@Mathsorcerer the EXACT same thing happened to me at a meet. The judge read the first 3 words of the question, one of which was "gold" and I knew instinctively the answer was King Midas. My team, the other two teams, and the judge looked at me like I was crazy for buzzing in so soon. Funny thing is, after we got it right, everyone looked at me like I was even MORE crazy.
As for Nordstrom's, my guess is her sales have tanked because half the population simply will not buy her products on principle. You will see this with any business that let's themselves get too close to Trump. From a consumer point of view, from a SALES point of view, he's utterly toxic. The Super Bowl advertisements proved this much. When you consider the bulk of the buying power is in places like New York and LA, you better believe corporations have caught on to it.
Is a bipartisan effort to get money out of politics.
Because of the citizens united ruling allowing corporate money to flood into politics, it will likely take a constitutional amendment to achieve the goal of getting money out of politics. If that's what it takes let's do it.
Is a bipartisan effort to get money out of politics.
Because of the citizens united ruling allowing corporate money to flood into politics, it will likely take a constitutional amendment to achieve the goal of getting money out of politics. If that's what it takes let's do it.
I am very wary of calling a constitutional convention. There is serious legal disagreement as to whether or not it can be limited to the single issue at hand, or if it in fact becomes a free-for-all. At which point a boatload of conservative causes they'd have no chance of enacting otherwise would hijack the entire proceeding. Hypothetically you could get money out of politics, but you might also get saddled with 3 disasters you can't change in the process. I guarantee if this ever got close, the right would attempt to sabatoge and co-opt it to their own purposes at the finish line. It's not the be-all end-all it looks like. There is serious danger here.
My feeling lately has been absolute fascination with watching America .. actually I think we're gonna need the power of hindsight to describe what America is currently doing.
However, today, my focus returns to South Africa. It's the state of the nation address, from our chief thief. After last year, he decided to call in the army to secure parliament.
There are two cartoons here zapiro.com. The second is pretty self explanatory. The first was the department of health outsourced the care of mental patients, and 94 of them died of dehydration under this 'care'.
The supreme court has also weighed in to say that state security is not allowed to jam cell-phone signals out of parliament (like they did last year). The opposition EFF party are thus all set to disrupt the big knob, who will probably duly have them thrown out. Details to follow on youtube. Interesting times.
1. Executive orders apply to government agencies. They're basically orders that requires a government agency to do something or implement something. That agency then has to do it.
2. However, Congress can pass a law overriding the executive order. 2a. However, the President can veto that law. 2b. However, Congress can override that veto if they get enough votes.
3. A federal court can also override the executive order (much like they can rule a law unconstitutional). In this case they merely issued a stay, preventing the order from going into effect. Once they have time to deliberate on the order, they can decide to override the order or let it proceed as the Trump administration intended.
4. Congress and the President cannot fire federal judges, but they do control new appointments. This means that, in the future, Trump can appoint judges who will not block his executive orders. 4a. However, Congress can refuse Trump's appointees. 4b. However, Congress can't appoint their own judges; they need Trump to nominate somebody.
Long story short:
1. Trump can control federal agencies. 2. But Congress can control Trump. 3. But Trump, in turn, can control Congress. 4. But Congress can control Trump again. 5. Federal courts can control Trump. 6. Federal courts can also control Congress. 7. But Trump can control federal courts. 8. But Congress can control Trump again. 9. And Congress can also control federal courts. 10. But Trump can control Congress again.
The system was set up this way so that no one person or group of people can act alone. There's always somebody who can override your decision. But if they're okay with your decision, you get to do it.
Kellyanne Conway just flat-out broke the law on national TV by telling viewers to go buy Ivanka's products from an official White House position. Imagine, even for a SECOND, what would happen if a Clinton Administration official solicited funds for the Clinton Foundation from an official White House capacity. The impeachment would start before you could count to 10.
@semiticgod Do you think I was referring to myself
When people ask for simpler explanations, they often refer to themselves in a self-deprecating way for comedic effect. I thought that was what you meant because your comment's syntax matched the standard form for those requests.
For what it's worth, even though the British system has checks and balances like the American system, a British person might not know exactly how executive orders work. If there was a controversy over the Prime Minister's orders, I as an American wouldn't automatically know how they worked, just because the American and British systems were similar.
Sometimes Buzzfeed goes out of its way to explain things for a non-American audience. A lot of its readers are not from the United States.
Kellyanne Conway just flat-out broke the law on national TV by telling viewers to go buy Ivanka's products from an official White House position. Imagine, even for a SECOND, what would happen if a Clinton Administration official solicited funds for the Clinton Foundation from an official White House capacity. The impeachment would start before you could count to 10.
Trump himself pretty much did the same thing. With his tweet about how Nordstrom had been so unfair to his daughter. I believe the offical POTUS account retweeted it. Because of course it's a nationally important thing for the official presidential account to say.
4. Congress and the President cannot fire federal judges, but they do control new appointments.
Federal judges may be impeached just like Executive Branch officials are; this has resulted in removing a handful of justices from their District benches in times past. This check of the Legislature over the Judiciary isn't used very often. Most recent cases involved perjury and/or bribery.
It's becoming increasingly clear that the Judiciary is the only thing in our system of government standing between him and total power. If he succeeds in marginalizing them, it's game over.
After Trump's attacks on the judicial branch in recent days, if Neil Gorsuch had an ounce of integrity he would remove himself as Trump's Supreme Court pick. Of course, we already know he doesn't, since anyone with any integrity would have refused it based on the treatment of Merrick Garland alone. So I'm sure we'll be seeing Associate Justice Asterisk in short order.
Just in. I'm not joking when I say this. Trump is legitimately mentally ill:
I still consider the seat stolen, but Gorsuch himself does not seem like a horrible choice. I was expecting much worse.
He was the judicial force behind the Hobby Lobby case. For those who don't know, this is the one where it was ruled that Hobby Lobby (or other employers) do not have to provide contraception coverage in their employee's insurance if they violate "sincerely held religious beliefs". #1, Hobby Lobby had not problem providing this coverage in the past. They only filed suit on it to damage Obamacare. #2, I GUARANTEE this ruling would never apply to any other company except one that was self-identified as "Christian". If I started a religion tomorrow and proclaimed that it was my sincerely held religious belief that my employee's health insurance coverage not cover blood draws, it would be in no way more or less valid than Hobby Lobby's position. If this standard were to be applied everywhere, you could say your religious beliefs are ANYTHING to avoid providing coverage. But of course, that isn't the REAL standard. The real standard is that only conservative Christian businesses would ever be given this kind of waiver.
Of course, the crux of the case is that Hobby Lobby didn't want to provide "abortifacients" in their coverage. Plan B, the IUD, etc are NOT abortifacients. Furthermore, it goes back to what I've been saying all along. Without fail, before long, when you follow the trail of anti-abortion legislation and supporters, you will also run into the position that they are also against contraception. Which reveals the entire argument to be wholly disingenuous. There is nothing in the world that prevents more abortions than contraception. Except.....abstinence. And there lies the true goal. At least for women. There are certainly people who are genuinely against abortion for legitimate reasons. But the core of the movement itself is also hellbent on limiting access to contraception.
South Africa SONA 2017. For me, THIS was the absolute high point. Are you not entertained
I far prefer the actual airing of real beliefs and emotions shown on display here rather than the fake and often unearned automatic respect shown in our Congressional bodies that just this week led to the ridiculous censoring of Senator Warren (though I suppose an entire party gets thrown out here, I admit I'm generally ignorant of the issue, to me the "fight" at the end looks rather tame in all honesty). Still, I would kill for a parliamentary system here.
Now even the WHITE HOUSE is confirming that Michael Flynn talked to the Russians about sanctions while the Obama Administration was handing them down as punishment. It is illegal for private citizens to engage in diplomacy, or in Flynn's case, what could be considered treason.
Who would have thought?? This is what happens when you elect someone with the emotional maturity of a ten-year old to be President. The President is not the CEO of the country. He believes he can rule by edict, because it's what he's done his whole life, and I guarantee you he doesn't have the first clue how the government is actually structured. This is why he's so pissed off at the Judiciary. It's not just that they ruled against him, he literally DOESN'T UNDERSTAND their role in the American system of government.
Let me tell you a secret. Pro-life really means anti-woman
Well, I'd say that if you personally are pro-life--as in, you personally wouldn't seek an abortion because it's against your personal beliefs or moral structure--I wouldn't say that's the same as being anti-women.
But if you're all about taking those personal beliefs and shoving them down everyone's throats, regardless of circumstances, and also happen to be against basic preventative care like birth control and sex education, and also against basic programs like food stamps and WIC that would help the resulting child you forced into the world--
Then yes. You are anti-women. And anti-life, as it turns out, since you're so intent on ruining someone else's.
I don't even call these people pro-life anymore. I call them pro-birth, because that's all they care about.
Let me tell you a secret. Pro-life really means anti-woman
Well, I'd say that if you personally are pro-life--as in, you personally wouldn't seek an abortion because it's against your personal beliefs or moral structure--I wouldn't say that's the same as being anti-women.
But if you're all about taking those personal beliefs and shoving them down everyone's throats, regardless of circumstances, and also happen to be against basic preventative care like birth control and sex education, and also against basic programs like food stamps and WIC that would help the resulting child you forced into the world--
Then yes. You are anti-women. And anti-life, as it turns out, since you're so intent on ruining someone else's.
I don't even call these people pro-life anymore. I call them pro-birth, because that's all they care about.
One of my favorite comedy lines of all-time comes from George Carlin:
"Most of the people against abortion are also against homosexuals. Well who has less abortions than homosexuals?!?! Here is an entire group of people guaranteed NEVER to have an abortion."
Actually, his entire bit on abortion from his 1996 HBO special is required viewing:
And yes, pro-birth is far more accurate. It's a simple fact that the people most likely to have an abortion are low-income single mothers who feel they simply can't afford to raise a child. Overwhelmingly, the political instincts of those who are against abortion are also totally opposed to any social services aimed at helping low-income children and/or their parents.
Trump's promising to do something else with immigration next week.
Hey last time he signed the executive order that someone else prepared it was easy, so why not sign another one? There's obviously nothing stopping him. Just sign on the dotted line and hold it up to the cameras.
Trump's promising to do something else with immigration next week.
Hey last time he signed the executive order that someone else prepared it was easy, so why not sign another one? There's obviously nothing stopping him. Just sign on the dotted line and hold it up to the cameras.
Trump saying he is going to do something "quick" about our national security by default assumes that we are in some sort of imminent danger. That's simply not the case. There hasn't been a major attack since 2001. Every single incident of Islamic terrorism since then has been conducted by a citizen or legal resident of the country with access to semi-automatic firearms. To hear Trump describe it, you'd think bombs were going off in subway tunnels every other week for the past year. But that's the thing. Trump's entire appeal depends on convincing his voters that the US is some sort of dystopian hellscape that only he can make right again. It's a fever dream.
So "SEE YOU IN COURT" Trump is now see you in court later Trump. Sources are saying he's going to hold off on appealing for now. Why's he doing that when he's so sure he's right and skurity! danger! and all that stuff?
Since there are 8 judges due to Mitch McConnell's machinations, suppose the justices go to a 4-4 decision on the ban. In that case the lower court's ruling, which totally rebukes Trump, will stand. So he's going to wait until he can install his man on the Supreme Court and presumably it would go to a 5-4 decision in his favor. Packing the courts, a winning strategy?
So "SEE YOU IN COURT" Trump is now see you in court later Trump. Sources are saying he's going to hold off on appealing for now. Why's he doing that when he's so sure he's right and skurity! danger! and all that stuff?
Since there are 8 judges due to Mitch McConnell's machinations, suppose the justices go to a 4-4 decision on the ban. In that case the lower court's ruling, which totally rebukes Trump, will stand. So he's going to wait until he can install his man on the Supreme Court and presumably it would go to a 5-4 decision in his favor. Packing the courts, a winning strategy?
Conservative politicians have been blaming liberals and Democrats for terrorist attacks for the last 16 years, which is really quite rich. The only major terrorist attack to ever hit this country happened under a Republican President, in a city with a Republican mayor (the reason that is important is because Giuliani insisted on putting the Emergency Command Post in the World Trade Center, despite the attack on it in 1994. Good call). However, they have somehow managed to enclose the attacks on 9/11 in some sort of fairy bubble, and not only completely escape blame for them happening, but shift it to the opposite party. Now they are doing it in advance with the courts. The chess pieces are already in place. The moment any sort of attack happens in this country, all hell is going to break loose. But don't be fooled. Just like in 2001, it will be the fault of the man (and party) in charge of the White House. They'll likely be able to get away with the same trick again, because the media feeds into the narrative on national security that Republicans feed them.
I ask again: Who had over 3000 people die in a terrorist attack (that was warned about for MONTHS in advance) on their watch?? George W. Bush, or Barack Obama?? The proof is in the pudding.
Comments
As for Nordstrom's, my guess is her sales have tanked because half the population simply will not buy her products on principle. You will see this with any business that let's themselves get too close to Trump. From a consumer point of view, from a SALES point of view, he's utterly toxic. The Super Bowl advertisements proved this much. When you consider the bulk of the buying power is in places like New York and LA, you better believe corporations have caught on to it.
Is a bipartisan effort to get money out of politics.
Because of the citizens united ruling allowing corporate money to flood into politics, it will likely take a constitutional amendment to achieve the goal of getting money out of politics. If that's what it takes let's do it.
However, today, my focus returns to South Africa. It's the state of the nation address, from our chief thief. After last year, he decided to call in the army to secure parliament.
There are two cartoons here zapiro.com. The second is pretty self explanatory. The first was the department of health outsourced the care of mental patients, and 94 of them died of dehydration under this 'care'.
The supreme court has also weighed in to say that state security is not allowed to jam cell-phone signals out of parliament (like they did last year). The opposition EFF party are thus all set to disrupt the big knob, who will probably duly have them thrown out. Details to follow on youtube. Interesting times.
Executive Orders Explained For British People
1. Executive orders apply to government agencies. They're basically orders that requires a government agency to do something or implement something. That agency then has to do it.
2. However, Congress can pass a law overriding the executive order.
2a. However, the President can veto that law.
2b. However, Congress can override that veto if they get enough votes.
3. A federal court can also override the executive order (much like they can rule a law unconstitutional). In this case they merely issued a stay, preventing the order from going into effect. Once they have time to deliberate on the order, they can decide to override the order or let it proceed as the Trump administration intended.
4. Congress and the President cannot fire federal judges, but they do control new appointments. This means that, in the future, Trump can appoint judges who will not block his executive orders.
4a. However, Congress can refuse Trump's appointees.
4b. However, Congress can't appoint their own judges; they need Trump to nominate somebody.
Long story short:
1. Trump can control federal agencies.
2. But Congress can control Trump.
3. But Trump, in turn, can control Congress.
4. But Congress can control Trump again.
5. Federal courts can control Trump.
6. Federal courts can also control Congress.
7. But Trump can control federal courts.
8. But Congress can control Trump again.
9. And Congress can also control federal courts.
10. But Trump can control Congress again.
The system was set up this way so that no one person or group of people can act alone. There's always somebody who can override your decision. But if they're okay with your decision, you get to do it.
For what it's worth, even though the British system has checks and balances like the American system, a British person might not know exactly how executive orders work. If there was a controversy over the Prime Minister's orders, I as an American wouldn't automatically know how they worked, just because the American and British systems were similar.
Sometimes Buzzfeed goes out of its way to explain things for a non-American audience. A lot of its readers are not from the United States.
After Trump's attacks on the judicial branch in recent days, if Neil Gorsuch had an ounce of integrity he would remove himself as Trump's Supreme Court pick. Of course, we already know he doesn't, since anyone with any integrity would have refused it based on the treatment of Merrick Garland alone. So I'm sure we'll be seeing Associate Justice Asterisk in short order.
Just in. I'm not joking when I say this. Trump is legitimately mentally ill:
Of course, the crux of the case is that Hobby Lobby didn't want to provide "abortifacients" in their coverage. Plan B, the IUD, etc are NOT abortifacients. Furthermore, it goes back to what I've been saying all along. Without fail, before long, when you follow the trail of anti-abortion legislation and supporters, you will also run into the position that they are also against contraception. Which reveals the entire argument to be wholly disingenuous. There is nothing in the world that prevents more abortions than contraception. Except.....abstinence. And there lies the true goal. At least for women. There are certainly people who are genuinely against abortion for legitimate reasons. But the core of the movement itself is also hellbent on limiting access to contraception.
Also:
Who would have thought?? This is what happens when you elect someone with the emotional maturity of a ten-year old to be President. The President is not the CEO of the country. He believes he can rule by edict, because it's what he's done his whole life, and I guarantee you he doesn't have the first clue how the government is actually structured. This is why he's so pissed off at the Judiciary. It's not just that they ruled against him, he literally DOESN'T UNDERSTAND their role in the American system of government.
But if you're all about taking those personal beliefs and shoving them down everyone's throats, regardless of circumstances, and also happen to be against basic preventative care like birth control and sex education, and also against basic programs like food stamps and WIC that would help the resulting child you forced into the world--
Then yes. You are anti-women. And anti-life, as it turns out, since you're so intent on ruining someone else's.
I don't even call these people pro-life anymore. I call them pro-birth, because that's all they care about.
"Most of the people against abortion are also against homosexuals. Well who has less abortions than homosexuals?!?! Here is an entire group of people guaranteed NEVER to have an abortion."
Actually, his entire bit on abortion from his 1996 HBO special is required viewing:
And yes, pro-birth is far more accurate. It's a simple fact that the people most likely to have an abortion are low-income single mothers who feel they simply can't afford to raise a child. Overwhelmingly, the political instincts of those who are against abortion are also totally opposed to any social services aimed at helping low-income children and/or their parents.
Hey last time he signed the executive order that someone else prepared it was easy, so why not sign another one? There's obviously nothing stopping him. Just sign on the dotted line and hold it up to the cameras.
Since there are 8 judges due to Mitch McConnell's machinations, suppose the justices go to a 4-4 decision on the ban. In that case the lower court's ruling, which totally rebukes Trump, will stand. So he's going to wait until he can install his man on the Supreme Court and presumably it would go to a 5-4 decision in his favor. Packing the courts, a winning strategy?
2017/02/10/politics/immigration-executive-order-white-house/index.html
I ask again: Who had over 3000 people die in a terrorist attack (that was warned about for MONTHS in advance) on their watch?? George W. Bush, or Barack Obama?? The proof is in the pudding.