Most businesses do not thrive on conflict or chaos in the workplace. Whatever Trump's management style might have been back in the 1980s, it is apparent that his years running reality TV shows has warped his perception into something bizarre. When our former CIO left--excuse me, when he was termed by the Board--he took several people with him to the new company where he was going to be working (I presume he already had that deal lined up since that transition took less than three weeks). There was a noticeable shakeup in out IT department...but at least I got a really decent raise out of the deal.
Now Gary Cohn, one of Trump's top economic advisors, has resigned over the tariff debate. Immediate consequence: the DOW is opening 300 points down this morning.
I wouldn't go to work in Trump's Administration if Trump, himself, knocked on my door and offered me some high-level position. Once you go to work for him, the slightest failure--even the *perception* of failure on his part--and you will be thrown under the bus in a mix of condescension and/or ridicule.
The Austin area Democrats, many of whom are refugees from California, still want to turn the State purple but that probably isn't due to happen until 2024. Don't forget, though--until the 1990s most high-profile State offices here were held by Democrats; the push back against Bill Clinton turned the State red and put W into the gubernatorial seat.
Given what happened in 2010, I dread the gerrymandering that will occur after the 2020 census.
Given the legal data gathering of people's habits and lifestyles that has been done since then, unrestrained state legislatures are going to draw maps that are going to put them at a 8-10% swing by my estimate.
And the maps are going to make these that have been thrown out look like nothing.
So some cynical people are saying Trump is pushing this whole trade war thing over steel because there is a special election looming in Pennsylvania where Trump thinks there's a lot of steel workers. Recent polling has the Democrat Connor Lamb ahead and then around that time Trump announced his import tarrifs.
I tend to believe that yeah Trump is making national policy based on one house of Representatives race in Pennsylvania. The dude does everything for partisan gain. He does not want to be president of the United States of America, he wants to be president of the Republican States of America and everything he does is either partisan or fundraising. Foreign policy and other stuff are irrelevant.
Gerrymandering just happened recently in my state of PA with a 5-2 Democrat Supreme Court voting for more favorable maps for themselves. Unless you have some outside nonpartisan commission that draws those maps it seems that will always be a reality as long as you have the power to make it happen. To be fair of course the Republican map was obviously gerrymandered yet two wrongs do not make a right.
I thought he was suggesting tariffs so that he could try to renegotiate NAFTA but both of these possibilities can be true at the same time.
Don't tell my wife this--she doesn't drop in here very much any more--but I am laughing over Cruz's latest ad which pokes fun at O'Rourke for changing his name from "Robert" to "Beto". The irony: when I say "Cruz" I mean "Ted", whose real name is "Rafael".
Also today Jefferson Sessions is in Sacramento, CA announcing a federal lawsuit against California for their SANCTUARY City policies. And state news Fox News is featuring stories about Californian Nancy Pelosi, a favorite Conservative punching bag. Why not have Sessions just sue them why visit California and make a political theater?
Again it's more partisanship. Fear mongering and hate mongering, it's all Republicans offer besides tax cuts for the rich. Now that Hillary is in charge of nothing, they have to have someone to hate and fear to motivate their base of mainly grumpy old bigoted white men. Today the target liberal Nancy Pelosi from librul Silicon Valley and Sanctuary cities!
Instead of governing the country or doing stuff that is important they are trying to grab power by fear mongering. Gee Jeff you know what's more important than sanctuary cities, doing your job with the opioid epidemic. Where's the announcement about going after big pharma? Or how about that Russian hacking going on now and in the future? Maybe move your ass about that one. Trump refuses to enact sanctions where's the action there you hack? The State Department got $140M to fight hacking and has spent $0, what are you doing? Not a damn thing. Some televised announcement for Fox News that's what he's doing.
Good, there should absolutely be penalties for city officials who just up and decide they aren't going to enforce the laws. It's not their decision to make and actively feeds the problem.
Good, there should absolutely be penalties for city officials who just up and decide they aren't going to enforce the laws. It's not their decision to make and actively feeds the problem.
Local jurisdictions always prioritize what law enforcement they are going to focus on. You know, the "state's rights" conservatives have been hollering about for almost 65 years running. Cities in California have no obligation to subsidize federal immigration authorities with local tax dollars. Trump's ICE goon squads can do their own damn job.
Complete non-cooperation is not even close to the same thing as making it a low priority, and you know that. Federal laws on immigration apply to the states, ignoring them isn't a states rights issue.
Good, there should absolutely be penalties for city officials who just up and decide they aren't going to enforce the laws. It's not their decision to make and actively feeds the problem.
I, for one, enjoy a good display of federalism.
It is not non-cooperation. Local and state governments have no obligation to enforce federal law under. The federal government also cannot commandeer local law enforcement. As I seem to say on every page in this thread, the separation of powers is important!
Cities in California have no obligation to subsidize federal immigration authorities with local tax dollars.
Agree. Now if only Democrats applied the same logic to the Affordable Care Act, we'd all be on the same page.
Pretty sure the ACA does not force States to use state law enforcement to do anything. Apples and oranges. We are talking about the federal government using states to do their job. Things like hold immigrants indefinitely using state resources and using state resources to enforce federal law. Completely unrelated to health care.
Cities in California have no obligation to subsidize federal immigration authorities with local tax dollars.
Agree. Now if only Democrats applied the same logic to the Affordable Care Act, we'd all be on the same page.
Pretty sure the ACA does not force States to use state law enforcement to do anything. Apples and oranges. We are talking about the federal government using states to do their job. Things like hold immigrants indefinitely using state resources and using state resources to enforce federal law. Completely unrelated to health care.
The ACA attempted to force the states to spend their tax dollars on insurance subsidies and medicaid. Quite literally asking the states to "do their job". Luckily the Court said no (7-2 decision)
On the one hand, it definitely is *not* the job of local law enforcement to handle immigration issues since immigration is a Federal issue.
On the other hand, it is not an unreasonable request for local law enforcement to detain someone while Federal authorities attempt to determine the suspect's immigration status. Do we really want to continue to encourage local, county, and State law enforcement to have an adversarial relationship with Federal authorities?
Don't forget--the Democrats aren't so much "pro immigrant" as they are "anti Republican". Remember when Janet Reno sent Federal agents in so they could forcibly deport Elian Gonzalez back to Cuba *at gunpoint*? In their defense, though, they did start forming sanctuary cities during Obama's Administration, which was responsible for deporting more people than the three previous Administrations put together.
The other current wrinkle in this story is that of Oakland's mayor. She sent out citywide notices alerting people to upcoming ICE raids and those notices allowed some people who were being targeted for arrest to escape arrest. That most likely qualifies as "obstruction of justice"
It is unreasonable when federal authorities take forever to do anything and suspects are held indefinitely in state custody.
If the feds did their job and had a reasonable turn around and they acted in good faith then great. But they don't. I or someone can put data on how they are clowning around with not doing their jobs and leaving the burdens l state law enforcement to indefinitely detain suspects.
Trump wants to build more federal immigration detention centers. Go for it, immigration is your problem per the constitution.
Trump is pushing for his tarrifs on steel this week. So he can campaign in Pennsylvania this weekend about how much he very cares about Pennsylvania steel workers that he is willing to start a trade war. The special election is next week. Once that's over then he would not need a trade war and either the voters will be free to be duped into more Republican tax cuts for rich people or Trump will have lost the Republican party another legislative seat and there will be no need for the stupid tarrifs that Gary Cohn resigned over.
Either way, expect the tarrifs to go away after the election in Pennsylvania.
Cities in California have no obligation to subsidize federal immigration authorities with local tax dollars.
Agree. Now if only Democrats applied the same logic to the Affordable Care Act, we'd all be on the same page.
Pretty sure the ACA does not force States to use state law enforcement to do anything. Apples and oranges. We are talking about the federal government using states to do their job. Things like hold immigrants indefinitely using state resources and using state resources to enforce federal law. Completely unrelated to health care.
The ACA attempted to force the states to spend their tax dollars on insurance subsidies and medicaid. Quite literally asking the states to "do their job". Luckily the Court said no (7-2 decision)
It is my understanding that the Medicaid expansion would have cost any state that took it no money at all for a very long period of time (though I forget the exact number). Also, health care can very reasonably be viewed as interstate commerce (which I believe is how John Roberts justified the mandate). Immigration status has nothing to do with commerce.
Can the podcaster teacher be fired for having unpopular and/or fringe political beliefs? Unless she advocated violence in some form, I don't think her actions are grounds for being fired. She shouldn't be teaching children, that's for sure, because I have no doubt she is trying to indoctrinate them, but firing someone for their political beliefs is a perilous road. Who gets to determine which political beliefs are grounds for termination?
That is simply more evidence that most people should *not* have social media profiles at all. No podcasts, no videos, no vlogs, no blogs, etc. They should stick to ranting in political forums like I do. *laugh*
Can the podcaster teacher be fired for having unpopular and/or fringe political beliefs? Unless she advocated violence in some form, I don't think her actions are grounds for being fired. She shouldn't be teaching children, that's for sure, because I have no doubt she is trying to indoctrinate them, but firing someone for their political beliefs is a perilous road. Who gets to determine which political beliefs are grounds for termination?
That is simply more evidence that most people should *not* have social media profiles at all. No podcasts, no videos, no vlogs, no blogs, etc. They should stick to ranting in political forums like I do. *laugh*
Racism, like all other forms of prejudices, is not political. People like to hide behind the politic label to justify and give credence to their bigotry.
Cities in California have no obligation to subsidize federal immigration authorities with local tax dollars.
Agree. Now if only Democrats applied the same logic to the Affordable Care Act, we'd all be on the same page.
Pretty sure the ACA does not force States to use state law enforcement to do anything. Apples and oranges. We are talking about the federal government using states to do their job. Things like hold immigrants indefinitely using state resources and using state resources to enforce federal law. Completely unrelated to health care.
The ACA attempted to force the states to spend their tax dollars on insurance subsidies and medicaid. Quite literally asking the states to "do their job". Luckily the Court said no (7-2 decision)
It is my understanding that the Medicaid expansion would have cost any state that took it no money at all for a very long period of time (though I forget the exact number). Also, health care can very reasonably be viewed as interstate commerce (which I believe is how John Roberts justified the mandate). Immigration status has nothing to do with commerce.
Regulating interstate commerce is different than commanding state governments. On that issue, the Obama administration lost 7-2. In fact, they also lost on the interstate commerce issue 5-4, since not buying insurance is not commerce (is it commerce when you refrain from purchasing Pillars of Eternity 2?)
The statute survived in part solely on the ground of taxation. So only the mandate survived, NOT the medicaid expansion. Also, the states would have needed to contribute to the expansion, but it was a gradual increase that would have reached its maximum in 2020.
Can the podcaster teacher be fired for having unpopular and/or fringe political beliefs? Unless she advocated violence in some form, I don't think her actions are grounds for being fired. She shouldn't be teaching children, that's for sure, because I have no doubt she is trying to indoctrinate them, but firing someone for their political beliefs is a perilous road. Who gets to determine which political beliefs are grounds for termination?
That is simply more evidence that most people should *not* have social media profiles at all. No podcasts, no videos, no vlogs, no blogs, etc. They should stick to ranting in political forums like I do. *laugh*
Racism, like all other forms of prejudices, is not political. People like to hide behind the politic label to justify and give credence to their bigotry.
While it can be political, it is also more than that. It is more than enough reason to fire anyone, from any job. However, I would be interested in hearing the female teacher's satire defense.
This is an interesting topic as regards local law enforcement not being obligated to enforce immigration laws. I pose a question to folks on the thread: What if we take immigration out of the question and use something else as an example.
What are some federal laws people can think of that local law enforcement DOES enforce. I am sure there are, and if so let;s ask why those, and not immigration (other than not being the popular thing to do in some states such as California). I'll start with one, that of drugs. Do local and state law enforement agencies get help from feds on that? I am thinking that if drugs were made legal in all states depts. would get less aid (money). I don't know the articles right off hand but I think that all of that money that depts. get does not get used JUST to fight drugs. Just asking the question here to see if it gives any additional insight to the immigration issue.
It is precisely because so many people try to translate their personal prejudices into political action that things like racism, as with all forms of bigotry, definitely do count as "political speech". No one has to like it--I don't like it--but that is reality as it exists.
Clearly, in her case she does need to be fired--she was bragging about indoctrinating her students while hiding her activity in the classroom from her principal. The other teacher, the one in Florida, was creating a hostile environment at the school by denigrating black students--also grounds for being fired.
They can have racist beliefs because those are protected by the First Amendment; however, they need to leave that crap at home and not take it to work. I never discuss politics at work (even though my politics are not fringe or harmful to others) because that is not the proper venue for those discussions.
*************
@Zaghoul hits the nail on the head. By setting up sanctuary cities, local leaders and/or law enforcement have decided that there are laws they are not going to enforce. If they are going to ignore one subset of the law, what is to stop them from ignoring a different subset in the future? "Bank robbery? Meh--that's a Federal offense, so let the Feds deal with it. We aren't going to pursue those guys." There is no logic by which anyone could defend that position.
"Local and state governments have no obligation to enforce federal law"
Irrelevant. They have no obligation to enforce it, like in many cases enforcement is up to their discretion, you are not obligated to arrest every pot smoker you see for example, but they are obligated to not violate it.
In this case, that means not doing things sanctuary cities in California have done, like warn of incoming ICE raids and actively hinder their ability to do their job, or pass bills like SB-54 which prohibits the use of state resources for immigration related causes, prohibits state authorities to cooperate with ICE, try to enforce the law themselves, provide any personal information to them, and more. If we want to get very legalese about it, it is in violation of Title 8, section 1373 of the U.S. Code as one of the executive orders related to immigration notes.
"It is not non-cooperation"
I don't know in what possible universe the actions of CA could be called anything but non-cooperation.
So we're clear, under the law local law enforcement can and do enforce federal law. The real issue here is that they are not obligated to.
What the federal government often does is make grants to states with conditions attached to them. Under a Supreme Court Case (Dole v. North Dakota) the grants must be for the "general welfare" and 1. be unambiguously established so that recipients can knowingly accept or reject them; 2. be germane to the federal interest in the particular national projects or programs to which the money is directed; 3. not violate other provisions of the Constitution, such as the First Amendment or the Due Process or Takings Clauses of the Fifth Amendment; and 4. not cross the line from enticement to impermissible coercion, such that states have no real choice but to accept the funding (Here was why the Obama administration lost on a major issue in the famous Obamacare case)
So the Federal Government can give grants to the states on the condition that they comply. What they seemingly can't do is threaten to take away existing funding based on that same condition, which is what happened with the initial Affordable Care Act statute.
I've been thinking alot about our "rights" in regards to the work environment. And call me crazy, but haven't we already given up almost all our normal rights the moment we accept a job??You can't exercise free speech and go tell your boss to go f**k himself. You likely can't keep a gun in your locker. Your aren't guaranteed due process or presumption of innocence. You can't just start handing out religious flyers in the lunchroom. A vast amount of our constitutional rights in regards to the government aren't REMOTELY applicable to a work enviroment, including at least half of the bill of rights.
Comments
Now Gary Cohn, one of Trump's top economic advisors, has resigned over the tariff debate. Immediate consequence: the DOW is opening 300 points down this morning.
I wouldn't go to work in Trump's Administration if Trump, himself, knocked on my door and offered me some high-level position. Once you go to work for him, the slightest failure--even the *perception* of failure on his part--and you will be thrown under the bus in a mix of condescension and/or ridicule.
Given the legal data gathering of people's habits and lifestyles that has been done since then, unrestrained state legislatures are going to draw maps that are going to put them at a 8-10% swing by my estimate.
And the maps are going to make these that have been thrown out look like nothing.
I tend to believe that yeah Trump is making national policy based on one house of Representatives race in Pennsylvania. The dude does everything for partisan gain. He does not want to be president of the United States of America, he wants to be president of the Republican States of America and everything he does is either partisan or fundraising. Foreign policy and other stuff are irrelevant.
Don't tell my wife this--she doesn't drop in here very much any more--but I am laughing over Cruz's latest ad which pokes fun at O'Rourke for changing his name from "Robert" to "Beto". The irony: when I say "Cruz" I mean "Ted", whose real name is "Rafael".
Again it's more partisanship. Fear mongering and hate mongering, it's all Republicans offer besides tax cuts for the rich. Now that Hillary is in charge of nothing, they have to have someone to hate and fear to motivate their base of mainly grumpy old bigoted white men. Today the target liberal Nancy Pelosi from librul Silicon Valley and Sanctuary cities!
Instead of governing the country or doing stuff that is important they are trying to grab power by fear mongering. Gee Jeff you know what's more important than sanctuary cities, doing your job with the opioid epidemic. Where's the announcement about going after big pharma? Or how about that Russian hacking going on now and in the future? Maybe move your ass about that one. Trump refuses to enact sanctions where's the action there you hack? The State Department got $140M to fight hacking and has spent $0, what are you doing? Not a damn thing. Some televised announcement for Fox News that's what he's doing.
It is not non-cooperation. Local and state governments have no obligation to enforce federal law under. The federal government also cannot commandeer local law enforcement. As I seem to say on every page in this thread, the separation of powers is important!
On the other hand, it is not an unreasonable request for local law enforcement to detain someone while Federal authorities attempt to determine the suspect's immigration status. Do we really want to continue to encourage local, county, and State law enforcement to have an adversarial relationship with Federal authorities?
Don't forget--the Democrats aren't so much "pro immigrant" as they are "anti Republican". Remember when Janet Reno sent Federal agents in so they could forcibly deport Elian Gonzalez back to Cuba *at gunpoint*? In their defense, though, they did start forming sanctuary cities during Obama's Administration, which was responsible for deporting more people than the three previous Administrations put together.
The other current wrinkle in this story is that of Oakland's mayor. She sent out citywide notices alerting people to upcoming ICE raids and those notices allowed some people who were being targeted for arrest to escape arrest. That most likely qualifies as "obstruction of justice"
If the feds did their job and had a reasonable turn around and they acted in good faith then great. But they don't. I or someone can put data on how they are clowning around with not doing their jobs and leaving the burdens l state law enforcement to indefinitely detain suspects.
Trump wants to build more federal immigration detention centers. Go for it, immigration is your problem per the constitution.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2017/10/17/trump-plans-massive-increase-federal-immigration-jails/771414001/
Either way, expect the tarrifs to go away after the election in Pennsylvania.
That is simply more evidence that most people should *not* have social media profiles at all. No podcasts, no videos, no vlogs, no blogs, etc. They should stick to ranting in political forums like I do. *laugh*
The statute survived in part solely on the ground of taxation. So only the mandate survived, NOT the medicaid expansion. Also, the states would have needed to contribute to the expansion, but it was a gradual increase that would have reached its maximum in 2020.
I pose a question to folks on the thread: What if we take immigration out of the question and use something else as an example.
What are some federal laws people can think of that local law enforcement DOES enforce.
I am sure there are, and if so let;s ask why those, and not immigration (other than not being the popular thing to do in some states such as California).
I'll start with one, that of drugs. Do local and state law enforement agencies get help from feds on that? I am thinking that if drugs were made legal in all states depts. would get less aid (money). I don't know the articles right off hand but I think that all of that money that depts. get does not get used JUST to fight drugs.
Just asking the question here to see if it gives any additional insight to the immigration issue.
Clearly, in her case she does need to be fired--she was bragging about indoctrinating her students while hiding her activity in the classroom from her principal. The other teacher, the one in Florida, was creating a hostile environment at the school by denigrating black students--also grounds for being fired.
They can have racist beliefs because those are protected by the First Amendment; however, they need to leave that crap at home and not take it to work. I never discuss politics at work (even though my politics are not fringe or harmful to others) because that is not the proper venue for those discussions.
*************
@Zaghoul hits the nail on the head. By setting up sanctuary cities, local leaders and/or law enforcement have decided that there are laws they are not going to enforce. If they are going to ignore one subset of the law, what is to stop them from ignoring a different subset in the future? "Bank robbery? Meh--that's a Federal offense, so let the Feds deal with it. We aren't going to pursue those guys." There is no logic by which anyone could defend that position.
Irrelevant. They have no obligation to enforce it, like in many cases enforcement is up to their discretion, you are not obligated to arrest every pot smoker you see for example, but they are obligated to not violate it.
In this case, that means not doing things sanctuary cities in California have done, like warn of incoming ICE raids and actively hinder their ability to do their job, or pass bills like SB-54 which prohibits the use of state resources for immigration related causes, prohibits state authorities to cooperate with ICE, try to enforce the law themselves, provide any personal information to them, and more. If we want to get very legalese about it, it is in violation of Title 8, section 1373 of the U.S. Code as one of the executive orders related to immigration notes.
"It is not non-cooperation"
I don't know in what possible universe the actions of CA could be called anything but non-cooperation.
What the federal government often does is make grants to states with conditions attached to them. Under a Supreme Court Case (Dole v. North Dakota) the grants must be for the "general welfare" and
1. be unambiguously established so that recipients can knowingly accept or reject them;
2. be germane to the federal interest in the particular national projects or programs to which the money is directed;
3. not violate other provisions of the Constitution, such as the First Amendment or the Due Process or Takings Clauses of the Fifth Amendment; and
4. not cross the line from enticement to impermissible coercion, such that states have no real choice but to accept the funding (Here was why the Obama administration lost on a major issue in the famous Obamacare case)
So the Federal Government can give grants to the states on the condition that they comply. What they seemingly can't do is threaten to take away existing funding based on that same condition, which is what happened with the initial Affordable Care Act statute.