Did Ukraine receive the aid before the legal deadline set for them to receive the aid? Yes? Then the GAO's "legal opinion" is just that--an opinion. As I asked, though, why did the GAO wait until now to release this opinion? Clearly, they are seeking to influence the Senate trial in a political manner.
You know as well as anyone the aid was released ONLY when they got caught and got wind of the whistleblower complaint (a complaint that was to go to the House BY LAW and was buried instead) Under your scenario, a bank robbery can be abandoned in progress and be completely legal.
Did Ukraine receive the aid before the legal deadline set for them to receive the aid? Yes? Then the GAO's "legal opinion" is just that--an opinion. As I asked, though, why did the GAO wait until now to release this opinion? Clearly, they are seeking to influence the Senate trial in a political manner.
You know as well as anyone the aid was released ONLY when they got caught and got wind of the whistleblower complaint (a complaint that was to go to the House BY LAW and was buried instead) Under your scenario, a bank robbery can be abandoned in progress and be completely legal.
You're both right. That's why this is such a waste of time shit-show. It's politics blended with law for public consumption in order to win votes in an election year. The trouble is both sides are so transparent that nobody is fooled by the motivations of either (power). Trump got caught in a clumsy effort to influence a foreign leader. Democrats think 'this is the worst thing to happen since Watergate', Republicans think it's 'nothing to see here', the media thinks 'whoo hoo, tune in and watch the show (and our ads)!'.
Did Ukraine receive the aid before the legal deadline set for them to receive the aid? Yes? Then the GAO's "legal opinion" is just that--an opinion. As I asked, though, why did the GAO wait until now to release this opinion? Clearly, they are seeking to influence the Senate trial in a political manner.
You know as well as anyone the aid was released ONLY when they got caught and got wind of the whistleblower complaint (a complaint that was to go to the House BY LAW and was buried instead) Under your scenario, a bank robbery can be abandoned in progress and be completely legal.
You're both right. That's why this is such a waste of time shit-show. It's politics blended with law for public consumption in order to win votes in an election year. The trouble is both sides are so transparent that nobody is fooled by the motivations of either (power). Trump got caught in a clumsy effort to influence a foreign leader. Democrats think 'this is the worst thing to happen since Watergate', Republicans think it's 'nothing to see here', the media thinks 'whoo hoo, tune in and watch the show (and our ads)!'.
It wasn't just an attempt to incluence a foreign leader. It was an attempt to get that foreign leader to fatally wound who Trump perceives as his main 2020 rival and withholding taxpayer funds appropriated by their representatives to do so. Last time I checked, not just conservatives and Trump voters pay taxes. So what you are asking the over 50% of the country who now supports these proceedings to swallow is OUR money being used to materially influence and help Trump re-elect himself. But I know what the rules are. I'm not under any illusions liberals are allowed to complain or speak up about how money is spent. Only conservatives and libertarians get to do that. Because none of us even go to work. We just sit at home collecting checks and complaining.
I'm not sure what is so hard to understand about this. A lawful appropriation of Congressional funds was made to Ukraine. Those funds are taxpayer dollars. The Trump Administration then took those funds, claimed them as their own, and used them as the carrot in an extortion plot. When they found out someone sounded the alarm, they did not turn over the report to Congres (as mandated) but instead gave it to Bill Barr and the President himself, which is such a bastardization of what a whistleblower appartus is supposed to do that it's hard to even put into words. Anyone who has taken perfunctory HR training at their job knows this.
Did Ukraine receive the aid before the legal deadline set for them to receive the aid? Yes? Then the GAO's "legal opinion" is just that--an opinion. As I asked, though, why did the GAO wait until now to release this opinion? Clearly, they are seeking to influence the Senate trial in a political manner.
You know as well as anyone the aid was released ONLY when they got caught and got wind of the whistleblower complaint (a complaint that was to go to the House BY LAW and was buried instead) Under your scenario, a bank robbery can be abandoned in progress and be completely legal.
You're both right. That's why this is such a waste of time shit-show. It's politics blended with law for public consumption in order to win votes in an election year. The trouble is both sides are so transparent that nobody is fooled by the motivations of either (power). Trump got caught in a clumsy effort to influence a foreign leader. Democrats think 'this is the worst thing to happen since Watergate', Republicans think it's 'nothing to see here', the media thinks 'whoo hoo, tune in and watch the show (and our ads)!'.
It wasn't just an attempt to incluence a foreign leader. It was an attempt to get that foreign leader to fatally wound who Trump perceives as his main 2020 rival and withholding taxpayer funds appropriated by their representatives to do so. Last time I checked, not just conservatives and Trump voters pay taxes. So what you are asking the over 50% of the country who now supports these proceedings to swallow is OUR money being used to materially influence and help Trump re-elect himself. But I know what the rules are. I'm not under any illusions liberals are allowed to complain or speak up about how money is spent. Only conservatives and libertarians get to do that. Because none of us even go to work. We just sit at home collecting checks and complaining.
I'm not sure what is so hard to understand about this. A lawful appropriation of Congressional funds was made to Ukraine. Those funds are taxpayer dollars. The Trump Administration then took those funds, claimed them as their own, and used them as the carrot in an extortion plot. When they found out someone sounded the alarm, they did not turn over the report to Congres (as mandated) but instead gave it to Bill Barr and the President himself, which is such a bastardization of what a whistleblower appartus is supposed to do that it's hard to even put into words. Anyone who has taken perfunctory HR training at their job knows this.
This kind of shit goes on in politics all the time! We're not privy to 1/100th of it. Trump is a rank amateur which is why he's fucking up a lot of it. That doesn't mean that this is the end of the world as we know it. Kick his ass in the election and move on.
I tell you what though, I want to see the same scrutiny of every move and possible motive of every single president from here on out regardless of party affiliation or I'm going to call bullshit on our press.
Did Ukraine receive the aid before the legal deadline set for them to receive the aid? Yes? Then the GAO's "legal opinion" is just that--an opinion. As I asked, though, why did the GAO wait until now to release this opinion? Clearly, they are seeking to influence the Senate trial in a political manner.
You know as well as anyone the aid was released ONLY when they got caught and got wind of the whistleblower complaint (a complaint that was to go to the House BY LAW and was buried instead) Under your scenario, a bank robbery can be abandoned in progress and be completely legal.
You're both right. That's why this is such a waste of time shit-show. It's politics blended with law for public consumption in order to win votes in an election year. The trouble is both sides are so transparent that nobody is fooled by the motivations of either (power). Trump got caught in a clumsy effort to influence a foreign leader. Democrats think 'this is the worst thing to happen since Watergate', Republicans think it's 'nothing to see here', the media thinks 'whoo hoo, tune in and watch the show (and our ads)!'.
It wasn't just an attempt to incluence a foreign leader. It was an attempt to get that foreign leader to fatally wound who Trump perceives as his main 2020 rival and withholding taxpayer funds appropriated by their representatives to do so. Last time I checked, not just conservatives and Trump voters pay taxes. So what you are asking the over 50% of the country who now supports these proceedings to swallow is OUR money being used to materially influence and help Trump re-elect himself. But I know what the rules are. I'm not under any illusions liberals are allowed to complain or speak up about how money is spent. Only conservatives and libertarians get to do that. Because none of us even go to work. We just sit at home collecting checks and complaining.
I'm not sure what is so hard to understand about this. A lawful appropriation of Congressional funds was made to Ukraine. Those funds are taxpayer dollars. The Trump Administration then took those funds, claimed them as their own, and used them as the carrot in an extortion plot. When they found out someone sounded the alarm, they did not turn over the report to Congres (as mandated) but instead gave it to Bill Barr and the President himself, which is such a bastardization of what a whistleblower appartus is supposed to do that it's hard to even put into words. Anyone who has taken perfunctory HR training at their job knows this.
This kind of shit goes on in politics all the time! We're not privy to 1/100th of it. Trump is a rank amateur which is why he's fucking up a lot of it. That doesn't mean that this is the end of the world as we know it. Kick his ass in the election and move on.
I tell you what though, I want to see the same scrutiny of every move and possible motive of every single president from here on out regardless of party affiliation or I'm going to call bullshit on our press.
I mean, presumably you remember the mid to late '90s?? The idea that Clinton wasn't subject to the same level of press scrutiny is laughable.
What Clinton did was wrong. Lying under oath, no matter how insignificant, is wrong. But it's not this. Not even the same solar system. And we have to stop using the "we all know this goes on all the time behind the scenes" argument. Because #1.) I don't believe that's even true and #2.) committing a crime in broad daylight in front of a dozen witnesses does not make it better. But I really feel that's how some people think. And it's absurd.
Did Ukraine receive the aid before the legal deadline set for them to receive the aid? Yes? Then the GAO's "legal opinion" is just that--an opinion. As I asked, though, why did the GAO wait until now to release this opinion? Clearly, they are seeking to influence the Senate trial in a political manner.
You know as well as anyone the aid was released ONLY when they got caught and got wind of the whistleblower complaint (a complaint that was to go to the House BY LAW and was buried instead) Under your scenario, a bank robbery can be abandoned in progress and be completely legal.
You're both right. That's why this is such a waste of time shit-show. It's politics blended with law for public consumption in order to win votes in an election year. The trouble is both sides are so transparent that nobody is fooled by the motivations of either (power). Trump got caught in a clumsy effort to influence a foreign leader. Democrats think 'this is the worst thing to happen since Watergate', Republicans think it's 'nothing to see here', the media thinks 'whoo hoo, tune in and watch the show (and our ads)!'.
It wasn't just an attempt to incluence a foreign leader. It was an attempt to get that foreign leader to fatally wound who Trump perceives as his main 2020 rival and withholding taxpayer funds appropriated by their representatives to do so. Last time I checked, not just conservatives and Trump voters pay taxes. So what you are asking the over 50% of the country who now supports these proceedings to swallow is OUR money being used to materially influence and help Trump re-elect himself. But I know what the rules are. I'm not under any illusions liberals are allowed to complain or speak up about how money is spent. Only conservatives and libertarians get to do that. Because none of us even go to work. We just sit at home collecting checks and complaining.
I'm not sure what is so hard to understand about this. A lawful appropriation of Congressional funds was made to Ukraine. Those funds are taxpayer dollars. The Trump Administration then took those funds, claimed them as their own, and used them as the carrot in an extortion plot. When they found out someone sounded the alarm, they did not turn over the report to Congres (as mandated) but instead gave it to Bill Barr and the President himself, which is such a bastardization of what a whistleblower appartus is supposed to do that it's hard to even put into words. Anyone who has taken perfunctory HR training at their job knows this.
This kind of shit goes on in politics all the time! We're not privy to 1/100th of it. Trump is a rank amateur which is why he's fucking up a lot of it. That doesn't mean that this is the end of the world as we know it. Kick his ass in the election and move on.
I tell you what though, I want to see the same scrutiny of every move and possible motive of every single president from here on out regardless of party affiliation or I'm going to call bullshit on our press.
I mean, presumably you remember the mid to late '90s?? The idea that Clinton wasn't subject to the same level of press scrutiny is laughable.
Well I have to admit, Trump does create a lot of his own problems with his incessant tweeting and rallies. The Press fawning over Hillary Clinton and the Obama's like they were royalty was pretty disgusting though...
For the record, I was never aware that Hunter Biden was one of Trump's political opponents. Joe was not involved in any shady shenanigans in Ukraine, only Hunter was, as far as I know.
Also, for the record, actually investigating a political opponent using a foreign operative + using sources who are suspect + making wild claims which cannot be proven = a legitimate concern, if that opponent is Trump. Trying to suggest that someone should look into potentially shady dealings + not doing a very good job at pressuring another foreign leader + eventually giving up on the matter altogether = impeachable offense. That is what we call "new math".
I was saying that someone should take away Trump's Twitter account before he won his election in 2016. Since then, I have realized that that would be an error--people who tweet that compulsively are giving us "stream of consciousness" so we know what/how they are thinking at a particular point in time. Not only that, but a Twitter account used by a politician is subject to government recordkeeping. This raises an interesting question: does Trump, in his role as POTUS, using one social media platform as opposed to any others violate that rule about the White House not promoting a commercial product?
Finally, we need to address this issue of "taxpayer dollars". Far too many people still think that the only money the government may spend is money they have collected from individuals and businesses in the form of taxes. We have not had that kind of system in *decades* (we finally got off the gold standard during Nixon's term). No, if the government feels it needs to appropriate money for something--aid to Ukraine, military spending, an education program--then once it approves the money the Federal Government can just issue or print the money and that money is valid. Of course, printing more money leads directly to inflation and currency devaluation and *that* is why taxes exist now--the true purpose of taxation these days is to limit the money supply, thus keeping a check on inflation and devaluation. The people who cry to do away with the Federal Reserve don't realize that by getting rid of the central bank we would have to go back to some sort of commodity-based currency (probably oil or natural gas these days--petrodollars); that sort of system shock and restriction would cripple the economy.
For the record, I was never aware that Hunter Biden was one of Trump's political opponents. Joe was not involved in any shady shenanigans in Ukraine, only Hunter was, as far as I know.
Also, for the record, actually investigating a political opponent using a foreign operative + using sources who are suspect + making wild claims which cannot be proven = a legitimate concern, if that opponent is Trump. Trying to suggest that someone should look into potentially shady dealings + not doing a very good job at pressuring another foreign leader + eventually giving up on the matter altogether = impeachable offense. That is what we call "new math".
.
These are softballs.
First point - Trump’s desire to get damning evidence about Hunter Biden out is clearly an attempt to politically harm Joe Biden. Or perhaps you think it’s simple coincidence that there is a conservative conspiracy theory here and that it couldn’t possibly have anything to do with Joe Biden being Trump’s biggest political threat.
Second point - Specious argument. You missed the minor detail that Trump is the sitting president and used the power of his office to try to politically damage a private citizen by withholding foreign aide to a nation unless they acted in his personal interest. You have a job, right? Or went to school, yes? I’m sure you’ve had to sit through a presentation on ethics and why a conflict of interest is a bad thing.
Speaking of softball lobs...if conflict of interest were something people kept in mind then Hunter would not have gotten a job at a business in a country where his father was focusing his attention while serving as a sitting VP.
I do agree that politicians typically try to attack each other via their opponent's children. People attacked Chelsea back in the 90s (all I ever said about her at that time was "I feel sorry for the awkward guy trying to show up at her front door to ask her to the prom"), the Bush daughters after that, the Obama girls after that, and now Barron (Trump's other children are actually adults and should be able to fend for themselves against political attacks). Family members--and this includes spouses, parents, etc. should be strictly off-limits; that goes back to the "manners" we mentioned earlier.
I do have to ask one question, which no one needs to answer: how do you *prove* that person A knows person B? Person B may claim "yes, I know Person A" but if Person B says "I don't know Person A" then you are left with a "they said/they said" scenario--what a headache and a waste of time.
We all know what is going to happen in the Senate but everyone has to go through the motions, anyway.
But it isn't he said/she said. It's over half a dozen people willing to testify under oath vs. others (Mulvaney, Pompeo) who refused to do so. Now, I'm already ahead of you on your retort. You'll say they were under no obligation to answer any questions, or that if they were, they could just take the 5th. Fine. But then you know what?? A rational person is then left to the conclude that the numerous people who ARE willing to testify under threat of perjury and all tell the same version of events are more trustworthy than those who CLAIM to have exonerating evidence in the the other direction yet refuse to take the opportunity to present it on a televised national stage under oath. Only a fool would give the benefit of the doubt to the later. It's a matter of putting your money where your mouth is.
If Mulvaney, Pompeo and hell, even Trump himself have such a profoundly compelling counter narrative to present, they were given EVERY chance to do so during the course of the House proceedings and refused. And of course, this all relates to one of the articles of impeachment itself, which is for obstruction of Congress. In other words, flat-out REFUSING to present lawfully called for witnesses and documents to the oversight branch of the government. How can this second article even be argued against?? It wasn't just what they did, it was their EXPLICIT STRATEGY, one they announced at the top of their lungs.
Speaking of softball lobs...if conflict of interest were something people kept in mind then Hunter would not have gotten a job at a business in a country where his father was focusing his attention while serving as a sitting VP.
That is a conflict of interest with the company that hired Hunter, not with Hunter himself. He is a private citizen who doesn't work for the government in anyway. His father's role should not impede his ability to apply for jobs.
I do agree that politicians typically try to attack each other via their opponent's children. People attacked Chelsea back in the 90s (all I ever said about her at that time was "I feel sorry for the awkward guy trying to show up at her front door to ask her to the prom"), the Bush daughters after that, the Obama girls after that, and now Barron (Trump's other children are actually adults and should be able to fend for themselves against political attacks). Family members--and this includes spouses, parents, etc. should be strictly off-limits; that goes back to the "manners" we mentioned earlier.
Slightly disagree. I think it is fair game to mention that Trump's family wealth started with Brothels being run by his grandfather. I also think it is fair game to say that all of Trump's business accomplishments came from Daddy's allowance fund.
I also think if you can praise a person's parent like Obama's mother, you can criticize one as well.
I do have to ask one question, which no one needs to answer: how do you *prove* that person A knows person B? Person B may claim "yes, I know Person A" but if Person B says "I don't know Person A" then you are left with a "they said/they said" scenario--what a headache and a waste of time.
We all know what is going to happen in the Senate but everyone has to go through the motions, anyway.
A selfie doesn't cut it IMO. The late mayor Ford was hounded by the press here because of a couple of selfies that were shown with known criminals. His excuse, he was a well known figure who was asked to take a picture with someone. He had no clue who that someone is, so the picture didn't prove anything.
However, if it is a picture of a group of people sitting down at a dinner. That's a different story, especially if there is like 4-5 people present. Conversations were had at that table and a person would have gotten at least acquainted with an individual then.
Does one person have the other's contact information stored in a phone? If so, guess what, they know each other because people don't give random people their phone number. In this digital age, there would be at least a paper trail of messages talking to a second person about the person. There would be some cues from those of how well a person knew another person.
That said, a popular person may not remember everyone they meet and even if one person left with a memorable impression, doesn't mean all other parties did as well. Take the dinner example. If person A lets call him Rumpt, has dinner meetings everyday, and person B, lets call him Spara has dinner meeting once a year Spara will remember the dinner more vividly than Rumpt. So other factors, such as circle of friends (anything past a friend of a friend is mute IMO) maybe used to determine how well two people know each other. In the Case of Spara and Rumpt, they both have a good friend in Yrud and all three were working on the same project, I'd bet that Rumpt atleast knew of Spara, if he didn't know him personally. That paper tral I mentioned earlier would probably prove or disprove that. Kinda why it's important that those investigating, or at least holding a trial, get to see all available documentation if that project is deemed illegal.
Our Democratic Republic is lost and means nothing if the ruling party can pressure foreign countries to rig our elections.
This is the kind of banana republic dictator stuff that goes on in 3rd world countries or Russia where if there's ever a serious candidate, he gets arrested.
It is not OK.
It is obviously not ok. The argument that Trump cares about corruption is ridiculous. He has not divested from his business and goes to his own clubs and inhales taxpayer money every week. Trump isn't worried about nepotism either since Ivanka and Kushner both work in the White House today and are constantly making foreign deals. Rudy Guiliani's son, who is not an athelete or anything of the sort, makes $90 as the white house's "sports liason". Trump is pro-corruption, so once again, he's lying. It's sad that so many people are duped by him or excuse this type of thing.
Trying to suggest that someone should look into potentially shady dealings + not doing a very good job at pressuring another foreign leader + eventually giving up on the matter altogether = impeachable offense. That is what we call "new math".
To build on some previous points: the Trump administration did not suggest that Ukraine actually conduct a real investigation into Hunter Biden. The Trump administration asked Ukraine to announce that they were investigating Biden, but did not expect them to actually investigate anything. The Trump administration only asked for a headline; not actual scrutiny or accountability to anyone.
Second, the Trump administration's "not doing a very good job of" and "giving up on" abusing its power is not a defense of its abuse of power. The Trump administration failed to successfully block aid to Ukraine because it did not have the power to do so--Congress eventually overrode them. Committing a crime but failing to get what you want is still committing a crime.
There has never been a legitimate grounds for launching an investigation into Hunter Biden, and the Trump administration tried to coerce the Ukrainian government into manipulating the American press for its own gain, breaking the law in the process. The administration then obstructed the impeachment inquiry by blocking access to documents and refusing to let key witnesses testify under oath. The administration did so without actually demanding the Ukrainians do any real investigative work, disproving the only innocent explanation for the entire affair.
The reason Trump illegally withheld aid to Ukraine was to get the Ukrainian government to feed an attack point against his primary political rival and improve his chances of reelection. The real motive is fairly clear. Trump did it because he wanted to stay in office.
It's been 3 or 4 months now and I've still yet to hear even a working THEORY from anyone about what Hunter Biden did that was illegal. His name is now nothing more than a buzzword to produce a pavlovian response like "Benghazi". I suppose he's guilty of benefitting from nepotism. Which is a wholly absurd charge for anyone on the conservative side of American politics to make when Jared and Ivanka are literally official White House employees who made 10s of millions of dollars last year while serving in that role. We've gone over ad nauseam Ivanka's trademarks in China and Jared's loans in the Middle East. All clearly procured because of Trump being in the White House, and done while acting in an OFFICIAL government position as White House advisers.
Interesting change of subject. I hadn't heard about the latest unrest in France about their pension situation. I don't think we have any forumites from France but thought I'd put these articles out for comments. The US isn't the only country on Earth and there is actually news that doesn't involve Trump...
Interesting change of subject. I hadn't heard about the latest unrest in France about their pension situation. I don't think we have any forumites from France but thought I'd put these articles out for comments. The US isn't the only country on Earth and there is actually news that doesn't involve Trump...
I wouldn't rely too much on the accuracy of the details - some of the information about the UK is a bit dubious. However, there are some overall themes, such as if you want good pension provision you need to pay for it.
I'm pretty sure that at least part of the reason for the complexity of schemes and number of different schemes operated in France is the historic difference between the operator and funder of each scheme. It tended to be far easier to give workers benefits through pension, rather than direct payroll, even in state-run companies (because the pensions would be paid by a different bit of the state which had no direct input into the decision). Although attractive in principle to harmonize pensions arrangements, the difficulty in doing that is that pensions were set in relation to the overall pay and benefits package. Those workers who are now set to see pensions reductions will be arguing vociferously for compensating pay increases.
I saw this type of situation play out in my job 20+ years ago, when the government started to try and harmonize public sector schemes (and transfer responsibility to the employer to pay for any changes to the pension provision). That process has been an ongoing irritant ever since. Given that the French workers tend to be rather more militant than those in the UK, my guess is this issue is likely to take quite a bit of time and effort to resolve ...
Did Ukraine receive the aid before the legal deadline set for them to receive the aid? Yes? Then the GAO's "legal opinion" is just that--an opinion. As I asked, though, why did the GAO wait until now to release this opinion? Clearly, they are seeking to influence the Senate trial in a political manner.
Uh, no. It's not an opinion. It's a fact. The law says that if the President wanted to hold aid for more than 45 days, it needs the approval of both houses of Congress.
Did Trump hold it for more than 45 days? Yes. Aid was held up by at least July 18th. Aid was not released until September 11th. You can math for the exact number but that is almost 2 full months, so something like 53 days, at a minimum.
Did Trump get approval from Congress? No. Hell, did Congress even get notified that they needed to give approval? Probably not.
@Mathsorcerer ""Political correctness" dictates that we refer to people like Maxine Waters as "African-American Member of Congress" as opposed to "black Member of Congress", even though she is a member of the Congressional Black Caucus which uses the word "black" in its name. On a side note, Ms. Waters is about as "African" as I am, which is another way of saying "not at all". On another side note, Members of Congress who are not black are not allowed to join the CBC--several Hispanic Members have tried--because they do not have the qualifying skin color, which is the very textbook definition of "racism".
*Manners* dictates that we not refer to Ms. Waters with any hateful perjorative, but always refer to her as "Ms." (or "Mrs.", depending upon her preference) or "Representative", given that she has earned that honorific by virtue of winning a political election."
Yeah, no. When people stop complaining about political correctness because they want to use racial slurs, you might have a point. But as it stands, its all about wanting to call people by derogatory slurs in this country.
While a change of subject is nice now and then, I can't resist pointing out impeachment is in a funny old world - Ken Starr is on Trump's defense team .
This report on that also referred to Alan Dershowitz as part of the team - apparently to support the idea that, rather than the President being subject to Congress in the area of foreign policy, Congress is not permitted by the Constitution to substitute its priorities for the President's. If this were a criminal trial that argument might be the basis to argue for a technical acquittal - I did wrong, but that doesn't matter as you were wrong first. However, it really shouldn't fly in a job performance evaluation. I also wonder how Republican members of Congress will react to that argument - are they really going to be comfortable supporting the idea they are just playing second fiddle to the President? Even if they are happy with Trump's policies, that would presumably be a dangerous precedent to set for a future President ...
While a change of subject is nice now and then, I can't resist pointing out impeachment is in a funny old world - Ken Starr is on Trump's defense team .
This report on that also referred to Alan Dershowitz as part of the team - apparently to support the idea that, rather than the President being subject to Congress in the area of foreign policy, Congress is not permitted by the Constitution to substitute its priorities for the President's. If this were a criminal trial that argument might be the basis to argue for a technical acquittal - I did wrong, but that doesn't matter as you were wrong first. However, it really shouldn't fly in a job performance evaluation. I also wonder how Republican members of Congress will react to that argument - are they really going to be comfortable supporting the idea they are just playing second fiddle to the President? Even if they are happy with Trump's policies, that would presumably be a dangerous precedent to set for a future President ...
Ken Starr and Alan Dershowitz. One who resigned in disgrace after completely botching the response to a massive sexual assault scandal while he was President of Baylor University, and the other who has been accused of procuring underage girls from Jeffrey Epstein, directly by one of the women. Then again, why would this be surprising. The surprise would be if he had chosen anyone BUT the absolute most comically disgusting options imaginable.
For more on what moral crusader Ken Starr did after his time in the impeachment limelight, try this article on for size:
Yeah, no. When people stop complaining about political correctness because they want to use racial slurs, you might have a point. But as it stands, its all about wanting to call people by derogatory slurs in this country.
Wanting to refer to someone with slurs is a lack of manners, not a lack of political correctness.
Let me ask it a different way. You don't like racists, do you? Of course you don't--no one does. If you look at a group of 20 people, can you tell which ones of them are racist by looking at them? Of course you can't--you cannot determine that until they start answering questions or voicing opinions. If you don't want to associate with racists then you *need* people to speak their mind *freely* so you can identify them and avoid them or call them out for their behavior. Yes, actions speak more loudly than words but if someone is going to act in a certain way they are going to speak that way, as well.
*************
In Virginia, Governor Northam declared a "state of emergency" and banned guns from being carried on the grounds of the Capitol in advance of some rally that was (is? *shrug*) going to take place. erm...aren't guns *already* banned on the grounds of most State Capitols? Even here in Texas you can't carry on Capitol grounds.
*************
The Constitution states that the Executive handles foreign policy with the advise and consent of the Senate. It does not say "the Senate dictates foreign policy" or "Congress dictates foreign policy". If the Senate disagrees with an Executive's foreign policy decision then they can address that. This power to deal with foreign policy also extends to ambassadors, who are appointed by the POTUS then confirmed by the Senate; once an ambassador assumes a post, though, they serve at the discretion of the POTUS, who may recall them at any time for any reason, even if that reason is as ridiculous or frivolous as "I just don't like you any more".
*************
On the broader subject of impeachment, though, the House has set a precedent they may not like in the future. For the sake of discussion, let us assume that Biden wins this November but the Republicans regain control of the House. All the House has to do is launch in investigation into something then start issuing subpoenas at every person connected to the Executive Branch. The instant even one of those people defies that subpoena the House may claim "obstruction of the House", point to the current Articles of Impeachment for the precedent, and impeach Biden. We *really* don't need crap like that happening, but you know how petty politicians can be.
*************
Darned it, I was going to post only once today but this story from the Texas Tribune was too topical to ignore.
The Trump administration set into motion on Friday the process that will allow 3D-printed gun blueprints — first introduced by a Texas man — back online after being blocked from the internet twice.
Trump is transferring authority of some small arms and ammunition exports from the U.S. Department of State to the Commerce Department — a move that will effectively relax regulations that have previously prevented the 3D-printed gun blueprints from being posted online.
The rule change will be posted to the Federal Register, the official record of all government rules, public notices and executive orders, on Jan. 23, 2020. Once posted there will be a 45-day waiting period before anybody can apply for a license to the Commerce Department to post 3D gun blueprints online, according to a Department of Commerce filing of the unpublished rule.
The change will end a long-fought battle by Austin resident Cody Wilson to allow the blueprints to be made publicly available.
Meanwhile, gun control activists warn that the change could make firearms available to dangerous people who would otherwise be prevented from purchasing guns.
But R. Clarke Cooper, assistant Secretary of State for Political-Military Affairs, said in a statement that regardless of which department controls the export, all firearms will remain subject to U.S. Government export authorization requirements, review, and monitoring.
Wilson created the world’s first fully 3D-printed gun, which made its debut in May 2013. Blueprints for the 3D-printed weapon, named the Liberator, were posted on Wilson’s company website, Defense Distributed. Within days, Wilson received a letter from the State Department telling him to take down the plans until he applied for approval for the gun’s multiple components — or else go to jail. Wilson took the plans down, but by that point, they had already been downloaded more than 100,000 times.
While a change of subject is nice now and then, I can't resist pointing out impeachment is in a funny old world - Ken Starr is on Trump's defense team .
This report on that also referred to Alan Dershowitz as part of the team - apparently to support the idea that, rather than the President being subject to Congress in the area of foreign policy, Congress is not permitted by the Constitution to substitute its priorities for the President's. If this were a criminal trial that argument might be the basis to argue for a technical acquittal - I did wrong, but that doesn't matter as you were wrong first. However, it really shouldn't fly in a job performance evaluation. I also wonder how Republican members of Congress will react to that argument - are they really going to be comfortable supporting the idea they are just playing second fiddle to the President? Even if they are happy with Trump's policies, that would presumably be a dangerous precedent to set for a future President ...
Ken Starr and Alan Dershowitz. One who resigned in disgrace after completely botching the response to a massive sexual assault scandal while he was President of Baylor University, and the other who has been accused of procuring underage girls from Jeffrey Epstein, directly by one of the women. Then again, why would this be surprising. The surprise would be if he had chosen anyone BUT the absolute most comically disgusting options imaginable.
For more on what moral crusader Ken Starr did after his time in the impeachment limelight, try this article on for size:
Many people are saying Epstein didn't kill himself and it's funny how Epstein's lawyers are now the President's lawyers. Maybe it's coincidence that the man who worked out a plea deal with Starr and Dershowitz to give Epstein the sweetheart deal of the century was Trump's Secretary of Labor Alex Acosta. There's ties between Bill Barr's father and Epstein, and Epstein was forcibly suicided in Bill Barr's custody and golly gee Bill Barr's justice department they lost the footage too from both the first suicide and the actual event.
In 2002, Trump told a New York magazine journalist on the record that Epstein was “terrific” and adding that he “likes beautiful women as much as I do, and many of them are on the younger side.”
Why does Trump like pedophiles so much?
There is no accepted definition of political correctness. It's an abstract buzzword that different people used to refer to wildly different things. I have seen people use it to refer to everything from polite language to thought policing to the entirety of American liberalism itself to white genocide to merely the act of disagreeing with someone, and I think I'm forgetting several more things.
This thread is supposed to be about real events and concrete issues. If you plan on discussing political correctness as a concept, please provide a definition so people know what exactly you're criticizing or defending.
When I use the term "political correctness" I mean "the idea that Free Speech must be stifled or restricted so someone doesn't get their feelings hurt". A mature, rational adult would not allow someone else's words to make them upset. Of course, I don't go around insulting people, either, so I don't have to worry about it. I wish others would follow my example.
I honestly don't know what to think about this. I am glad that these families are getting money. As mentioned in the article, with the sanctions in place against Iran, it can make it very difficult for families to arrange things in a timely manner and this money will help with what has probably been a very stressful and difficult time for these families.
However, if Iran does pay the victims families any money in the future, that money will go to the families and the families will not have to reimburse the Canadian government. Is this going to be the norm now for every plane crash even though Canada is not responsible for it what so ever? Is the Canadian government going to pay out victims of every crash from here on out with no reimbursement needed?
I do think that the $2 million (if everyone collects) should be repaid by Iran and then some - and if Iran doesn't pay the victims, or doesn't compensate them greater than this amount - then have that 2 million written off but it's setting a bad precedence for Iran (they can just claim Canada already paid the families) and future families who may now look to the federal government in crises such as this.
~~~
The reason why Ken Starr and Dershowitz were named to Trump's team because they are well known names who handle themselves well to the media. That's it. It's a circus and Trump wants some well known personalities leading the charge for him.
~~~
On the broader subject of impeachment, though, the House has set a precedent they may not like in the future. For the sake of discussion, let us assume that Biden wins this November but the Republicans regain control of the House. All the House has to do is launch in investigation into something then start issuing subpoenas at every person connected to the Executive Branch. The instant even one of those people defies that subpoena the House may claim "obstruction of the House", point to the current Articles of Impeachment for the precedent, and impeach Biden. We *really* don't need crap like that happening, but you know how petty politicians can be.
Except, it wasn't the defiance of testifying that brought that charge to the front, but the publicly made memo from Trump directly telling people not to testify.
And once again, the democrats have been through these sham investigations in the past. Benghazi anyone? Even Clinton's impeachment was started on grounds of a conspiracy theory revolving around real estate and ended with a blow job in the oval office. If that isn't a witch hunt and over reach, then the Mueller report and Ukraine scandal have been lasered focus in comparison. And both investigations are something the Clinton's faced head on. I don't think they are too worried about what the republicans will do in the future if they have nothing to hide.
In 2002, Trump told a New York magazine journalist on the record that Epstein was “terrific” and adding that he “likes beautiful women as much as I do, and many of them are on the younger side.”
And the many many links between him, several of his administration officials and Epstein. And now, he's hired Epstein's lawyers, literally, for his impeachment defense. Facts.
That's the issue, @Mathsorcerer: when you give "political correctness" a definition that's absurd on its face, that raises several problems:
1. Who exactly is restricting freedom of speech here? Who are we even arguing with?
2. What is an example of political correctness happening in real life? What are we even criticizing?
3. Is anyone talking about the same thing here? Are we all talking past each other?
About number 1 and 2: I have heard numerous people criticize the act of suppressing freedom of speech in the name of political correctness, but whenever they cite examples, the examples are all the same: "another person was impolite when arguing with me online." Yet that very impoliteness is itself an expression of free speech. A real act of suppressing freedom of speech would be using coercive force to prevent a statement from being uttered, or punishing it after the fact. The classic example is making a statement that another person calls "racist": calling a statement "racist" is an expression of free speech, and it does not stop anyone from making that statement regardless.
A quick note: for the purposes of the thread rules, a racist statement in-thread would break Rule 3, and calling a statement "racist" in-thread would break Rule 7.
About number 3: I am going to take a stab in the air and suggest that no other forumite in this thread believes "Free Speech must be stifled or restricted so someone doesn't get their feelings hurt." Yet the comment is phrased as though you're disagreeing with a statement in this thread.
Read that definition again: political correctness is "the idea that Free Speech must be stifled or restricted so someone doesn't get their feelings hurt." Is this an accurate definition of a view that many people actually hold, or is it just a straw man?
Most importantly, when our definitions of the same word are so incredibly far apart, how much time do we have to spend on semantics before we can even begin to discuss the real world?
This is why I prefer to discourage the use of buzzwords altogether.
The Constitution states that the Executive handles foreign policy with the advise and consent of the Senate. It does not say "the Senate dictates foreign policy" or "Congress dictates foreign policy". If the Senate disagrees with an Executive's foreign policy decision then they can address that. This power to deal with foreign policy also extends to ambassadors, who are appointed by the POTUS then confirmed by the Senate; once an ambassador assumes a post, though, they serve at the discretion of the POTUS, who may recall them at any time for any reason, even if that reason is as ridiculous or frivolous as "I just don't like you any more".
It may be a common perception that the President has responsibility for foreign policy - but that doesn't mean that's what the Constitution dictates.
References in the Constitution that could relate to foreign policy are given below.
Congress
- To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations
- To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin
- To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations
- To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water
-To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces
President
- The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States
- He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments
- he shall receive Ambassadors
It's obviously not clear cut because the Constitution is an old document. Parts of it relate to things which are now irrelevant, while there are large gaps on issues which have arisen over time. However, the general thrust does seems clear to me - Congress sets the rules, the President governs according to those rules and the Judiciary decides what happens when those rules are breached.
I don't think that general thrust is any different in the area of foreign policy:
- the only references to regulation are by Congress and the President operates under those regulations.
- while the President is the Commander in Chief, the Congress sets the rules by which he must operate.
- while the President actually appoints Ambassadors, those must be agreed by the Senate. For all staff below the rank of Ambassador, Congress is given the specific power to determine who appoints them, not the President.
- Congress is given sole power to regulate Commerce (which is why the USMCA can't replace NAFTA until it has been ratified).
- Declaring War is the sole prerogative of Congress, while Treaties need to be agreed by them.
There are big grey areas in the Constitution that Presidents may seek to exploit in the area of foreign policy, just like other areas of policy - for instance by launching attacks on another country without declaring war. I don't think though that should obscure the fact that Congress has the final say on foreign policy - just as it does in any other area of policy. That power relationship is why Congress has the ability to impeach the President, but the President has no similar power to use against Congress.
Yes, the President has the power to appoint and fire Ambassadors. But when you are specifically getting rid of an Ambassador because you view her as a roadblock to your extortion plot, that becomes, shall we say, problematic. Of course, that isn't all that happened. At the very least, Trump associates were exchanging texts indicating she was being physically tracked, and those same texts implied that something could be arranged to happen to her for money. Whether this was hot air or not is immaterial. It was being discussed, and it was being discussed by people Giuliani had lurking around Ukraine, and Giuliani had those men doing so because Trump wished it. Trump is no different than any crime boss from the 1980s (which really shouldn't be surprising since Trump probably knew many of them). Relay your instructions in code, but in a way where those taking the orders know exactly what they mean. Insulate yourself by going through intermediaries and lower level henchmen. But give me a break that Giuliani and his crew of Eastern European gangsters were just going rogue. Nothing being done was being undertaken for any other purpose than the advance Donald Trump's personal agenda. Everyone was in the loop, and everyone knew what was going on. It's organized crime. It's textbook organized crime.
Comments
You know as well as anyone the aid was released ONLY when they got caught and got wind of the whistleblower complaint (a complaint that was to go to the House BY LAW and was buried instead) Under your scenario, a bank robbery can be abandoned in progress and be completely legal.
You're both right. That's why this is such a waste of time shit-show. It's politics blended with law for public consumption in order to win votes in an election year. The trouble is both sides are so transparent that nobody is fooled by the motivations of either (power). Trump got caught in a clumsy effort to influence a foreign leader. Democrats think 'this is the worst thing to happen since Watergate', Republicans think it's 'nothing to see here', the media thinks 'whoo hoo, tune in and watch the show (and our ads)!'.
It wasn't just an attempt to incluence a foreign leader. It was an attempt to get that foreign leader to fatally wound who Trump perceives as his main 2020 rival and withholding taxpayer funds appropriated by their representatives to do so. Last time I checked, not just conservatives and Trump voters pay taxes. So what you are asking the over 50% of the country who now supports these proceedings to swallow is OUR money being used to materially influence and help Trump re-elect himself. But I know what the rules are. I'm not under any illusions liberals are allowed to complain or speak up about how money is spent. Only conservatives and libertarians get to do that. Because none of us even go to work. We just sit at home collecting checks and complaining.
I'm not sure what is so hard to understand about this. A lawful appropriation of Congressional funds was made to Ukraine. Those funds are taxpayer dollars. The Trump Administration then took those funds, claimed them as their own, and used them as the carrot in an extortion plot. When they found out someone sounded the alarm, they did not turn over the report to Congres (as mandated) but instead gave it to Bill Barr and the President himself, which is such a bastardization of what a whistleblower appartus is supposed to do that it's hard to even put into words. Anyone who has taken perfunctory HR training at their job knows this.
This kind of shit goes on in politics all the time! We're not privy to 1/100th of it. Trump is a rank amateur which is why he's fucking up a lot of it. That doesn't mean that this is the end of the world as we know it. Kick his ass in the election and move on.
I tell you what though, I want to see the same scrutiny of every move and possible motive of every single president from here on out regardless of party affiliation or I'm going to call bullshit on our press.
I mean, presumably you remember the mid to late '90s?? The idea that Clinton wasn't subject to the same level of press scrutiny is laughable.
What Clinton did was wrong. Lying under oath, no matter how insignificant, is wrong. But it's not this. Not even the same solar system. And we have to stop using the "we all know this goes on all the time behind the scenes" argument. Because #1.) I don't believe that's even true and #2.) committing a crime in broad daylight in front of a dozen witnesses does not make it better. But I really feel that's how some people think. And it's absurd.
Well I have to admit, Trump does create a lot of his own problems with his incessant tweeting and rallies. The Press fawning over Hillary Clinton and the Obama's like they were royalty was pretty disgusting though...
Also, for the record, actually investigating a political opponent using a foreign operative + using sources who are suspect + making wild claims which cannot be proven = a legitimate concern, if that opponent is Trump. Trying to suggest that someone should look into potentially shady dealings + not doing a very good job at pressuring another foreign leader + eventually giving up on the matter altogether = impeachable offense. That is what we call "new math".
I was saying that someone should take away Trump's Twitter account before he won his election in 2016. Since then, I have realized that that would be an error--people who tweet that compulsively are giving us "stream of consciousness" so we know what/how they are thinking at a particular point in time. Not only that, but a Twitter account used by a politician is subject to government recordkeeping. This raises an interesting question: does Trump, in his role as POTUS, using one social media platform as opposed to any others violate that rule about the White House not promoting a commercial product?
Finally, we need to address this issue of "taxpayer dollars". Far too many people still think that the only money the government may spend is money they have collected from individuals and businesses in the form of taxes. We have not had that kind of system in *decades* (we finally got off the gold standard during Nixon's term). No, if the government feels it needs to appropriate money for something--aid to Ukraine, military spending, an education program--then once it approves the money the Federal Government can just issue or print the money and that money is valid. Of course, printing more money leads directly to inflation and currency devaluation and *that* is why taxes exist now--the true purpose of taxation these days is to limit the money supply, thus keeping a check on inflation and devaluation. The people who cry to do away with the Federal Reserve don't realize that by getting rid of the central bank we would have to go back to some sort of commodity-based currency (probably oil or natural gas these days--petrodollars); that sort of system shock and restriction would cripple the economy.
These are softballs.
First point - Trump’s desire to get damning evidence about Hunter Biden out is clearly an attempt to politically harm Joe Biden. Or perhaps you think it’s simple coincidence that there is a conservative conspiracy theory here and that it couldn’t possibly have anything to do with Joe Biden being Trump’s biggest political threat.
Second point - Specious argument. You missed the minor detail that Trump is the sitting president and used the power of his office to try to politically damage a private citizen by withholding foreign aide to a nation unless they acted in his personal interest. You have a job, right? Or went to school, yes? I’m sure you’ve had to sit through a presentation on ethics and why a conflict of interest is a bad thing.
I do agree that politicians typically try to attack each other via their opponent's children. People attacked Chelsea back in the 90s (all I ever said about her at that time was "I feel sorry for the awkward guy trying to show up at her front door to ask her to the prom"), the Bush daughters after that, the Obama girls after that, and now Barron (Trump's other children are actually adults and should be able to fend for themselves against political attacks). Family members--and this includes spouses, parents, etc. should be strictly off-limits; that goes back to the "manners" we mentioned earlier.
I do have to ask one question, which no one needs to answer: how do you *prove* that person A knows person B? Person B may claim "yes, I know Person A" but if Person B says "I don't know Person A" then you are left with a "they said/they said" scenario--what a headache and a waste of time.
We all know what is going to happen in the Senate but everyone has to go through the motions, anyway.
If Mulvaney, Pompeo and hell, even Trump himself have such a profoundly compelling counter narrative to present, they were given EVERY chance to do so during the course of the House proceedings and refused. And of course, this all relates to one of the articles of impeachment itself, which is for obstruction of Congress. In other words, flat-out REFUSING to present lawfully called for witnesses and documents to the oversight branch of the government. How can this second article even be argued against?? It wasn't just what they did, it was their EXPLICIT STRATEGY, one they announced at the top of their lungs.
That is a conflict of interest with the company that hired Hunter, not with Hunter himself. He is a private citizen who doesn't work for the government in anyway. His father's role should not impede his ability to apply for jobs.
Slightly disagree. I think it is fair game to mention that Trump's family wealth started with Brothels being run by his grandfather. I also think it is fair game to say that all of Trump's business accomplishments came from Daddy's allowance fund.
I also think if you can praise a person's parent like Obama's mother, you can criticize one as well.
A selfie doesn't cut it IMO. The late mayor Ford was hounded by the press here because of a couple of selfies that were shown with known criminals. His excuse, he was a well known figure who was asked to take a picture with someone. He had no clue who that someone is, so the picture didn't prove anything.
However, if it is a picture of a group of people sitting down at a dinner. That's a different story, especially if there is like 4-5 people present. Conversations were had at that table and a person would have gotten at least acquainted with an individual then.
Does one person have the other's contact information stored in a phone? If so, guess what, they know each other because people don't give random people their phone number. In this digital age, there would be at least a paper trail of messages talking to a second person about the person. There would be some cues from those of how well a person knew another person.
That said, a popular person may not remember everyone they meet and even if one person left with a memorable impression, doesn't mean all other parties did as well. Take the dinner example. If person A lets call him Rumpt, has dinner meetings everyday, and person B, lets call him Spara has dinner meeting once a year Spara will remember the dinner more vividly than Rumpt. So other factors, such as circle of friends (anything past a friend of a friend is mute IMO) maybe used to determine how well two people know each other. In the Case of Spara and Rumpt, they both have a good friend in Yrud and all three were working on the same project, I'd bet that Rumpt atleast knew of Spara, if he didn't know him personally. That paper tral I mentioned earlier would probably prove or disprove that. Kinda why it's important that those investigating, or at least holding a trial, get to see all available documentation if that project is deemed illegal.
This is the kind of banana republic dictator stuff that goes on in 3rd world countries or Russia where if there's ever a serious candidate, he gets arrested.
It is not OK.
It is obviously not ok. The argument that Trump cares about corruption is ridiculous. He has not divested from his business and goes to his own clubs and inhales taxpayer money every week. Trump isn't worried about nepotism either since Ivanka and Kushner both work in the White House today and are constantly making foreign deals. Rudy Guiliani's son, who is not an athelete or anything of the sort, makes $90 as the white house's "sports liason". Trump is pro-corruption, so once again, he's lying. It's sad that so many people are duped by him or excuse this type of thing.
Second, the Trump administration's "not doing a very good job of" and "giving up on" abusing its power is not a defense of its abuse of power. The Trump administration failed to successfully block aid to Ukraine because it did not have the power to do so--Congress eventually overrode them. Committing a crime but failing to get what you want is still committing a crime.
There has never been a legitimate grounds for launching an investigation into Hunter Biden, and the Trump administration tried to coerce the Ukrainian government into manipulating the American press for its own gain, breaking the law in the process. The administration then obstructed the impeachment inquiry by blocking access to documents and refusing to let key witnesses testify under oath. The administration did so without actually demanding the Ukrainians do any real investigative work, disproving the only innocent explanation for the entire affair.
The reason Trump illegally withheld aid to Ukraine was to get the Ukrainian government to feed an attack point against his primary political rival and improve his chances of reelection. The real motive is fairly clear. Trump did it because he wanted to stay in office.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.thelocal.fr/20200106/french-pension-reform-what-does-the-government-want-to-do/amp
https://www.thelocal.fr/20191211/how-do-french-pensions-compare-to-the-rest-of-europe?_gl=1*1ael4dx*_ga*R0ctMk4zNUlSZ3FzM1VPeVJneVdFcVc4VVpwZmdCV19aSmR0NV8waU5CSEQ4SDRuTGJzVXVoTmhYa2xiUmVldA..
I wouldn't rely too much on the accuracy of the details - some of the information about the UK is a bit dubious. However, there are some overall themes, such as if you want good pension provision you need to pay for it.
I'm pretty sure that at least part of the reason for the complexity of schemes and number of different schemes operated in France is the historic difference between the operator and funder of each scheme. It tended to be far easier to give workers benefits through pension, rather than direct payroll, even in state-run companies (because the pensions would be paid by a different bit of the state which had no direct input into the decision). Although attractive in principle to harmonize pensions arrangements, the difficulty in doing that is that pensions were set in relation to the overall pay and benefits package. Those workers who are now set to see pensions reductions will be arguing vociferously for compensating pay increases.
I saw this type of situation play out in my job 20+ years ago, when the government started to try and harmonize public sector schemes (and transfer responsibility to the employer to pay for any changes to the pension provision). That process has been an ongoing irritant ever since. Given that the French workers tend to be rather more militant than those in the UK, my guess is this issue is likely to take quite a bit of time and effort to resolve ...
Uh, no. It's not an opinion. It's a fact. The law says that if the President wanted to hold aid for more than 45 days, it needs the approval of both houses of Congress.
Did Trump hold it for more than 45 days? Yes. Aid was held up by at least July 18th. Aid was not released until September 11th. You can math for the exact number but that is almost 2 full months, so something like 53 days, at a minimum.
Did Trump get approval from Congress? No. Hell, did Congress even get notified that they needed to give approval? Probably not.
*Manners* dictates that we not refer to Ms. Waters with any hateful perjorative, but always refer to her as "Ms." (or "Mrs.", depending upon her preference) or "Representative", given that she has earned that honorific by virtue of winning a political election."
Yeah, no. When people stop complaining about political correctness because they want to use racial slurs, you might have a point. But as it stands, its all about wanting to call people by derogatory slurs in this country.
This report on that also referred to Alan Dershowitz as part of the team - apparently to support the idea that, rather than the President being subject to Congress in the area of foreign policy, Congress is not permitted by the Constitution to substitute its priorities for the President's. If this were a criminal trial that argument might be the basis to argue for a technical acquittal - I did wrong, but that doesn't matter as you were wrong first. However, it really shouldn't fly in a job performance evaluation. I also wonder how Republican members of Congress will react to that argument - are they really going to be comfortable supporting the idea they are just playing second fiddle to the President? Even if they are happy with Trump's policies, that would presumably be a dangerous precedent to set for a future President ...
Ken Starr and Alan Dershowitz. One who resigned in disgrace after completely botching the response to a massive sexual assault scandal while he was President of Baylor University, and the other who has been accused of procuring underage girls from Jeffrey Epstein, directly by one of the women. Then again, why would this be surprising. The surprise would be if he had chosen anyone BUT the absolute most comically disgusting options imaginable.
For more on what moral crusader Ken Starr did after his time in the impeachment limelight, try this article on for size:
https://deadspin.com/how-baylor-happened-1828372303
Wanting to refer to someone with slurs is a lack of manners, not a lack of political correctness.
Let me ask it a different way. You don't like racists, do you? Of course you don't--no one does. If you look at a group of 20 people, can you tell which ones of them are racist by looking at them? Of course you can't--you cannot determine that until they start answering questions or voicing opinions. If you don't want to associate with racists then you *need* people to speak their mind *freely* so you can identify them and avoid them or call them out for their behavior. Yes, actions speak more loudly than words but if someone is going to act in a certain way they are going to speak that way, as well.
*************
In Virginia, Governor Northam declared a "state of emergency" and banned guns from being carried on the grounds of the Capitol in advance of some rally that was (is? *shrug*) going to take place. erm...aren't guns *already* banned on the grounds of most State Capitols? Even here in Texas you can't carry on Capitol grounds.
*************
The Constitution states that the Executive handles foreign policy with the advise and consent of the Senate. It does not say "the Senate dictates foreign policy" or "Congress dictates foreign policy". If the Senate disagrees with an Executive's foreign policy decision then they can address that. This power to deal with foreign policy also extends to ambassadors, who are appointed by the POTUS then confirmed by the Senate; once an ambassador assumes a post, though, they serve at the discretion of the POTUS, who may recall them at any time for any reason, even if that reason is as ridiculous or frivolous as "I just don't like you any more".
*************
On the broader subject of impeachment, though, the House has set a precedent they may not like in the future. For the sake of discussion, let us assume that Biden wins this November but the Republicans regain control of the House. All the House has to do is launch in investigation into something then start issuing subpoenas at every person connected to the Executive Branch. The instant even one of those people defies that subpoena the House may claim "obstruction of the House", point to the current Articles of Impeachment for the precedent, and impeach Biden. We *really* don't need crap like that happening, but you know how petty politicians can be.
*************
Darned it, I was going to post only once today but this story from the Texas Tribune was too topical to ignore.
Many people are saying Epstein didn't kill himself and it's funny how Epstein's lawyers are now the President's lawyers. Maybe it's coincidence that the man who worked out a plea deal with Starr and Dershowitz to give Epstein the sweetheart deal of the century was Trump's Secretary of Labor Alex Acosta. There's ties between Bill Barr's father and Epstein, and Epstein was forcibly suicided in Bill Barr's custody and golly gee Bill Barr's justice department they lost the footage too from both the first suicide and the actual event.
In 2002, Trump told a New York magazine journalist on the record that Epstein was “terrific” and adding that he “likes beautiful women as much as I do, and many of them are on the younger side.”
Why does Trump like pedophiles so much?
This thread is supposed to be about real events and concrete issues. If you plan on discussing political correctness as a concept, please provide a definition so people know what exactly you're criticizing or defending.
Mention "political correctness"? I must explain myself. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_correctness
When I use the term "political correctness" I mean "the idea that Free Speech must be stifled or restricted so someone doesn't get their feelings hurt". A mature, rational adult would not allow someone else's words to make them upset. Of course, I don't go around insulting people, either, so I don't have to worry about it. I wish others would follow my example.
https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/entry/canada-victims-iran-plane-compensation_ca_5e21e239c5b674e44b9764ea
I honestly don't know what to think about this. I am glad that these families are getting money. As mentioned in the article, with the sanctions in place against Iran, it can make it very difficult for families to arrange things in a timely manner and this money will help with what has probably been a very stressful and difficult time for these families.
However, if Iran does pay the victims families any money in the future, that money will go to the families and the families will not have to reimburse the Canadian government. Is this going to be the norm now for every plane crash even though Canada is not responsible for it what so ever? Is the Canadian government going to pay out victims of every crash from here on out with no reimbursement needed?
I do think that the $2 million (if everyone collects) should be repaid by Iran and then some - and if Iran doesn't pay the victims, or doesn't compensate them greater than this amount - then have that 2 million written off but it's setting a bad precedence for Iran (they can just claim Canada already paid the families) and future families who may now look to the federal government in crises such as this.
~~~
The reason why Ken Starr and Dershowitz were named to Trump's team because they are well known names who handle themselves well to the media. That's it. It's a circus and Trump wants some well known personalities leading the charge for him.
~~~
Except, it wasn't the defiance of testifying that brought that charge to the front, but the publicly made memo from Trump directly telling people not to testify.
And once again, the democrats have been through these sham investigations in the past. Benghazi anyone? Even Clinton's impeachment was started on grounds of a conspiracy theory revolving around real estate and ended with a blow job in the oval office. If that isn't a witch hunt and over reach, then the Mueller report and Ukraine scandal have been lasered focus in comparison. And both investigations are something the Clinton's faced head on. I don't think they are too worried about what the republicans will do in the future if they have nothing to hide.
In 2002, Trump told a New York magazine journalist on the record that Epstein was “terrific” and adding that he “likes beautiful women as much as I do, and many of them are on the younger side.”
And the many many links between him, several of his administration officials and Epstein. And now, he's hired Epstein's lawyers, literally, for his impeachment defense. Facts.
1. Who exactly is restricting freedom of speech here? Who are we even arguing with?
2. What is an example of political correctness happening in real life? What are we even criticizing?
3. Is anyone talking about the same thing here? Are we all talking past each other?
About number 1 and 2: I have heard numerous people criticize the act of suppressing freedom of speech in the name of political correctness, but whenever they cite examples, the examples are all the same: "another person was impolite when arguing with me online." Yet that very impoliteness is itself an expression of free speech. A real act of suppressing freedom of speech would be using coercive force to prevent a statement from being uttered, or punishing it after the fact. The classic example is making a statement that another person calls "racist": calling a statement "racist" is an expression of free speech, and it does not stop anyone from making that statement regardless.
A quick note: for the purposes of the thread rules, a racist statement in-thread would break Rule 3, and calling a statement "racist" in-thread would break Rule 7.
About number 3: I am going to take a stab in the air and suggest that no other forumite in this thread believes "Free Speech must be stifled or restricted so someone doesn't get their feelings hurt." Yet the comment is phrased as though you're disagreeing with a statement in this thread.
Read that definition again: political correctness is "the idea that Free Speech must be stifled or restricted so someone doesn't get their feelings hurt." Is this an accurate definition of a view that many people actually hold, or is it just a straw man?
Most importantly, when our definitions of the same word are so incredibly far apart, how much time do we have to spend on semantics before we can even begin to discuss the real world?
This is why I prefer to discourage the use of buzzwords altogether.
It may be a common perception that the President has responsibility for foreign policy - but that doesn't mean that's what the Constitution dictates.
References in the Constitution that could relate to foreign policy are given below.
Congress
- To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations
- To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin
- To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations
- To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water
-To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces
President
- The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States
- He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments
- he shall receive Ambassadors
It's obviously not clear cut because the Constitution is an old document. Parts of it relate to things which are now irrelevant, while there are large gaps on issues which have arisen over time. However, the general thrust does seems clear to me - Congress sets the rules, the President governs according to those rules and the Judiciary decides what happens when those rules are breached.
I don't think that general thrust is any different in the area of foreign policy:
- the only references to regulation are by Congress and the President operates under those regulations.
- while the President is the Commander in Chief, the Congress sets the rules by which he must operate.
- while the President actually appoints Ambassadors, those must be agreed by the Senate. For all staff below the rank of Ambassador, Congress is given the specific power to determine who appoints them, not the President.
- Congress is given sole power to regulate Commerce (which is why the USMCA can't replace NAFTA until it has been ratified).
- Declaring War is the sole prerogative of Congress, while Treaties need to be agreed by them.
There are big grey areas in the Constitution that Presidents may seek to exploit in the area of foreign policy, just like other areas of policy - for instance by launching attacks on another country without declaring war. I don't think though that should obscure the fact that Congress has the final say on foreign policy - just as it does in any other area of policy. That power relationship is why Congress has the ability to impeach the President, but the President has no similar power to use against Congress.