Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Ghills]

Woah, Twitter accounts and the like. o_O
Isn't there a clause of separation of church and state--which duly applies to Pence enacting his ideas regarding 'religion' in that context towards people? Since 'religion' can also be, and pretty much generally is, towards the benefit towards everyone regardless of physical or superficial characteristics like skin color or gender or whatever, and rather a lot less on fundamentalism or limitation of marriage or stuff? Coming from what is internationally mentioned about Pence anyway.

The language is to make no law "respecting an establishment of religion", i.e. we can't have a state church and laws can't exempt or apply to specific churches. Also, no limiting who/what people worship, which...doesn't always work out in practice, but it's nice that it's there.  There's nothing against someone having religious motivations for trying to get a law passed so long as it's not infringing on other rights or laws.

[Shadowlord]

The Theater must always be a safe and special place.The cast of Hamilton was very rude last night to a very good man, Mike Pence. Apologize!

D-did Trump just ask for a "safe space"? Is this the real life?

As far as I'm concerned, the single greatest evidence in favor of the EM Drive is that by all accounts the only way 2016 could amp up even further is invalidating our entire conception of physics as a cascading misconception.

I'm not declaring 2016 over on January 1st, either. 2016 ends when it actually stops.

SPEAKING OF THE EM DRIVE

Is this a joke? Practically every shitty idea in American politics is justified by "God wills it".

DEUS VULT

So, if your situation is going to go back 40 years because of the orange one, blame Obama for not getting those things codified into law when he had a filibuster proof majority in the senate and a majority in the house.

As far as I'm aware, this was never. Unless I'm mistaken the the most power the democrats have had in government for 20 years was 111th Congress where they had both parts of congress with a not quite filibuster proof coalition in the Senate and the White House, a period of two years during which you're essentially saying that they should have solved every issue in the US that'd been addressed over the past eight years. I suppose, in a way, you're right, not trying to jam though more laws over this time probably turned out to be a mistake, although these were the first two years of Obamas presidency, I don't think he (I certainly didn't) expected as much obstructionism as we have learned is now the new normal.

You are, indeed, mistaken.  From July 7th 2009 to August 25th 2009 and from September 25 2009 to Feb 10 2010, the democrats had 58 senators plus two independents who caucused with the democrats.  No, it didn't last 2 years, but they could have pushed through simple legislation designed to do what you are afraid Trump will destroy if they had only had the will to do so.  The reason Obamacare was passed with reconciliation was because Scott Brown, a republican, was elected as Senator from Massachusetts with the express promise to be the 41st vote to filibuster Obamacare.  Note that in both houses, not one Republican voted for Obamacare.

Actually defeating a filibuster with a party-line-vote would have required Ted Kennedy to be able to make it and vote. By the time Al Franken was seated, Ted Kennedy was too ill. The democrats in congress were expecting a democrat to succeed him in the special election to replace him, not Scott Brown. For the record, Scott Brown was thrown out at the next actual election and replaced by Elizabeth Warren even though the GOP took control of the House at the same time.

I checked wikipedia to verify my memory. Relevant snippets:

However, by spring 2009, Kennedy's tumor had spread and treatments clearly were not going to cure it, although this was not disclosed publicly.[210] By June 2009 Kennedy had not cast a Senate vote in three months,[264] and his health had forced him to retreat to Massachusetts, where he was undergoing another round of chemotherapy.[257] In his absence, premature release of his health committee's expansive plan resulted in a poor public reception.[265] Kennedy's friend Chris Dodd had taken over his role on the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee,[266] but Republican senators and other observers said that the lack of Kennedy's physical presence had resulted in less consultation with them and was making successful negotiation more difficult.[257][267] Democrats also missed Kennedy's ability to smooth divisions on the

An election dispute over the Minnesota seat previously held by Norm Coleman (R), between Coleman and challenger Al Franken (D), was decided in June 30, 2009 in favor of Franken.[11] Franken's admission gave the Senate Democratic caucus sixty votes, enough to defeat a filibuster in a party-line vote.[12]

[Criptfeind]

You are, indeed, mistaken.

Ah, interesting. I had just looked at the, you know, average, or whatever. Still, Ted Kenedy stuff aside, you're still saying that they should have pushed though eight years of legislation when they had the chance over a roughly six month period? And that... Primarily, issues resulting from backslide in the upcoming presidency and congress can be said that the blame lies in the congress and presidency of eight years ago? This seems like a stretch. Like, yes, they should have tried to force some more stuff though during this time apparently, we know in hind sight. However whatever *bad things* may happen in the next two to eight years (however long this current set up lasts) can primarily be blamed on the people in power now. Failure to stop an event isn't really ever as bad as the ones doing the event.

Edit: To be clear though, you're right in a way, they totally should have tried harder back then, probably. However, using that to scapegoat the future governments actions is a redirection of guilt that I think is inappropriate and maybe a bit dangerous.

[Dozebôm Lolumzalìs]

Actually, the line is only one way, in the opposite direction you are stating.  The 1st amendment says that the government cannot set up a state religion and that it cannot outlaw the practice of religion.  It says nothing at all about religions meddling in the government.

Not quite. Think of it this way:

If a religion meddles in the US government, and a law is passed that forbids eating pork, would that be a violation of church and state? Certainly. It is forcing people to follow the customs or rules of a particular religion.

[smjjames]

Trump is highly considering retired General James Mattis as Defense Secretary.

Yes, Trump says in his own words that the General is impressive, but I've looked at him before (when he was rumored to or was being coaxed to run for President) and also read about him more recently and his service really is impressive. Seems like overall a really nice guy, pretty dang smart, and a good strategist. Though he does seem to be a bit of a warhawk's warhawk (no surprise considering he's a General) and has a bit of an itch to fight Iran. An upside to that though is that he is incredibly wary of Russia and wants to keep NATO. Dunno his stance on waterboarding though.

[TempAcc]

Code: [Select]

                  666 --KEK-- 666
              KEK       / \       KEK
          666          /   \          666
       KEK            /     \            KEK
     666             /       \             666
   KEK -_-----------/---------\-----------_- KEK
  666     -_       /           \       _-     666
 KEK         -_   /    2016     \   _-         666
666             -/_    2017     _\-             KEK
KEK             /  -_         _-  \             666
666            /      -_   _-      \            KEK
KEK           /         _-_         \           666
666          /       _-     -_       \          KEK
 KEK        /     _-           -_     \        666
  666      /   _-                 -_   \      KEK
   666    / _-                       -_ \    666
     KEK _-            CHAOS             -_ KEK
      666            AETERNUM             666
          KEK                         666
             666                  KEK
                  666 -CE RN- 666
Tremble and despair, mortals, 2017 won't save you

[smjjames]

At least Mattis would be a counter to Trumps friendlyness with Russia, but even then, it's still Trump's call. He hasn't been chosen as Secretary of Defense yet though.

I also hear that General Petraeus is in consideration, but everything's rumor until Trump announces his pick. Edit: Actually, that was Secretary of State that I saw. Case in point on rumors though.

[smirk]

As someone who works in a service industry (meaning all of them), it could be considered unprofessional to single out one of your guests/customers; whatever your intentions. They might have had good intentions, but maybe he was just there for a relatively quiet show (in the figurative sense).

Nevertheless, that's still an interesting choice of words from Trump.

Current theory - which I find pretty plausible, actually - is that someone in the transition team deliberately sent Pence to go see Hamilton in order to cause a culture-war spat and get the previous day's $25mil Trump University settlements out of the media cycle that much faster. True or not, that seems to have been the effect.

[Frumple]

... y'know, I was curious what the bribe settlement per person payout would be, assuming it was divided evenly among all the claimants. 4m went to lawyers and a second group of students, 21m split among... over 6000 others. Coming out to <3.5k per head. A tenth of the amount some of the claimants claimed they were effectively defrauded of.

Apparently the healing talked about was "Shut up and get shafted by a fraction of the money trump screwed you out of." Kinda' looks like that's less healing and more Dr. Bad Touch walking into the room...

[smjjames]

Trump does have a legit (YMMV legally) reason to get it out of the way though.

Whatever happened with those legal threats by all those women that were accusing him? Did they all suddenly get dropped the instant that he got elected? Which seems a bit fishy, though there's no evidence of Trump paying them to stop and I'm not claiming that.

[Frumple]

Trump does have a legit (YMMV legally) reason to get it out of the way though.

Got that backwards a bit, heh. It's legally legit, because settlements generally are. If someone drops charges the charges are dropped, usually regardless of whether the person charged actually did it or not.* Whether it's legitimate on other fronts, that's a bit more questionable. It's definitely on the sketchy side of ethical, at the very least, trying to weasel your way out of admissions of guilt rather than let the court decide. Common, particularly among less ethical businesses, though.

*This is one of the ways a number of domestic abuse or rape cases never make it to court, by the by. Critter can be guilty as sin, but if the victim won't press charges or drops them part way through the trial et al process there's not much legally that can be done.

[Spehss _]

At least Mattis would be a counter to Trumps friendlyness with Russia, but even then, it's still Trump's call. He hasn't been chosen as Secretary of Defense yet though.

I don't see why "friendliness with Russia" is a bad thing.

[Dozebôm Lolumzalìs]

At least Mattis would be a counter to Trumps friendlyness with Russia, but even then, it's still Trump's call. He hasn't been chosen as Secretary of Defense yet though.

I don't see why "friendliness with Russia" is a bad thing.

"Friendliness" as in takes bribes and advice

[smjjames]

At least Mattis would be a counter to Trumps friendlyness with Russia, but even then, it's still Trump's call. He hasn't been chosen as Secretary of Defense yet though.

I don't see why "friendliness with Russia" is a bad thing.

"Friendliness" as in takes bribes and advice

And generally ignore Russia's bad acts.

[Spehss _]

"Friendliness" as in takes bribes and advice

Has it been confirmed that Trump took bribes from Russia? I haven't heard anything official, just speculation over his tax returns and news media reporting that FBI said "Trump has no ties with Russia".

And generally ignore Russia's bad acts.

Such as? I'm not familiar with what's going on in Russia aside from their involvement in Syria conflicts.