Russian spy Maria Butina is apparently changing her plea, signaling cooperation. In short order, we will find out a whole lot more about the NRA's treachery in all this.
That gives increased clarity that a second referendum is a realistic option. That's because, in the absence of a change to the law, the UK will exit the EU on 29th March 2019, with or without a deal. There's not time to hold a referendum before that so, if the UK could not unilaterally withdraw its notice, they would have needed to get unanimous agreement from all other EU countries to allow for a delay. While that would have been possible anyway, the option to withdraw their notice makes it certain.
That will almost certainly harden the position of those MPs that would prefer to remain in the EU, meaning that to have any chance of success in the vote May will need to get support from virtually all the committed Brexiteers. To that end there have been some more conciliatory noises from Downing Street today about obtaining clarification from the EU over the backstop, but it's doubtful that will sway anyone. The government has said the vote on the proposed Brexit will go ahead tomorrow as planned - if it does so it therefore seems almost certain that the government will lose, which is why there is a lot of behind the scenes pressure at the moment from ministers to get May to think again.
It's almost as if the entire thing was a poorly (if at all) thought out primal scream from half the population, and the leaders who led the leave movement abandoned ship and all responsibility the moment it passed. They set fire to the ship and then abandoned it. Now the EU is supposed to bail out Britain because (predictably) it's not going at all like anyone imagined. On a side note, Prime Ministers have lost their position for FAR less than May's trouncing in the polls in 2017 and the mess this Brexit situation has become. How exactly does she manage to hang onto power if this goes badly??
When I made this morning's post I initially predicted that the vote would not go ahead, but then wimped out and removed that reference . However, it's no surprise to me that May has now postponed the vote because we've been here before. She said on lots of occasions, in the strongest terms, that there would be no snap general election in 2017 before turning round and calling one anyway. The fact that she's been saying consistently that today's vote would definitely happen was therefore always suspect given she was so clearly on a loser there.
However, I don't expect the delay to make much difference. Her stated intention is to renegotiate with the EU over the backstop arrangement for Northern Ireland, but that's not going to be successful. The EU, unlike the UK, has taken a very stable and predictable approach to the negotiations over the last couple of years. Thus, when they say there will be no renegotiation I believe them. There may well be some new form of words contrived, but as far as the EU is concerned those words will mean exactly the same as the existing ones. While May can try and convince MPs that there's been a real change, I don't think she will have much joy with that.
Incidentally, for those who have a bit of interest, but not much knowledge of what's being discussed in Brexit, I thought I might just sketch out what the backstop arrangement is and why it's such a political problem.
A significant part of the Good Friday Agreement to settle the Troubles in Northern Ireland was a provision that there should be no hard border between north and south. That was easy to achieve when both countries were part of the EU, but with the UK due to leave the need for goods inspections, customs declarations etc opens up the prospect that the border would be much less seamless in future.
The UK has said that its preferred arrangement is to use advanced technology to deal with the potential issues and avoid the need for a hard border. Such an arrangement would be set out in the future trade deal between the UK and EU (something likely to take years to negotiate - the current deal is only about the arrangement for exiting, not the future relationship).
The EU pointed out that such arrangements based on advanced technology don't currently exist anywhere in the world and the agreement on leaving should not assume they could be successfully put in place in the future. Therefore they insisted on a backstop arrangement which would come into force if the UK left the EU (after a transitional period) without having agreed such arrangements.
Under the backstop arrangement the entire UK would remain part of the customs union with the EU, while Northern Ireland would also effectively remain part of the Single Market (and would have to keep its regulations in line with the EU to allow that to be possible).
What's interesting about the backstop is that both sides dislike it and fear it being embedded in the long term (though for different reasons). In the UK, Brexiteers feel it keeps the UK too closely aligned to the EU and would hinder making trade arrangements with the wider world (which it would). There's also a strong concern from the DUP (Northern Irish unionist party currently providing support to the Conservative government to allow them a majority in Parliament) that Northern Ireland should not be treated in a different way to the rest of the UK.
On the EU side there's a general concern that the UK as a whole would effectively retain access to the single market (by trading via Northern Ireland) and that this would allow them to compete unfairly as they would not be bound by the normal rules of the single market - and would not be paying anything for this privileged position.
The reality is thus that both sides have an incentive to avoid the backstop or get rid of it as soon as possible if it is needed, but neither side can openly say this because of the political complications. Thus for the time being we're stuck in limbo and no closer to knowing what the eventual outcome of Brexit will be.
@WarChiefZeke Sexual assault is making physical advances on someone without consent. You said that Trump's claims were DEFENSIBLE because we don't know if the women gave consent AFTER THE FACT. That's not how sexual assault works however. So we have this:
1. Sexual Asault occurs when consent is not given. 2. Trump bragged about touching/kissing women without their consent 3. You said these actions are defensible
President Trump traveled 250 yards to greet George W. Bush. He used a stretch limo and an eight-vehicle motorcade to make the trip.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/president-trump-traveled-250-yards-to-greet-george-w-bush-he-used-a-stretch-limo-and-an-eight-vehicle-motorcade-to-make-the-trip/2018/12/04/19cf3760-f815-11e8-863c-9e2f864d47e7_story.html?utm_term=.113d5a2272e8 What the Wha-? President Trump traversed a wide political chasm Tuesday evening when he personally welcomed George W. Bush, his occasional foil, to Blair House, the presidential guest quarters across Pennsylvania Avenue from the White House. But the actual distance was just 250 yards — a route Trump and his wife Melania traveled in the presidential parade limousine, with a motorcade of at least seven other vehicles. The need for the motorcade, however, prompted questions, and a healthy dose of speculation, about why the Trumps were unable — or unwilling — to simply walk across the street. “Presidents, including the last one, have made the walk before,” observed Edward Price, who served as National Security Council spokesman in the Obama administration. “Bone spurs?” asked Sam Vinograd, a CNN political analyst and also a former Obama national security veteran, joking on Twitter about Trump’s explanation about his deferment from the Vietnam War draft. It may have been over Security concerns, but the Secret Service refused to say so.
U.S. top court rebuffs state bids to cut Planned Parenthood funds
https://news.yahoo.com/u-top-court-rebuffs-state-bids-cut-planned-144246538.html?re=0&.tsrc=notification-brknews The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday rejected appeals by Louisiana and Kansas seeking to end public funding by those states to Planned Parenthood, a national women's healthcare and abortion provider, through the Medicaid program. The justices left intact lower court rulings that prevented the two states from stripping government healthcare funding from local Planned Parenthood affiliates. Three conservative justices, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch, dissented from the decision by the nine-member court, saying it should have heard the appeals by the states.
The House will definitely move to impeach Trump; the only thing I don't know is whether they will do it quickly (by March) or if they will wait a few months (by October). Doing so will result only in a political victory because the Senate will never remove him from office. My advice would be to wait--Trump will lose his 2020 reelection bid, presuming he runs at all, thus making impeachment unnecessary.
re: the Mueller Investigation.... I concur that Trump will hand out pardons for Federal offenses and any Federal charges against Trump, himself, will trigger the 25th Amendment side-step: Trump steps down temporarily,citing health issues, making Pence the President, Pence pardons Trump, then Trump gets cleared by his physicians and resumes the office of POTUS. State charges depend upon a ruling from that SCOTUS case I mentioned, the one about whether or not being charged at the State and Federal levels constitutes "double jeopardy".
I see the US has just had Huawei's Chief Financial Officer arrested by Canada - apparently for breaching sanctions on Iran. There are 2 points about that: (i) the sanctions are unilateral from the US, i.e. they are attempting to dictate to the whole world how they should run their affairs. In some aspects of trade the US does have a legitimate interest, e.g. it's not unreasonable to say that US settlement arrangements should not be used for money laundering - but these sanctions cover transactions in which the US has no direct interest at all. The seeds have been sown here for a potential and damaging long-term conflict. I've posted before about what could happen when the US attempts to enforce these sanctions on EU countries and the disruption and worsening international relations that will cause. (ii) my belief is that this arrest in fact has little to do with sanctions and is far more about trying to pressure China over the current trade war.
Except Trump didn't know about the arrest. And building a criminal case of this sort takes a long time, I would guess this has been in the works since the summer if not earlier.
Not to mention, she was not arrested for violating unilateral sanctions. That is not an arrestable criminal act. She was arrested for defrauding US citizens and companies, and the fraud happened to be related to those sanctions. But more broadly, there is s lot of evidence that 1] Huawei in general is not a company that can be trusted; and 2] they/she specifically violated specific laws. US prosecutors definitely have jurisdiction over that sort of thing, and it's not like she has any kind of diplomatic status that would make her arrest not okay.
So, I think the uproar about this in China is really just China flexing its muscles. God help you if you go there and break the law, but they want (some) Chinese citizens to get a pass for breaking the law in other countries. Considering that their own citizens cannot rely on the rule of law to protect them from unlawful arrest and imprisonment, methinks they doth protest too much...
@subtledoctor I'm not sure why you think Trump didn't know about this.
Have you read the latest information about the charges here? It seems to me that: - there's no apparent financial loss to any US individuals or companies, i.e. the technical fraud is entirely bound up with the supposed breaches of sanctions. - the supposed breaches occurred prior to 2014, with a specific date in 2013 being mentioned. Since that time Huawei have been signed off by multiple audits and reviews by US government agencies. I said originally the timing of this charge was very suspicious. My view now is that it's more than suspicious and stinks to high heaven. - I'm not arguing that there in fact was no breach of sanctions. I think it's likely that there was, but the way this has been dealt with is motivated by politics and not justice. - the US government is fighting bail on the grounds that Meng is a flight risk. She does in fact have significant ties to Vancouver, which would tend to argue against that. More significantly, if she did run away, that would make getting a conviction far easier - and the main conviction here would be against Huawei and not her personally anyway. In practice I think the US government should love for her to do a runner to help them in the case. - The reason for not offering bail is thus not tied up with what she's going to do, but to increase the pressure on the Chinese to settle the trade dispute. However, that's not going to work. I think Trump's standard negotiating tactics of insulting the opposition until they settle works poorly in any situation. It's even more poorly suited to negotiating with the Chinese than other countries though because their culture takes personal insults - well personally. It's not just 'business' to them.
Incidentally, you've said that there's a lot of evidence that Huawei can't be trusted. I know there's been plenty of concerns raised about the possibility that Huawei could be pressured by the Chinese government into some form of spying or disruption - and hence there are quite a few countries that have refused to put Huawei products into their digital infrastructure. Is that what you're referring to? I can understand that concern and agree we should be wary, but for balance I should point out that as far as I'm aware there have never been any actual problems to date with any Huawei equipment.
The House will definitely move to impeach Trump; the only thing I don't know is whether they will do it quickly (by March) or if they will wait a few months (by October). Doing so will result only in a political victory because the Senate will never remove him from office. My advice would be to wait--Trump will lose his 2020 reelection bid, presuming he runs at all, thus making impeachment unnecessary.
re: the Mueller Investigation.... I concur that Trump will hand out pardons for Federal offenses and any Federal charges against Trump, himself, will trigger the 25th Amendment side-step: Trump steps down temporarily,citing health issues, making Pence the President, Pence pardons Trump, then Trump gets cleared by his physicians and resumes the office of POTUS. State charges depend upon a ruling from that SCOTUS case I mentioned, the one about whether or not being charged at the State and Federal levels constitutes "double jeopardy".
Pence will have to live with if he pardons Trump or not. I don't know if this would work. That just might put the Speaker of the House in the role of the President. President Pelosi?
Pence will have to live with if he pardons Trump or not. I don't know if this would work. That just might put the Speaker of the House in the role of the President. President Pelosi?
No, that clever--devious?--use of the 25th Amendment is perfectly legal even if it has never been used. The only way the Speaker becomes POTUS is if *both* the sitting President *and* the sitting Vice-President become incapacitated and/or unable to perform their duties at the same time.
Is the scenario I describe likely to happen? No. As a thought experiment, though, it passes the "is it Constitutional?" test.
It's definitely curious that that's a possibility. If a president and vice president were to fall, the presidency could easily fall to someone from a different party. But I'm not really sure if that's unjust, exactly: the Speaker is also an elected figure, and unless our only loyalties lie with a political party, there's no requirement that the presidency must stay with a specific party. After all, Americans don't vote for parties; they vote for individual people.
One might object that a lot of people do focus more on party loyalty than anything else, and there is such a thing as a straight party ticket, but that's not necessarily the norm, it's definitely not universal, and it's definitely not our ideal. So I don't think the presidential line of succession should be based on partisan affiliation.
I suppose the mechanism could be abused for political purposes, but unseating a president and vice president with no goal besides installing the Speaker would require massive coordination in both House and Senate, and it's the sort of thing that could easily backfire and fail.
Yeah lol bakeries and the damn internet are definitely exactly the same and analogies that use them are 100% accurate. People's free speech rights are under threat whenever you can't get a cake from Bakery A rather than Bakery B, *in the exact same way* that a handful of tech giants who control almost all expression on the internet can threaten your free speech rights when they agree to act in coordination to punish a particular person.
And there is the crux of the right's position: "We want to right to discriminate others, but no one can discriminate against us."
It seems to be that the activist right doesn't agree with things that society finds acceptable so they seek to force their views of what is acceptable on everyone else.
Have you read the latest information about the charges here? It seems to me that: - there's no apparent financial loss to any US individuals or companies, i.e. the technical fraud is entirely bound up with the supposed breaches of sanctions. - the supposed breaches occurred prior to 2014, with a specific date in 2013 being mentioned. Since that time Huawei have been signed off by multiple audits and reviews by US government agencies. I said originally the timing of this charge was very suspicious. My view now is that it's more than suspicious and stinks to high heaven. - I'm not arguing that there in fact was no breach of sanctions. I think it's likely that there was, but the way this has been dealt with is motivated by politics and not justice. - the US government is fighting bail on the grounds that Meng is a flight risk. She does in fact have significant ties to Vancouver, which would tend to argue against that. More significantly, if she did run away, that would make getting a conviction far easier - and the main conviction here would be against Huawei and not her personally anyway. In practice I think the US government should love for her to do a runner to help them in the case. - The reason for not offering bail is thus not tied up with what she's going to do, but to increase the pressure on the Chinese to settle the trade dispute. However, that's not going to work. I think Trump's standard negotiating tactics of insulting the opposition until they settle works poorly in any situation. It's even more poorly suited to negotiating with the Chinese than other countries though because their culture takes personal insults - well personally. It's not just 'business' to them.
It's just unrealistic to think this was ginned up as a tactic for the trade dispute(s). 1] You can't put together a case like this in a few months at the direction of someone involved in trade negotiations. It takes longer to find evidence and you don't know what the evidence will show until you have it. 2] It likely makes the trade negotiations harder, not easier, so it wouldn't make sense.
Simplest explanation: some prosecutors have been investigating Huawei for this for a long while, and either time was running out to file charges, or the evidence led them to believe that they had found whatever was going to be found, so it was time to stop investigating and to start arresting and litigating.
Your simple explanation really isn't so simple. It's been public knowledge for at least 6 years that there were close links between Huawei and Skycom - see for instance this article raising concerns about breaching Iranian sanctions. As I mentioned before, since then there have been numerous audits, investigations and compliance visits from US staff, so there's been no shortage of opportunity to build a case. For me Occams Razor just doesn't cut it for the 'simple' explanation that the relevant data has finally all been collected. The most obvious answer rather is that someone decided this was a good time to launch a case using data that they've long had available - probably for several years.
I agree with you that this will make the trade negotiations harder, but I don't think Trump would. His standard tactics are to insult and pressure opponents until they give concessions (at least in appearance) - that's the case whether talking about individuals or countries such as Iran, North Korea, EU states, Canada, Mexico or lots of others. He's also shown he's not just willing, but eager to use judicial and administrative processes for purposes beyond those they were designed for - so launching a prosecution that really has another purpose would make perfect sense to him.
They are trying to take their land without any compensation. Look to Zimbabwe, expelled the white minority and now is starving to the death. Instead of copying policies who ruined countries, why not copy the Bermuda, an African majority country with one of the highest GDP per capta, richer in GDP per capta than USA??? Why people still think that socialism can work? How many times it need to fail??
USA GDP per capita(according to google) : - usa = 59,531.66 USD - Bermuda = 85,748.07 USD
And the country with highest GDP per capta? A very "right wing" monarchy. Liechtenstein who is more than 2 times richer than Switzerland - Liechtenstein = 168,146.02 USD - Switzerland = 80,189.70 USD
Can't imagine why black South Africans would have legitimate grievances with a white population that upheld an apartheid state for DECADES, most of those years with the explicit support of the US government (especially Reagan). The land should be redistributed. The fact that it WASN'T in this country after the Civil War, which represents the abandonment of Reconstruction in the South, is why the US racial wound will never heal. I have no sympathy for people who sat around and did nothing while benefiting from an openly racist society:
You should compare per capta, cuz bigger population make a big difference.
A small population also makes a big difference. You should not rely on any single metric when considering complex issues.
Small countries tends to be more stable, pacific an rich. Cuz is more easy to solve a problem of a small population than of an country. Falklands, an British territory in Southern Cone have no homicides in DECADES.
USA is very rich because states/cities have an greater autonomy. Unfortunately each day, the central government become bigger and stronger. Honestly, the idea that the South of Texas and North of Alaska should follow the same federal law is ridiculous. Just like the idea that Sicilians and Swedes should use the same currency and be under the same law.
Can't imagine why black South Africans would have legitimate grievances with a white population that upheld an apartheid state for DECADES, most of those years with the explicit support of the US government (especially Reagan). The land should be redistributed. The fact that it WASN'T in this country after the Civil War, which represents the abandonment of Reconstruction in the South, is why the US racial wound will never heal. I have no sympathy for people who sat around and did nothing while benefiting from an openly racist society:
Where land "redistribution" dint resulted in starvation? Ukraine and China suffered mass starvation thanks to a central authority redistributing agricultural lands. And Zimbabwe? They took the land of the white minority, and now is begging for then to move back( https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/africa/zimbabwe-seized-white-farmers-land-now-some-are-being-invited-back/2015/09/14/456f66d6-45d2-11e5-9f53-d1e3ddfd0cda_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.54c4f8b9858b ) I an not advocating for any awful regime, but honestly during Apartheid, south africa received a lot of immigration from other african countries. Was not an first world country, but was richer than almost all Asia, almost all latin american countries except Argentina/Uruguay, and the richest country in the region. Now the HDI is failing apart. Egypt for example is far richer than SA.
Honestly, the idea of fixing an problem caused by an centralized government promoting racism by another racist law is a awful idea. Affirmative actions should't be implemented in any country. It never worked. Look to Jews on USA. Most of then moved to USA without many resources during WW2 and are not poor. Look to Japaneses, FDR trowed then into concentration camps( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internment_of_Japanese_Americans ) and both earn more on average than the average white american.
American Japanese and Jews were never the PROPERTY of other people, working for NO wages for centuries, thus making any semblance of generational wealth impossible because there was not only no wealth, there was no money or possessions AT ALL. They didn't even own the rights to their own bodies or their children. No, when racist institutions fall apart, we should just sit back and wash our hands of the whole mess and "move on"......which then makes sure the inequities remain in perpetuity, forever. No one is winning a 1600 meter race when they are at the starting line and the rest of society has already completed the first 1500 meters.
The idea that there should be no consequences to be paid or reparations made by societies who engage in systematic racism is AWFULLY convenient for those who engage and benefit from those systems. When they fall apart, you just pretend like it never happened. It's not only convenient, I'd dare say that mentality ENCOURAGES it to happen in the first place, since no evening of the playing field will ever be allowed to take place anyway.
I think reparations should really be limited to the lifetimes of the victims (or in the case of murder victims, their relatives at the time). Otherwise we'd be left with an open-ended question: how far back should reparations stretch, and what impact, if any, does the amount of time have on the amount owed? Lord knows human cruelty dates back a very long time, and there are some debts that could never be remotely repaid (all the money in the United States wouldn't pay for all those years of slavery) and incidents where the blame is divided or debated (ask Israelis and Palestinians who is responsible for the violence between them).
I think "the lifetimes of the victims" is a reasonable cutoff point. Reparations for segregation would be fair, and unlike reparations for slavery, it's not too late to make things right with the surviving victims.
I think reparations should really be limited to the lifetimes of the victims (or in the case of murder victims, their relatives at the time). Otherwise we'd be left with an open-ended question: how far back should reparations stretch, and what impact, if any, does the amount of time have on the amount owed? Lord knows human cruelty dates back a very long time, and there are some debts that could never be remotely repaid (all the money in the United States wouldn't pay for all those years of slavery) and incidents where the blame is divided or debated (ask Israelis and Palestinians who is responsible for the violence between them).
I think "the lifetimes of the victims" is a reasonable cutoff point. Reparations for segregation would be fair, and unlike reparations for slavery, it's not too late to make things right with the surviving victims.
Those arguments are fair enough, except NONE of these things has ever happened. Not even anything remotely close to them has ever happened. Nor will it. It's too late. You're as likely to be taken seriously in this country saying you are disbanding the US military as mentioning slavery or segregation reparations. Even calling it a fringe movement is stretching it. And, again, this is what Reconstruction was SUPPOSED to address, and it was abandoned.
@SorcererV1ct0r I was sceptical about the graph you posted as there seemed no good reason to end the comparison in 2005. Looking at the original HDI data for South Africa I think there are 2 things going on: 1) The dates have been deliberately chosen to show the worst possible case - if you look at more recent data South Africa are performing in line with other countries. 2) From the figures on the graph I'm pretty sure that what's been done is comparing the raw scores across years for South Africa, but adjusted scores (taking account of methodological changes between years) for other countries. That accentuates the apparent difference.
It is true though that the South African score did take a dip in 2005. That has nothing to do with affirmative action causing a drop in income though, as can be seen by looking at the separate components of the HDI in this graph The drop in HDI in South Africa was entirely attributable to a decline in life expectancy. You may be aware that the leadership in South Africa at the time took a political stance over the causes of AIDS. They ignored compelling scientific evidence on that and failed to provide effective treatment or advice on prevention. That failure had a major impact on the lives of the people in the country and I'm very happy to strongly criticize the leadership for that (just like I'm doing with Trump who is ignoring equally compelling scientific advice on climate change, which is also going to have a significant effect on people's lives).
I accept entirely that South Africa has problems, but that's no surprise. It is a surprise to me that they're doing as well as they are. Given the many years of blatant discrimination and brutality there, to be able to have moved to a more equal society relatively peacefully and without major disruption is a notable achievement.
I agree with you though that there are some warning signs in South Africa at the moment about the way they are proposing to manage land redistribution. You also referred to Zimbabwe's experience there and that should indeed act as a cautionary tale. I did some travelling in that country, I think in 1991, and was struck at that time how well integrated the country was given its post-colonial status from the clearly racist position adopted by Rhodesia. It wasn't long after that though that the country started to move away from what I would term affirmative action aimed at providing more equal opportunities for all people. Up to that time for instance land redistribution was done by making purchases from willing sellers - largely funded by the UK as recompense for the colonial years. Gradually after that the country moved to a policy of forced land acquisition (both through changes in the law and blatant land seizures without even a legal figleaf to justify them).
By forcing people off the land that knew how to make use of it (and that's not just the white owners, but also the blacks that made up most of the workforce) and replacing them with those that didn't, Zimbabwe suffered a huge drop in agricultural production - causing both famine and major reductions in income as a result of the loss of cash crops. While that policy was racist in execution, I think the major reason for doing it was not racism per se, but to do with power politics. Mugabe was keen to consolidate his power in the country and chose to do so by keeping the revolutionary army going that had been fighting Rhodesian colonial rule. In order to maintain his power over that army - which provided him with a non-constitutional means of enforcing his will - he had to create enemies for them to fight. The white farmers provided a convenient target there.
Whatever the rationale I agree that black on white racism is no more acceptable than the reverse, but I would distinguish that from affirmative action. While policies may be more or less well implemented, I would summarize the difference as follows: - the intention of affirmative action is to provide equality of opportunity to all people - the intention of racism is to deny equality of opportunity to some people
"I don’t think he was involved in crimes but even then, you know, you can make anything a crime under the current laws; if you want to you can blow it way out of proportion–you can do a lot of things."
Orrin Hatch's comments on Candidate Hillary Clinton:
"Committing crimes of moral turpitude such as perjury and obstruction of justice go to the heart of qualification for public office. These offenses were committed by the chief executive of our country, the individual who swore to faithfully execute the laws of the United States. This great nation can tolerate a President who makes mistakes. But it cannot tolerate one who makes a mistake and then breaks the law to cover it up. Any other citizen would be prosecuted for these crimes."
And people wonder why impeachment is going to be a pointless exercise. Orrin Hatch, an OUTGOING elder statesman of the Republican Party is willingly providing quotes to the media saying it doesn't matter if Trump broke the law. You are seeing the goalposts shifting in real-time. It's gone like this: first the people talking about Trump's scandals were delusional conspiracy theorists who couldn't handle Hillary's loss. Then it became "some people in the campaign did some things, but Trump can't be held accountable". Now we've reached the INEVITABLE end-game of the defense of Trump, which I have predicted for two years, which is the admission that he was involved and saying that it isn't a big deal anyway.
It doesn't matter what is found, it doesn't matter what Mueller reveals. We could get a grainy videotape of Trump making blood sacrifices of infants in an occult ritual like something out of Season 1 of "True Detective" and you'd maybe get 5-10 Republicans who would cross the line. But most of them would still say "yeah, it's distasteful, but at least Hillary didn't get elected."
American Japanese and Jews were never the PROPERTY of other people, working for NO wages for centuries, thus making any semblance of generational wealth impossible because there was not only no wealth, there was no money or possessions AT ALL. They didn't even own the rights to their own bodies or their children. No, when racist institutions fall apart, we should just sit back and wash our hands of the whole mess and "move on"......which then makes sure the inequities remain in perpetuity, forever. No one is winning a 1600 meter race when they are at the starting line and the rest of society has already completed the first 1500 meters.
The idea that there should be no consequences to be paid or reparations made by societies who engage in systematic racism is AWFULLY convenient for those who engage and benefit from those systems. When they fall apart, you just pretend like it never happened. It's not only convenient, I'd dare say that mentality ENCOURAGES it to happen in the first place, since no evening of the playing field will ever be allowed to take place anyway.
Jews was enslaved since the ancient Egypt. Many Asians was suffered a lot thanks to Hirohito. They don't demand affirmative actions. Pick an woman of Ukraine ancestry. Slavs was enslaved by Teutonic, Romans, Huns, Mongols(...). And why not talk about Arab slave trade? Arab slave trade enslaved white Europeans too, enslaved more blacks than any European country and an African immigrant who din't had any ancestor enslaved can use affirmative action while the Ukraine woman can't... Anyway :
- The greatest victim of slavery = Slavs - The greatest slave traders on the history = Semites - Those who ended slavery = White man
Look to any country on Americas. Except Haiti, all of then ended slavery by Europeans. Was the British Royal Marines who started to patrol the seas in order to prevent slave trade, was an white president(Lincoln) who ended slavery on USA and on Brazil(country who received the greatest amount of slaves), was an blonde, blue eyed princess(Isabel) who ended the slavery. After the end of slavery, the elite did an coup and destroyed the monarchy. When a referendum to restore the monarchy was made, they hired an Afro actor to lie to the population that if the monarchy is re established, slavery will come back. An awful lie. Monarchists sacrificed everything to end slavery...
@SorcererV1ct0r I was sceptical about the graph you posted as there seemed no good reason to end the comparison in 2005. Looking at the original HDI data for South Africa I think there are 2 things going on: 1) The dates have been deliberately chosen to show the worst possible case - if you look at more recent data South Africa are performing in line with other countries. 2) From the figures on the graph I'm pretty sure that what's been done is comparing the raw scores across years for South Africa, but adjusted scores (taking account of methodological changes between years) for other countries. That accentuates the apparent difference.
It is true though that the South African score did take a dip in 2005. That has nothing to do with affirmative action causing a drop in income though, as can be seen by looking at the separate components of the HDI in this graph The drop in HDI in South Africa was entirely attributable to a decline in life expectancy. You may be aware that the leadership in South Africa at the time took a political stance over the causes of AIDS. They ignored compelling scientific evidence on that and failed to provide effective treatment or advice on prevention. That failure had a major impact on the lives of the people in the country and I'm very happy to strongly criticize the leadership for that (just like I'm doing with Trump who is ignoring equally compelling scientific advice on climate change, which is also going to have a significant effect on people's lives).
I accept entirely that South Africa has problems, but that's no surprise. It is a surprise to me that they're doing as well as they are. Given the many years of blatant discrimination and brutality there, to be able to have moved to a more equal society relatively peacefully and without major disruption is a notable achievement.
I agree with you though that there are some warning signs in South Africa at the moment about the way they are proposing to manage land redistribution. You also referred to Zimbabwe's experience there and that should indeed act as a cautionary tale. I did some travelling in that country, I think in 1991, and was struck at that time how well integrated the country was given its post-colonial status from the clearly racist position adopted by Rhodesia. It wasn't long after that though that the country started to move away from what I would term affirmative action aimed at providing more equal opportunities for all people. Up to that time for instance land redistribution was done by making purchases from willing sellers - largely funded by the UK as recompense for the colonial years. Gradually after that the country moved to a policy of forced land acquisition (both through changes in the law and blatant land seizures without even a legal figleaf to justify them).
By forcing people off the land that knew how to make use of it (and that's not just the white owners, but also the blacks that made up most of the workforce) and replacing them with those that didn't, Zimbabwe suffered a huge drop in agricultural production - causing both famine and major reductions in income as a result of the loss of cash crops. While that policy was racist in execution, I think the major reason for doing it was not racism per se, but to do with power politics. Mugabe was keen to consolidate his power in the country and chose to do so by keeping the revolutionary army going that had been fighting Rhodesian colonial rule. In order to maintain his power over that army - which provided him with a non-constitutional means of enforcing his will - he had to create enemies for them to fight. The white farmers provided a convenient target there.
Whatever the rationale I agree that black on white racism is no more acceptable than the reverse, but I would distinguish that from affirmative action. While policies may be more or less well implemented, I would summarize the difference as follows: - the intention of affirmative action is to provide equality of opportunity to all people - the intention of racism is to deny equality of opportunity to some people
Nice points. I still think that the drop on life expectancy have relations with criminality and health problems, not only AIDS. But i never saw a single "land redistribution" example who worked unless was made in a local level, for example, native americans gaining his lands back who was taken by force. I an very skeptical about centralized bureaucracy trying to do that on a big country. This never worked.
About the intent of race based affirmative action is to provide equality of opportunity, this is very subjective and can't beimplemented without an racial tribunal. For example, Obama is black, but he have an white mother, so an 1/4 black person can use affirmative action? And 1/8? 1/16? Also note that usa considers in many government programs "hispanic" as a race and define everyone southern of his border as a hispanic. Under that critter, Richard Darre(Nazi minister - born in Argentina) and Egon Albrecht(Luftwaffe Iron Cross ace - Born in Curitiba - Brazil) can be both considered non white, despite being clearly german by blood and having only white parents.
If you define as someone who needs to have Amerindian blood, then there are a problem. There are tons of amerindians tribes on Americas. An person can be 1/4 Indigenous, if the Indigenous blood on her is Fuegian, Guarani or Aztec, it will affects her phenotype and the results in an ancestry exam or in his physical features. So you can have an mestizo being accepted on the program and another mestizo with the same amount of indigenous blood being refused only because the "racial tribunal" uses traits of an specific tribe to determine if the person in question should have the right of use the affirmative action origran or not... The best solution is be color blind as much as possible.
Is impossible to have any "racial program" without a racial tribunal. Just like nazis did on ww2 with Nuremberg laws
Comments
However, I don't expect the delay to make much difference. Her stated intention is to renegotiate with the EU over the backstop arrangement for Northern Ireland, but that's not going to be successful. The EU, unlike the UK, has taken a very stable and predictable approach to the negotiations over the last couple of years. Thus, when they say there will be no renegotiation I believe them. There may well be some new form of words contrived, but as far as the EU is concerned those words will mean exactly the same as the existing ones. While May can try and convince MPs that there's been a real change, I don't think she will have much joy with that.
Incidentally, for those who have a bit of interest, but not much knowledge of what's being discussed in Brexit, I thought I might just sketch out what the backstop arrangement is and why it's such a political problem.
The reality is thus that both sides have an incentive to avoid the backstop or get rid of it as soon as possible if it is needed, but neither side can openly say this because of the political complications. Thus for the time being we're stuck in limbo and no closer to knowing what the eventual outcome of Brexit will be.
1. Sexual Asault occurs when consent is not given.
2. Trump bragged about touching/kissing women without their consent
3. You said these actions are defensible
So, what exactly should I have taken from this?
President Trump traveled 250 yards to greet George W. Bush. He used a stretch limo and an eight-vehicle motorcade to make the trip.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/president-trump-traveled-250-yards-to-greet-george-w-bush-he-used-a-stretch-limo-and-an-eight-vehicle-motorcade-to-make-the-trip/2018/12/04/19cf3760-f815-11e8-863c-9e2f864d47e7_story.html?utm_term=.113d5a2272e8What the Wha-?
President Trump traversed a wide political chasm Tuesday evening when he personally welcomed George W. Bush, his occasional foil, to Blair House, the presidential guest quarters across Pennsylvania Avenue from the White House.
But the actual distance was just 250 yards — a route Trump and his wife Melania traveled in the presidential parade limousine, with a motorcade of at least seven other vehicles.
The need for the motorcade, however, prompted questions, and a healthy dose of speculation, about why the Trumps were unable — or unwilling — to simply walk across the street.
“Presidents, including the last one, have made the walk before,” observed Edward Price, who served as National Security Council spokesman in the Obama administration.
“Bone spurs?” asked Sam Vinograd, a CNN political analyst and also a former Obama national security veteran, joking on Twitter about Trump’s explanation about his deferment from the Vietnam War draft.
It may have been over Security concerns, but the Secret Service refused to say so.
U.S. top court rebuffs state bids to cut Planned Parenthood funds
https://news.yahoo.com/u-top-court-rebuffs-state-bids-cut-planned-144246538.html?re=0&.tsrc=notification-brknewsThe U.S. Supreme Court on Monday rejected appeals by Louisiana and Kansas seeking to end public funding by those states to Planned Parenthood, a national women's healthcare and abortion provider, through the Medicaid program.
The justices left intact lower court rulings that prevented the two states from stripping government healthcare funding from local Planned Parenthood affiliates.
Three conservative justices, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch, dissented from the decision by the nine-member court, saying it should have heard the appeals by the states.
The Donors behind a Republican Power Grab
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/09/opinion/wisconsin-republicans-walgreens-campaign-finance.html?smid=fb-nytimes&smtyp=cur&fbclid=IwAR15p_D2Azc5In2wies5FuCbNe8Lq2F84nIwSQ2RWfvtHAZujVxDFn1avccWalgreens. Just Walgreens.
‘You voted to impeach Clinton’: CNN’s Jennifer Granholm wallops Rick Santorum for hypocrisy over Trump crimes
https://www.rawstory.com/2018/12/voted-impeach-clinton-cnns-jennifer-granholm-wallops-rick-santorum-hypocrisy-trump-crimes/?fbclid=IwAR1NsYqQFbPkJtDgQPoStkmpo6RZX3teJhQFMARX0fGT34rR0vU0M14-D8gThe Hypocrisy among Republicans is stark. And not Tony Stark.
Top House Dems raise prospect of impeachment, jail for Trump
https://www.apnews.com/1e99addc0c914e79952444206633fac6?fbclid=IwAR0sQTqjJs2gTT47hrXZ7-GhicDxbHdT6Gukn3iFbsAXyES5WvJeniTEIAcGood!
Time to allow the Ten Commandments in Texas classrooms? One state lawmaker thinks so
https://www.star-telegram.com/news/politics-government/state-politics/article222625075.html?fbclid=IwAR2jZAMnTZnrA9dB7ztbSoZJ9aKhGKpYXVYVzFcxu_X4f9q6zuFMeKf-Y5gThat's a violation of Church-State Separation.
Britain PM Theresa May pulls crucial vote on Brexit deal: reports
https://globalnews.ca/news/4746320/theresa-may-pulls-brexit-deal-vote/?utm_source=notification/She didn't want Brexit to begin with!
Judge orders release of Trump, Pence emails on Carrier Corp.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/09/27/pence-trump-emails-carrier-corp-judge-ruling/1443831002/?fbclid=IwAR0N5AZDPxi7FUkFB6VdZ0BJRJ8hoqo6tO2dpcPsPQfTKIAD6lj_B1MsX2UI have to wonder if this is the beginning of the end for Trump.
Jared Kushner advised Saudi prince on how to 'weather' Khashoggi slaying, report says
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/12/09/jared-kushner-advised-saudi-prince-after-khashoggi-murder-report-says/2257098002/Again, not a real surprise. Kushner and Trump seem to really like authoritarian rulers.
re: the Mueller Investigation.... I concur that Trump will hand out pardons for Federal offenses and any Federal charges against Trump, himself, will trigger the 25th Amendment side-step: Trump steps down temporarily,citing health issues, making Pence the President, Pence pardons Trump, then Trump gets cleared by his physicians and resumes the office of POTUS. State charges depend upon a ruling from that SCOTUS case I mentioned, the one about whether or not being charged at the State and Federal levels constitutes "double jeopardy".
@subtledoctor I'm not sure why you think Trump didn't know about this.
Have you read the latest information about the charges here? It seems to me that:
- there's no apparent financial loss to any US individuals or companies, i.e. the technical fraud is entirely bound up with the supposed breaches of sanctions.
- the supposed breaches occurred prior to 2014, with a specific date in 2013 being mentioned. Since that time Huawei have been signed off by multiple audits and reviews by US government agencies. I said originally the timing of this charge was very suspicious. My view now is that it's more than suspicious and stinks to high heaven.
- I'm not arguing that there in fact was no breach of sanctions. I think it's likely that there was, but the way this has been dealt with is motivated by politics and not justice.
- the US government is fighting bail on the grounds that Meng is a flight risk. She does in fact have significant ties to Vancouver, which would tend to argue against that. More significantly, if she did run away, that would make getting a conviction far easier - and the main conviction here would be against Huawei and not her personally anyway. In practice I think the US government should love for her to do a runner to help them in the case.
- The reason for not offering bail is thus not tied up with what she's going to do, but to increase the pressure on the Chinese to settle the trade dispute. However, that's not going to work. I think Trump's standard negotiating tactics of insulting the opposition until they settle works poorly in any situation. It's even more poorly suited to negotiating with the Chinese than other countries though because their culture takes personal insults - well personally. It's not just 'business' to them.
Incidentally, you've said that there's a lot of evidence that Huawei can't be trusted. I know there's been plenty of concerns raised about the possibility that Huawei could be pressured by the Chinese government into some form of spying or disruption - and hence there are quite a few countries that have refused to put Huawei products into their digital infrastructure. Is that what you're referring to? I can understand that concern and agree we should be wary, but for balance I should point out that as far as I'm aware there have never been any actual problems to date with any Huawei equipment.
Is the scenario I describe likely to happen? No. As a thought experiment, though, it passes the "is it Constitutional?" test.
One might object that a lot of people do focus more on party loyalty than anything else, and there is such a thing as a straight party ticket, but that's not necessarily the norm, it's definitely not universal, and it's definitely not our ideal. So I don't think the presidential line of succession should be based on partisan affiliation.
I suppose the mechanism could be abused for political purposes, but unseating a president and vice president with no goal besides installing the Speaker would require massive coordination in both House and Senate, and it's the sort of thing that could easily backfire and fail.
I agree with you that this will make the trade negotiations harder, but I don't think Trump would. His standard tactics are to insult and pressure opponents until they give concessions (at least in appearance) - that's the case whether talking about individuals or countries such as Iran, North Korea, EU states, Canada, Mexico or lots of others. He's also shown he's not just willing, but eager to use judicial and administrative processes for purposes beyond those they were designed for - so launching a prosecution that really has another purpose would make perfect sense to him.
They are trying to take their land without any compensation. Look to Zimbabwe, expelled the white minority and now is starving to the death. Instead of copying policies who ruined countries, why not copy the Bermuda, an African majority country with one of the highest GDP per capta, richer in GDP per capta than USA??? Why people still think that socialism can work? How many times it need to fail??
USA GDP per capita(according to google) :
- usa = 59,531.66 USD
- Bermuda = 85,748.07 USD
And the country with highest GDP per capta? A very "right wing" monarchy. Liechtenstein who is more than 2 times richer than Switzerland
- Liechtenstein = 168,146.02 USD
- Switzerland = 80,189.70 USD
USA 19.61 trillion
Bermuda 4.334 billion
Liechtenstein 6.289 billion
Switzerland 558 billion
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apartheid?wprov=sfla1
USA is very rich because states/cities have an greater autonomy. Unfortunately each day, the central government become bigger and stronger. Honestly, the idea that the South of Texas and North of Alaska should follow the same federal law is ridiculous. Just like the idea that Sicilians and Swedes should use the same currency and be under the same law. Where land "redistribution" dint resulted in starvation? Ukraine and China suffered mass starvation thanks to a central authority redistributing agricultural lands. And Zimbabwe? They took the land of the white minority, and now is begging for then to move back( https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/africa/zimbabwe-seized-white-farmers-land-now-some-are-being-invited-back/2015/09/14/456f66d6-45d2-11e5-9f53-d1e3ddfd0cda_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.54c4f8b9858b ) I an not advocating for any awful regime, but honestly during Apartheid, south africa received a lot of immigration from other african countries. Was not an first world country, but was richer than almost all Asia, almost all latin american countries except Argentina/Uruguay, and the richest country in the region. Now the HDI is failing apart. Egypt for example is far richer than SA.
Honestly, the idea of fixing an problem caused by an centralized government promoting racism by another racist law is a awful idea. Affirmative actions should't be implemented in any country. It never worked. Look to Jews on USA. Most of then moved to USA without many resources during WW2 and are not poor. Look to Japaneses, FDR trowed then into concentration camps( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internment_of_Japanese_Americans ) and both earn more on average than the average white american.
The idea that there should be no consequences to be paid or reparations made by societies who engage in systematic racism is AWFULLY convenient for those who engage and benefit from those systems. When they fall apart, you just pretend like it never happened. It's not only convenient, I'd dare say that mentality ENCOURAGES it to happen in the first place, since no evening of the playing field will ever be allowed to take place anyway.
I think "the lifetimes of the victims" is a reasonable cutoff point. Reparations for segregation would be fair, and unlike reparations for slavery, it's not too late to make things right with the surviving victims.
1) The dates have been deliberately chosen to show the worst possible case - if you look at more recent data South Africa are performing in line with other countries.
2) From the figures on the graph I'm pretty sure that what's been done is comparing the raw scores across years for South Africa, but adjusted scores (taking account of methodological changes between years) for other countries. That accentuates the apparent difference.
It is true though that the South African score did take a dip in 2005. That has nothing to do with affirmative action causing a drop in income though, as can be seen by looking at the separate components of the HDI in this graph
The drop in HDI in South Africa was entirely attributable to a decline in life expectancy. You may be aware that the leadership in South Africa at the time took a political stance over the causes of AIDS. They ignored compelling scientific evidence on that and failed to provide effective treatment or advice on prevention. That failure had a major impact on the lives of the people in the country and I'm very happy to strongly criticize the leadership for that (just like I'm doing with Trump who is ignoring equally compelling scientific advice on climate change, which is also going to have a significant effect on people's lives).
I accept entirely that South Africa has problems, but that's no surprise. It is a surprise to me that they're doing as well as they are. Given the many years of blatant discrimination and brutality there, to be able to have moved to a more equal society relatively peacefully and without major disruption is a notable achievement.
I agree with you though that there are some warning signs in South Africa at the moment about the way they are proposing to manage land redistribution. You also referred to Zimbabwe's experience there and that should indeed act as a cautionary tale. I did some travelling in that country, I think in 1991, and was struck at that time how well integrated the country was given its post-colonial status from the clearly racist position adopted by Rhodesia. It wasn't long after that though that the country started to move away from what I would term affirmative action aimed at providing more equal opportunities for all people. Up to that time for instance land redistribution was done by making purchases from willing sellers - largely funded by the UK as recompense for the colonial years. Gradually after that the country moved to a policy of forced land acquisition (both through changes in the law and blatant land seizures without even a legal figleaf to justify them).
By forcing people off the land that knew how to make use of it (and that's not just the white owners, but also the blacks that made up most of the workforce) and replacing them with those that didn't, Zimbabwe suffered a huge drop in agricultural production - causing both famine and major reductions in income as a result of the loss of cash crops. While that policy was racist in execution, I think the major reason for doing it was not racism per se, but to do with power politics. Mugabe was keen to consolidate his power in the country and chose to do so by keeping the revolutionary army going that had been fighting Rhodesian colonial rule. In order to maintain his power over that army - which provided him with a non-constitutional means of enforcing his will - he had to create enemies for them to fight. The white farmers provided a convenient target there.
Whatever the rationale I agree that black on white racism is no more acceptable than the reverse, but I would distinguish that from affirmative action. While policies may be more or less well implemented, I would summarize the difference as follows:
- the intention of affirmative action is to provide equality of opportunity to all people
- the intention of racism is to deny equality of opportunity to some people
"I don’t think he was involved in crimes but even then, you know, you can make anything a crime under the current laws; if you want to you can blow it way out of proportion–you can do a lot of things."
Orrin Hatch's comments on Candidate Hillary Clinton:
"Committing crimes of moral turpitude such as perjury and obstruction of justice go to the heart of qualification for public office. These offenses were committed by the chief executive of our country, the individual who swore to faithfully execute the laws of the United States.
This great nation can tolerate a President who makes mistakes. But it cannot tolerate one who makes a mistake and then breaks the law to cover it up. Any other citizen would be prosecuted for these crimes."
It doesn't matter what is found, it doesn't matter what Mueller reveals. We could get a grainy videotape of Trump making blood sacrifices of infants in an occult ritual like something out of Season 1 of "True Detective" and you'd maybe get 5-10 Republicans who would cross the line. But most of them would still say "yeah, it's distasteful, but at least Hillary didn't get elected."
Russia didn't interfere in the election; that was just an excuse for Clinton's loss.
Russia interfered in the election, but Trump had no ties to the Russians.
Trump had some ties to Russia, but he wasn't in bed with Putin.
Trump was in bed with Putin, but it wasn't a bed with sheets.
I think we're going to see a lot of variations on that last one in the coming months.
- The greatest victim of slavery = Slavs
- The greatest slave traders on the history = Semites
- Those who ended slavery = White man
Look to any country on Americas. Except Haiti, all of then ended slavery by Europeans. Was the British Royal Marines who started to patrol the seas in order to prevent slave trade, was an white president(Lincoln) who ended slavery on USA and on Brazil(country who received the greatest amount of slaves), was an blonde, blue eyed princess(Isabel) who ended the slavery. After the end of slavery, the elite did an coup and destroyed the monarchy. When a referendum to restore the monarchy was made, they hired an Afro actor to lie to the population that if the monarchy is re established, slavery will come back. An awful lie. Monarchists sacrificed everything to end slavery... Nice points. I still think that the drop on life expectancy have relations with criminality and health problems, not only AIDS. But i never saw a single "land redistribution" example who worked unless was made in a local level, for example, native americans gaining his lands back who was taken by force. I an very skeptical about centralized bureaucracy trying to do that on a big country. This never worked.
About the intent of race based affirmative action is to provide equality of opportunity, this is very subjective and can't beimplemented without an racial tribunal. For example, Obama is black, but he have an white mother, so an 1/4 black person can use affirmative action? And 1/8? 1/16? Also note that usa considers in many government programs "hispanic" as a race and define everyone southern of his border as a hispanic. Under that critter, Richard Darre(Nazi minister - born in Argentina) and Egon Albrecht(Luftwaffe Iron Cross ace - Born in Curitiba - Brazil) can be both considered non white, despite being clearly german by blood and having only white parents.
If you define as someone who needs to have Amerindian blood, then there are a problem. There are tons of amerindians tribes on Americas. An person can be 1/4 Indigenous, if the Indigenous blood on her is Fuegian, Guarani or Aztec, it will affects her phenotype and the results in an ancestry exam or in his physical features. So you can have an mestizo being accepted on the program and another mestizo with the same amount of indigenous blood being refused only because the "racial tribunal" uses traits of an specific tribe to determine if the person in question should have the right of use the affirmative action origran or not... The best solution is be color blind as much as possible.
Is impossible to have any "racial program" without a racial tribunal. Just like nazis did on ww2 with Nuremberg laws