Moving on....apparently Trump is still on the fence about whether Mohammed bin Salman had anything to do with Khashoggi's death. Truthfully, I would be surprised if MbS did not *personally* order the murder. I still don't care about his death, of course, but it is quite clear that it was definitely an assassination.
It would appear Trump doesn't care about his death either - despite Khashoggi's being a permanent resident in the US he is planning to take no action. One reason for that is that the Saudis viewed Khashoggi as an "enemy of the state" - so that's all right then .
Trump's statement (reported on here) suggests support for Saudi Arabia is necessary to combat the terrorism threat from Iran. It's perhaps worth noting that in his 2015 book "Time to Get Tough", Trump labelled Saudi Arabia “the world’s biggest funder of terrorism”. Presumably since then he's realised that other uses of Saudi funds - both those being paid to the US generally and to the Trump family businesses - are more important.
I don't see how Muslim women wearing a headscarf is offensive to anyone, but certain people (and I notice this just observing while out in public) seem to have a REAL problem with it. Now, wearing a burka while driving is a problem, but despite all this screeching about Sharia Law and whatnot, I have never see Muslim women out in public wearing anymore than the hijab and what is called a chador. It is entirely modest (which is the point) and should be none of anyone's business.
I would venture to bet that most Muslim women in this country don't wear headscarves at all. Just like Christian women no longer have to wear hats in church (as a rule) and can even, oh the horror, wear jeans and slacks!
@ThacoBell No, I am *not* saying that. There are uninformed voters on both sides. Incidentally, my post was not a response to the ones which came before it.
@FinneousPJ On the one hand, the anecdotal evidence I have is anecdotal. On the other hand, how many people under 30 really understand how taxation works at the Federal level? Can the average person under 30 name their city council representative? Have they read the legislation their chosen candidates have written or co-sponsored? Do they get their news from Facebook and John Oliver or do they read legitimate sources? Do they spend the vast majority of their time in left-leaning echo chambers or do they engage with people who have different points of view?
Uninformed voters who simply follow the crowd and listen to some talking head or celebrity for their political views....*that* is how you wind up with a dictator, not with a blustery windbag half of whose own party doesn't like him.
This is just age-bias. How many people OVER 30 really understand how taxation works, or have read legislation from their candidates? How many people senior citizens wearing "Trump That B**ch" T-shirts and carrying "Keep Your Government Hands Off My Medicare!" signs delved into the policy whitepapers of the Trump 2016 campaign?
People of all ages can be informed or uninformed. And, they can be informed on some issues and uninformed on others. One voter may not be informed on tax issues but highly informed on LGBTQ issues. Another may know a lot about taxes but next to nothing about LGBTQ issues.
When it comes to how informed people are vs. their source of news, a study by Fairleigh Dickinson University shows that viewers of news-comedy shows like the Daily Show and Colbert Report were *better* informed than people who get their news from cable news. The best informed were listeners of NPR, but viewers of the Daily Show scored better than viewers of CNN, MSNBC, and Fox News. Actually, Fox News viewers did worse than those who don't watch the news at all.
And as we all know, Fox News viewership tends to skew decidedly older.
"But like ESPN, Fox News’s present-day strength is its future weakness: Its success is concentrated among men well into their retirement.There is no polite way to say this, so one might as well be explicit: People don’t live forever. If the future of your business relies on a dramatic and sudden extension of average human lifespans, your ten-year outlook is murky."
"Fox News’ chief rival isn’t CNN, The New York Times, or even Facebook. It’s time. The average age of a Fox News viewer is about 70. The average life expectancy of a white American male is about 80. Fox News may continue to trounce CNN and MSNBC, but mortality will provide awfully stiff competition."
All this is from "The Twilight of Fox News" from the Atlantic.
Shep Smith is probably the only Fox News Host who could have gotten away with this. And this may be why Conservatives and Trump supporters think that Fox news is o longer partisan enough for them. ::Sigh.::
Humiliating Loss Looming For Trump As Congress Could Kill Canada-Mexico Trade Deal
Democrats, whose votes Trump needs to pass the deal in the House, say they want to see stronger protections against pollution and climate change, improved labor standards in Mexico and certainty that the U.S. will regain jobs lost to Mexico. And they want assurances the deal can be enforced.
Meanwhile, a group of 40 Republicans is protesting new protections for LGBT workers that Canada insisted on, potentially imperiling some GOP support.
Sucks to be him, especially since he's already been declaring victory on this point.
I don't see how Muslim women wearing a headscarf is offensive to anyone, but certain people (and I notice this just observing while out in public) seem to have a REAL problem with it. Now, wearing a burka while driving is a problem, but despite all this screeching about Sharia Law and whatnot, I have never see Muslim women out in public wearing anymore than the hijab and what is called a chador. It is entirely modest (which is the point) and should be none of anyone's business.
I would venture to bet that most Muslim women in this country don't wear headscarves at all. Just like Christian women no longer have to wear hats in church (as a rule) and can even, oh the horror, wear jeans and slacks!
I donno. I live in a multicultural city and I think it is about 60-40 for those that do wear a Hijab.
The Hijab isn’t as oppressive as the burqa. It symbolizes modesty.
"Under Senate rules, any one senator could object to quickly moving the bill across the Senate floor. That would force McConnell to set aside days of floor time — he reportedly warned Trump that it could take up to 10 days — to get the criminal justice bill to a final vote, time that Republican leaders are warning they do not have as they juggle other items on their end-of-the-year to-do list."
And there are plenty of Senators who don't want to move the bill, which means... gridlock. This bill proposed 4 sentencing reforms, and while Trump and his kids want to pass it, Mitch McConnell doesn't, because there are so many other things to do in this lame duck session. Just bringing the bill to the floor could take 10 days, and the Lame Duck session ends on December 7th, with a Thanksgiving break also forthcoming.
Trump’s Base Isn’t Enough
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/trumps-base-isnt-enough/?fbclid=IwAR3quxSprzdroAD1smd19COBhu_w-2TH7JRmVGTNSqWNrK15YjNAN7fTLBM This year’s results do serve as a warning to Trump in one important sense, however: His base alone will not be enough to win a second term. Throughout the stretch run of the 2018 midterm campaign, Trump and Republicans highlighted highly charged partisan issues, from the Central American migrant caravan to Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation to the Supreme Court. And Republican voters did indeed turn out in very high numbers: GOP candidates for the House received more than 50 million votes, more than the roughly 45 million they got in 2010.
But it wasn’t enough, or even close to enough. Problem No. 1 is that Republicans lost among swing voters: Independent voters went for Democrats by a 12-point margin, and voters who voted for a third-party candidate in 2016 went to Democrats by 13 points.
And problem #2 is that the Republican base is smaller than the Democratic base. It may be more cohesive, but that means little. Sucks to be Trump, I guess.
I don't see how Muslim women wearing a headscarf is offensive to anyone, but certain people (and I notice this just observing while out in public) seem to have a REAL problem with it. Now, wearing a burka while driving is a problem, but despite all this screeching about Sharia Law and whatnot, I have never see Muslim women out in public wearing anymore than the hijab and what is called a chador. It is entirely modest (which is the point) and should be none of anyone's business.
I would venture to bet that most Muslim women in this country don't wear headscarves at all. Just like Christian women no longer have to wear hats in church (as a rule) and can even, oh the horror, wear jeans and slacks!
I donno. I live in a multicultural city and I think it is about 60-40 for those that do wear a Hijab.
The Hijab isn’t as oppressive as the burqa. It symbolizes modesty.
Federal Court Blocks Trump Administration's Asylum Ban
https://www.npr.org/2018/11/20/669471110/federal-court-blocks-trump-administrations-asylum-ban?fbclid=IwAR2KW6wDJR4J17dP3y-av5bLdsTEibnDZGoakxxZ_4u8XMtdg59GetDUb9k This one is from NPR. Lawyers from the Justice Department argued that the president has "broad discretion to suspend the entry of aliens into the United States," saying in a court filing it is within the Trump administration's power to require asylum-seekers to present themselves at ports of entry. The plaintiffs' complaint alleged the administration violated the Immigration and Nationality Act, or INA, which maintains that if a person makes it to U.S. soil — even if they've crossed the border illegally — they are eligible to apply for asylum.
FLORIDA: ROCKET LAUNCHER, PIPE BOMBS, FIREARMS SEIZED IN RAIDS ON WHITE SUPREMACIST GANGS
Mueller might soon bring charges that even Trump die-hards can’t trivialize
https://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-litman-mueller-probe-blockbuster-developments-20181120-story.html?fbclid=IwAR1AGWDK64oPnLzlx3irsATBocSNMYsFQa5x-rHejEphxc6qeE9C2koh7Xk Mueller already has done the difficult digging on the Russian side of the equation, bringing detailed indictments in February 2018 for a wide-ranging Russian trolling operation related to the campaign, as well as the July 2016 hacking of Democratic Party emails. Now he’s looking to tie those allegations to people close to the Trump campaign. The upshot may be allegations of “collusion,” of the sort the president has long denied. The actual charges are likely to be one of three criminal conspiracies: violating federal election laws, violating computer laws, or soliciting or receiving something of value from a foreign government. Charges, in other words, that not even the most ardent Trump die-hard could trivialize. They bring with them the possibility that Mueller might opt to name President Trump himself as an unindicted co-conspirator.
He's already as much as admitted he took information from Russia, saying that "Any campaign would have done that."
TRUMP IS 'AFRAID' TO VISIT WAR ZONE COMBAT TROOPS BECAUSE 'PEOPLE WANT TO KILL HIM': REPORT
https://www.newsweek.com/trump-afraid-visit-war-zone-combat-people-want-kill-him-report-1224081?fbclid=IwAR3xCqJh8_iUIG0d6oaw5_wZGe6RiRRrUI67pUHqsmKHvfr4sdX73EYZtEQ President Donald Trump has told aides and White House officials that he was afraid to visit U.S. troops in war zones, because he didn't back the wars in Iraq or Afghanistan. “He’s never been interested in going,” one unnamed former senior White House official told The Washington Post. “He’s afraid of those situations. He’s afraid people want to kill him.” "I’ve had an unbelievable busy schedule, and I will be doing it. On top of which you have these phony witch hunts. On top of which—I mean, we’ve just been very busy. But I will be doing that," he said. Busy? Playing golf and holding political rallies *busy* I suppose.
Donald Trump's endless lying is meant to undermine free thought and democracy — and lead us into fascism
https://www.alternet.org/donald-trumps-endless-lying-meant-undermine-free-thought-and-democracy-and-lead-us-fascism?fbclid=IwAR1-MGIsefnEgnVn8BBJjiy56i5PSbPiE9aLvWT4QgEZv6XyPk43bYr0L8Q#.W_QtXJT2wmc.linkedin Of course the threads of a fascist politics weave through both political parties, which have sold their souls to the financial elite, though the Democrats do their work under the cover of self-righteousness and constitutional liberties while the Republicans bask in their embrace of corruption and a craven silence in the face of Trumpism. Vast apparatuses of pedagogical regulation endlessly work to produce a kind of Orwellian magic realism in which fiction and reality collapse into each other and the label of “fake news” provides a camouflage for serial liars. The bad-faith vocabulary of individual responsibility, self-reliance, and choice eliminates the notions of soul crushing constraints and broader systemic forces, and in so doing produces armies of individuals stuck in the debilitating grip of social atomization, low self-esteem and the anxieties produced in landscapes of battered schools, rusting towns and meaningless work, if available. The destruction of collective structures capable of resisting the discourse of fascist politics go hand in hand with a culture awash in civic illiteracy and a culture of cruelty. Persistent denigration now leads to unbridled racism, the resurgence of white nationalism and an indifference to rampant criminality at the highest levels of government.
I agree. There is only so far one can rise on your own, and it's hard to rise if you are so busy surviving you have neither time nor money to do anything else.
https://thehill.com/policy/finance/417531-slowing-economy-looms-as-2020-challenge-for-gop?userid=322266&fbclid=IwAR12lTIkOkaXPPqfkSLJXIalZyWSWu8u3E--YULDA_UmFDsQ4PPVUeFrFYM There are growing signs that the economy will slow substantially over the next two years, posing a significant problem for President Trump and Republicans who highlighted economic growth heading into the 2018 midterm elections. Goldman Sachs on Monday issued a report projecting gross domestic product (GDP) growth will slow to 1.8 percent and 1.6 percent in the third and fourth quarters of 2019, respectively, sooner than anticipated and creating a major headwind for GOP candidates the following year. Well, he can't blame this one on Obama, but he will try to blame Democrats, I can guarantee that.
Trump's advisers have said this would not only have been bad, but "Impeachably bad". It's blatantly unconstitutional, and could have led to an impeachment trial for Trump.
I was just about to post the article. Absolute banana republic, dictator behavior. The President wanted to ORDER a prosecution based on his personal vendettas and grievances. The fact McGahn and anyone else within earshot didn't resign in disgust is equally as troubling.
Let's not even get into his rambling incoherence in his letter about Khashoggi that was released today. He has given carte blanche to dictators around the world to murder journalists with impunity with that statement.
I don't see how Muslim women wearing a headscarf is offensive to anyone, but certain people (and I notice this just observing while out in public) seem to have a REAL problem with it. Now, wearing a burka while driving is a problem, but despite all this screeching about Sharia Law and whatnot, I have never see Muslim women out in public wearing anymore than the hijab and what is called a chador. It is entirely modest (which is the point) and should be none of anyone's business.
I would venture to bet that most Muslim women in this country don't wear headscarves at all. Just like Christian women no longer have to wear hats in church (as a rule) and can even, oh the horror, wear jeans and slacks!
I donno. I live in a multicultural city and I think it is about 60-40 for those that do wear a Hijab.
The Hijab isn’t as oppressive as the burqa. It symbolizes modesty.
Why don't the men wear one then?
Sure, I'll bite: Muslim men also have to dress modestly. Mostly:
Clothing must conceal whatever is between the naval and knee.
Must be loose and thick, so that the private area remains concealed.
All garments must be above the ankle bone.
Should not resemble the clothing of women.
They should not resemble something that merely seeks to imitate un-Islamic practices/fashions (e.g. clothing of Buddhists, priests, rabbis, hip-hop artists, movie stars, etc.)
It cannot be made of silk or coloured/dyed with saffron.
Why people praise democracy and voting so much? Monarchy is much better. Also
Monarchy fell in Germany = An corrupt instable "weimar" republic then national socialists Monarchy fell in Russia = The most genocidal and tyrane government of the history Monarchy fell in China = The second most genocidal and tyrane government of the history Monarchy fell on Brazil = An corrupt instable state Monarchy fell on France = A violent revolution, and Napoleon(much more authoritarian than any king)
A monarchy is nothing more than a dictatorship with fancier clothes. Hitler, Stalin, and Mao Zedong were functionally identical to kings. Absolute power corrupts a king for the exact same reason it corrupts a dictator: because both of them are humans, and humans with total power will abuse it.
Having a shiny crown doesn't make you any less selfish, cruel, or corrupt.
A monarchy is nothing more than a dictatorship with fancier clothes. Hitler, Stalin, and Mao Zedong were functionally identical to kings. Absolute power corrupts a king for the exact same reason it corrupts a dictator: because both of them are humans, and humans with total power will abuse it.
Having a shiny crown doesn't make you any less selfish, cruel, or corrupt.
Absolute monarchy and monarchy are two different things. I don't think that Prince Hans-Adam II can be compared to this dictators. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8AXBX3e1T64
"Democratic politicians have notoriously short time horizons. (Hoppe 2001 blames not just politicians in particular but democracy in general for high time preference (...)Evidence of fiscal irresponsibility in the United States includes chronic budget deficits, the explicit national debt, and the still huger excesses of future liabilities over future revenues on account of Medicare and Social Security. Yet politicians continue offering new plums. Conflict of interest like this far overshadows the petty kinds that nevertheless arouse more outrage." https://mises.org/library/libertarian-case-monarchy
To be fair, Last Week Tonight is not a political comedy show. It's nothing like the Daily Show, apart from maybe the first 5 minutes. Oliver actually sets up shockingly informative feature segments, and keeps your interest on sone dreadfully boring topics by peppering them with a bunch of silly, totally unrelated jokes.
It's genius, really.
From last week's episode
Authoritarianism: Last Week Tonight with John Oliver (HBO)
To be fair, Last Week Tonight is not a political comedy show. It's nothing like the Daily Show, apart from maybe the first 5 minutes. Oliver actually sets up shockingly informative feature segments, and keeps your interest on sone dreadfully boring topics by peppering them with a bunch of silly, totally unrelated jokes.
It's genius, really.
From last week's episode
Authoritarianism: Last Week Tonight with John Oliver (HBO)
Ironically he din't included Maduro or Fidel on his video...
About Bolsonaro advocating torture, he never said that, he said that in some situations like terrorists putting the life of thousands at the risk and there are someone captures who knows where the bomb is, torture the terrorist is less evil than let thousands die. You can disagree or agree, but is not "lets torture everyone who disagrees with me" like the midia portraits. A lot of people accuse him of being racist too, but how a racist can be married to a mixed race woman and won in a white minority country?????
I can't have an opinion about Philippines or other countries that i don't have much contact with news and the population.
This sort of behavior seems to me to derive from an over-literal interpretation of the constitution by some judges. I think it's the result of the rather odd wording of Amendment 14 to the constitution. That's commonly accepted as the point where the constitution guaranteed the right to vote, but that's not actually what the Amendment says. Rather than saying all people had the right to vote, the Amendment said that if some people were denied the right to vote, the representation given to the State that denied them the vote should be reduced. For an individual State that's quite a strong argument - if they restrict voting then they lose power compared to other States - but it's far from a guaranteed right to vote in itself.
Although the wording of Amendment 14 doesn't guarantee a right to vote directly, the intention behind it clearly was that people should have the right to vote other than in limited circumstances (particularly that they had committed crimes). That can be seen in Amendment 15, which was being discussed at the same time (post civil war). In this amendment the wording is clear that the right to vote cannot be denied to people on the basis they had been slaves: "The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude." Several Amendments since then have used similar language to clarify that the vote can't be denied in relation to other conditions (age, sex, failure to pay taxes). However, the basic position remains that the constitution does not clearly provide a general guaranteed right to vote.
That short-coming in the constitution could be very easily remedied by the courts and in my view they should do that. The fact that Amendments have been made which do specifically prohibit denying the right to vote on such general grounds as age and sex could easily be interpreted as giving a general right to vote. At the moment though that's not been done, so it remains possible for States to deny the right to vote to people on grounds other than those specifically prohibited.
In the case of Ohio (and other States) the right to vote can be taken away from people on the grounds they haven't voted. On the face of it, that's bizarre. It would be understandable in a system like Australia where voting is mandatory, but that's not the case in the US. If you are not required to vote, then how can it ever be justified to remove your right to vote (even temporarily - people can always re-register) on the grounds you haven't voted?
Absolute monarchy and monarchy are two different things.
This is like saying a bulldog is different than an dog. The former is just one type of the latter, not a different thing. There are absolute monarchies like Saudi Arabia or Imperial Russia. Then, there are constitutional monarchies, with monarchs who wield varying degrees of power. But they are all monarchies.
The basic concept of a monarchy is that one's right to rule is because of who their daddy (or mommy) was, not any particular qualifications for office.
I'll take "government of the people, by the people, and for the people" over the "divine right of kings".
I'll take "government of the people, by the people, for the people" over the "divine right of kings".
So would I, but I don't think it's a binary choice. It is possible for democracy to co-exist with monarchy and there are some advantages to that compared to a 'purer' form of democracy, e.g. - less concern about securing your own position - ability to take a longer term view than the next election (very important when it comes to addressing things like pensions and climate change that affect the balance between generations) - less subject to pressures, such as a public outcry or manipulation by lobbyists, that can lead to ill-considered legislation - far less likely to get involved in party politics. We've seen recently in the US a fore-shadowing of the problems that can potentially occur if the same party is in control of all organs of government (resulting in a breakdown of the separation of powers intended by the constitution) - provides institutional continuity to give a better chance of learning from past mistakes and reduce the extent of oscillating changes as governments change hands
There are certainly counter-arguments to all those above. For instance the major reason why a monarch is less concerned about their position and is able to take a longer view etc is that they don't 'deserve' the position in the first place, which raises justifiable concerns about legitimacy. However, overall I think a bit of monarchy provides some useful extra balance in a democratic system.
As an analogy, consider the discussions about capitalism that have taken place in this thread. Though views differ quite a bit on the virtues of capitalism, I think there's a general consensus that capitalism is a good system, but that some regulation is needed to temper the possibility of extremes (there's not a consensus about the extent of that desirable regulation ). It's not hard to see the potential for abuse in a perfectly democratic system (tyranny of the majority) and having a constitutional monarch is one way to help reduce that potential.
In the UK the importance of the monarchy (as a principle rather than a person) is to act as a check and balance on Parliament. Although the government holds all the legislative power, the monarch is the commander in chief of the armed services and only the monarch can officially declare war upon another country.
@FinneousPJ On the one hand, the anecdotal evidence I have is anecdotal. On the other hand, how many people under 30 really understand how taxation works at the Federal level? Can the average person under 30 name their city council representative? Have they read the legislation their chosen candidates have written or co-sponsored? Do they get their news from Facebook and John Oliver or do they read legitimate sources? Do they spend the vast majority of their time in left-leaning echo chambers or do they engage with people who have different points of view?
Uninformed voters who simply follow the crowd and listen to some talking head or celebrity for their political views....*that* is how you wind up with a dictator, not with a blustery windbag half of whose own party doesn't like him.
Do not diss John Oliver.
Unlike Colbert, he comes on only once per week. And that's because he has a team that does a large amount of research on their topic every week.
And how exactly is your last paragraph any different from people who spout off crap on 24/7 news channels, especially Fox.
I have a trying time every 2-3 weeks because my dad comes in, riled up about something he saw on Fox News, which he somehow manages to parrot VERBATIM about half the time, then I have to spend 3-10 hours on the subject and related topics to say "They're full of crap".
(Un)fortunately I don't have to spend nearly so much time now because the violations are getting just SO FLAGRANT and OBVIOUS I don't have to dig too deep.
Most approval rating polls have GOP support for Trump at 90ish percent. I believe this is generally above the amount that Obama had in 2010 from Democrats.
The point is - partisanship feeds from uninformed voters on both sides. I think the larger issue is that Conservatives only have Fox News and Talk Radio as major media based opportunities to get informed. Unfortunately - these two sources are consistently some of the worst in accuracy, and are combined with political "entertainment" that intentionally tries to walk the line between news and entertainment.
Ideally - voters wouldn't use the media to gather information, and thereby eliminate that bias... but that's unrealistic to expect. I suspect most voters get the lion's share of their information from major media outlets.
Exactly.
Trump will be the nominee as the incumbent, and Fox News is PROVABLY the worst news source in terms of accuracy. And has been for YEARS.
Out-of-date study is out of date by 6 years. At that time, I do not disagree that the Daily Show was a better source of news than major outlets. These days, though...not so much--the Daily Show and its copycats/spinoffs are merely echo chambers. At least, they all were the last time I looked at them about a month ago.
In 2016, William Poundstone, the author of "Head in the Cloud: Why Knowing Things Still Matters When Facts Are So Easy to Look Up", did a study of how informed consumers of various news sources were on current events, geography, history, science, and personal finance. Viewers of "Last Week Tonight" scored the highest. Fox News viewers still scored second lowest (only better than viewers who don't watch news at all).
Look at that graph. Fox News ISN'T EVEN STATISTICALLY IN RANGE of Huffington Post's STATISTICAL DEVIATION, who is ALWAYS being torn down on comment threads about how "It's the Huffingpost" by MAGAtards as if they publish lies daily.
It is interesting how ALL the print media is well ahead of ALL 24/7 news media and (solely) online media.
Comments
Trump's statement (reported on here) suggests support for Saudi Arabia is necessary to combat the terrorism threat from Iran. It's perhaps worth noting that in his 2015 book "Time to Get Tough", Trump labelled Saudi Arabia “the world’s biggest funder of terrorism”. Presumably since then he's realised that other uses of Saudi funds - both those being paid to the US generally and to the Trump family businesses - are more important.
"But like ESPN, Fox News’s present-day strength is its future weakness: Its success is concentrated among men well into their retirement.There is no polite way to say this, so one might as well be explicit: People don’t live forever. If the future of your business relies on a dramatic and sudden extension of average human lifespans, your ten-year outlook is murky."
"Fox News’ chief rival isn’t CNN, The New York Times, or even Facebook. It’s time. The average age of a Fox News viewer is about 70. The average life expectancy of a white American male is about 80. Fox News may continue to trounce CNN and MSNBC, but mortality will provide awfully stiff competition."
All this is from "The Twilight of Fox News" from the Atlantic.
https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/08/the-twilight-of-fox-news/497684/
Majority of Americans say Congress should protect Mueller: poll
https://thehill.com/policy/national-security/417559-majority-of-americans-says-congress-should-protect-mueller-poll?fbclid=IwAR31zhIVAEDba3CSJAUvLFp1TvE668tN0XIr4u-Xps4W3-nM9JHT81Spyeg"Seven in ten respondents told CBS News in the poll released Tuesday that President Trump should not take action to hinder Mueller's investigation, a number which includes 76 percent of independents and 57 percent of Republicans."
When even 57% of Republicans want Mueller protected, I think Trump has lost the battle.
Fox’s Shep Smith unloads on Trump for ‘insulting the murder victim and siding with the Saudis’ in brutal opening segment
https://www.rawstory.com/2018/11/foxs-shep-smith-unloads-trump-insulting-murder-victim-siding-saudis-brutal-opening-segment/?fbclid=IwAR0RIPK2nkdfmpt8gGcXDBt-37rzPeBCnaZq5QJdvHmmbrdUnmqqUKaDlJYShep Smith is probably the only Fox News Host who could have gotten away with this. And this may be why Conservatives and Trump supporters think that Fox news is o longer partisan enough for them. ::Sigh.::
Humiliating Loss Looming For Trump As Congress Could Kill Canada-Mexico Trade Deal
https://www.politicususa.com/2018/11/18/humiliating-loss-looming-for-trump-as-congress-could-kill-canada-mexico-trade-deal.html/amp?fbclid=IwAR29vow3MI4tD98DRO5CmBARrrPWjLWLym796wSipLZhnsHM8GtWzf4lMnYRepublican and Democratic members of Congress are set to kill Trump’s trade deal with Canada and Mexico.
Politico reported:
Democrats, whose votes Trump needs to pass the deal in the House, say they want to see stronger protections against pollution and climate change, improved labor standards in Mexico and certainty that the U.S. will regain jobs lost to Mexico. And they want assurances the deal can be enforced.
Meanwhile, a group of 40 Republicans is protesting new protections for LGBT workers that Canada insisted on, potentially imperiling some GOP support.
Sucks to be him, especially since he's already been declaring victory on this point.
The Hijab isn’t as oppressive as the burqa. It symbolizes modesty.
Divisions in GOP may leave Trump priority in Senate limbo
https://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/senate/417527-divisions-in-gop-may-leave-trump-priority-in-senate-limbo?userid=322266&fbclid=IwAR3E0d014mB-LQEGNdJGO-LRVljbmRF2r9hgelSWJXPIRTUR62PfvhC8p1s"Under Senate rules, any one senator could object to quickly moving the bill across the Senate floor. That would force McConnell to set aside days of floor time — he reportedly warned Trump that it could take up to 10 days — to get the criminal justice bill to a final vote, time that Republican leaders are warning they do not have as they juggle other items on their end-of-the-year to-do list."
And there are plenty of Senators who don't want to move the bill, which means... gridlock. This bill proposed 4 sentencing reforms, and while Trump and his kids want to pass it, Mitch McConnell doesn't, because there are so many other things to do in this lame duck session. Just bringing the bill to the floor could take 10 days, and the Lame Duck session ends on December 7th, with a Thanksgiving break also forthcoming.
Trump’s Base Isn’t Enough
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/trumps-base-isnt-enough/?fbclid=IwAR3quxSprzdroAD1smd19COBhu_w-2TH7JRmVGTNSqWNrK15YjNAN7fTLBMThis year’s results do serve as a warning to Trump in one important sense, however: His base alone will not be enough to win a second term. Throughout the stretch run of the 2018 midterm campaign, Trump and Republicans highlighted highly charged partisan issues, from the Central American migrant caravan to Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation to the Supreme Court. And Republican voters did indeed turn out in very high numbers: GOP candidates for the House received more than 50 million votes, more than the roughly 45 million they got in 2010.
But it wasn’t enough, or even close to enough. Problem No. 1 is that Republicans lost among swing voters: Independent voters went for Democrats by a 12-point margin, and voters who voted for a third-party candidate in 2016 went to Democrats by 13 points.
And problem #2 is that the Republican base is smaller than the Democratic base. It may be more cohesive, but that means little. Sucks to be Trump, I guess.
Judge bars Trump administration from denying asylum to migrants who enter illegally
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/immigration/judge-bars-trump-administration-denying-asylum-migrants-who-enter-illegally-n938271?fbclid=IwAR3bZeyiMS7W3qvUgR1VGwqlr2jWh1dkoBF0JGizQJOtka9He5kIRCrtUeg"In a ruling issued late Monday, U.S. District Judge Jon Tigar, who is based in San Francisco, wrote that President Donald Trump’s "rule barring asylum for immigrants who enter the country" outside a port of entry “irreconcilably conflicts” with federal immigration laws and "the expressed intent of Congress." "
While this is a temporary bar, it doesn't look good for Trump's arguments.
Rand Paul condemns Trump's Khashoggi statement as 'Saudi Arabia first' – live
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/live/2018/nov/20/trump-latest-live-news-updates-ivanka-emails-asylum-ruling-cnn-us-politics-today?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other&fbclid=IwAR0Z09RXxI0DG0FHI_h055gKZbRaFNY1YkVi5Qv_uEU2E9elDMKJ4HmSo3oTo which Trump responded, "It is what it is."
Seriously? All Trump cares about is himself and his family, and of course, his money. It's very obvious.
Ohio voter roll purges beginning again after Husted directive
https://www.dispatch.com/news/20181120/ohio-voter-roll-purges-beginning-again-after-husted-directiveControversial purges from Ohio voter rolls will begin again after a directive Tuesday from Secretary of State Jon Husted, which likely means tens of thousands of inactive voters will become ineligible to cast a ballot.
Of course. :P
Federal Court Blocks Trump Administration's Asylum Ban
https://www.npr.org/2018/11/20/669471110/federal-court-blocks-trump-administrations-asylum-ban?fbclid=IwAR2KW6wDJR4J17dP3y-av5bLdsTEibnDZGoakxxZ_4u8XMtdg59GetDUb9kThis one is from NPR.
Lawyers from the Justice Department argued that the president has "broad discretion to suspend the entry of aliens into the United States," saying in a court filing it is within the Trump administration's power to require asylum-seekers to present themselves at ports of entry.
The plaintiffs' complaint alleged the administration violated the Immigration and Nationality Act, or INA, which maintains that if a person makes it to U.S. soil — even if they've crossed the border illegally — they are eligible to apply for asylum.
FLORIDA: ROCKET LAUNCHER, PIPE BOMBS, FIREARMS SEIZED IN RAIDS ON WHITE SUPREMACIST GANGS
https://www.newsweek.com/florida-authorities-seize-rocket-launcher-and-pipe-bombs-raids-white-1220555?amp=1&__twitter_impression=true&fbclid=IwAR3mXUcx51rZ-ujj-VxzbS3vk7QADqPfBl1WRwf3P2cNPYceZOwGzFShv7IAnd here is real problem. Dead silence from the Trump Presidency, of course.
Mueller might soon bring charges that even Trump die-hards can’t trivialize
https://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-litman-mueller-probe-blockbuster-developments-20181120-story.html?fbclid=IwAR1AGWDK64oPnLzlx3irsATBocSNMYsFQa5x-rHejEphxc6qeE9C2koh7XkMueller already has done the difficult digging on the Russian side of the equation, bringing detailed indictments in February 2018 for a wide-ranging Russian trolling operation related to the campaign, as well as the July 2016 hacking of Democratic Party emails. Now he’s looking to tie those allegations to people close to the Trump campaign.
The upshot may be allegations of “collusion,” of the sort the president has long denied. The actual charges are likely to be one of three criminal conspiracies: violating federal election laws, violating computer laws, or soliciting or receiving something of value from a foreign government. Charges, in other words, that not even the most ardent Trump die-hard could trivialize. They bring with them the possibility that Mueller might opt to name President Trump himself as an unindicted co-conspirator.
He's already as much as admitted he took information from Russia, saying that "Any campaign would have done that."
Team Ivanka's email explanation is beyond ridiculous
https://www.cnn.com/2018/11/20/politics/ivanka-trump-email/index.html?fbclid=IwAR0fS4fstHJlt9aZrryKtlShJGgQsFX9kcv68h8pQWxKlH5ytfmWUJjrFq8Faced with a Washington Post report that Ivanka Trump had regularly used a private email account to conduct government business in 2017, the explanation from her side went like this: She didn't know that was wrong!
I'm not kidding.
True. Did she not hear her father's rallies and his rants about Hillary's E-mails. She didn't know? Is she an idiot?
TRUMP IS 'AFRAID' TO VISIT WAR ZONE COMBAT TROOPS BECAUSE 'PEOPLE WANT TO KILL HIM': REPORT
https://www.newsweek.com/trump-afraid-visit-war-zone-combat-people-want-kill-him-report-1224081?fbclid=IwAR3xCqJh8_iUIG0d6oaw5_wZGe6RiRRrUI67pUHqsmKHvfr4sdX73EYZtEQPresident Donald Trump has told aides and White House officials that he was afraid to visit U.S. troops in war zones, because he didn't back the wars in Iraq or Afghanistan.
“He’s never been interested in going,” one unnamed former senior White House official told The Washington Post. “He’s afraid of those situations. He’s afraid people want to kill him.”
"I’ve had an unbelievable busy schedule, and I will be doing it. On top of which you have these phony witch hunts. On top of which—I mean, we’ve just been very busy. But I will be doing that," he said.
Busy? Playing golf and holding political rallies *busy* I suppose.
Donald Trump's endless lying is meant to undermine free thought and democracy — and lead us into fascism
https://www.alternet.org/donald-trumps-endless-lying-meant-undermine-free-thought-and-democracy-and-lead-us-fascism?fbclid=IwAR1-MGIsefnEgnVn8BBJjiy56i5PSbPiE9aLvWT4QgEZv6XyPk43bYr0L8Q#.W_QtXJT2wmc.linkedinOf course the threads of a fascist politics weave through both political parties, which have sold their souls to the financial elite, though the Democrats do their work under the cover of self-righteousness and constitutional liberties while the Republicans bask in their embrace of corruption and a craven silence in the face of Trumpism. Vast apparatuses of pedagogical regulation endlessly work to produce a kind of Orwellian magic realism in which fiction and reality collapse into each other and the label of “fake news” provides a camouflage for serial liars.
The bad-faith vocabulary of individual responsibility, self-reliance, and choice eliminates the notions of soul crushing constraints and broader systemic forces, and in so doing produces armies of individuals stuck in the debilitating grip of social atomization, low self-esteem and the anxieties produced in landscapes of battered schools, rusting towns and meaningless work, if available. The destruction of collective structures capable of resisting the discourse of fascist politics go hand in hand with a culture awash in civic illiteracy and a culture of cruelty. Persistent denigration now leads to unbridled racism, the resurgence of white nationalism and an indifference to rampant criminality at the highest levels of government.
I agree. There is only so far one can rise on your own, and it's hard to rise if you are so busy surviving you have neither time nor money to do anything else.
Slowing economy looms as 2020 challenge for GOP
https://thehill.com/policy/finance/417531-slowing-economy-looms-as-2020-challenge-for-gop?userid=322266&fbclid=IwAR12lTIkOkaXPPqfkSLJXIalZyWSWu8u3E--YULDA_UmFDsQ4PPVUeFrFYMThere are growing signs that the economy will slow substantially over the next two years, posing a significant problem for President Trump and Republicans who highlighted economic growth heading into the 2018 midterm elections.
Goldman Sachs on Monday issued a report projecting gross domestic product (GDP) growth will slow to 1.8 percent and 1.6 percent in the third and fourth quarters of 2019, respectively, sooner than anticipated and creating a major headwind for GOP candidates the following year.
Well, he can't blame this one on Obama, but he will try to blame Democrats, I can guarantee that.
Trump Wanted to Order Justice Dept. to Prosecute Comey and Clinton
President Trump stoked his enmity for Hillary Clinton during the 2016 race and since taking office has publicly and privately revisited the idea of prosecuting her.https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/20/us/politics/president-trump-justice-department.html
Trump's advisers have said this would not only have been bad, but "Impeachably bad". It's blatantly unconstitutional, and could have led to an impeachment trial for Trump.
Let's not even get into his rambling incoherence in his letter about Khashoggi that was released today. He has given carte blanche to dictators around the world to murder journalists with impunity with that statement.
COLORADO PIZZA JOINT’S THANKSGIVING AD CAUSES IRE OF NATIVE AMERICANS
https://nativenewsonline.net/currents/colorado-pizza-joints-thanksgiving-ad-causes-ire-of-native-community/?fbclid=IwAR2_dZELmj3D6Hk_P0iFH8CwUdpZz8K_3aHsRsuwTxCdR3S0-szivMrIvToThe advertisement, which shows Americans need to get past the Thankgiving Indian, shows a Pilgrim woman kneeling towards an bare-bodied American Indian man, complete with a headdress, with a pizza box saying: “Sorry about all the smallpox. ….. Who wants a slice of pepperoni?”
I am side-eyeing so hard, I think I broke something.
This one didn't age well
Muslim men also have to dress modestly. Mostly:
- Clothing must conceal whatever is between the naval and knee.
- Must be loose and thick, so that the private area remains concealed.
- All garments must be above the ankle bone.
- Should not resemble the clothing of women.
- They should not resemble something that merely seeks to imitate un-Islamic practices/fashions (e.g. clothing of Buddhists, priests, rabbis, hip-hop artists, movie stars, etc.)
- It cannot be made of silk or coloured/dyed with saffron.
(feel free to read more here: https://www.abukhadeejah.com/understanding-the-muslim-dress-code-modesty-for-men-and-the-hijab-for-women-islam-4-5/)But just like other western religions, a person's liberty out weighs their belief, and can pick and choose how to follow their scriptures.
And on another note: Outside of a complete Turkey failure, who eats Pizza on Thanksgiving? (Just joking here, not everyone cooks Turkey, but still...)
Monarchy fell in Germany = An corrupt instable "weimar" republic then national socialists
Monarchy fell in Russia = The most genocidal and tyrane government of the history
Monarchy fell in China = The second most genocidal and tyrane government of the history
Monarchy fell on Brazil = An corrupt instable state
Monarchy fell on France = A violent revolution, and Napoleon(much more authoritarian than any king)
Having a shiny crown doesn't make you any less selfish, cruel, or corrupt.
"Democratic politicians have notoriously short time horizons. (Hoppe 2001 blames not just politicians in particular but democracy in general for high time preference (...)Evidence of fiscal irresponsibility in the United States includes chronic budget deficits, the explicit national debt, and the still huger excesses of future liabilities over future revenues on account of Medicare and Social Security. Yet politicians continue offering new plums. Conflict of interest like this far overshadows the petty kinds that nevertheless arouse more outrage." https://mises.org/library/libertarian-case-monarchy
Authoritarianism: Last Week Tonight with John Oliver (HBO)
About Bolsonaro advocating torture, he never said that, he said that in some situations like terrorists putting the life of thousands at the risk and there are someone captures who knows where the bomb is, torture the terrorist is less evil than let thousands die. You can disagree or agree, but is not "lets torture everyone who disagrees with me" like the midia portraits. A lot of people accuse him of being racist too, but how a racist can be married to a mixed race woman and won in a white minority country?????
I can't have an opinion about Philippines or other countries that i don't have much contact with news and the population.
PS : zoo brothels at 7:56 was hilarious
Although the wording of Amendment 14 doesn't guarantee a right to vote directly, the intention behind it clearly was that people should have the right to vote other than in limited circumstances (particularly that they had committed crimes). That can be seen in Amendment 15, which was being discussed at the same time (post civil war). In this amendment the wording is clear that the right to vote cannot be denied to people on the basis they had been slaves: "The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude." Several Amendments since then have used similar language to clarify that the vote can't be denied in relation to other conditions (age, sex, failure to pay taxes). However, the basic position remains that the constitution does not clearly provide a general guaranteed right to vote.
That short-coming in the constitution could be very easily remedied by the courts and in my view they should do that. The fact that Amendments have been made which do specifically prohibit denying the right to vote on such general grounds as age and sex could easily be interpreted as giving a general right to vote. At the moment though that's not been done, so it remains possible for States to deny the right to vote to people on grounds other than those specifically prohibited.
In the case of Ohio (and other States) the right to vote can be taken away from people on the grounds they haven't voted. On the face of it, that's bizarre. It would be understandable in a system like Australia where voting is mandatory, but that's not the case in the US. If you are not required to vote, then how can it ever be justified to remove your right to vote (even temporarily - people can always re-register) on the grounds you haven't voted?
The basic concept of a monarchy is that one's right to rule is because of who their daddy (or mommy) was, not any particular qualifications for office.
I'll take "government of the people, by the people, and for the people" over the "divine right of kings".
- less concern about securing your own position
- ability to take a longer term view than the next election (very important when it comes to addressing things like pensions and climate change that affect the balance between generations)
- less subject to pressures, such as a public outcry or manipulation by lobbyists, that can lead to ill-considered legislation
- far less likely to get involved in party politics. We've seen recently in the US a fore-shadowing of the problems that can potentially occur if the same party is in control of all organs of government (resulting in a breakdown of the separation of powers intended by the constitution)
- provides institutional continuity to give a better chance of learning from past mistakes and reduce the extent of oscillating changes as governments change hands
There are certainly counter-arguments to all those above. For instance the major reason why a monarch is less concerned about their position and is able to take a longer view etc is that they don't 'deserve' the position in the first place, which raises justifiable concerns about legitimacy. However, overall I think a bit of monarchy provides some useful extra balance in a democratic system.
As an analogy, consider the discussions about capitalism that have taken place in this thread. Though views differ quite a bit on the virtues of capitalism, I think there's a general consensus that capitalism is a good system, but that some regulation is needed to temper the possibility of extremes (there's not a consensus about the extent of that desirable regulation
Unlike Colbert, he comes on only once per week. And that's because he has a team that does a large amount of research on their topic every week.
And how exactly is your last paragraph any different from people who spout off crap on 24/7 news channels, especially Fox.
I have a trying time every 2-3 weeks because my dad comes in, riled up about something he saw on Fox News, which he somehow manages to parrot VERBATIM about half the time, then I have to spend 3-10 hours on the subject and related topics to say "They're full of crap".
(Un)fortunately I don't have to spend nearly so much time now because the violations are getting just SO FLAGRANT and OBVIOUS I don't have to dig too deep. Exactly.
Trump will be the nominee as the incumbent, and Fox News is PROVABLY the worst news source in terms of accuracy. And has been for YEARS.
Look at that graph. Fox News ISN'T EVEN STATISTICALLY IN RANGE of Huffington Post's STATISTICAL DEVIATION, who is ALWAYS being torn down on comment threads about how "It's the Huffingpost" by MAGAtards as if they publish lies daily.
It is interesting how ALL the print media is well ahead of ALL 24/7 news media and (solely) online media.