a million dollars a month and a specific goal of destabilizing the United States. Mission accomplished.
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has redrawn the district maps in that State and Trump has literally tweeted that the GOP should challenge these maps all the way to the Supreme Court which appears to not yet be a alt-right rubber stamp that Trump wants it to be. They just need one judge to grant a stay or whatever and Pennsylvanians won't be able to use the new maps in 2018. Republicans in Pennsylvania are pulling out all the stops to fight representative democracy including threatening judges. I think they will have no problem wasting tax payer money to try and defend their rigged system that rewards them extra seats at voters expense.
Essentially, the First Amendment does not protect fraudulent behavior. It doesn't matter anyway, since all the indicted parties are out of reach for US authorities.
Essentially, the First Amendment does not protect fraudulent behavior. It doesn't matter anyway, since all the indicted parties are out of reach for US authorities.
I'm fairly certain the illegality stems from the fact that millions of dollars a month were being used to fund the operation. This is about a foreign finance opearation to effect the campaign. This whole thing boils down to one word....money.
Trump is now claiming he has told Jeff Sessions to look into banning bump stocks. I am calling right now there will be no follow-through on this announcement. This is the opioid emergency declaration of the gun debate. In other words, jack-shit is going to happen in regards to bump stocks. Besides that, when did the Attorney General get the power unilaterally ban products?? Trump delegated a task to Sessions that he probably can't even find a way to implement.
I think most British people read Mad Max style dystopia as 'like America' .
Davis actually said "They fear that Brexit could lead to an Anglo-Saxon race to the bottom" - I wonder which Anglo-Saxon country that could refer to .
I bet it's Gibraltar.
Technically Gibraltar is not a country, but a British overseas territory (it's the only one in the EU), not to be confused with a crown dependency, the commonwealth realms, or the members of the commonwealth. Colonialism creates a lot of paperwork down the line!
I think most British people read Mad Max style dystopia as 'like America' .
Davis actually said "They fear that Brexit could lead to an Anglo-Saxon race to the bottom" - I wonder which Anglo-Saxon country that could refer to .
I bet it's Gibraltar.
Technically Gibraltar is not a country, but a British overseas territory (it's the only one in the EU), not to be confused with a crown dependency, the commonwealth realms, or the members of the commonwealth. Colonialism creates a lot of paperwork down the line!
I think most British people read Mad Max style dystopia as 'like America' .
Davis actually said "They fear that Brexit could lead to an Anglo-Saxon race to the bottom" - I wonder which Anglo-Saxon country that could refer to .
I bet it's Gibraltar.
Technically Gibraltar is not a country, but a British overseas territory (it's the only one in the EU), not to be confused with a crown dependency, the commonwealth realms, or the members of the commonwealth. Colonialism creates a lot of paperwork down the line!
Are Bermuda and Falklands countries?
Nope, overseas territories. They're self governing but rely on the British government to take care of defence & foreign relations.
Essentially, the First Amendment does not protect fraudulent behavior. It doesn't matter anyway, since all the indicted parties are out of reach for US authorities.
I'm fairly certain the illegality stems from the fact that millions of dollars a month were being used to fund the operation. This is about a foreign finance opearation to effect the campaign. This whole thing boils down to one word....money.
That means nothing. You can spend as much as you want on Facebook ads, there is nothing inherently illegal about that.
If you actually read the indictment, the fraud is a result of Russian nationals posing as US persons, in some cases actually stealing identities. Hence the "impairing, obstructing, and defeating the lawful functions of the government through fraud and deceit".
Comments
I am no fan of the NRA--that bunch of hypocrites fought tooth and nail for decades to make sure the government did not keep a database of gun owners despite the NRA keeping just such a database for its own fundraising purposes--but to call them all child murderers is a logical leap we do not want to make. By extension, we could claim that anyone who owns stock in a weapons manufacturing company, even if they own shares in an indexed fund which owns shares in such a company, is complicit in war-related deaths. By extension, anyone who voted for a Democratic Member of Congress who voted to go to war back in the aftermath of 11 Sept is guilty of being a warmonger. No, culpability for a heinous act begins and ends only with the perpetrator--if you didn't do it then you didn't do it.
I do agree that the ammosexuals--you get full credit for inventing that word--are, at this moment, stockpiling even more weapons and rounds in anticipation of what they think will be another round of gun control that will never happen. Remember when Obama was going to start rounding up all the guns by having police go door-to-door? That was actually one of the things the "molon labe" folks were saying back then. Never happened...but they were expecting it to.
*************
Black Panther had a $200 million opening weekend, making it the fifth-largest opening in cinema history and it is on track to beat both Avengers and Jurassic World for largest four-day ticket sales. That isn't politics, of course, but the group Electoral Justice Project registering people to vote at screenings *is* politics. I don't have a problem with that--if a superhero movie is what it takes to get people to register to vote then so be it. I hope those people do their own research and figure out for whom to vote but I am not going to be naive about it--most of them will vote how some celebrity or talking head whom they venerate suggests they vote, just like a majority of my fellow citizens.
I think this is my new favorite word.
You can almost apply it to Jan Jansen, everyone's favorite crazy libertarian uncle who makes his own ammunition.
When I initially read the tests you referred to it seemed clear to me that they were met, so I had to read the case record closely to find why the court held that wasn't the case. The case is a good illustration of the fact that courts don't simply interpret law, they do in practice make it as well. The provision to restrict the rights of prisoners to vote was upheld by the Court of Appeal before being struck down by the Supreme Court on a 5-4 majority decision. The minority in the Supreme Court essentially argued that Parliament had made their intentions on this matter plain and the court should only intervene if what Parliament had done was unreasonable in relation to the Charter. The case involves competing social and political objectives and prioritizing those in a particular way is not per se unreasonable.
The majority view gave a much higher priority to the right to vote and was dismissive about competing social or political objectives. I was struck by one particular point "To deny prisoners the right to vote is to lose an important means of teaching them democratic values and social responsibility." Personally I would have interpreted that point in exactly the opposite way, i.e. that losing the right to vote is a way of teaching the need for social responsibility. That just illustrates though the importance perspective plays in court judgments - which of course is why some people are so annoyed about the change to the make-up of the US Supreme Court and the way that came about.
Prisoner voting has been a long-standing issue in the UK, where there has historically been a blanket ban on voting by any prisoners (a position strongly supported by both Parliament and the public). That was challenged by a 2005 ruling by the European Court of Human Rights that a blanket ban was inconsistent with the European convention of human rights. Since then the UK Parliament has several times voted to maintain the ban despite the court judgment (that argument was actually quite a significant issue in the Brexit debate. Although the ECHR is separate from the European Union some politicians deliberately conflated the European Court of Justice with the ECHR when arguing about the need to re-establish national sovereignty). However, in 2015 another ECHR case clarified that, while a blanket ban was illegal, a ban on voting by prisoners convicted of serious crimes was proportionate and legal, i.e. they are upholding the position struck down in the Canadian case. As a result of that the UK government has now decided to allow prisoners serving less than a year and who are allowed home on day release to vote - that only affects about 100 prisoners, but the ECHR has recently accepted this proposal, ending the 12 year dispute over their original 2005 ruling.
But moreover, you're going to see a narrative around concocted by the usual suspects that says "what's the big deal?? Why do we have to celebrate a black superhero movie??" Well, I suppose you don't have to celebrate it. But think back to the movies you watched when you were a kid. Your favorites probably featured characters you could relate to. For me, it was Indiana Jones and The Neverending Story. Indy enjoyed exploring ancient tombs, and finding lost treasures. He also was hero who could take down Nazi Germany. In The Neverending Story, Bastion is just a kid who wants to go up into the attic alone at school and read his book. He saves a world too. As a bookworm, and an introvert, and someone interested in these subject matters, it was wonderful to see people on screen who liked the things you did, and who acted like you might think you would in the same situation. So my advice, while this movie is lighting it up at the box office is this: don't deprive African-American kids (and frankly, alot of adults) of the same joy you felt when you saw a character or subject matter in a movie that related to you on personal level. To many of them, it's important. There is no downside to it. It's a good thing.
I'm a big fan of the Marvel movies. I saw Black Panther. It was okay. Seemed a bit too long to me. I'd put it on par as a movie with Dr. Strange in the "good" category. I understand it's relevance outside the movie itself. I really liked Thor Ragnarok, to me, that was one of the best overall Marvel movies which to me was a surprise after the first two Thor movies were ok not great. Looking forward to Infinity War. Does Panther have that power in the comics that he has in the movie? Energy absorption and release? I guess they couldn't really have him going around and slashing all his foes up with his claws like some kind of Freddy Krueger or something.
But you can't talk about Black Panther without talking about SJW and "racism". I live in a white minority country and here we have affirmative actions to protect the minority from the majority. The justification is "slavery" as if only african was slaved in past. Slavery was a reality in all world and who ended slavery? White man. Who ended slavery in Brazil? A white, blonde, blue eyed princess who lost his power because end slavery was unpopular among elites. And the majority of slaves send to americas was send by other africans.
Other problem is determine what is "non white". Someone can be considered "white" in Bahia or Rio de Janeiro and mixed race or even black in Blumenau. Some places use self declaration, so you have blonde blue eyed guys using affirmative action. Here is a new about the blonde guy using affirmative action(in portuguese, use translator if you wanna understand https://www1.folha.uol.com.br/educacao/2017/09/1921245-brancos-usam-cota-para-negros-e-entram-no-curso-de-medicina-da-ufmg.shtml )
Also, I made a whole thread on the Marvel Cinematic Universe, which would be an even better place to discuss it!
https://forums.beamdog.com/discussion/41312/marvel-cinematic-universe/p1
This reminds me of an episode of "The West Wing". It is immediately after Bartlett has revealed to the nation that he has multiple sclerosis, and they are in a PR crisis. The press secretary, played by Allison Janney, is stressed out from hours and hours at the podium, and when the question about the President having to possibly send US troops into Haiti, she says "I think the President is relieved to be thinking about something that matters." She immediately knows she said the wrong thing, the rest of the staff is aghast at the blunder. This group don't have that kind of self-awareness. To them, it isn't a slip of the tongue. It's just how they think. Because this is what happens when you put the worst people in the country in charge of it.
Do we really want a lot of Americans to vote?
Is it really that important for there to be nine Supreme Court justices?
Is it really that important for the president to be accountable to the law?
Is it really that important for law enforcement to be independent from partisan politics?
Is it really that important for politicians to keep their promises?
Is it really that important for a president to read?
Is it really that important for people to have freedom of assembly?
Is it really that important for politicians to be honest?
Is it really so bad to force yourself on women?
Is it really so bad to prey on another man's wife?
Is it really so bad to cheat on your spouse?
Is it really so bad to profit from public office?
Is it really that important to have independent oversight over politicians?
Is it really that important to have an independent press?
Is it really so bad to threaten a nuclear attack?
Is it really so bad for hostile foreign nations to manipulate American elections for their own personal gain?
Is it really so bad to encourage violence?
Americans disagree on a lot of things, but there are some things we really should be able to agree about.
Meanwhile in the UK the latest target of attack is the Good Friday Agreement, which more or less ended sectarian violence. This is because if the UK diverges from EU customs regulations a hard border will separate the two Irelands, in contravention of the agreement. That agreement was also passed by a referendum of course! So in pursuit of a different idea of the UK, supposedly founded in history, Brexiters are now willing to abrogate an international peace treaty.
Countries in search of identities, sloughing off their skins like some horrible birth, and crushing things as they writhe. Not pretty stuff, and not half done.
The largest American office of China's largest bank sits on the 20th floor of Trump Tower, six levels below the desk where Donald Trump built an empire and wrested a presidency. It's hard to get a glimpse inside. There do not appear to be any public photos of the office, the bank doesn't welcome visitors, and a man guards the elevators downstairs--one of the perks of forking over an estimated $2 million a year for the space.
Trump Tower officially lists the tenant as the Industrial & Commercial Bank of China, but make no mistake who's paying the rent: the Chinese government, which owns a majority of the company. And while the landlord is technically the Trump Organization, make no mistake who's cashing those millions: the president of the United States, who has placed day-to-day management with his sons but retains 100% ownership. This lease expires in October 2019, according to a debt prospectus obtained by Forbes. So if you assume that the Trumps want to keep this lucrative tenant, then Eric Trump and Donald Trump Jr. could well be negotiating right now over how many millions the Chinese government will pay the sitting president. Unless he has already taken care of it: In September 2015 then-candidate Trump boasted to Forbes that he had "just renewed" the lease, around the time he was gearing up his campaign.
It's a conflict of interest unprecedented in American history. But hardly unanticipated. The Founding Fathers specifically built this contingency into the Constitution through the Emoluments Clause, which prohibits U.S. officials from accepting gifts, titles or "emoluments" from foreign governments. In Federalist 75, Alexander Hamilton framed the threat thus: "An avaricious man might be tempted to betray the interests of the state to the acquisition of wealth." Scholars have been debating what exactly constitutes an "emolument" since the moment Trump won the election, and nearly 200 congressional Democrats sued the president over possible violations in June. Much of the yammering in this area surrounds Trump's hotels, especially the one in Washington, D.C., which has billed $268,000 in hotel rooms and catering to the Saudi government, and his international licensing deals, which allow foreign tycoons and hucksters, many with connections to their local governments, to pay the Trump Organization more than $5 million a year in order to profit from the president's name in far-flung locales.
But that's all small potatoes. The real money in the Trump empire comes from commercial tenants like the Chinese bank. Forbes estimates these tenants pay a collective $175 million a year or so to the president. And they do so anonymously. Federal laws, drafted without envisioning a real estate billionaire as president, require Trump to publicly disclose the shell companies he owns--but not the hundreds of businesses pouring money into them or even the extent of the money involved.
Again, the corruption here is so blatant, so out in the open, so massive in the amount of money flowing DIRECTLY into Trump's pocket and the response is......crickets. NO President has ever done anything remotely like this while in office. Trump's continued stake in his international businesses should be the greatest corruption scandal in the history of this country. Even Bush and Cheney had to sever all official ties to their previous companies when they took office.
If you want to be a tax-exempt religious institution, fine. But if you want to engage in politics, then you're now a secular institution, and should lose your tax-exempt status. Jesus Christ said it himself. "Render unto Ceasar what is Ceasar's, and render unto God what is God's."
It's a case of religious zealots wanting to eat their cake and have it too. IRS don't care. Money's easiest, but goods and services are taxable or deductible just the same.
Technically speaking, donating my time for free to a non-profit charity could be tax-deductible, if I'm engaged in an activity for which I would normally be charging. Actually, I do do this by giving chair massages as a Licensed Massage Therapist at Relay for Life events. However, I just hand over the money raised to the event.
So is Romney running to stand up to Trump as a voice of reason? Lol of course not.....
Bring him in and you're getting another spineless yes man to our conman president.
And why do we still do it on a Tuesday?? Presumably, as far as I know, it was originally done this because the earliest votes held in America took place in the city, and many people from rural areas and farms needed time to travel to town. They would start on the Sabbath (because it was day of rest) and they didn't want to have it on Wednesday (which was a big day for buying and trading at the market). Thus, because of arcane 18th century economic and religious practices, we have the one day year when we can make our voice heard smack-dab at the beginning of the work week. There is NO reason this shouldn't take place on a Saturday. But there is no way this is ever going to be changed. It would simply cause the voter participation to go up too far, and Republicans would never allow it to happen. Thus, we'll continue to do it on Tuesday, where time parameters are BARELY longer than a typical business day (I think it's 7 am to 7 pm in most places).
Beyond that, there isn't a single day more worthy of a national holiday than Election Day. We have time off for religious and ceremonial holidays left and right in this country, but the one holiday that would actually make a tangible difference in how this country functions isn't even on the table. The simple fact is that the people most likely to be unable to get away from work (for financial or work security reasons), are those on the lower end of the income ladder. This whole dynamic is never even discussed.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/feb/19/david-davis-brexit-britain-mad-max
I think most British people read Mad Max style dystopia as 'like America'
*************
Something which still bugs me about the recent Mueller Investigation indictments.... How is being an Internet troll a crime? When is political speech merely political speech and when does it become "attempting to influence the outcome of an election"? Isn't *all* political speech ultimately an attempt to influence the outcome of an election, whether that speech is committed by a citizen or by some foreign agent pretending to be a citizen? Also, I still maintain that any voter in the United States who blindly believed something they read on Facebook and cast a vote accordingly is a "stupid person" problem, not a "foreign agent trying to influence an election" problem.
If I put up a picture of a cat eating toothpaste (it was actually the filling from an Oreo cookie, but I *told* you it was toothpaste and in the picture it looks like it) then I hire a "like farm" to spread this meme across social media platforms and you, in your infinite wisdom, decide to try and feed your cat toothpaste to see if it likes it...that lapse in judgement is on you, not me. I am not the one trying to feed my cat toothpaste because some nameless person on the Internet said "cats like toothpaste".
This same logic applies to political posts on social media. Just because the group Saving Historical Infrastructure for Tomorrow (figure out the acronym for yourself) is holding a rally in support of political candidate x (or against candidate y, as the case may be) doesn't mean that the group actually exists or that it supports either candidate. The people who show up ready to hurrah for their guy or harrumph against the other guy have proven only that they are easily led.
If Mueller *really* wanted to hand out indictments to the people who drove the last major election off the rails then he should indict every person who allowed themselves to be driven into an illogical fervor over something they saw and either agreed or disagreed with on the Internet.
*************
Seven people closely connected to Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu have been arrested as the corruption investigation being held there widens its scope. The primary accusation is that politically-connected people influenced government regulators to make certain that media giant Bezeq Group gave more favorable coverage for Netanyahu.
*************
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has redrawn the district maps in that State.
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has redrawn the district maps in that State and Trump has literally tweeted that the GOP should challenge these maps all the way to the Supreme Court which appears to not yet be a alt-right rubber stamp that Trump wants it to be. They just need one judge to grant a stay or whatever and Pennsylvanians won't be able to use the new maps in 2018. Republicans in Pennsylvania are pulling out all the stops to fight representative democracy including threatening judges. I think they will have no problem wasting tax payer money to try and defend their rigged system that rewards them extra seats at voters expense.
Eric Posner (accomplished U Chicago law professor and son of the legendary Richard Posner) wrote a piece analyzing the First Amendment Free Speech Clause claims that the Russian trolls could raise:
http://ericposner.com/are-russian-trolls-protected-by-the-first-amendment/
Essentially, the First Amendment does not protect fraudulent behavior. It doesn't matter anyway, since all the indicted parties are out of reach for US authorities.
Trump is now claiming he has told Jeff Sessions to look into banning bump stocks. I am calling right now there will be no follow-through on this announcement. This is the opioid emergency declaration of the gun debate. In other words, jack-shit is going to happen in regards to bump stocks. Besides that, when did the Attorney General get the power unilaterally ban products?? Trump delegated a task to Sessions that he probably can't even find a way to implement.
If you actually read the indictment, the fraud is a result of Russian nationals posing as US persons, in some cases actually stealing identities. Hence the "impairing, obstructing, and defeating the lawful functions of the government through fraud and deceit".