To turn this entertainment conversation back to the thread topic, what is the best strictly "political" movie you have seen?? Many votes may come in for "The Manchurian Candidate" (the original, not the god-awful remake), but my vote would be "The Contender", which has absolutely powerhouse performances from Joan Allen, Gary Oldman, and Jeff Bridges, along with a perfect cast of character actors.
State of Play. Not so much the American movie remake, though it was still very good (Russell Crowe is amazing), but the British miniseries. Really good. David Yates is brilliant, and David Morrissey kills it (speaking of TWD, he was a good governor, though the character was very different than the comic version)
I like the classics. Advise & is amazing (I think Preminger is the greatest director) and of course I also love The Manchurian Candidate and Mr. Smith Goes to Washington.
As far as The Wire qualifies as political commentary, of course that is the best. It is the only one of all of these that has anything to actually say about politics aside from entertainment.
I also enjoyed the first season of the American House of Cards. It's odd how the two most popular political shows (The West Wing and House of Cards) are both completely unrealistic; TWW is overly optomistic about elected officials, while HoC is unrealistically pessimistic.
Both The West Wing and The American President are basically cinematic liberal porn (I have probably watched The West Wing all the way through at least 3 times), but you can't really argue that 1.) Sorkin's dialogue is pretty much peerless 2.) That the casting was perfect and 3.) There are moments of such genuine hilarious comedy that it sometimes gets more laughs than even the best sitcom. The West Wing is way too optimistic about government, but there were a ton of former Democratic staffers working on that show.
House of Cards is another show that was good for two seasons (really one, if we're being honest) and now that Spacey is going to have to somehow be written out of the last season, it doesn't hold out much promise.
The Wire, of course, had an overall theme to each season that wove itself into the larger narrative. Season One is simply about introducing you to the inner-city drug trade. Season 2 is about the slow death of the port workers and unions. Season 3 is ostensibly about politics, but that one is really the loosest of the bunch. Season 4 is the high-point, dealing with the school system and standardized testing head on. And Season 5 is David Simon taking a bit of an easy punch at the media. The newspaper scenes in the final season are really the only part of the entire series that doesn't measure up, simply because Templeton is just a carbon copy of Jayson Blair and Stephen Glass. McNulty's descent into his final plan is pretty great though, especially since he is saved from pretty hefty consequences BECAUSE of political considerations. For me, the high point of this series (which is really the high-point of television drama in general) is when Lester figures out where Chris and Snoop have been stashing their bodies.
Its odd how many people favor age discrimination, but do not want a very narrow exemption that would allow Christian photographers bakers to no violate their conscience by participating in a same-sex wedding.
Are you defining age discrimination as being restricted about what you do when 18+? If so there's a huge amount of age discrimination in the US already. Prior to this latest law Florida already required people to be 21 to get a permit to carry a handgun, so moving the age to get a rifle from 18 to 21 seems more like a tidying up exercise than a radical departure to me.
As for a Christian photographer, as they are selling a non-essential service, the current interpretation of the law permits them not to accept any work they don't want to do. There would be no problem with that if it were a very narrow exemption, but it's not - it's a huge one. There are currently moves to clarify that this law should apply to all services, not just non-essential ones and personally I am uncomfortable about any law that supports 'personal conscience' as a means of allowing discrimination.
We're talking about age discrimination by a private business owner, not as imposed by law.
Also you are incorrect about current American law. There is a narrow exception (and indeed, it is narrow) in states that have Religious Freedom Restoration Act statutes passed.
I'm not sure what you mean about a private business owner. If you're not referring to the new law in Florida on gun control then what did you have in mind - I can't remember anyone in the thread advocating age discrimination other than through laws?
It's true I partly had in mind the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, but I think that has a significantly wider focus than you believe. Here's a summary of the implications of guidance Trump issued on that last October. He's also made statements since then suggesting he wants to go further. However, I also had in mind the various cases around baking cakes that have been considered recently by courts (and I've referred to previously several times in this thread). In my view the position currently coming out of those cases is as I set out above. The Supreme Court is currently considering the Masterpiece Cakeshop case, which will either confirm that position or establish a new precedent.
China now have the possibility of a president for life after term limits were abolished. I'm struggling to see that ending well in the long term. I don't think there's any reason for Xi Jinping to seek that change except that he has a strong desire for power and a desire to leave his mark on history.
To date he's proved well capable of exercising power, but he's moved the country to a more authoritarian position in the process. At some point in the future his faculties are going to start deteriorating and questions about a successor will arise. While such transfers of power are always a tricky time, those difficulties will be exacerbated when trying to remove an unwilling long-serving president in a very authoritarian state.
Its odd how many people favor age discrimination, but do not want a very narrow exemption that would allow Christian photographers bakers to no violate their conscience by participating in a same-sex wedding.
Are you defining age discrimination as being restricted about what you do when 18+? If so there's a huge amount of age discrimination in the US already. Prior to this latest law Florida already required people to be 21 to get a permit to carry a handgun, so moving the age to get a rifle from 18 to 21 seems more like a tidying up exercise than a radical departure to me.
As for a Christian photographer, as they are selling a non-essential service, the current interpretation of the law permits them not to accept any work they don't want to do. There would be no problem with that if it were a very narrow exemption, but it's not - it's a huge one. There are currently moves to clarify that this law should apply to all services, not just non-essential ones and personally I am uncomfortable about any law that supports 'personal conscience' as a means of allowing discrimination.
We're talking about age discrimination by a private business owner, not as imposed by law.
Also you are incorrect about current American law. There is a narrow exception (and indeed, it is narrow) in states that have Religious Freedom Restoration Act statutes passed.
I'm not sure what you mean about a private business owner. If you're not referring to the new law in Florida on gun control then what did you have in mind - I can't remember anyone in the thread advocating age discrimination other than through laws?
It's true I partly had in mind the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, but I think that has a significantly wider focus than you believe. Here's a summary of the implications of guidance Trump issued on that last October. He's also made statements since then suggesting he wants to go further. However, I also had in mind the various cases around baking cakes that have been considered recently by courts (and I've referred to previously several times in this thread). In my view the position currently coming out of those cases is as I set out above. The Supreme Court is currently considering the Masterpiece Cakeshop case, which will either confirm that position or establish a new precedent.
A couple things: 1. RFRA statutes are different than the Trump memo. 2. RFRA only sets forth a presumption in favor of religious liberty. The government must show a compelling state interest and show that the law is narrowly tailored to serve that interest. If they can meet that burden, then religious liberty would have to give way 3. The Masterpiece Cakeshop case arose out of Colorado, which has no RFRA statute 4. Multiple people here were cheering Dick's Sporting Goods and Walmart implementing a new policy that they will not sell guns to people under 21. That's what I was referring to, not the Florida proposal.
The show now just exists because it can, in perpetuity if AMC has any say about it. The best shows (like Breaking Bad and The Wire) had a story it's creators wanted to tell, who knew how they were going to tell it. They were never meant to last forever. The Walking Dead, which started out smoking hot it's first two seasons, now has no idea where it's going, and thus no idea how to get there.
The comic also exists in perpetuity. That was kind of the plan from the start. Yet it always manages to remain fresh. The show? Not so much.
I generally agree that shows shouldn't overstay their welcome. My favorite show was Supernatural for the first 5 seasons, but its now on like season 13 and I quit a while back. However, I do think there can be exceptions where shows last for ten years or so and still remain entertaining, but it is very difficult to pull off.
Seems like not enough is being made of the fact that Russia is almost certainly responsible for what amounts to a chemical weapons attack in the middle of a British neighborhood. As far as I know, Trump and the Administration haven't mentioned a single word about this, even though they are ostensibly our biggest ally:
Seems like not enough is being made of the fact that Russia is almost certainly responsible for what amounts to a chemical weapons attack in the middle of a British neighborhood. As far as I know, Trump and the Administration haven't mentioned a single word about this, even though they are ostensibly our biggest ally:
He's making about as much of a big deal as Obama made about Litvenenko. I don't remember any saber rattling then...
Edit: Sorry, that was 2006 so Bush. Point still stands. The spy vs. spy stuff is between Britain and Russia. I haven't even heard them calling for any drastic action
The Ontario PCs have finally chosen a new leader in what has to be described as the most dysfunctional lead up to an election.
There were only 4 candidates, as Patrick Brown, the former leader accused of sexual misconduct, was urged by Caroline Mulroney to step out of the race to focus on clearing his name. He took that advice and it was down to 4 candidates:
Christine Elliott: The only candidate who has provincial political experience and considered the front runner (not just for this election but the previous election in which Brown won)
Doug Ford: Brother of infamous and late Rob Ford, the crack smoking Toronto mayor. He can possibly be considered Trump lite.
Caroline Mulroney: Lawyer and daughter of former prime minister Brian Mulroney. She has little political experience however, is the only one of the 4 candidates who is already scheduled to run for a seat in the upcoming election. And
Tanya Granic Allen: A little known person who's attached to the grass roots of the party.
The results were suppose to be announced last night to a roaring crowd looking for change in Ontario's political landscape but instead was delayed by four and half hours as the results had to be reviewed. The crowd was dispersed since the party no longer had access to the venue they were suppose to be celebrating in.
Eventually it was revealed that Doug Ford, the only male running in the election, won. Oh and here's the kicker to it, allegedly Elliot won more votes, but Ford won where it mattered. Sound familiar? Hence the reason for the delay as Elliott fought the results and even issued a statement that didn't even mention Ford's win or her pledge of being the only candidate to be able to unite the party.
Although it was short lived as the two candidates met recently and Elliott has given her support to Ford.
So now Ontario is almost in the same position as the US was during their last election. We get to hold our nose and choose between two despicable people in Ford and Wynne. The Ford family has always been love them or hate them, and outside of Toronto people tend to lean more towards hate. He maybe able to carry Toronto (which is usually all that matters in Ontario) but it just takes one small scandal to break that city open. All is not lost however as Ontarians have a 3rd party to vote for the NDP which leans left on the political scale and something (as a small right leaning voter) I may have to consider voting for. I may also just pack up and move... always a option.
Nobody ever moves. Weather the storm is my advice. Trump has been President of the US for over a year yet life goes on. Presidents and Prime Ministers don't hold ultimate power. At least not in the West.
Take a vow to the new revolution. Tip your hat to the new constitution. Smile and grin at the change all around you. Pick up your guitar and play. Just like yesterday. Then get on your knees and pray (you know the rest)...
Here's my thoughts for the folks on the left. Its high time you change tactics. Trying to make people feel guilty all the time will be your downfall. Why the Hell do you think I hardly ever go to church anymore? I'm sick of feeling guilty all the time, especially for things I didn't even do. I'm not guilty of the sins of my ancestors and I'm sure as Hell sick of hearing about how I'm 'destroying the planet' while the assholes who preach that to me are flying all over the world in their private jets and living in their f'ing mansions. Wake up people!
When the Dems have the power nothing ever changes then either. You can whine about how they're the ones trying to play by the rules but that's BS. Neither party really wants change. Why do you think nothing truly changes? I swear I might vote for Bernie next time just because he's the Democrat equivalent of Trump...
Nobody is the equivalent of Trump, because no one who has ever held the office has been using the mechanisms of the government for essentially nothing but personal profit while IN office. His son is law is getting half billion dollar loans from banks after meetings in the White House. His daughter is getting patent approval in China days after meeting with Chinese officials. Every single property he owns and his sons are *cough* "running" around the world are nothing by monuments to the term conflict of interest, where any foreign government or entity can curry monetary favor by putting money directly into the pocket of the President. As far as we are able to tell, every week a new member of his cabinet is involved in some new scandal where it is found they were blatantly misappropriating funds, almost always for reasons of personal luxury (late this week, it was found that Scott Pruitt had spent $139,000 on DOORS for his office). There has still been no attempt at a satisfactory answer as to how Carl Icahn knew to sell off his steel-related stocks mere days before the tariff announcement. Everyone seems to think that this is just business as usual, because that is what they have been trained to believe. It isn't true. And the reason it isn't true is because every Administration up to this point has cared at least enough about the APPEARANCE of a scandal to listen to ethics lawyers to avoid bad press (and that is the most cynical interpretation). This is simply a bust-out. The turnover in this White House is absolutely unprecedented, and no business or place of work could possibly function with this kind of chaos swirling around the building day in and day out.
Nobody is the equivalent of Trump, because no one who has ever held the office has been using the mechanisms of the government for essentially nothing but personal profit while IN office. His son is law is getting half billion dollar loans from banks after meetings in the White House. His daughter is getting patent approval in China days after meeting with Chinese officials. Every single property he owns and his sons are *cough* "running" around the world are nothing by monuments to the term conflict of interest, where any foreign government or entity can curry monetary favor by putting money directly into the pocket of the President. As far as we are able to tell, every week a new member of his cabinet is involved in some new scandal where it is found they were blatantly misappropriating funds, almost always for reasons of personal luxury (late this week, it was found that Scott Pruitt had spent $139,000 on DOORS for his office). There has still been no attempt at a satisfactory answer as to how Carl Icahn knew to sell off his steel-related stocks mere days before the tariff announcement. Everyone seems to think that this is just business as usual, because that is what they have been trained to believe. It isn't true. And the reason it isn't true is because every Administration up to this point has cared at least enough about the APPEARANCE of a scandal to listen to ethics lawyers to avoid bad press (and that is the most cynical interpretation). This is simply a bust-out. The turnover in this White House is absolutely unprecedented, and no business or place of work could possibly function with this kind of chaos swirling around the building day in and day out.
Maybe this is what we deserve. The APPEARANCE is all that mattered in the past. Yet this kind of crap happened behind the scenes. Nobody in government ends in the poor house. Appearance is BS. Trump is the result of people losing faith in the status quo. Next time it might be Bernie. Who knows? All I know is I'm sick of 'appearances'. You preach, you deliver. Better yet don't preach, LEAD!
I get wanting change. Bernie would have been different than the establishment. But look at Trump as an anti-establishment guy and change is not always a good thing.
It's like if you have a full house in poker and you throw it away because you "might" get four of a kind. Most the time you end up with a losing hand. That's what happened here. We had a good thing going but because of perceived weaknesses and wanting more we threw it all away and now we're laughing stocks with a really corrupt president who is alienating our friends and allies and generally ruining and ending hard fought protections we've overlooked.
Would it have been this bad with Bernie? No. The stuff he's been talking about and the stuff he wants is not radical in the same way in the slightest and he's probably a centrist politician in almost every other first world country.
I get wanting change. Bernie would have been different than the establishment. But look at Trump as an anti-establishment guy and change is not always a good thing.
It's like if you have a full house in poker and you throw it away because you "might" get four of a kind. Most the time you end up with a losing hand. That's what happened here. We had a good thing going but because of perceived weaknesses and wanting more we threw it all away and now we're laughing stocks with a really corrupt president who is alienating our friends and allies and generally ruining and ending hard fought protections we've overlooked.
Would it have been this bad with Bernie? No. The stuff he's been talking about and the stuff he wants is not radical in the same way in the slightest and he's probably a centrist politician in almost every other first world country.
The power behind both parties needs to go away, and fast. I don't think I'm the only one who wants to see honesty in politics. I don't believe anything either party says anymore. I voted for Ross Perot years ago for precisely this reason and nothing has changed in 30 years. Its high time something changes.
Trump offered something different. I don't like him as a person. I think he's a piece of shit, but the choice was between him or more of the same. I'll vote for him again if the Dems aren't more careful who they choose next time. They made an epic miscalculation in picking Hillary. Hopefully they'll do better next time. I'm not holding my breath however.
At least Trump is giving me more money in my paycheck. I know it's being painted as tax breaks for the rich but guess what, I'm keeping more of my pay too so I don't care. Until the government can prove to me that they can spend my money better than I can, I'll take my tax break. That's about the only thing that cynical SOB has done for me but it's a whopper in my book.
Seems like not enough is being made of the fact that Russia is almost certainly responsible for what amounts to a chemical weapons attack in the middle of a British neighborhood. As far as I know, Trump and the Administration haven't mentioned a single word about this, even though they are ostensibly our biggest ally:
He's making about as much of a big deal as Obama made about Litvenenko. I don't remember any saber rattling then...
Edit: Sorry, that was 2006 so Bush. Point still stands. The spy vs. spy stuff is between Britain and Russia. I haven't even heard them calling for any drastic action
Depends what you mean by drastic action. I've seen quite a few leading politicians make very strong statements. That appears to be continuing behind the scenes, although there's also the expected narrative that we need to find out what actually happened before definitively pointing the finger. I agree with that in principle, though obviously I don't know what information the authorities already have - from the statements made by people like Boris Johnson I imagine that he's seen evidence not publicly released.
The Brits also have spies in Russia and the US does too. Maybe we don't execute spies offhandedly like the Russkies or maybe we do and just don't get caught. It's espionage so we'll never know the truth...
Oh boy, what a ride that was reading from 2014, skipped a couple of pages (about 400). I live in Canada, western side of it, if it matters. I wont lie, I voted for Trudeu, im not proud of that, not anymore. The man is goof. He has no shred of dignity, his stint in India only made Canada a joke in eyes of the world. His spending makes no sense (i do agree with cancelling the purchase of F35 however), he believes that the budget is self-correcting, wtf does that even mean?! He puts on taxes on small local businesses slowing down growth domestically. Hes against the oil/energy sector even though that makes Canada a buttload of money. And before you jump on me for environmental reasons, I support efforts for renewable energy, but that takes money, a lot of it. Quitting cold turkey is going to hurt a lot families.
On the other side of world, in my ancestral home, the glorious leader has revoked the term limit. Long may he reign lol. Having a long term/infinite term leader can be great, many historic leaders have brought their nation into a golden age. Or they can be complete piles of steaming crap. So far hes....alright in my books. Most importantly hes well loved by the ppl over there, and for better/worse lots of expectation has piled on with his record thus far and now that hes uninhibited by term. So for the sake of the people may he reign be beneficial to people, if not may the change be bloodless.
I get wanting change. Bernie would have been different than the establishment. But look at Trump as an anti-establishment guy and change is not always a good thing.
It's like if you have a full house in poker and you throw it away because you "might" get four of a kind. Most the time you end up with a losing hand. That's what happened here. We had a good thing going but because of perceived weaknesses and wanting more we threw it all away and now we're laughing stocks with a really corrupt president who is alienating our friends and allies and generally ruining and ending hard fought protections we've overlooked.
Would it have been this bad with Bernie? No. The stuff he's been talking about and the stuff he wants is not radical in the same way in the slightest and he's probably a centrist politician in almost every other first world country.
The power behind both parties needs to go away, and fast. I don't think I'm the only one who wants to see honesty in politics. I don't believe anything either party says anymore. I voted for Ross Perot years ago for precisely this reason and nothing has changed in 30 years. Its high time something changes.
Trump offered something different. I don't like him as a person. I think he's a piece of shit, but the choice was between him or more of the same. I'll vote for him again if the Dems aren't more careful who they choose next time. They made an epic miscalculation in picking Hillary. Hopefully they'll do better next time. I'm not holding my breath however.
At least Trump is giving me more money in my paycheck. I know it's being painted as tax breaks for the rich but guess what, I'm keeping more of my pay too so I don't care. Until the government can prove to me that they can spend my money better than I can, I'll take my tax break. That's about the only thing that cynical SOB has done for me but it's a whopper in my book.
I'd say the problem is money in politics. Politicians pander to voters, hoping to catch on with a buzzword or two such as "abortion" or "guns" or "marriage". They don't do much about these issues except fearmonger mostly. When it comes time to actually do anything, it's for their donors, the big corporations. Doing their bidding so they can get more continuous campaign funding is their main goal. Citizens United has led to unbelievable corruption in our government. Now, I'd say this is mainly a Republican problem since they are more guilty of it but of course corporate democrats also do this. When Democrats fail to punish big banks, big pharma, and wall street for abuses people perceive them as being as bad as Republicans, so they figure they might as well vote for the Republican.
Someone is delivering, or just dropping off, packages with improvised explosives to people in the Austin area; there have been three such events in the last couple of weeks, two of them *today*. I presume the first one two weeks ago was this bomber's "test run", and he (the suspect is probably male--most bombers are male) has spent the last two weeks collecting more materials and improving his design. The USPS has verified that none of the packages went through any of their facilities and I suspect they didn't go through any other parcel carrier, either--I bet the suspect put a label on the package to make it *appear* as if it had been shipped but actually dropped it off in person.
All three bombings have occurred inside the area bordered by highway 290 to the north, I-35 to the west, highway 71 to the south, and 183 to the east; this area is adjacent to the part of downtown Austin which contains. (edit/correction: no, wait...one of them happened north of 290...but that is still keeps the area somewhat localized) Insufficient demographic data has been released about all the victims so I don't know if that has anything to do with how the suspect is choosing them.
Someone is delivering, or just dropping off, packages with improvised explosives to people in the Austin area; there have been three such events in the last couple of weeks, two of them *today*. I presume the first one two weeks ago was this bomber's "test run", and he (the suspect is probably male--most bombers are male) has spent the last two weeks collecting more materials and improving his design.
That's a disturbing notion. Usually these kind of attacks don't involve test runs; the bomber only makes one attempt.
Someone is delivering, or just dropping off, packages with improvised explosives to people in the Austin area; there have been three such events in the last couple of weeks, two of them *today*. I presume the first one two weeks ago was this bomber's "test run", and he (the suspect is probably male--most bombers are male) has spent the last two weeks collecting more materials and improving his design. The USPS has verified that none of the packages went through any of their facilities and I suspect they didn't go through any other parcel carrier, either--I bet the suspect put a label on the package to make it *appear* as if it had been shipped but actually dropped it off in person.
All three bombings have occurred inside the area bordered by highway 290 to the north, I-35 to the west, highway 71 to the south, and 183 to the east; this area is adjacent to the part of downtown Austin which contains. (edit/correction: no, wait...one of them happened north of 290...but that is still keeps the area somewhat localized) Insufficient demographic data has been released about all the victims so I don't know if that has anything to do with how the suspect is choosing them.
The nerve agent could have been smuggled into the country years ago and has been in storage until needed.
*************
The Unabomber had test runs--his early devices were very crude compared to what he eventually built. The Boston Marathon bombers did not have test runs--as far as I recall they didn't use any similar devices before their main attack. In this case, the two week delay is a little suspicious, which is why I lean towards "test run". All the locations are only two or three blocks east of I-35, so the suspect is probably driving into Austin to target this neighborhood--he lives elsewhere, possibly remotely, which would give him the privacy necessary to experiment. If the suspect lived in that neighborhood, the events would be more localized and that might draw too much attention to himself. Besides, highway 290 separates the first event from the two today and that rules out "neighborhood".
Once the suspect is identified (even if not caught), there will probably be some sort of online manifesto or a history of posting comments on some fringe site espousing radical politics--this case will wind up in the "domestic terrorism" column.
Someone is delivering, or just dropping off, packages with improvised explosives to people in the Austin area; there have been three such events in the last couple of weeks, two of them *today*. I presume the first one two weeks ago was this bomber's "test run", and he (the suspect is probably male--most bombers are male) has spent the last two weeks collecting more materials and improving his design. The USPS has verified that none of the packages went through any of their facilities and I suspect they didn't go through any other parcel carrier, either--I bet the suspect put a label on the package to make it *appear* as if it had been shipped but actually dropped it off in person.
All three bombings have occurred inside the area bordered by highway 290 to the north, I-35 to the west, highway 71 to the south, and 183 to the east; this area is adjacent to the part of downtown Austin which contains. (edit/correction: no, wait...one of them happened north of 290...but that is still keeps the area somewhat localized) Insufficient demographic data has been released about all the victims so I don't know if that has anything to do with how the suspect is choosing them.
Comments
House of Cards is another show that was good for two seasons (really one, if we're being honest) and now that Spacey is going to have to somehow be written out of the last season, it doesn't hold out much promise.
The Wire, of course, had an overall theme to each season that wove itself into the larger narrative. Season One is simply about introducing you to the inner-city drug trade. Season 2 is about the slow death of the port workers and unions. Season 3 is ostensibly about politics, but that one is really the loosest of the bunch. Season 4 is the high-point, dealing with the school system and standardized testing head on. And Season 5 is David Simon taking a bit of an easy punch at the media. The newspaper scenes in the final season are really the only part of the entire series that doesn't measure up, simply because Templeton is just a carbon copy of Jayson Blair and Stephen Glass. McNulty's descent into his final plan is pretty great though, especially since he is saved from pretty hefty consequences BECAUSE of political considerations. For me, the high point of this series (which is really the high-point of television drama in general) is when Lester figures out where Chris and Snoop have been stashing their bodies.
It's true I partly had in mind the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, but I think that has a significantly wider focus than you believe. Here's a summary of the implications of guidance Trump issued on that last October. He's also made statements since then suggesting he wants to go further. However, I also had in mind the various cases around baking cakes that have been considered recently by courts (and I've referred to previously several times in this thread). In my view the position currently coming out of those cases is as I set out above. The Supreme Court is currently considering the Masterpiece Cakeshop case, which will either confirm that position or establish a new precedent.
To date he's proved well capable of exercising power, but he's moved the country to a more authoritarian position in the process. At some point in the future his faculties are going to start deteriorating and questions about a successor will arise. While such transfers of power are always a tricky time, those difficulties will be exacerbated when trying to remove an unwilling long-serving president in a very authoritarian state.
1. RFRA statutes are different than the Trump memo.
2. RFRA only sets forth a presumption in favor of religious liberty. The government must show a compelling state interest and show that the law is narrowly tailored to serve that interest. If they can meet that burden, then religious liberty would have to give way
3. The Masterpiece Cakeshop case arose out of Colorado, which has no RFRA statute
4. Multiple people here were cheering Dick's Sporting Goods and Walmart implementing a new policy that they will not sell guns to people under 21. That's what I was referring to, not the Florida proposal.
I generally agree that shows shouldn't overstay their welcome. My favorite show was Supernatural for the first 5 seasons, but its now on like season 13 and I quit a while back. However, I do think there can be exceptions where shows last for ten years or so and still remain entertaining, but it is very difficult to pull off.
http://time.com/5192634/medical-attention-salisbury-spy-poisoning/
Edit: Sorry, that was 2006 so Bush. Point still stands. The spy vs. spy stuff is between Britain and Russia. I haven't even heard them calling for any drastic action
The Ontario PCs have finally chosen a new leader in what has to be described as the most dysfunctional lead up to an election.
There were only 4 candidates, as Patrick Brown, the former leader accused of sexual misconduct, was urged by Caroline Mulroney to step out of the race to focus on clearing his name. He took that advice and it was down to 4 candidates:
Christine Elliott: The only candidate who has provincial political experience and considered the front runner (not just for this election but the previous election in which Brown won)
Doug Ford: Brother of infamous and late Rob Ford, the crack smoking Toronto mayor. He can possibly be considered Trump lite.
Caroline Mulroney: Lawyer and daughter of former prime minister Brian Mulroney. She has little political experience however, is the only one of the 4 candidates who is already scheduled to run for a seat in the upcoming election. And
Tanya Granic Allen: A little known person who's attached to the grass roots of the party.
The results were suppose to be announced last night to a roaring crowd looking for change in Ontario's political landscape but instead was delayed by four and half hours as the results had to be reviewed. The crowd was dispersed since the party no longer had access to the venue they were suppose to be celebrating in.
Eventually it was revealed that Doug Ford, the only male running in the election, won. Oh and here's the kicker to it, allegedly Elliot won more votes, but Ford won where it mattered. Sound familiar? Hence the reason for the delay as Elliott fought the results and even issued a statement that didn't even mention Ford's win or her pledge of being the only candidate to be able to unite the party.
Although it was short lived as the two candidates met recently and Elliott has given her support to Ford.
So now Ontario is almost in the same position as the US was during their last election. We get to hold our nose and choose between two despicable people in Ford and Wynne. The Ford family has always been love them or hate them, and outside of Toronto people tend to lean more towards hate. He maybe able to carry Toronto (which is usually all that matters in Ontario) but it just takes one small scandal to break that city open. All is not lost however as Ontarians have a 3rd party to vote for the NDP which leans left on the political scale and something (as a small right leaning voter) I may have to consider voting for. I may also just pack up and move... always a option.
Take a vow to the new revolution. Tip your hat to the new constitution. Smile and grin at the change all around you. Pick up your guitar and play. Just like yesterday. Then get on your knees and pray (you know the rest)...
When the Dems have the power nothing ever changes then either. You can whine about how they're the ones trying to play by the rules but that's BS. Neither party really wants change. Why do you think nothing truly changes? I swear I might vote for Bernie next time just because he's the Democrat equivalent of Trump...
It's like if you have a full house in poker and you throw it away because you "might" get four of a kind. Most the time you end up with a losing hand. That's what happened here. We had a good thing going but because of perceived weaknesses and wanting more we threw it all away and now we're laughing stocks with a really corrupt president who is alienating our friends and allies and generally ruining and ending hard fought protections we've overlooked.
Would it have been this bad with Bernie? No. The stuff he's been talking about and the stuff he wants is not radical in the same way in the slightest and he's probably a centrist politician in almost every other first world country.
Trump offered something different. I don't like him as a person. I think he's a piece of shit, but the choice was between him or more of the same. I'll vote for him again if the Dems aren't more careful who they choose next time. They made an epic miscalculation in picking Hillary. Hopefully they'll do better next time. I'm not holding my breath however.
At least Trump is giving me more money in my paycheck. I know it's being painted as tax breaks for the rich but guess what, I'm keeping more of my pay too so I don't care. Until the government can prove to me that they can spend my money better than I can, I'll take my tax break. That's about the only thing that cynical SOB has done for me but it's a whopper in my book.
On the other side of world, in my ancestral home, the glorious leader has revoked the term limit. Long may he reign lol. Having a long term/infinite term leader can be great, many historic leaders have brought their nation into a golden age. Or they can be complete piles of steaming crap. So far hes....alright in my books. Most importantly hes well loved by the ppl over there, and for better/worse lots of expectation has piled on with his record thus far and now that hes uninhibited by term. So for the sake of the people may he reign be beneficial to people, if not may the change be bloodless.
This should be about the last post on page 499, though.
Last!
All three bombings have occurred inside the area bordered by highway 290 to the north, I-35 to the west, highway 71 to the south, and 183 to the east; this area is adjacent to the part of downtown Austin which contains. (edit/correction: no, wait...one of them happened north of 290...but that is still keeps the area somewhat localized) Insufficient demographic data has been released about all the victims so I don't know if that has anything to do with how the suspect is choosing them.
*************
The Unabomber had test runs--his early devices were very crude compared to what he eventually built. The Boston Marathon bombers did not have test runs--as far as I recall they didn't use any similar devices before their main attack. In this case, the two week delay is a little suspicious, which is why I lean towards "test run".
All the locations are only two or three blocks east of I-35, so the suspect is probably driving into Austin to target this neighborhood--he lives elsewhere, possibly remotely, which would give him the privacy necessary to experiment. If the suspect lived in that neighborhood, the events would be more localized and that might draw too much attention to himself. Besides, highway 290 separates the first event from the two today and that rules out "neighborhood".
Once the suspect is identified (even if not caught), there will probably be some sort of online manifesto or a history of posting comments on some fringe site espousing radical politics--this case will wind up in the "domestic terrorism" column. No, but I am familiar with the city, having been there many times.