I don't disagree. Once the fifth member becomes confirmed we might as well conclude "being a member of the Federalist Society is a prerequisite for being a Supreme Court justice".
*************
re: abolish ICE.... Congress cannot abolish ICE. It is a subset of the Department of Justice and therefore is subject only to the Executive Branch. Congress may try to starve that department of money when it sets its budget but they cannot pass a law that says "ICE is formally dissolved an a Federal agency". People running for Congress on a platform of "I will abolish ICE" are lying to their likely voters.
Also, the "C" in "ICE" stands for customs. If ICE were to be abolished, then who would inspect ships coming in to port, looking to make certain that weapons, equipment/materials used to make weapons, or invasive species like kudzu are not present? Who would look for animal smuggling or, even worse, human smuggling?
statutory authority is supreme and the executive branch is beholden to it. congress can literally draft up an "abolish ice act" and that agency is truly gone. the problem with that is that congress stopped practically dealing with executive organization and agencies don't realistically get abolished, ever, because of bureaucratic resillience. but they can't rid themselves of their originary power and can still "intervene".
but it's a stupid idea. ice certainly seems better than the police, seeing how they don't ordinarily kill people they deal with in maniacal fits of sadism. they also didn't invent the family separation policy, that came from the top
What I said on the last page.
Although realistically, what would happen if Congress DID "abolish" ICE would be that its duties, which are essentially eternal, since (im)migration will always happen, would be delegated to some other agency or agencies.
Probably its investigative duties would move to the Secret Service (money laundering), DEA (drug smuggling) and FBI (everything else, especially human trafficking), while its "enforcement and removal operations" branch would be put into CBP.
So, there would be 1 less Federal Agency, and 4 more get more crap assigned to their already busy duties.
yeah, exactly what you're saying, and that's what i meant too, another organ would pick up where they left, almost spontaneously. and boy would that not be good at all
------------ In Thailand, 4 of 13 people (including boys and soccer coach) have been saved from the underwater cave. Rescue efforts are underway for the others as lack of oxygen in the cave and storm clouds threaten further difficulties ahead.
Perhaps the most telling aspect of the right-wing populism trend in Europe and America is how it comes with absolutely ZERO responsibility for one's actions and policies.
Another 4 Thai kids were rescued from the underwater cave. 8/12 kids rescued. 4 kids and the coach are still trapped. The coach, if he makes it out alive, has some serious 'splaining to do.
Elon Musk sent a kid sized submarine and some engineers. I wonder if they will help I guess they have not made it yet or the Thais are just going with the divers. I've seen some of these last kids needed serious medical attention like one left on a stretcher and something about an airlift.
There was no "contract", and it is the height of absurdity to think anyone should take Trump's handshake with a murderous dictator seriously when he ripped up an Iran deal that had actual inspectors on the ground 24/7/365. Actual diplomacy vs. Barnum and Bailey. He was played, and he was played hard. Of course he can never admit that is what happened, so infinite excuses will be offered for how this played out until the end of time. Seriously, the President is sitting around talking about the effectiveness of his handshake, and how he hope that holds up as far as a nuclear deterrent to North Korea. A handshake. Maybe if he and Kim Jong-Un had both pricked their fingers with a needle and become blood brothers things would be a little more solid. Maybe spitting in their palms before the handshake would have locked things up tighter.
Perhaps the most telling aspect of the right-wing populism trend in Europe and America is how it comes with absolutely ZERO responsibility for one's actions and policies.
The mass resignations in protest of May's resolution are due to the fact that they don't go far enough in seperating the UK from the EU. They are not fleeing from their own policies, quite the opposite, they are protesting the fact that they aren't getting the policies they want and want no part of May's policy.
I would like to see her gone and see Rees-Mogg doing her job, personally.
Perhaps the most telling aspect of the right-wing populism trend in Europe and America is how it comes with absolutely ZERO responsibility for one's actions and policies.
Quite the opposite actually. This more about wresting the leadership of the Tory party away from May and taking a harder stance on Brexit.
The Trump admin doesn't support breastfeeding for some reason.
Of course, it's only the most natural thing in the world. For thousands of years of human history mothers have been breastfed their children and should be encouraged to breastfeed their child if they are able. It builds a bond between baby and mother, is good for the immune system and is just natural and healthy. What's the problem here?
Why u hate women so much Trump admin? Or is this just a corporate sellout to big baby formula? Either way it stinks.
Interesting. This is what I saw in the article, but it is a bit confusing to see what the issue is, and I'm still not sure I get it all. HHS spokeswoman Caitlin Oakley said in a statement responding to the account of the resolution that the US "has a long history of supporting mothers and breastfeeding around the world and is the largest bilateral donor of such foreign assistance programs." "The issues being debated were not about whether one supports breastfeeding," she said. "The United States was fighting to protect women's abilities to make the best choices for the nutrition of their babies. Many women are not able to breastfeed for a variety of reasons, these women should not be stigmatized; they should be equally supported with information and access to alternatives for the health of themselves and their babies." That bit makes sense to me, and I totally agree, esp. having two kids that we opted to put on a soy based formula (for various reasons I won't detail) after they breastfed for a while.
I am always a little leery of food manufacturer's though, but some folks do need access to formula's. To cut access to that option out would not be good.
Yeah, because nothing is ever enough. The vote wasn't enough, now they don't like the terms of what the EU is offering. Much like Trump, always assuming they are operating from a position of strength when they actually are doing nothing of the sort. The Brexit crowd, much like the Trump crowd, think every other country should bow down to them sight unseen. The US thinks it can impose tariffs without retaliation. Britain thinks it can leave the EU and then have the EU bend over for them for a swift kick in the ass. It turns out, that isn't the way the world works. Which is what was predicted, in both cases. Arrogant bluster is not actual leverage. Talk a big game, then walk away before anything is actually accomplished. What makes anyone think the EU is going to give an inch more than they gave to May if they were instead dealing with frauds like Boris Johnson and Nigel Farage?? Doesn't this entire thing simply make it more likely Jeremy Corbin becomes PM if Labour wins the next election??
And of course, the looming cloud of whether in Vote Leave campaign itself was breaking the law:
The mass resignations in protest of May's resolution are due to the fact that they don't go far enough in seperating the UK from the EU. They are not fleeing from their own policies, quite the opposite, they are protesting the fact that they aren't getting the policies they want and want no part of May's policy.
I would like to see her gone and see Rees-Mogg doing her job, personally.
That's understandable, but I can't see it happening. The country remains evenly split between those who want to remain in the EU and those who want to leave it, but those who specifically advocate a 'hard Brexit' are a clear minority (albeit a large one) in both the Conservative party and in the country as a whole - this site tracks moves in sentiment about Brexit on a range of issues.
While it's clear that neither Parliament, nor the country, would vote for a hard Brexit, it's still possible that could be the result. If there's a failure to agree any specific deal, but the UK does not withdraw its notice to leave the EU, exit will happen automatically on 29/03/19.
I have seen some Brexiteers in recent months stating that there should be no specific consideration for Northern Ireland, but most still take the line that there should be a hard Brexit, but still no border between the north and south in Ireland. The trouble is that this line is not possible. There have been several fudges proposed for ways to maintain enough regulatory alignment to avoid the need for a customs border, but those please neither side. Even if all Conservatives agreed to a hard Brexit (and most don't support that), the DUP would not agree and a general election would be required.
The Trump admin doesn't support breastfeeding for some reason.
Of course, it's only the most natural thing in the world. For thousands of years of human history mothers have been breastfed their children and should be encouraged to breastfeed their child if they are able. It builds a bond between baby and mother, is good for the immune system and is just natural and healthy. What's the problem here?
Why u hate women so much Trump admin? Or is this just a corporate sellout to big baby formula? Either way it stinks.
Interesting. This is what I saw in the article, but it is a bit confusing to see what the issue is, and I'm still not sure I get it all. HHS spokeswoman Caitlin Oakley said in a statement responding to the account of the resolution that the US "has a long history of supporting mothers and breastfeeding around the world and is the largest bilateral donor of such foreign assistance programs." "The issues being debated were not about whether one supports breastfeeding," she said. "The United States was fighting to protect women's abilities to make the best choices for the nutrition of their babies. Many women are not able to breastfeed for a variety of reasons, these women should not be stigmatized; they should be equally supported with information and access to alternatives for the health of themselves and their babies." That bit makes sense to me, and I totally agree, esp. having two kids that we opted to put on a soy based formula (for various reasons I won't detail) after they breastfed for a while.
I am always a little leery of food manufacturer's though, but some folks do need access to formula's. To cut access to that option out would not be good.
Except it isn't about cutting access, but about restricting the misleading promotions of milk substitutes that food manufacturers often engage in, e.g.
The fact remains that currently there is no substitute that could offer the same benefits as breastmilk and should not be promoted as such. I've been fed a formula myself and have some chronic health problems doctors indicated could be linked to it.
In the end, if this was about fighting the good fight in defense of formulas, why not stand up to Russia, then?
The Trump admin doesn't support breastfeeding for some reason.
Of course, it's only the most natural thing in the world. For thousands of years of human history mothers have been breastfed their children and should be encouraged to breastfeed their child if they are able. It builds a bond between baby and mother, is good for the immune system and is just natural and healthy. What's the problem here?
Why u hate women so much Trump admin? Or is this just a corporate sellout to big baby formula? Either way it stinks.
Interesting. This is what I saw in the article, but it is a bit confusing to see what the issue is, and I'm still not sure I get it all. HHS spokeswoman Caitlin Oakley said in a statement responding to the account of the resolution that the US "has a long history of supporting mothers and breastfeeding around the world and is the largest bilateral donor of such foreign assistance programs." "The issues being debated were not about whether one supports breastfeeding," she said. "The United States was fighting to protect women's abilities to make the best choices for the nutrition of their babies. Many women are not able to breastfeed for a variety of reasons, these women should not be stigmatized; they should be equally supported with information and access to alternatives for the health of themselves and their babies." That bit makes sense to me, and I totally agree, esp. having two kids that we opted to put on a soy based formula (for various reasons I won't detail) after they breastfed for a while.
I am always a little leery of food manufacturer's though, but some folks do need access to formula's. To cut access to that option out would not be good.
Except it isn't about cutting access, but about restricting the misleading promotions of milk substitutes that food manufacturers often engage in, e.g.
The fact remains that currently there is no substitute that could offer the same benefits as breastmilk and should not be promoted as such. I've been fed a formula myself and have some chronic health problems doctors indicated could be linked to it.
In the end, if this was about fighting the good fight in defense of formulas, why not stand up to Russia, then?
I agree the US stance is nothing to do with promoting choice and everything to do with protecting the commercial interests of formula suppliers. The health benefits of breastfeeding are clear even in western societies. In less developed countries those benefits become huge as a result of avoiding many of the problems associated with poor hygiene and infectious diseases. This site summarizes the issues.
The problem is that inaccurate marketing information over many years has resulted in many mothers believing that formula milk is healthier for their babies than breastfeeding, rather than the reverse being true.
The Trump admin doesn't support breastfeeding for some reason.
Of course, it's only the most natural thing in the world. For thousands of years of human history mothers have been breastfed their children and should be encouraged to breastfeed their child if they are able. It builds a bond between baby and mother, is good for the immune system and is just natural and healthy. What's the problem here?
Why u hate women so much Trump admin? Or is this just a corporate sellout to big baby formula? Either way it stinks.
Interesting. This is what I saw in the article, but it is a bit confusing to see what the issue is, and I'm still not sure I get it all. HHS spokeswoman Caitlin Oakley said in a statement responding to the account of the resolution that the US "has a long history of supporting mothers and breastfeeding around the world and is the largest bilateral donor of such foreign assistance programs." "The issues being debated were not about whether one supports breastfeeding," she said. "The United States was fighting to protect women's abilities to make the best choices for the nutrition of their babies. Many women are not able to breastfeed for a variety of reasons, these women should not be stigmatized; they should be equally supported with information and access to alternatives for the health of themselves and their babies." That bit makes sense to me, and I totally agree, esp. having two kids that we opted to put on a soy based formula (for various reasons I won't detail) after they breastfed for a while.
I am always a little leery of food manufacturer's though, but some folks do need access to formula's. To cut access to that option out would not be good.
Except it isn't about cutting access, but about restricting the misleading promotions of milk substitutes that food manufacturers often engage in, e.g.
The fact remains that currently there is no substitute that could offer the same benefits as breastmilk and should not be promoted as such. I've been fed a formula myself and have some chronic health problems doctors indicated could be linked to it.
In the end, if this was about fighting the good fight in defense of formulas, why not stand up to Russia, then?
Huh. That's why I mentioned being leery of food manufacturers, as It sounds like there is an advertising issue going on with with Nestle for quite some time, concerning the wording being misleading, in that particular report. I am pretty much against the use of misleading advertising in any food product, especially 'health food' supplements, which is rampant these days. This particular report gives me a more detailed insight into the issue now. Opposition to Breast-Feeding Resolution by U.S. Stuns World Health Officials Thanks
@Zaghoul It's not just Nestle; they just happened to be the big name that got caught and made the news. Food labelling and marketing is a very problematic subject; even in countries with stricter regulations it still isn't consumer-friendly, in my opinion.
Yeah, most definitely. In the article I mentioned: Although lobbyists from the baby food industry attended the meetings in Geneva, health advocates said they saw no direct evidence that they played a role in Washington’s strong-arm tactics. The $70 billion industry, which is dominated by a handful of American and European companies, has seen sales flatten in wealthy countries in recent years, as more women embrace breast-feeding. Over all, global sales are expected to rise by 4 percent in 2018, according to Euromonitor, with most of that growth occurring in developing nations.
Trump just selected Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court, which appears to be the most conservative choice on his short list.
He will be seated (because of course he will. Stealing seats appears to be at the prerogative of the Senate and its constitutionally mandated Conservative lean) as the second most conservative judge in the court, and possibly one of the top three or four most conservative judges in modern US history.
Of course it would be the candidate who said presidents shouldn't be bothered with piddling little details like lawsuits or criminal investigations.
A friend just forwarded that quote to me too. Funny how Kavanaugh was involved in the Starr report and investigation into Vince Foster's suicide.
So I guess it's only a waste a time if they're not on your team? Forgive me, but in a just society, isnt the law supposed to apply equally to everyone? I must have missed that lecture in Civics.
Of course it would be the candidate who said presidents shouldn't be bothered with piddling little details like lawsuits or criminal investigations.
Even more telling is that when he was part of the Starr investigation, he had the EXACT OPPOSITE opinion, even claiming Clinton could be held criminally liable for lying to his staff. Kavanaugh's opinion on whether a President should be able to be investigated depends entirely on whether they are a Republican or Democrat. He is veteran of both the Lewinsky probe AND the Florida recount. Now he will be installed as Trump's "get out of jail free" card. He is the history of American conservatism of the last 25 years. Tonight, even Dubya is offering his praise. He is a Bush man through and through. And Trump just likely picked his own judge for when something involved with the Mueller probe goes to the Supreme Court.
Even more telling is that when he was part of the Starr investigation, he had the EXACT OPPOSITE opinion, even claiming Clinton could be held criminally liable for lying to his staff. Kavanaugh's opinion on whether a President should be able to be investigated depends entirely on whether they are a Republican or Democrat. He is veteran of both the Lewinsky probe AND the Florida recount. Now he will be installed as Trump's "get out of jail free" card. He is the history of American conservatism of the last 25 years. Tonight, even Dubya is offering his praise. He is a Bush man through and through. And Trump just likely picked his own judge for when something involved with the Mueller probe goes to the Supreme Court.
In fairness, I doubt Trump would have selected anyone to the Supreme Court that wouldnt go to bat for him if anything Mueller related made its way up to the Supreme Court.
Even more telling is that when he was part of the Starr investigation, he had the EXACT OPPOSITE opinion, even claiming Clinton could be held criminally liable for lying to his staff. Kavanaugh's opinion on whether a President should be able to be investigated depends entirely on whether they are a Republican or Democrat. He is veteran of both the Lewinsky probe AND the Florida recount. Now he will be installed as Trump's "get out of jail free" card. He is the history of American conservatism of the last 25 years. Tonight, even Dubya is offering his praise. He is a Bush man through and through. And Trump just likely picked his own judge for when something involved with the Mueller probe goes to the Supreme Court.
In fairness, I doubt Trump would have selected anyone to the Supreme Court that wouldnt go to bat for him if anything Mueller related made its way up to the Supreme Court.
Then I would offer up the opinion that we have a serious problem on our hands. At a bare minimum, he is going to be asked to appear in an interview with Mueller's investigators. He will refuse. And then it will wind up in the Supreme Court. Where at this point we can be 99% sure of the outcome. It's worth noting that Rudy Giuliani was in the room tonight when Kavanaugh was presented. What is the President's personal defense attorney doing at this event?? They aren't even attempting to hide what the game is. I'm as worried about Roe and Obergefell as the next person, but the framing around Kavanaugh should be primarily focused on whether he is being installed to make sure Donald Trump cannot be held accountable for ANYTHING.
Here is his article arguing that a President should not be burdened with ANY type of legal action in office, civil OR criminal:
He miraculously seems to have found religion in these pages about Clinton, long AFTER those investigations (both civil and potentially criminal) had their intended effect. How convenient. No, he only comes to these conclusions after the Bush Administration had been disgraced and serious questions had been raised about their conduct in office. 8 years of Clinton investigations, and he suddenly finds religion after 8 years of Bush. I don't care what kind of fancy legalize he dresses it up in. This was the guy who in the '90s literally wanted to ask Bill Clinton WHERE he had ejaculated. His worries about how investigations effect the Executive Branch fall on deaf ears given his previous track record
What I can't believe Trump picked another white guy! Shocked!
Just kidding 95% of his picks are old white guys who know everything.
Remember folks, religious white guys know best. They know what's best for women. They know what's best for all Americans and every ethnicity. They know the best religion, it's evangelical Christianity.
And don't worry they won't be shy telling you what to do. What you can do and my my my what you can't. They don't care what you want because they have the answers. Make sure you are doing it the way they know is best.
Everyone should oppose this nut but spineless Republicans won't. Why grow a backbone now? It's fine that Trump is picking his own judge. Eh?
the framing around Kavanaugh should be primarily focused on whether he is being installed to make sure Donald Trump cannot be held accountable for ANYTHING.
Who cares? He'll just lie if asked in confirmation. He'll be well coached.
"Are you a stooge of Donald Trump installed to make sure he escapes justice?"
"Gee I never thought about that! No way, sir. Golly gee. I am insulted you asked me that." (clutches pearls)
People will scream "identity politics", but let's cut to the chase with some hard, irrefutable numbers. There have, up to this point, been 113 Supreme Court Justices. 107 of them have been white men. For those who don't have a calculator handy, that is 95%. There have been 4 women (two of whom were appointed by Obama) and two African-Americans. That's it. And people wonder why the left talks about systematic problems in regards to racism and sexism. There was never a woman on the court until the 1980s. No black men til the 1960s. No Hispanics until the 2010s. Never a Native American.
But hell, the Supreme Court has nothing on the Presidency, which sits at an astounding 98% white and male. And wouldn't you just know it, it turns out that the ONE African-American President wasn't allowed to put his third pick on the Supreme Court, and it was stolen and handed over to someone whose #1 goal seems to be erasing everything he did come hell or high water. America, in a nutshell.
Here is his article arguing that a President should not be burdened with ANY type of legal action in office, civil OR criminal:
Just to clarify that Kavanaugh's opinion is that any proceedings should be deferred until after a President leaves office - not that there is ultimately immunity to those proceedings. I agree there are problems with that (and I wouldn't advocate it myself), but there are clear advantages as well and immunity from prosecution for a head of state is pretty common in other countries.
Here is his article arguing that a President should not be burdened with ANY type of legal action in office, civil OR criminal:
Just to clarify that Kavanaugh's opinion is that any proceedings should be deferred until after a President leaves office - not that there is ultimately immunity to those proceedings. I agree there are problems with that (and I wouldn't advocate it myself), but there are clear advantages as well and immunity from prosecution for a head of state is pretty common in other countries.
There has been a constant pushback and refrain from the right in the US since the Russia investigation started that there is some kind of innate protocol that would prevent a President from being investigated, compelled to be questioned under oath, sued, or prosecuted. And it is always predicated on the exact argument Kavanaugh makes here, which is that impeachment covers all of that, and is enough on it's own. Except no such wording in the constitution or law exists anywhere that says this. It has been made up out of whole cloth. Executive powers are already INCREDIBLY powerful in this country, and Kavanaugh and others seem to want to enshrine an imperial Presidency. And, as I mentioned, this movement comes long after Bill Clinton was sued, investigated AND questioned under oath, the last of which he did willingly (and Kavanaugh literally PARTICIPATED in), refusing to create a constitutional crisis like Nixon did. But Trump absolutely will.
In addition to these issues, Kavanaugh worked for 5 years in the Bush White House, much as Elena Kagan worked as Solicitor General for Obama. ALL of Kagan's emails were released into the public record. I will accept nothing less than the EXACT same treatment and transparency in regards to Kavanaugh, but something tells me that isn't the way this is going to work out.
They're now free to go to the World Cup I suppose.
An apt summary from Twitter:
"Brexiters are like my dog Stan. He spent 15 years chasing neighbour's cats. One day he cornered one and didn't have a clue what to do next. So he sat down and licked his balls."
Boris is... Boris. If you don't know what a disaster the man is then get drunk with google.
I will accept nothing less than the EXACT same treatment and transparency in regards to Kavanaugh, but something tells me that isn't the way this is going to work out.
He's already started his acting classes. Ted Cruz will spend an hour saying how great he is and ask him a tough question like "What's your favorite color?"
Spineless Republicans will rubber stamp him rather than risk Trump's twitter wrath and further doom the country to a lawless president. Unchecked by the legislature and propped up by the Supreme Court he put people on.
Here is his article arguing that a President should not be burdened with ANY type of legal action in office, civil OR criminal:
Just to clarify that Kavanaugh's opinion is that any proceedings should be deferred until after a President leaves office - not that there is ultimately immunity to those proceedings. I agree there are problems with that (and I wouldn't advocate it myself), but there are clear advantages as well and immunity from prosecution for a head of state is pretty common in other countries.
There has been a constant pushback and refrain from the right in the US since the Russia investigation started that there is some kind of innate protocol that would prevent a President from being investigated, compelled to be questioned under oath, sued, or prosecuted. And it is always predicated on the exact argument Kavanaugh makes here, which is that impeachment covers all of that, and is enough on it's own. Except no such wording in the constitution or law exists anywhere that says this. It has been made up out of whole cloth. Executive powers are already INCREDIBLY powerful in this country, and Kavanaugh and others seem to want to enshrine an imperial Presidency. And, as I mentioned, this movement comes long after Bill Clinton was sued, investigated AND questioned under oath, the last of which he did willingly (and Kavanaugh literally PARTICIPATED in), refusing to create a constitutional crisis like Nixon did. But Trump absolutely will.
In addition to these issues, Kavanaugh worked for 5 years in the Bush White House, much as Elena Kagan worked as Solicitor General for Obama. ALL of Kagan's emails were released into the public record. I will accept nothing less than the EXACT same treatment and transparency in regards to Kavanaugh, but something tells me that isn't the way this is going to work out.
I don't know what he's written since the article you posted, but that article is quite clear. In it Kavanaugh states his belief that the process of governing would be made simpler for the President by deferring legal actions against him until his term has ended. He does not, however, say that's the current position - he just suggests Congress might want to pass a law making that the position.
I think it's very hard to argue that legal actions were not a distraction for Bill Clinton in the past, or Trump in the present - so I can see why someone would take Kavanaugh's position. Personally I think the advantages are not great enough to outweigh the disadvantages - for instance the undermining of the principle that everyone is equal under the law and increasing the politicization of the impeachment process. I don't though see good grounds for attacking someone just because they weigh the advantages and disadvantages differently.
Everyone already knows how this whole Kavanaugh thing will play out. People will protest (but their protests won't change anything), hearings will be held, Senators will line up to vote along party lines, then the Senate will invoke the nuclear option to confirm him with a simple majority vote. They'll wrap it up before the Labor Day holiday in early September.
Comments
Although realistically, what would happen if Congress DID "abolish" ICE would be that its duties, which are essentially eternal, since (im)migration will always happen, would be delegated to some other agency or agencies.
Probably its investigative duties would move to the Secret Service (money laundering), DEA (drug smuggling) and FBI (everything else, especially human trafficking), while its "enforcement and removal operations" branch would be put into CBP.
So, there would be 1 less Federal Agency, and 4 more get more crap assigned to their already busy duties.
yeah, exactly what you're saying, and that's what i meant too, another organ would pick up where they left, almost spontaneously. and boy would that not be good at all
Perhaps the most telling aspect of the right-wing populism trend in Europe and America is how it comes with absolutely ZERO responsibility for one's actions and policies.
Elon Musk sent a kid sized submarine and some engineers. I wonder if they will help I guess they have not made it yet or the Thais are just going with the divers. I've seen some of these last kids needed serious medical attention like one left on a stretcher and something about an airlift.
There was no "contract", and it is the height of absurdity to think anyone should take Trump's handshake with a murderous dictator seriously when he ripped up an Iran deal that had actual inspectors on the ground 24/7/365. Actual diplomacy vs. Barnum and Bailey. He was played, and he was played hard. Of course he can never admit that is what happened, so infinite excuses will be offered for how this played out until the end of time. Seriously, the President is sitting around talking about the effectiveness of his handshake, and how he hope that holds up as far as a nuclear deterrent to North Korea. A handshake. Maybe if he and Kim Jong-Un had both pricked their fingers with a needle and become blood brothers things would be a little more solid. Maybe spitting in their palms before the handshake would have locked things up tighter.
I would like to see her gone and see Rees-Mogg doing her job, personally.
HHS spokeswoman Caitlin Oakley said in a statement responding to the account of the resolution that the US "has a long history of supporting mothers and breastfeeding around the world and is the largest bilateral donor of such foreign assistance programs."
"The issues being debated were not about whether one supports breastfeeding," she said. "The United States was fighting to protect women's abilities to make the best choices for the nutrition of their babies. Many women are not able to breastfeed for a variety of reasons, these women should not be stigmatized; they should be equally supported with information and access to alternatives for the health of themselves and their babies."
That bit makes sense to me, and I totally agree, esp. having two kids that we opted to put on a soy based formula (for various reasons I won't detail) after they breastfed for a while.
I am always a little leery of food manufacturer's though, but some folks do need access to formula's. To cut access to that option out would not be good.
And of course, the looming cloud of whether in Vote Leave campaign itself was breaking the law:
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-eu-voteleave/pro-brexit-campaign-group-may-have-broken-spending-rules-former-ceo-says-idUSKBN1JU0NE
While it's clear that neither Parliament, nor the country, would vote for a hard Brexit, it's still possible that could be the result. If there's a failure to agree any specific deal, but the UK does not withdraw its notice to leave the EU, exit will happen automatically on 29/03/19.
I have seen some Brexiteers in recent months stating that there should be no specific consideration for Northern Ireland, but most still take the line that there should be a hard Brexit, but still no border between the north and south in Ireland. The trouble is that this line is not possible. There have been several fudges proposed for ways to maintain enough regulatory alignment to avoid the need for a customs border, but those please neither side. Even if all Conservatives agreed to a hard Brexit (and most don't support that), the DUP would not agree and a general election would be required.
The problem is that inaccurate marketing information over many years has resulted in many mothers believing that formula milk is healthier for their babies than breastfeeding, rather than the reverse being true.
This particular report gives me a more detailed insight into the issue now.
Opposition to Breast-Feeding Resolution by U.S. Stuns World Health Officials
Thanks
Although lobbyists from the baby food industry attended the meetings in Geneva, health advocates said they saw no direct evidence that they played a role in Washington’s strong-arm tactics. The $70 billion industry, which is dominated by a handful of American and European companies, has seen sales flatten in wealthy countries in recent years, as more women embrace breast-feeding. Over all, global sales are expected to rise by 4 percent in 2018, according to Euromonitor, with most of that growth occurring in developing nations.
Of course lobbyists had to be there. Lawd.
That one led me to another that is concerning as well:
Trump Wants to Ban Health Warnings on His Favorite Food
He will be seated (because of course he will. Stealing seats appears to be at the prerogative of the Senate and its constitutionally mandated Conservative lean) as the second most conservative judge in the court, and possibly one of the top three or four most conservative judges in modern US history.
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-4-potential-nominees-would-change-the-supreme-court/
So I guess it's only a waste a time if they're not on your team? Forgive me, but in a just society, isnt the law supposed to apply equally to everyone? I must have missed that lecture in Civics.
In fairness, I doubt Trump would have selected anyone to the Supreme Court that wouldnt go to bat for him if anything Mueller related made its way up to the Supreme Court.
Here is his article arguing that a President should not be burdened with ANY type of legal action in office, civil OR criminal:
http://www.minnesotalawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Kavanaugh_MLR.pdf
He miraculously seems to have found religion in these pages about Clinton, long AFTER those investigations (both civil and potentially criminal) had their intended effect. How convenient. No, he only comes to these conclusions after the Bush Administration had been disgraced and serious questions had been raised about their conduct in office. 8 years of Clinton investigations, and he suddenly finds religion after 8 years of Bush. I don't care what kind of fancy legalize he dresses it up in. This was the guy who in the '90s literally wanted to ask Bill Clinton WHERE he had ejaculated. His worries about how investigations effect the Executive Branch fall on deaf ears given his previous track record
Just kidding 95% of his picks are old white guys who know everything.
Remember folks, religious white guys know best. They know what's best for women. They know what's best for all Americans and every ethnicity. They know the best religion, it's evangelical Christianity.
And don't worry they won't be shy telling you what to do. What you can do and my my my what you can't. They don't care what you want because they have the answers. Make sure you are doing it the way they know is best.
Everyone should oppose this nut but spineless Republicans won't. Why grow a backbone now? It's fine that Trump is picking his own judge. Eh? Who cares? He'll just lie if asked in confirmation. He'll be well coached.
"Are you a stooge of Donald Trump installed to make sure he escapes justice?"
"Gee I never thought about that! No way, sir. Golly gee. I am insulted you asked me that." (clutches pearls)
But hell, the Supreme Court has nothing on the Presidency, which sits at an astounding 98% white and male. And wouldn't you just know it, it turns out that the ONE African-American President wasn't allowed to put his third pick on the Supreme Court, and it was stolen and handed over to someone whose #1 goal seems to be erasing everything he did come hell or high water. America, in a nutshell.
In addition to these issues, Kavanaugh worked for 5 years in the Bush White House, much as Elena Kagan worked as Solicitor General for Obama. ALL of Kagan's emails were released into the public record. I will accept nothing less than the EXACT same treatment and transparency in regards to Kavanaugh, but something tells me that isn't the way this is going to work out.
An apt summary from Twitter:
"Brexiters are like my dog Stan. He spent 15 years chasing neighbour's cats. One day he cornered one and didn't have a clue what to do next. So he sat down and licked his balls."
Boris is... Boris. If you don't know what a disaster the man is then get drunk with google.
David Davis never had a clue:
http://www.politics.co.uk/blogs/2018/07/09/david-davis-in-the-end-there-was-nothing-behind-the-swagger
The dangerous one is Gove... who must be receiving threats & bribes in equal measure from all sides.
I think it's very hard to argue that legal actions were not a distraction for Bill Clinton in the past, or Trump in the present - so I can see why someone would take Kavanaugh's position. Personally I think the advantages are not great enough to outweigh the disadvantages - for instance the undermining of the principle that everyone is equal under the law and increasing the politicization of the impeachment process. I don't though see good grounds for attacking someone just because they weigh the advantages and disadvantages differently.