Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
@Northmann Actually, Germany moved a huge portion of the gold reserve back to Germany (half of it) and relocated some of it to France on top of it. Not that the US was happy about it. I still think that the way the whole transaction went was very suspicious. As if the US had to "find" the gold first.
And now we have something to agree with the Koch brothers with: three Koch-affiliated groups are planning a multi-million dollar ad campaign to promote free trade and call for Trump to stop his tariffs.
Aside from the isolationist/nationalist nutters, Trump has few allies on trade. The left opposes him on principle, and realizes the economic and diplomatic disasters being set up. The right sees tariffs as more taxes (and they aren't wrong), and also like money enough to not throw theirs into a furnace. Industries aren't stupid and know there no winning here.
The Koch bastards are learning that they can't control their new attack dog.
Politics is the skilled use of blunt objects.
Don't be ridiculous, of course the law still matters. If the precedent had allowed for anti-LGBT discrimination then that would be a terrible thing, but it doesn't which is good. Whether the Republicans respect the law or not is irrelevant, businesses do and they're the one's who this is aimed at.
Explicit reason is because they didn't send their whole team thus,disrespected him.
What a fragile little flower.
Found a Youtube Channel with political stances you want to share? Hop on over to this page and add them.What is up with me and the partial
s today?
edited 4th Jun '18 4:33:14 PM by tclittle
"We're all paper, we're all scissors, we're all fightin' with our mirrors, scared we'll never find somebody to love."Ronald Reagan's daughter says her father wouldn't like Donald Trump
Reagan's oldest son, Michael Reagan, has likewise taken issue with comparisons between Trump and Reagan, and claimed in 2016 that his father would not have voted for Trump.
The Supreme Court decision might embolden bigots, but it has basically zero effect on the law. So bigots will continue to deny service and those cases will continue to be challenged in court. Basically the status quo has been preserved for now.
As to whether those new cases will win, that depends on local judges. There is no general "law of the land" at this point. That's explicitly what the Supreme Court refused to do here.
Exactly. The Right is claiming victory for the same reason the Left is claiming defeat: because both are reading into this ruling that the Supreme Court overwhelmingly voted in favor of anti-religious discrimination.
Because law is complicated and people prefer the broad picture version to fine details. "SUPREME COURT OVERTURNS ANTI-RELIGIOUS DISCRIMINATION LAWS" is a snappier headline than "Supreme Court Has Beef With Inappropriate Semantic Phrasing Embedded In Judicial Ruling Indicative Of Potential Bias, Thus Is Forced To Demand Retrial With New, Better Phrased Outcome."
This kind of shit is why Law is one of the most expensive and comprehensive academic subjects that people can study, and why lawyers are paid so goddamn much. Law is built on precise semantics. Two words here or there can completely ruin your entire case.
edited 4th Jun '18 5:35:33 PM by TobiasDrake
My Tumblr. Currently side-by-side liveblogging Digimon Adventure, sub vs dub.I'm reading the ruling now, which can be found here
. This stands out.
Yeah. Uh. Guys? If you're supposed to be a neutral law agency, don't compare people to the f*cking Holocaust on the record.
edited 4th Jun '18 5:48:02 PM by TobiasDrake
My Tumblr. Currently side-by-side liveblogging Digimon Adventure, sub vs dub.Until another ruling clarifies matters...this doesn't send a good message regardless. This will embolden the bigots in the USA. Regardless of the technicalities, if an LGBTQ+ citizen felt a little less safe in the USA after this, I honestly couldn't blame them.
edited 4th Jun '18 6:29:14 PM by M84
Disgusted, but not surprisedThis story just broke. I wonder if this is what set off his Twitter tantrums. (From AP).
Mueller Accuses Paul Manafort of Attempted Witness Tampering
In a court filing, prosecutors working for special counsel Robert Mueller wrote that Manafort and one of his associates "repeatedly" contacted two witnesses in an effort to influence their testimony. The contacts occurred earlier this year, shortly after a grand jury returned a new indictment against Manafort and while he was confined to his home.
Court documents do not name Manafort's associate, but they refer to him as "Person A" and note the pseudonym is consistent with previous filings in the case. In earlier filings, Person A has referred to Konstantin Kilimnik, a longtime Manafort associate who prosecutors have said has ties to Russian intelligence.
The two witnesses are also not named in court filings. But prosecutors say they worked with Manafort in organizing a group of former European officials, known as the Hapsburg Group, who promoted Ukrainian interests in Europe as well as the U.S.
According to the court filing, Manafort began messaging and calling one of the witnesses in February shortly after a federal grand jury in Washington returned a superseding indictment against him that included allegations of unregistered lobbying related to the Hapsburg Group.
Manafort messaged and called one of the witnesses the day after his co-defendant and business partner, Rick Gates, pleaded guilty and continued reaching out over the next several days, according to a sworn affidavit filed by an FBI agent in the case.
In one call, the agent wrote, Manafort said he wanted to give the person a "heads-up about Hapsburg." The individual then hung up "because he was concerned about the outreach," according to the affidavit.
On Feb. 26, Manafort sent the person a series of messages through an encrypted application, including a link to a Business Insider story with the headline: "Former European leaders struggle to explain themselves after Mueller claims Paul Manafort paid them to lobby for Ukraine." Another message said, "We should talk. I have made clear that they worked in Europe."
The person told investigators that he interpreted Manafort's efforts to reach him as a way to influence his potential statements. The person believed from his experience that the Hapsburg Group lobbied in the United States and knew that Manafort knew that as well, the agent wrote.
Manafort faces several felony charges in two federal cases. He has pleaded not guilty.
edited 4th Jun '18 6:36:24 PM by megaeliz
A link
"Manafort attempted to tamper with potential witnesses: U.S. special counsel" - http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-russia-manafort/manafort-attempted-to-tamper-with-potential-witnesses-u-s-special-counsel-idUSKCN1J1043

Explainer on the Masterpiece Cakeshop Supreme Court Decision.
The hard question presented by the case was this: did Colorado's anti-discrimination law violate the baker's First Amendment rights, to the extent it compelled him to create a cake for a same-sex wedding? /1
/2 The Supreme Court sided, 7-2, with the baker. But the Court did so on much narrower grounds than the baker, and advocates, hoped for.
The Court DID NOT resolve the conflict between religious belief and anti-discrimination law.
/3 In fact, the Court expressly declined to resolve that. Instead, the Court found that the question has to be resolved through a process free of religious bias and animus violating the First Amendment, and that here the Colorado administrative procedure showed clear bias.
/4 Put another way, the Court said "however the question comes out, the decision-makers can't get there through express hostility to religious beliefs." The Court found that the Colorado administrative process showed just that anti-religious bias.
/5 There's an array of concurring and dissenting opinions that don't change the result, but that's the core opinion of the Court. So: the tension between anti-discrimination and the First Amendment is left for another day, but Civil Rights Commissions can't indulge in gratuitous anti-religious rhetoric in the process of weighing such claims. /end
So basically this whole ruling is about a procedural technicality, and only is relevant to this particular case. In fact Justice Kennedy wrote that other cases may be decided differently based on the specific circumstances.
edited 4th Jun '18 3:09:18 PM by megaeliz