Mike Pence, they guy whose defunding of Planned Parenthood and aversion to needle exchange caused an HIV outbreak in Indiana while he was Governor, is on the case. Alex Azar refuses to guarantee an eventual vaccine will be affordable for the general public. And a case with no known connections to any others has now been diagnosed in Northern California. Whatever quarantine they imagined was in place is gone as of that moment. And Trump's main concern remains the fucking stock market. Here is where the shit truly starts to hit the fan, folks. Everyone is about to learn why taking government seriously matters.
Mike Pence, they guy whose defunding of Planned Parenthood and aversion to needle exchange caused an HIV outbreak in Indiana while he was Governor, is on the case. Alex Azar refuses to guarantee a eventual vaccine will be affordable for the general public. And a case with no known connections to any others has now been diagnosed in Northern California. Whatever quarantine they imagined was in place is gone as of that moment. And Trump's main concern remains the fucking stock market. Here is where the shit truly starts to hit the fan, folks. Everyone is about to learn why taking government seriously matters.
The 'Yeah but I don't want to pay taxes because someday I might be biillionaire' attitude is about to bite everyone in the ass and people are dying and a guy who doesn't live in reality will not save us.
Let's see how well the Republican policy of "vaccines for those who can afford them" does against Medicare for All if this thing starts spreading. You want an ironclad reasoning why everyone should have medical care covered?? Here you go. In a situation like this, it's utterly useless to have a system based on for-profit care.
Mike Pence, they guy whose defunding of Planned Parenthood and aversion to needle exchange caused an HIV outbreak in Indiana while he was Governor, is on the case. Alex Azar refuses to guarantee an eventual vaccine will be affordable for the general public. And a case with no known connections to any others has now been diagnosed in Northern California. Whatever quarantine they imagined was in place is gone as of that moment. And Trump's main concern remains the fucking stock market. Here is where the shit truly starts to hit the fan, folks. Everyone is about to learn why taking government seriously matters.
I like how Trump put Pence in charge of the virus response. So when it does get that bad, Trump just points his finger and says "his fault!"
Pence must see the bus coming. Or he may just think it's one of the four horsemen galloping through the unworthy...
Mike Pence, they guy whose defunding of Planned Parenthood and aversion to needle exchange caused an HIV outbreak in Indiana while he was Governor, is on the case. Alex Azar refuses to guarantee an eventual vaccine will be affordable for the general public. And a case with no known connections to any others has now been diagnosed in Northern California. Whatever quarantine they imagined was in place is gone as of that moment. And Trump's main concern remains the fucking stock market. Here is where the shit truly starts to hit the fan, folks. Everyone is about to learn why taking government seriously matters.
I like how Trump put Pence in charge of the virus response. So when it does get that bad, Trump just points his finger and says "his fault!"
Pence must see the bus coming. Or he may just think it's one of the four horsemen galloping through the unworthy...
I'm sure Pence will be shocked, just shocked, when everything goes wrong and Trump claims he doesn't even know him.
I mean sure Trump's thrown General Flynn, General Kelly, Lev Parnas, Steve Bannon, Rudy Giuliani, Michael Cohen, Rex Tillerson, H. R. McMaster, ..... under the bus but not me. I mean just cause Trump threw them under the bus doesn't mean he'll throw ME under the bus right Pence?
Is it even possible to overstate how dangerous it is to have a man who cannot possibly be trusted to tell the truth at the head of this ship?? Who clearly believes that the entire thing is being manufactured to damage him personally?? Rush Limbaugh has been on the radio for the last two days telling every one of his millions of listeners it's bullshit being overplayed by the media to hurt Trump. How many of them show symptoms in the coming days and weeks and do nothing about it?? Trump and his officials have straight-up said it's basically "just the flu". What happens when 30% of the country doesn't believe the danger is even real?? I don't know where this is heading. But do you people understand now?? How his obliteration of reality the last 4 years could effect this?? Does a single person here trust Donald Trump to be upfront with the public about the dangers if it will hurt him politically??
I agree - it's hard to see how the courts system can ever function properly like this. This issue has been looked at recently in appeal cases by the 3rd, 7th and 9th Circuits - all of whom ruled that the Executive were not entitled to withhold the money. The particular case remanded to the 2nd Circuit relied on the precedent set by the 7th Circuit judgment.
In this judgment by the 2nd Circuit, they say: "In concluding otherwise, the district court relied on, among other things, an opinion of the Seventh Circuit in City of Chicago v. Sessions, 888 F.3d 272 (7th Cir. 2018). While mindful of the respect owed to our sister circuits, we cannot agree that the federal government must be enjoined from imposing the challenged conditions on the federal grants here at issue."
Just like politicians speaking, phrases akin to "with the greatest respect" are almost always a precursor to telling someone else, politely, to piss off.
I'm not sure to what extent in the US system the different circuit appeal courts are intended to be independent of each other, but it's a ludicrous situation where different courts, with the same legal stature, are contradicting each other on cases with national application. I would have thought that the 2nd Circuit would have been required in this situation to kick the case upwards to SCOTUS to get a final ruling ...
The main legal issue being argued about is not whether Congress has the power to determine immigration requirements - all the courts agree it does, with the Executive only having powers in this area to the extent those are delegated by Congress. However, the courts differ on whether Congress has delegated relevant powers. The 2nd Circuit judgment is that the statutory authority given to the Attorney General to require Byrne grant applicants to satisfy the program’s statutory requirements in such “form” and according to such “rules” as the Attorney General prescribes is very wide. I've also read the reasoning behind the 3rd Circuit judgment, which covers the same ground, but comes to very different conclusions. There's a lot of detail behind it, but I think the main point is that the delegated authority given by Congress must be interpreted in relation to the particular area under discussion, i.e. authority relating to the Byrne JAG grants should not be interpreted as covering unrelated laws. There's a lot of discussion of precedent and rules about statutory construction in the 3rd Circuit judgment to explain why that's the case - for instance it doesn't make much sense for Congress to have included in the delegated powers a number of specific authorities to limit grants, if they also intended for the Attorney General to have a general unlimited power to do that.
There is also a potential issue about States' rights raised by the case. States, not the federal authorities, have the power to manage police forces and Congress has specifically recognized this in s1373 of the U.S.C. "Nothing in this chapter or any other Act shall be construed to authorize any department, agency, officer, or employee of the United States to exercise any direction, supervision, or control over any police force or any other criminal justice agency of any State or any political subdivision thereof."
On the face of it, there would have to be an extremely specific delegation by Congress to overcome this general prohibition (and there was none). While referred to in the 3rd Circuit judgment, there was no pronouncement on this issue as they had determined on previous grounds that no authority had been given to the Attorney General anyway. However, this should have been discussed in the 2nd Circuit judgment before issuing their judgment in favor of the Attorney General. The fact that it was not so discussed is just another indication that the whole mess should already have been referred to the Supreme Court.
The fact that it was not so discussed is just another indication that the whole mess should already have been referred to the Supreme Court.
Well now because of the courts 'accident' the Supreme Court can safely ignore it if and when the decision is apealled. The kangaroo Supreme Court has got so much other crap to rule 5-4 over after all, and when the Supreme Court doesn't take up this, conveniently for the party the lower court ruling stands. The Conservatives' illegitimate behavior will be rewarded again.
Look, the US justice system is irreparably broken by Mitch McConnell, Donald Trump, and the Heritage Foundation and partisan corporate hack judges. I could never in good conscience, unless a great many things change, ever vote Republican again.
That's a really long way to say conservative judges are partisan hacks.
I've no idea what, if any, political convictions the various judges have. However, I am quite sure that there will have been posts elsewhere talking about the liberal hacks involved in the 3rd Circuit decision .
The reason I posted was not to try and make this a partisan issue, but point out the problems involved in a court system which appears to have so little regard to precedent. The 2nd Circuit judgment reverses that of the 3rd Circuit with no distinguishing characteristics to the case - they simply argue that the 3rd Circuit was wrong in their interpretation of the law. Although the case has national effect, I don't think there's anything to prevent another plaintiff from bringing a further case back to the 3rd Circuit - who would presumably uphold their previous view of the law and in turn overrule the 2nd Circuit judgment.
Irrespective of what you think about the merits of the case, allowing that sort of ping pong series of judgments to continue is nonsensical and just brings the legal system as a whole into disrepute. It's never going to be the case that everyone agrees with a particular ruling, but having certainty about what the legal position is on a given issue is important in itself.
Japan has now closed their schools for a month as a preventative measure. 1.) can you imagine the upheaval in the economy if that happened in the US simply from parents not being able to go to work?? And 2.) would this country even be willing to do so?? Think on this folks:
The reason I posted was not to try and make this a partisan issue, but point out the problems involved in a court system which appears to have so little regard to precedent. The 2nd Circuit judgment reverses that of the 3rd Circuit with no distinguishing characteristics to the case - they simply argue that the 3rd Circuit was wrong in their interpretation of the law. Although the case has national effect, I don't think there's anything to prevent another plaintiff from bringing a further case back to the 3rd Circuit - who would presumably uphold their previous view of the law and in turn overrule the 2nd Circuit judgment.
Irrespective of what you think about the merits of the case, allowing that sort of ping pong series of judgments to continue is nonsensical and just brings the legal system as a whole into disrepute. It's never going to be the case that everyone agrees with a particular ruling, but having certainty about what the legal position is on a given issue is important in itself.
Some Federal Courts of Appeal lean conservative while some lean liberal. If you have a case you wish to file or appeal then it is known that you can "shop" your case to the correct court and probably receive a more favorable ruling, which may reverse a lower court ruling that did not go your way. In years past it did not matter who appointed a judge to a bench, that judge would almost invariably rule based on established precedent. These days, judges are much more likely to be politically partisan on either side of an issue, as in this case--one appeals court says "no" but another one turns around and says "yes"? I suspect the SCOTUS is going to tell these judges, very quietly of course, to settle down and stop contradicting each other.
re: coronavirus. At this point, we are past worrying about whether it will be politicized because it has already become so. No, we do *not* have an emergency about it here in the United States and we are not going to have piles of bodies in the streets waiting to be taken to special incinerators for disposal. On the other hand, engaging in typical precautionary measures is never a bad idea--wash your hands frequently, wear gloves on your hands if you are concerned about contact exposure, wearing a mask won't stop a virus but it can help against "aerosol droplets" from someone else's sneezes or coughs (it also helps protect against random facial recognition software, if you are concerned about that sort of thing). Keeping a week's worth of non-perishable food and water on hand is never a bad idea--ideally you should already have that just for regular emergencies such as severe ice storm or tornado/hurricane aftermath. Researchers are already working on vaccines (as we note in the thread about the virus) and once that happens it won't be a significant problem any more. The Hitchhiker's Guide advice is always sound--don't panic.
The US will be fine so long as quarantine holds. But when/if it fails and gets into the general populace? We will have a hyper contagious virus that has no symptoms for up to a month while still being transferable in a population where 50% can't afford the medical care needed to fight it, in a system where most workers do not get paid sick days.
If or when this occurs people WILL die. A lot of people, because our healthcare system cannot handle it. We are the ONLY developed country in the world who has not figured this out.
My wife and son have immuno deficiencies. If anyone they have contact with has the virus, if I catch it or my father catches it, they WILL die. Full stop.
According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, 76% of all employees across all industries received paid sick leave as a benefit in 2019. In other words, most workers do receive paid sick leave. Some specific industries might receive less access to it (or not at all) and I am pretty certain that illegal immigrants receive exactly zero, which is why they should become legal migrant workers as this would give them more options and protections.
The US will be fine so long as quarantine holds. But when/if it fails and gets into the general populace? We will have a hyper contagious virus that has no symptoms for up to a month while still being transferable in a population where 50% can't afford the medical care needed to fight it, in a system where most workers do not get paid sick days.
If or when this occurs people WILL die. A lot of people, because our healthcare system cannot handle it. We are the ONLY developed country in the world who has not figured this out.
My wife and son have immuno deficiencies. If anyone they have contact with has the virus, if I catch it or my father catches it, they WILL die. Full stop.
I'm the same way here. I've got two family members including my wife with compromised immune systems. These are the people that will be dying.
Trump fired the pandemic response team leadership in 2018 and yesterday he said he's putting a science denier, Mike Pence, in charge.
Pence's past science denials cost lives in Indiana.
This is the problem with dictatorship and one party states - they don't put the best or most qualified people in charge - they put in charge the most loyal people who will tell you the answers you want to hear and protect the party. Same thing happened in Chernobyl - party loyalists got in the way of scientists exacerbating the disaster.
This is the problem with dictatorship and one party states
We don't have either of those things here, no matter how many time you might repeat it.
Indicators of dictatorship/totalitarianism:
only one political party (or alternate political parties are token or essentially nonexistent) -- no
no free press, only State-run media -- no
Legislative and Executive authority in the hands of only one person or a few people *or* Legislature is a rubber-stamp for the Executive -- no
use of the military to bolster local police *or* the miltary act as the local police -- no
No, Pence is probably not the best person to put in charge, but it isn't like he is going to be making medical decisions. Being put in charge of an agency means that your job is watching PowerPoint presentations put together by other people and schmoozing at fundraisers, not micromanaging day-to-day operations.
I will not tell anyone how to react to coronavirus but I don't think it is the imminent doom that some people think it is.
Imminent doom isn't what anyone is suggesting. What is being pointed out is:
1.) Trump dismantled the apparatus Obama put together to deal with these incidents. Ostensibly simply because it was merely associated with his Administration. I've already posted the article explaining it.
2.). The man quite clearly, with his own words and by further reporting, has only one concern, which is how it effects the economy and specifically the stock market.
3.). In a scenario like this, how good your personal healthcare situation is may be nearly irrelevant. The populace at large is only as safe from it as your least covered person. In other words, the only thing that matters is the floor, not the ceiling.
4.) You haven't worked in any job in the real-world if you haven't been forced to go into work sick to hold onto it, or contracted an illness because someone else at work did. Hyper-capitalism at it's finest.
Trump and his officials keep comparing it to the flu. It isn't the flu. It's 20x deadlier than the flu. Especially among people already vulnerable. Like @ThacoBell and @smeagolheart. I have someone close to me whose immune system is essentially non-existent at this point. That's what scares me. As for the quarantine, it's already been "broken". The woman in California was a Korean Airlines flight attendant. This thing has an incubation period of something like 14 days. There are almost certainly hundreds of people walking around right now who don't even know they have it. They personally may not even get "sick" as we'd commonly refer to it. But someone else they come in contact with will. It doesn't take long for these dominoes to fall, and you can't bullshit you way out of them by holding press conferences where you don't tell the truth about it. The Ebola situation was limited to the deaths of the two initial patients in the US who were simply too far gone to help. Everyone else who got it was immediately put under heavy quarantine and survived because it CAN be treated, mostly through constant hydration. This is altogether more under the radar, and thus more sinister. It is nowhere near as lethal as Ebola, but it spreads like the flu.
And we live in a society in which people not only can't afford to miss paychecks, but also might flat-out lose their job. Oh sure, companies will SAY you should stay home from work. But that won't stop them from putting a check-mark next to your name on the absence counter that dictates when you get fired for poor attendance. This is ingrained deep in anyone who has ever had a shitty job. You basically live in fear of taking more than a sick day or (maybe) two a year.
The main legal issue being argued about is not whether Congress has the power to determine immigration requirements - all the courts agree it does, with the Executive only having powers in this area to the extent those are delegated by Congress. However, the courts differ on whether Congress has delegated relevant powers. The 2nd Circuit judgment is that the statutory authority given to the Attorney General to require Byrne grant applicants to satisfy the program’s statutory requirements in such “form” and according to such “rules” as the Attorney General prescribes is very wide. I've also read the reasoning behind the 3rd Circuit judgment, which covers the same ground, but comes to very different conclusions. There's a lot of detail behind it, but I think the main point is that the delegated authority given by Congress must be interpreted in relation to the particular area under discussion, i.e. authority relating to the Byrne JAG grants should not be interpreted as covering unrelated laws. There's a lot of discussion of precedent and rules about statutory construction in the 3rd Circuit judgment to explain why that's the case - for instance it doesn't make much sense for Congress to have included in the delegated powers a number of specific authorities to limit grants, if they also intended for the Attorney General to have a general unlimited power to do that.
There is also a potential issue about States' rights raised by the case. States, not the federal authorities, have the power to manage police forces and Congress has specifically recognized this in s1373 of the U.S.C. "Nothing in this chapter or any other Act shall be construed to authorize any department, agency, officer, or employee of the United States to exercise any direction, supervision, or control over any police force or any other criminal justice agency of any State or any political subdivision thereof."
On the face of it, there would have to be an extremely specific delegation by Congress to overcome this general prohibition (and there was none). While referred to in the 3rd Circuit judgment, there was no pronouncement on this issue as they had determined on previous grounds that no authority had been given to the Attorney General anyway. However, this should have been discussed in the 2nd Circuit judgment before issuing their judgment in favor of the Attorney General. The fact that it was not so discussed is just another indication that the whole mess should already have been referred to the Supreme Court.
This judicial ping pong is an old story, and usually means it will end in the Supreme Court.
I do agree with the 2nd Circuit's reasoning, as it relies heavily on 8 U.S.C. § 1373, which “precludes government entities and officials from prohibiting or restricting the sharing of citizenship or alien‐status information with federal immigration authorities.”. It seems pretty cut and dry to me.
But I agree that the American legal system makes little sense, and does not represent justice. It's mostly about finding sympathetic judges or courts to rubber stamp whatever nonsense you are trying to do.
4.) You haven't worked in any job in the real-world if you haven't been forced to go into work sick to hold onto it, or contracted an illness because someone else at work did. Hyper-capitalism at it's finest.
That's right, folks--working in IT is not a "job in the real world" because I have never been forced to go to work sick (even when I was just a contractor) and I have never gotten sick because one of my co-workers was sick. I have only been *pretending* to work or I have been working inside an elementary school this entire time since my job isn't "real-world".
I am uncertain what sort of craptastic jobs to which you are accustomed where those are the norm but, as I cited from the BLS, the significant majority of employees do have access to paid sick leave. You may continue to beat that drum all you want, though.
This is the problem with dictatorship and one party states
We don't have either of those things here, no matter how many time you might repeat it.
Indicators of dictatorship/totalitarianism:
only one political party (or alternate political parties are token or essentially nonexistent) -- no
no free press, only State-run media -- no
Legislative and Executive authority in the hands of only one person or a few people *or* Legislature is a rubber-stamp for the Executive -- no
use of the military to bolster local police *or* the miltary act as the local police -- no
No, Pence is probably not the best person to put in charge, but it isn't like he is going to be making medical decisions. Being put in charge of an agency means that your job is watching PowerPoint presentations put together by other people and schmoozing at fundraisers, not micromanaging day-to-day operations.
I will not tell anyone how to react to coronavirus but I don't think it is the imminent doom that some people think it is.
No but America now has;
1. An administration that is making loyalty lists for each department. Denying positions and even removing people who are found to be disloyal to Trump.
2. An Federal Campaign (Trump’s) suing the New York Times for libel as well as Fox being an echo chamber for Trump.
3. A president who twists National Emergency and National Security concerns to circumvent legislation.
4. Deployment of troops to the southern border.
So ya, America isn’t at a totalitarian state yet. That doesn’t mean the current administration isn’t pushing towards it or mimicking one.
~
I do agree that the coronavirus is going to be hyperly covered. Each death is going to be reported in the media, making it seem that things aren’t under control. This may cause panic, but I think if everyone is acutely aware of the risks, most of the damage should be mitigated.
But only time will tell. People have been saying we’re due for the next pandemic. I think this would be it due to its incubation period. Hopefully that is not the new norm for these types of viruses.
The main legal issue being argued about is not whether Congress has the power to determine immigration requirements - all the courts agree it does, with the Executive only having powers in this area to the extent those are delegated by Congress. However, the courts differ on whether Congress has delegated relevant powers. The 2nd Circuit judgment is that the statutory authority given to the Attorney General to require Byrne grant applicants to satisfy the program’s statutory requirements in such “form” and according to such “rules” as the Attorney General prescribes is very wide. I've also read the reasoning behind the 3rd Circuit judgment, which covers the same ground, but comes to very different conclusions. There's a lot of detail behind it, but I think the main point is that the delegated authority given by Congress must be interpreted in relation to the particular area under discussion, i.e. authority relating to the Byrne JAG grants should not be interpreted as covering unrelated laws. There's a lot of discussion of precedent and rules about statutory construction in the 3rd Circuit judgment to explain why that's the case - for instance it doesn't make much sense for Congress to have included in the delegated powers a number of specific authorities to limit grants, if they also intended for the Attorney General to have a general unlimited power to do that.
There is also a potential issue about States' rights raised by the case. States, not the federal authorities, have the power to manage police forces and Congress has specifically recognized this in s1373 of the U.S.C. "Nothing in this chapter or any other Act shall be construed to authorize any department, agency, officer, or employee of the United States to exercise any direction, supervision, or control over any police force or any other criminal justice agency of any State or any political subdivision thereof."
On the face of it, there would have to be an extremely specific delegation by Congress to overcome this general prohibition (and there was none). While referred to in the 3rd Circuit judgment, there was no pronouncement on this issue as they had determined on previous grounds that no authority had been given to the Attorney General anyway. However, this should have been discussed in the 2nd Circuit judgment before issuing their judgment in favor of the Attorney General. The fact that it was not so discussed is just another indication that the whole mess should already have been referred to the Supreme Court.
This judicial ping pong is an old story, and usually means it will end in the Supreme Court.
I do agree with the 2nd Circuit's reasoning, as it relies heavily on 8 U.S.C. § 1373, which “precludes government entities and officials from prohibiting or restricting the sharing of citizenship or alien‐status information with federal immigration authorities.”. It seems pretty cut and dry to me.
But I agree that the American legal system makes little sense, and does not represent justice. It's mostly about finding sympathetic judges or courts to rubber stamp whatever nonsense you are trying to do.
If you're interested in the legal reasoning, have a look at the 3rd Circuit's judgment in the City of Philadelphia case - that covers the issue about s1373 in detail. Essentially, it's agreed by both parties that there's no direct relationship between s1373 and the statutory authority to issue the Byrne grants (provided in s34 of the USC). The Attorney General argued such a relationship was not necessary, however, as s34 provides that a grant applicant must certify it will comply with both the provisions in s34 and all other applicable Federal laws and that what was meant by applicable should be interpreted widely, to cover both laws applicable to the grant and laws applicable to the recipient of the grant.
After reviewing precedents, rules of statutory construction and the wording of the whole of s34, the 3rd Circuit determined that a narrow interpretation should be taken of what 'applicable' meant. The 2nd Circuit disagreed, using reasoning that includes the idea that it is wrong in principle for a grant recipient to be able to receive a federal grant if it is not following all federal laws.
I can see a basis for both arguments and I agree the determination of this point is likely to eventually be made by the Supreme Court. What I can't see though is why the 2nd Circuit would not automatically have referred it there at the point where they decided that the judgments made by three other appeal circuit courts in the last year or so were wrong ...
1. An administration that is making loyalty lists for each department. Denying positions and even removing people who are found to be disloyal to Trump.
2. An Federal Campaign (Trump’s) suing the New York Times for libel as well as Fox being an echo chamber for Trump.
3. A president who twists National Emergency and National Security concerns to circumvent legislation.
4. Deployment of troops to the southern border.
So ya, America isn’t at a totalitarian state yet. That doesn’t mean the current administration isn’t pushing towards it or mimicking one.
1 is normal politics.
2 is definitely weird and I would have strongly advised *against* such a move.
3 you mean like when Obama wanted to circumvent immigration and try to give special status to those who were brought here as young children? (note: I am already on record supporting DACA, even citizenship for them...but that still circumvented the normal process)
4 that one is a gray area because governors are allowed to mobilize the National Guard and the POTUS may ask them to do so.
@smeagolheart Agree--many hourly workers *don't* receive that benefit; they would be part of the 24% not covered by that BLS statistic I cited. The Dallas City Council enacted a city ordinance that employers in that city must offer paid sick leave; I am unaware of any lawsuits because of it--the Texas Tribune did not report any--so I presume employers are either complying or skirting the ordinance and daring employees to speak out about it.
There's a wider concern about sick leave as well as whether you get paid when you're actually sick. In the UK there are national requirements for paid sick leave, but those do not apply if you're not actually sick. That's an issue at the moment as health guidance being issued on COVID-19 is that people who may have come into contact with the disease should self-isolate (whether they actually feel sick or not).
If the disease progresses to endemic status this may become a moot point. However, at the moment there is a serious concern that quarantine arrangements may be being jeapardized by the lack of compensation for those taking time off from work.
This is the problem with dictatorship and one party states
We don't have either of those things here, no matter how many time you might repeat it.
Indicators of dictatorship/totalitarianism:
only one political party (or alternate political parties are token or essentially nonexistent) -- no
no free press, only State-run media -- no
Legislative and Executive authority in the hands of only one person or a few people *or* Legislature is a rubber-stamp for the Executive -- no
use of the military to bolster local police *or* the miltary act as the local police -- no
No, Pence is probably not the best person to put in charge, but it isn't like he is going to be making medical decisions. Being put in charge of an agency means that your job is watching PowerPoint presentations put together by other people and schmoozing at fundraisers, not micromanaging day-to-day operations.
I will not tell anyone how to react to coronavirus but I don't think it is the imminent doom that some people think it is.
No but America now has;
1. An administration that is making loyalty lists for each department. Denying positions and even removing people who are found to be disloyal to Trump.
2. An Federal Campaign (Trump’s) suing the New York Times for libel as well as Fox being an echo chamber for Trump.
3. A president who twists National Emergency and National Security concerns to circumvent legislation.
4. Deployment of troops to the southern border.
So ya, America isn’t at a totalitarian state yet. That doesn’t mean the current administration isn’t pushing towards it or mimicking one.
~
I do agree that the coronavirus is going to be hyperly covered. Each death is going to be reported in the media, making it seem that things aren’t under control. This may cause panic, but I think if everyone is acutely aware of the risks, most of the damage should be mitigated.
But only time will tell. People have been saying we’re due for the next pandemic. I think this would be it due to its incubation period. Hopefully that is not the new norm for these types of viruses.
That's the thing with dictatorship and one party states. There's a general creep towards it before it happens. And ignoring the lessons of history is incredibly dangerous and naive.
The man he put in charge of the coronavirus response was not selected because he's a doctor or scientist or knows anything - he was picked for loyalty.
Right now, we are ruled by one man and the party goes along with whatever he says. It is doubtful the party will do the right thing if it means working with Democrats (or just do the right thing at all usually). The only things the party does is what the party can either hammer the opposition on or pass unilaterally on party lines.
And as you mentioned, there's an active purge going on of experts, scientists, career people, for the crime of "not being loyal".
I know I know but I'm going to say it. Hitler was also elected democratically with about 30% of the country voting for him - like Trump. Are they exactly the same? No. They are not exactly the same.
In any case, the Nazi party did not rule the country immediately as the sole party, there was a slow creep towards authoritarianism EXACTLY LIKE WE'RE SEEING NOW. Wake up sheeple and all that. People thought the funny man back then didn't really mean the things he was saying etc etc etc. Yeah yeah I know. Again, it needs to be said because those who ignore the lessons of history are doomed to repeat it. Again here's some bullet points:
- Purge of members of government who are perceived to be "disloyal"
- Selection of loyalists for jobs which they are totally unqualified
- party run disinformation campaign and propaganda (rush limaugh, Fox News, OANN, breitbart, Prager U, Toilet Paper USA, Coulter, Dinesh D'Souza, etc etc etc)
- Scapegoating of "others" (immigrants, blame everything on democrats, blame everything on the media)
- undermining of science and facts
- attacks on the independence of the media and attempts to silence (and avoid) any criticism
- stacking the courts with rubber stamps and loyalists
A bit of significant news today about the way climate change laws can interact with infrastructure developments. For many years now there have been attempts to get a third runway built at Heathrow in London. Those have been bitterly opposed, but a government decision in 2018 to support the runway looked like it might see the project going ahead. However, the Appeal Court today ruled that the proposal can't go ahead at the moment as it had failed to show how the project is compatible with the UK's commitments under the Climate Change Act 2008 (which requires the UK to achieve net zero carbon emissions by 2050).
The UK was a leader in putting climate change commitments into law, but there are plenty of other countries now that have done similar things. This judgment, showing that such laws can make a difference, will therefore be important internationally. The existence of the law does not mean that major infrastructure developments can't take place, but does mean they have to specifically consider how the development can be made consistent with climate change objectives.
In principle the Heathrow development could still go ahead - either as a result of an appeal to the Supreme Court or by reworking the proposal to show how climate change concerns could be mitigated. However, I suspect that it will not in fact go ahead for the foreseeable future. That's largely because Boris Johnson is now Prime Minister. When he was mayor of London in 2015 he said he would lie down in front of the bulldozers to stop a third runway being built. That stance was embarrassing for him when he was a member of Theresa May's government that approved the project, but this court decision provides him with a great excuse not to follow through with that. The government has already indicated its lukewarm attitude by stating it will not appeal the judgment - Heathrow could still appeal themselves, but without a supportive government their chances of successfully taking the project forward will be much lower.
4 that one is a gray area because governors are allowed to mobilize the National Guard and the POTUS may ask them to do so.
Ya. Canada also deployed it’s military to Newfoundland after their blizzard. We here in Canada also like to rub it to Toronto residences after the military was deployed there after a bad storm in the aught’s. But those were legitimate emergencies. In Newfoundland people were trapped in their own homes due to the snow. Every hour (I was going to say minute, but that’s pushing it) counted.
The troops being deployed to the the US southern border was not responding to any such emergency. It was just for show.
One shouldn’t accept “because I can” as justification for any action especially one as drastic as this. Now if he deployed troops to PR to help clear roads and deliver all that bottled water to residents that needed it, we’d be having a different conversation.
~
As for DACA, one has to remember that Obama was cracking down on illegal immigration when this was actually being proposed. It was basically him saying ICE isn’t coming for you, it’s a temporary fix and hopefully legislation can be passed to make sure DACAs don’t have to worry about this ever. Too bad Republicans hyperventilated on this thought alone and thought everything Obama did or proposed was evil that a meaningful debate on these people was not tabled.
Compare that to issuing tariffs on America’s closest allies, circumventing congress approved federal wage increases and taking military funding to build a wall the actual whataboutism doesn’t hold up.
Trump does x, and people complain. When it is pointed out that Obama (or whomever) did exactly the same thing his defenders claim "whataboutism", thus excusing Obama's actions. If something is wrong then it is wrong regardless of who does it; pointing out that someone else also did it is always permissible. In other words, if Obama did it then it was okay but if Trump does it then it is not. Typical "heads I win, tails you lose" thinking.
Those drops in the stock indices....the smart investors will now buy and those corporations will claim the capital losses against their taxes, reducing the amount they will have to pay. Once the initials fears subside, the markets will correct themselves.
CNN is claiming that the shooter at the Moulson Coors facility has not been identified, which is completely false. Anthony N. Ferrill, 51, a 17-year electrician who just also happened to be black. He had an ongoing dispute with one or two coworkers, including them accusing each other of stealing equipment or tampering with their computers, but Mr. Ferrill also believed that someone had bugged his house and would move the chairs around inside his house.
Trump does x, and people complain. When it is pointed out that Obama (or whomever) did exactly the same thing his defenders claim "whataboutism", thus excusing Obama's actions. If something is wrong then it is wrong regardless of who does it; pointing out that someone else also did it is always permissible. In other words, if Obama did it then it was okay but if Trump does it then it is not. Typical "heads I win, tails you lose" thinking.
No - that’s actually just whatsboutism. It works in reverse too. If you mention things Obama did, and someone pivots to Trump... it’s whataboutism.
*shrug* Thems-the-breaks. Sorry if you don’t like it. It’s not excusing anyone’s actions.
Comments
The 'Yeah but I don't want to pay taxes because someday I might be biillionaire' attitude is about to bite everyone in the ass and people are dying and a guy who doesn't live in reality will not save us.
40% of all Americans would have serious trouble with a $400 emergency
https://abcnews.go.com/US/10-americans-struggle-cover-400-emergency-expense-federal/story?id=63253846
I like how Trump put Pence in charge of the virus response. So when it does get that bad, Trump just points his finger and says "his fault!"
Pence must see the bus coming. Or he may just think it's one of the four horsemen galloping through the unworthy...
I'm sure Pence will be shocked, just shocked, when everything goes wrong and Trump claims he doesn't even know him.
I mean sure Trump's thrown General Flynn, General Kelly, Lev Parnas, Steve Bannon, Rudy Giuliani, Michael Cohen, Rex Tillerson, H. R. McMaster, ..... under the bus but not me. I mean just cause Trump threw them under the bus doesn't mean he'll throw ME under the bus right Pence?
I agree - it's hard to see how the courts system can ever function properly like this. This issue has been looked at recently in appeal cases by the 3rd, 7th and 9th Circuits - all of whom ruled that the Executive were not entitled to withhold the money. The particular case remanded to the 2nd Circuit relied on the precedent set by the 7th Circuit judgment.
In this judgment by the 2nd Circuit, they say:
"In concluding otherwise, the district court relied on, among other things, an opinion of the Seventh Circuit in City of Chicago v. Sessions, 888 F.3d 272 (7th Cir. 2018). While mindful of the respect owed to our sister circuits, we cannot agree that the federal government must be enjoined from imposing the challenged conditions on the federal grants here at issue."
Just like politicians speaking, phrases akin to "with the greatest respect" are almost always a precursor to telling someone else, politely, to piss off.
I'm not sure to what extent in the US system the different circuit appeal courts are intended to be independent of each other, but it's a ludicrous situation where different courts, with the same legal stature, are contradicting each other on cases with national application. I would have thought that the 2nd Circuit would have been required in this situation to kick the case upwards to SCOTUS to get a final ruling ...
The main legal issue being argued about is not whether Congress has the power to determine immigration requirements - all the courts agree it does, with the Executive only having powers in this area to the extent those are delegated by Congress. However, the courts differ on whether Congress has delegated relevant powers. The 2nd Circuit judgment is that the statutory authority given to the Attorney General to require Byrne grant applicants to satisfy the program’s statutory requirements in such “form” and according to such “rules” as the Attorney General prescribes is very wide. I've also read the reasoning behind the 3rd Circuit judgment, which covers the same ground, but comes to very different conclusions. There's a lot of detail behind it, but I think the main point is that the delegated authority given by Congress must be interpreted in relation to the particular area under discussion, i.e. authority relating to the Byrne JAG grants should not be interpreted as covering unrelated laws. There's a lot of discussion of precedent and rules about statutory construction in the 3rd Circuit judgment to explain why that's the case - for instance it doesn't make much sense for Congress to have included in the delegated powers a number of specific authorities to limit grants, if they also intended for the Attorney General to have a general unlimited power to do that.
There is also a potential issue about States' rights raised by the case. States, not the federal authorities, have the power to manage police forces and Congress has specifically recognized this in s1373 of the U.S.C.
"Nothing in this chapter or any other Act shall be construed to authorize any department, agency, officer, or employee of the United States to exercise any direction, supervision, or control over any police force or any other criminal justice agency of any State or any political subdivision thereof."
On the face of it, there would have to be an extremely specific delegation by Congress to overcome this general prohibition (and there was none). While referred to in the 3rd Circuit judgment, there was no pronouncement on this issue as they had determined on previous grounds that no authority had been given to the Attorney General anyway. However, this should have been discussed in the 2nd Circuit judgment before issuing their judgment in favor of the Attorney General. The fact that it was not so discussed is just another indication that the whole mess should already have been referred to the Supreme Court.
Well now because of the courts 'accident' the Supreme Court can safely ignore it if and when the decision is apealled. The kangaroo Supreme Court has got so much other crap to rule 5-4 over after all, and when the Supreme Court doesn't take up this, conveniently for the party the lower court ruling stands. The Conservatives' illegitimate behavior will be rewarded again.
Look, the US justice system is irreparably broken by Mitch McConnell, Donald Trump, and the Heritage Foundation and partisan corporate hack judges. I could never in good conscience, unless a great many things change, ever vote Republican again.
Senator Schatz had this to say about Pence:
I've no idea what, if any, political convictions the various judges have. However, I am quite sure that there will have been posts elsewhere talking about the liberal hacks involved in the 3rd Circuit decision
The reason I posted was not to try and make this a partisan issue, but point out the problems involved in a court system which appears to have so little regard to precedent. The 2nd Circuit judgment reverses that of the 3rd Circuit with no distinguishing characteristics to the case - they simply argue that the 3rd Circuit was wrong in their interpretation of the law. Although the case has national effect, I don't think there's anything to prevent another plaintiff from bringing a further case back to the 3rd Circuit - who would presumably uphold their previous view of the law and in turn overrule the 2nd Circuit judgment.
Irrespective of what you think about the merits of the case, allowing that sort of ping pong series of judgments to continue is nonsensical and just brings the legal system as a whole into disrepute. It's never going to be the case that everyone agrees with a particular ruling, but having certainty about what the legal position is on a given issue is important in itself.
Some Federal Courts of Appeal lean conservative while some lean liberal. If you have a case you wish to file or appeal then it is known that you can "shop" your case to the correct court and probably receive a more favorable ruling, which may reverse a lower court ruling that did not go your way. In years past it did not matter who appointed a judge to a bench, that judge would almost invariably rule based on established precedent. These days, judges are much more likely to be politically partisan on either side of an issue, as in this case--one appeals court says "no" but another one turns around and says "yes"? I suspect the SCOTUS is going to tell these judges, very quietly of course, to settle down and stop contradicting each other.
re: coronavirus. At this point, we are past worrying about whether it will be politicized because it has already become so. No, we do *not* have an emergency about it here in the United States and we are not going to have piles of bodies in the streets waiting to be taken to special incinerators for disposal. On the other hand, engaging in typical precautionary measures is never a bad idea--wash your hands frequently, wear gloves on your hands if you are concerned about contact exposure, wearing a mask won't stop a virus but it can help against "aerosol droplets" from someone else's sneezes or coughs (it also helps protect against random facial recognition software, if you are concerned about that sort of thing). Keeping a week's worth of non-perishable food and water on hand is never a bad idea--ideally you should already have that just for regular emergencies such as severe ice storm or tornado/hurricane aftermath. Researchers are already working on vaccines (as we note in the thread about the virus) and once that happens it won't be a significant problem any more. The Hitchhiker's Guide advice is always sound--don't panic.
If or when this occurs people WILL die. A lot of people, because our healthcare system cannot handle it. We are the ONLY developed country in the world who has not figured this out.
My wife and son have immuno deficiencies. If anyone they have contact with has the virus, if I catch it or my father catches it, they WILL die. Full stop.
I'm the same way here. I've got two family members including my wife with compromised immune systems. These are the people that will be dying.
Trump fired the pandemic response team leadership in 2018 and yesterday he said he's putting a science denier, Mike Pence, in charge.
Pence's past science denials cost lives in Indiana.
This is the problem with dictatorship and one party states - they don't put the best or most qualified people in charge - they put in charge the most loyal people who will tell you the answers you want to hear and protect the party. Same thing happened in Chernobyl - party loyalists got in the way of scientists exacerbating the disaster.
We don't have either of those things here, no matter how many time you might repeat it.
Indicators of dictatorship/totalitarianism:
only one political party (or alternate political parties are token or essentially nonexistent) -- no
no free press, only State-run media -- no
Legislative and Executive authority in the hands of only one person or a few people *or* Legislature is a rubber-stamp for the Executive -- no
use of the military to bolster local police *or* the miltary act as the local police -- no
No, Pence is probably not the best person to put in charge, but it isn't like he is going to be making medical decisions. Being put in charge of an agency means that your job is watching PowerPoint presentations put together by other people and schmoozing at fundraisers, not micromanaging day-to-day operations.
I will not tell anyone how to react to coronavirus but I don't think it is the imminent doom that some people think it is.
1.) Trump dismantled the apparatus Obama put together to deal with these incidents. Ostensibly simply because it was merely associated with his Administration. I've already posted the article explaining it.
2.). The man quite clearly, with his own words and by further reporting, has only one concern, which is how it effects the economy and specifically the stock market.
3.). In a scenario like this, how good your personal healthcare situation is may be nearly irrelevant. The populace at large is only as safe from it as your least covered person. In other words, the only thing that matters is the floor, not the ceiling.
4.) You haven't worked in any job in the real-world if you haven't been forced to go into work sick to hold onto it, or contracted an illness because someone else at work did. Hyper-capitalism at it's finest.
Trump and his officials keep comparing it to the flu. It isn't the flu. It's 20x deadlier than the flu. Especially among people already vulnerable. Like @ThacoBell and @smeagolheart. I have someone close to me whose immune system is essentially non-existent at this point. That's what scares me. As for the quarantine, it's already been "broken". The woman in California was a Korean Airlines flight attendant. This thing has an incubation period of something like 14 days. There are almost certainly hundreds of people walking around right now who don't even know they have it. They personally may not even get "sick" as we'd commonly refer to it. But someone else they come in contact with will. It doesn't take long for these dominoes to fall, and you can't bullshit you way out of them by holding press conferences where you don't tell the truth about it. The Ebola situation was limited to the deaths of the two initial patients in the US who were simply too far gone to help. Everyone else who got it was immediately put under heavy quarantine and survived because it CAN be treated, mostly through constant hydration. This is altogether more under the radar, and thus more sinister. It is nowhere near as lethal as Ebola, but it spreads like the flu.
And we live in a society in which people not only can't afford to miss paychecks, but also might flat-out lose their job. Oh sure, companies will SAY you should stay home from work. But that won't stop them from putting a check-mark next to your name on the absence counter that dictates when you get fired for poor attendance. This is ingrained deep in anyone who has ever had a shitty job. You basically live in fear of taking more than a sick day or (maybe) two a year.
This judicial ping pong is an old story, and usually means it will end in the Supreme Court.
I do agree with the 2nd Circuit's reasoning, as it relies heavily on 8 U.S.C. § 1373, which “precludes government entities and officials from prohibiting or restricting the sharing of citizenship or alien‐status information with federal immigration authorities.”. It seems pretty cut and dry to me.
But I agree that the American legal system makes little sense, and does not represent justice. It's mostly about finding sympathetic judges or courts to rubber stamp whatever nonsense you are trying to do.
That's right, folks--working in IT is not a "job in the real world" because I have never been forced to go to work sick (even when I was just a contractor) and I have never gotten sick because one of my co-workers was sick. I have only been *pretending* to work or I have been working inside an elementary school this entire time since my job isn't "real-world".
I am uncertain what sort of craptastic jobs to which you are accustomed where those are the norm but, as I cited from the BLS, the significant majority of employees do have access to paid sick leave. You may continue to beat that drum all you want, though.
Me neither, but I do know one was a Reagan appointee, and one was from Clinton, and one was from Bush. None of the Trump appointees were on the case.
No but America now has;
1. An administration that is making loyalty lists for each department. Denying positions and even removing people who are found to be disloyal to Trump.
2. An Federal Campaign (Trump’s) suing the New York Times for libel as well as Fox being an echo chamber for Trump.
3. A president who twists National Emergency and National Security concerns to circumvent legislation.
4. Deployment of troops to the southern border.
So ya, America isn’t at a totalitarian state yet. That doesn’t mean the current administration isn’t pushing towards it or mimicking one.
~
I do agree that the coronavirus is going to be hyperly covered. Each death is going to be reported in the media, making it seem that things aren’t under control. This may cause panic, but I think if everyone is acutely aware of the risks, most of the damage should be mitigated.
But only time will tell. People have been saying we’re due for the next pandemic. I think this would be it due to its incubation period. Hopefully that is not the new norm for these types of viruses.
But for millions of low-paid workers, the rule is simple - if you don't show up for work you lose a day's pay.
If you're interested in the legal reasoning, have a look at the 3rd Circuit's judgment in the City of Philadelphia case - that covers the issue about s1373 in detail. Essentially, it's agreed by both parties that there's no direct relationship between s1373 and the statutory authority to issue the Byrne grants (provided in s34 of the USC). The Attorney General argued such a relationship was not necessary, however, as s34 provides that a grant applicant must certify it will comply with both the provisions in s34 and all other applicable Federal laws and that what was meant by applicable should be interpreted widely, to cover both laws applicable to the grant and laws applicable to the recipient of the grant.
After reviewing precedents, rules of statutory construction and the wording of the whole of s34, the 3rd Circuit determined that a narrow interpretation should be taken of what 'applicable' meant. The 2nd Circuit disagreed, using reasoning that includes the idea that it is wrong in principle for a grant recipient to be able to receive a federal grant if it is not following all federal laws.
I can see a basis for both arguments and I agree the determination of this point is likely to eventually be made by the Supreme Court. What I can't see though is why the 2nd Circuit would not automatically have referred it there at the point where they decided that the judgments made by three other appeal circuit courts in the last year or so were wrong ...
1 is normal politics.
2 is definitely weird and I would have strongly advised *against* such a move.
3 you mean like when Obama wanted to circumvent immigration and try to give special status to those who were brought here as young children? (note: I am already on record supporting DACA, even citizenship for them...but that still circumvented the normal process)
4 that one is a gray area because governors are allowed to mobilize the National Guard and the POTUS may ask them to do so.
@smeagolheart Agree--many hourly workers *don't* receive that benefit; they would be part of the 24% not covered by that BLS statistic I cited. The Dallas City Council enacted a city ordinance that employers in that city must offer paid sick leave; I am unaware of any lawsuits because of it--the Texas Tribune did not report any--so I presume employers are either complying or skirting the ordinance and daring employees to speak out about it.
If the disease progresses to endemic status this may become a moot point. However, at the moment there is a serious concern that quarantine arrangements may be being jeapardized by the lack of compensation for those taking time off from work.
That's the thing with dictatorship and one party states. There's a general creep towards it before it happens. And ignoring the lessons of history is incredibly dangerous and naive.
The man he put in charge of the coronavirus response was not selected because he's a doctor or scientist or knows anything - he was picked for loyalty.
Right now, we are ruled by one man and the party goes along with whatever he says. It is doubtful the party will do the right thing if it means working with Democrats (or just do the right thing at all usually). The only things the party does is what the party can either hammer the opposition on or pass unilaterally on party lines.
And as you mentioned, there's an active purge going on of experts, scientists, career people, for the crime of "not being loyal".
I know I know but I'm going to say it. Hitler was also elected democratically with about 30% of the country voting for him - like Trump. Are they exactly the same? No. They are not exactly the same.
In any case, the Nazi party did not rule the country immediately as the sole party, there was a slow creep towards authoritarianism EXACTLY LIKE WE'RE SEEING NOW. Wake up sheeple and all that. People thought the funny man back then didn't really mean the things he was saying etc etc etc. Yeah yeah I know. Again, it needs to be said because those who ignore the lessons of history are doomed to repeat it. Again here's some bullet points:
- Purge of members of government who are perceived to be "disloyal"
- Selection of loyalists for jobs which they are totally unqualified
- party run disinformation campaign and propaganda (rush limaugh, Fox News, OANN, breitbart, Prager U, Toilet Paper USA, Coulter, Dinesh D'Souza, etc etc etc)
- Scapegoating of "others" (immigrants, blame everything on democrats, blame everything on the media)
- undermining of science and facts
- attacks on the independence of the media and attempts to silence (and avoid) any criticism
- stacking the courts with rubber stamps and loyalists
The UK was a leader in putting climate change commitments into law, but there are plenty of other countries now that have done similar things. This judgment, showing that such laws can make a difference, will therefore be important internationally. The existence of the law does not mean that major infrastructure developments can't take place, but does mean they have to specifically consider how the development can be made consistent with climate change objectives.
In principle the Heathrow development could still go ahead - either as a result of an appeal to the Supreme Court or by reworking the proposal to show how climate change concerns could be mitigated. However, I suspect that it will not in fact go ahead for the foreseeable future. That's largely because Boris Johnson is now Prime Minister. When he was mayor of London in 2015 he said he would lie down in front of the bulldozers to stop a third runway being built. That stance was embarrassing for him when he was a member of Theresa May's government that approved the project, but this court decision provides him with a great excuse not to follow through with that. The government has already indicated its lukewarm attitude by stating it will not appeal the judgment - Heathrow could still appeal themselves, but without a supportive government their chances of successfully taking the project forward will be much lower.
Ya. Canada also deployed it’s military to Newfoundland after their blizzard. We here in Canada also like to rub it to Toronto residences after the military was deployed there after a bad storm in the aught’s. But those were legitimate emergencies. In Newfoundland people were trapped in their own homes due to the snow. Every hour (I was going to say minute, but that’s pushing it) counted.
The troops being deployed to the the US southern border was not responding to any such emergency. It was just for show.
One shouldn’t accept “because I can” as justification for any action especially one as drastic as this. Now if he deployed troops to PR to help clear roads and deliver all that bottled water to residents that needed it, we’d be having a different conversation.
~
As for DACA, one has to remember that Obama was cracking down on illegal immigration when this was actually being proposed. It was basically him saying ICE isn’t coming for you, it’s a temporary fix and hopefully legislation can be passed to make sure DACAs don’t have to worry about this ever. Too bad Republicans hyperventilated on this thought alone and thought everything Obama did or proposed was evil that a meaningful debate on these people was not tabled.
Compare that to issuing tariffs on America’s closest allies, circumventing congress approved federal wage increases and taking military funding to build a wall the actual whataboutism doesn’t hold up.
So glad we have moved on as a country from this paranoid and unproductive mindset.
Those drops in the stock indices....the smart investors will now buy and those corporations will claim the capital losses against their taxes, reducing the amount they will have to pay. Once the initials fears subside, the markets will correct themselves.
CNN is claiming that the shooter at the Moulson Coors facility has not been identified, which is completely false. Anthony N. Ferrill, 51, a 17-year electrician who just also happened to be black. He had an ongoing dispute with one or two coworkers, including them accusing each other of stealing equipment or tampering with their computers, but Mr. Ferrill also believed that someone had bugged his house and would move the chairs around inside his house.
No - that’s actually just whatsboutism. It works in reverse too. If you mention things Obama did, and someone pivots to Trump... it’s whataboutism.
*shrug* Thems-the-breaks. Sorry if you don’t like it. It’s not excusing anyone’s actions.