Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
When the Hollywood types express their views and opinions do you think this sways or influence citizens to think similarly? Think recent headlines and events. Madonna, JLaw, etc.
Byte wrote: Question for the Americans in the thread.
When the Hollywood types express their views and opinions do you think this sways or influence citizens to think similarly? Think recent headlines and events. Madonna, JLaw, etc.
Probably as much as any similar source of opinions. People who are easily persuaded by clever slogans and don't understand the substance of the issues (sadly far too many people) will go along with it, people who care about the issues won't pay much attention because they have better sources of information. The main value of celebrity opinions is giving publicity to a cause and getting people to pay attention long enough to form an opinion.
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
I used to work at a pork processing plant here in Indiana. Several people working on the cut floor had degrees of some type or another. I was halfway to my forensics degree when the professor who was the head of the Chemical Technology department informed me of the glut in people looking for that specific job. They had no problem telling me that after I blew half my GI Bill on classes that do me no good now, but they couldn't tell me earlier so I could shift to a degree with demand in the job field? Degrees are nice and all, but it's not an instant fix, and production labor jobs aren't going away any time soon. The better solution is finding other uses for the coal in the mines. Might be inconvenient for some, and downright unacceptable to those that think coal is the Antichrist, but it beats throwing money the government doesn't have at the problem.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Byte wrote: Question for the Americans in the thread.
When the Hollywood types express their views and opinions do you think this sways or influence citizens to think similarly? Think recent headlines and events. Madonna, JLaw, etc.
Speaking for myself: I don't give credence to some disaffected prima donna telling me how to think/feel/vote/whatever. I can form my own opinions, and don't value the opinion of someone that hasn't lived anything near that life.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/02/01 01:04:56
Just Tony wrote: I used to work at a pork processing plant here in Indiana. Several people working on the cut floor had degrees of some type or another. I was halfway to my forensics degree when the professor who was the head of the Chemical Technology department informed me of the glut in people looking for that specific job. They had no problem telling me that after I blew half my GI Bill on classes that do me no good now, but they couldn't tell me earlier so I could shift to a degree with demand in the job field? Degrees are nice and all, but it's not an instant fix, and production labor jobs aren't going away any time soon. The better solution is finding other uses for the coal in the mines. Might be inconvenient for some, and downright unacceptable to those that think coal is the Antichrist, but it beats throwing money the government doesn't have at the problem.
Even less of a fix for the folks 40 years old and over. Even if they can keep paying the bills while getting their degree, companies would rather hire the 20 something rather than the 40+ something for those New Degree type positions.
Every time a terrorist dies a Paratrooper gets his wings.
Just Tony wrote: The better solution is finding other uses for the coal in the mines.
Like what? Wishful thinking doesn't magically make coal useful for other things.
Might be inconvenient for some, and downright unacceptable to those that think coal is the Antichrist, but it beats throwing money the government doesn't have at the problem.
Better that than throwing money the government doesn't have at building a border wall that won't work.
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
Just Tony wrote: The better solution is finding other uses for the coal in the mines.
Like what? Wishful thinking doesn't magically make coal useful for other things.
Might be inconvenient for some, and downright unacceptable to those that think coal is the Antichrist, but it beats throwing money the government doesn't have at the problem.
Better that than throwing money the government doesn't have at building a border wall that won't work.
The only thing I can think of is re-opening out rare earth metal mines, as those are ever increasing in usage (with technology). Still have the problem of automation though, and I'm not sure they could compete with China, but it's something to look into I guess.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/02/01 01:25:58
Homosexuality is the #1 cause of gay marriage.
kronk wrote: Every pizza is a personal sized pizza if you try hard enough and believe in yourself.
sebster wrote: Yes, indeed. What a terrible piece of cultural imperialism it is for me to say that a country shouldn't murder its own citizens
BaronIveagh wrote: Basically they went from a carrot and stick to a smaller carrot and flanged mace.
So there was a deal made between the US and Australia in the final hours of the Obama administration, part of which included the US taking refugees currently sitting in Australian detention camps. Honestly the deal is total bs in lots of different ways, not just because Obama made it as he was walking out the door, it also makes no sense in terms of management of the refugee problem*. There are good arguments for the new Trump administration to walk back the deal, and as an incoming president he'd have plenty of scope to re-open discussions with Australia to make a very different deal. And God knows Australia is agreeable enough with any US administration that if Trump wanted to 're-negotiate' the deal in to nothingness we'd just quietly accept that.
However, this is not what the Trump administration did, because the Trump administration is incredibly terrible at being an administration. Instead, at 1pm yesterday Sean Spicer stated in his press meeting that the US would be honoring deal, with the addition that the refugees would be subjected to extreme vetting. It still remains unclear whether Mountain Dew was the official sponsor of extreme vetting, but other than that everything seemed perfectly ordinary.
But then, at 5.00pm that same day the Australian press corps started getting phone calls from Trump staffer saying that now Trump was saying he wasn't accepting the deal. He might accept the deal, maybe, out of respect to our long relationship, maybe. What could have been quietly done, or quietly buried, has now become a political flashpoint in both countries. And probably the lasting lesson that will come from this is for Australia - don't try and rely on deals with Trump on sensitive issues, because he is incompetent and will only cause trouble for everyone involved.
This isn't a huge thing, but it is example #37 of the Trump administration seeing a small pebble on the road, and somehow managing to jam it in to their eye. It's mostly a story about in politics, right and left ideology actually ends up being less important than basic operating competence. And this is a lesson we all learn, and learn hard in the next four years.
*The Australian stance is that many people are using refugee claims to migrate to countries with better standards of living, and along the way taking dangerous boat rides in which lots of them die. So we have a policy to not resettle in Australia to remove that economic incentive - sending them to the US instead seems to be missing the point by a long way.
whembly wrote: It's pointless to gnash your teeth that he puts someone there that is diametrically opposed to what the agencies have done in the past... the POTUS sets the agenda... the agencies ENACTS them.
It's our job as voters to hold him to account via the voting booth, or in warranted case, take him to court. (provided we have standing)
Would it shock anyone to learn this is a new belief among Republicans? In 2015 Senator Jeff Sessions, now about to be confirmed as Attorney General questioned Obama's nominee for Deputy Attorney General, Sally Yates. Sessions was very concerned about standing up against illegal orders.
Sessions: Well, you have to watch out because people will be asking you to do things, you just need to say no about. Do you think the Attorney General has a responsibility to say no to the President if he asks for something that's improper? A lot of people have defended the Lynch nomination, for example, by saying, ‘Well, he appoints somebody who's going to execute his views. What's wrong with that?’ But if the views a President wants to execute are unlawful, should the Attorney General or the Deputy Attorney General say no?
Yates: Senator, I believe that the Attorney General or the Deputy Attorney General has an obligation to follow the law and the Constitution and to give their independent legal advice to the President.
Sessions: Does the Office of Legal Counsel — which makes many of these opinions that impact policy — does it report through the deputy's office or directly to the Attorney General?
Yates: Well, when you look at the org chart, the Office of Legal Counsel reports to the deputy's office, but it's important that the Office of Legal Counsel also be independent because federal agencies across our government regularly come to the Office of Legal Counsel seeking advice and guidance about what is permissible and what isn't. And it's critically important that the OLC advice — the Office of Legal Counsel advice — be just that, advice, and that it not be advocacy.
Sessions: Well, that’s true. That’s true. And like any CEO, where the law firm —sometimes the lawyers have to tell the CEO, ‘Mr. CEO, you can’t do that, don’t do that. You’ll get us sued. It’s going to be in violation of the law. You’ll regret it. Please.’ No matter how headstrong they might be, do you feel like that’s the duty of the Attorney General’s office?
Yates: I do believe that that’s the duty of the attorney general’s office — to fairly and impartially evaluate the law and to provide the president and the administration with impartial legal advice.
This is the suckhole of hypocrisy that is the modern Republican party. Stop defending it.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/02/01 02:03:51
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
We need to make colleges accountable for the employment of their students post-grad. It's a tricky problem and I don't know how to best approach it, but if we did that then US education would be in a much better place.
Byte wrote: Question for the Americans in the thread.
When the Hollywood types express their views and opinions do you think this sways or influence citizens to think similarly? Think recent headlines and events. Madonna, JLaw, etc.
I don't think they sway anyone but they might reinforce existing views. The problem is, everyone's diving off the deep end lately so it's only the cray-cray crowd who's views are being reinforced.
Speaking of the entertainment industry, the comedians have started pumping out the Winona Ryder skits and here's one that fits the general topic.
Yep, she's getting close to Sean Young level cray-cray.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/02/01 01:59:16
NinthMusketeer wrote: We need to make colleges accountable for the employment of their students post-grad. It's a tricky problem and I don't know how to best approach it, but if we did that then US education would be in a much better place.
There are standards in place, authored by Senator Warren and passed in to law. Current education tsar* Betsy DeVos has been ambivalent about whether she'll enforce them.
*Are we still using that term, or was only a thing for Obama administrations?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Just Tony wrote: The better solution is finding other uses for the coal in the mines.
First up, the problem with coal mine employment isn't declining production but new techniques that require less labour. Coal mine employment collapsed in the 70s with open cut mining, the decline in production is very recent.
Secondly, your argument here is much like saying at the beginning of the 20th century that the answer is to find other uses for horses and carts. This is not how it works, this is not how it could ever work. New technologies replace old technologies. Employment is found by shifting displaced labour from the old industries with products that aren't viable, to the new industries with products that have economic value.
This isn't a nice thing for people facing change, but it's been reality since some English nobles came up with the idea of enclosing their crop fields. And while things can be done to make change easier (retraining, government supported investment in affected areas), any effort to deny the overall change is likely to achieve nothing, or if it works only only achieve stagnation.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Prestor Jon wrote: What is the proper role and function of the Dept of Education? Or the Dept of Energy? Or the Dept of Homeland Security? The Dept of Ed has only been operating since 1980, The Dept of Energy began operating in 1977, Homeland security started in 2002, HUD was formed in 1965. The majority of the cabinet departments are relatively new creations in US history, they're not mentioned in the constitution, their mission and proper function changes with every new president. What is the benchmark you're using to determine the efficacy and proper usage of these departments? Policies under Obama were different than under Clinton which were different than during the Reagan administration etc.
Departments shift focus with new presidents, but they don’t completely change role. To use a business analogy that I know conservatives are so fond of, Facebook has only been in business since 2004, but that’s long enough to develop expertise and processes within their niche. It would be considered utterly bonkers if Facebook came out tomorrow and announced they were stopping the social network thing and they were now a soft drink company. Even if they have a really great idea for a softdrink, they have no expertise in that, and would now be needed to dump all the expertise they have developed in social media.
The same is true of government agencies. You can’t just decide they should be something different from one day to the next. The people in the agency have set roles and set expertise that pushes them in a different direction. Strategic management is about working with the organisation as it is, guiding it to a new strategic direction while respecting the expertise and ability that already exists. And while that means you are unlikely to make a huge difference in the four years of your government, if the idea is a good one then the new government will be likely to just quietly accept the direction you put in place, and even if they don’t the public servants in the agency itself will be likely to continue that direction by themselves.
This, like everything so far in the Trump administration, is falling down not on ideology, but on the understanding of what government is and how it works.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/02/01 02:48:00
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
whembly wrote: It's pointless to gnash your teeth that he puts someone there that is diametrically opposed to what the agencies have done in the past... the POTUS sets the agenda... the agencies ENACTS them.
It's our job as voters to hold him to account via the voting booth, or in warranted case, take him to court. (provided we have standing)
Would it shock anyone to learn this is a new belief among Republicans? In 2015 Senator Jeff Sessions, now about to be confirmed as Attorney General questioned Obama's nominee for Deputy Attorney General, Sally Yates. Sessions was very concerned about standing up against illegal orders.
Sessions: Well, you have to watch out because people will be asking you to do things, you just need to say no about. Do you think the Attorney General has a responsibility to say no to the President if he asks for something that's improper? A lot of people have defended the Lynch nomination, for example, by saying, ‘Well, he appoints somebody who's going to execute his views. What's wrong with that?’ But if the views a President wants to execute are unlawful, should the Attorney General or the Deputy Attorney General say no?
Yates: Senator, I believe that the Attorney General or the Deputy Attorney General has an obligation to follow the law and the Constitution and to give their independent legal advice to the President.
Sessions: Does the Office of Legal Counsel — which makes many of these opinions that impact policy — does it report through the deputy's office or directly to the Attorney General?
Yates: Well, when you look at the org chart, the Office of Legal Counsel reports to the deputy's office, but it's important that the Office of Legal Counsel also be independent because federal agencies across our government regularly come to the Office of Legal Counsel seeking advice and guidance about what is permissible and what isn't. And it's critically important that the OLC advice — the Office of Legal Counsel advice — be just that, advice, and that it not be advocacy.
Sessions: Well, that’s true. That’s true. And like any CEO, where the law firm —sometimes the lawyers have to tell the CEO, ‘Mr. CEO, you can’t do that, don’t do that. You’ll get us sued. It’s going to be in violation of the law. You’ll regret it. Please.’ No matter how headstrong they might be, do you feel like that’s the duty of the Attorney General’s office?
Yates: I do believe that that’s the duty of the attorney general’s office — to fairly and impartially evaluate the law and to provide the president and the administration with impartial legal advice.
This is the suckhole of hypocrisy that is the modern Republican party. Stop defending it.
Byte wrote: Question for the Americans in the thread.
When the Hollywood types express their views and opinions do you think this sways or influence citizens to think similarly? Think recent headlines and events. Madonna, JLaw, etc.
I doubt celebrities are effective at swaying anyone.
I think they are effective at bringing attention to things that might otherwise be overlooked. News tends to report what people want to read about, which can make... I don't know. Starving children in Africa (for example) generally isn't a major topic here. Not until some has been actor makes an ad, sets it to some horribly depressing song with even more horribly depressing pictures, and blasts it all over TV. At that point celebrities I think are being effective.
Issues where people just don't think about them are something they can do a lot about. Issues where people already have an opinion? Not so much.
whembly wrote: So what is it that you believe is hypocrisy?
I think it should be pretty obvious from the quote:
Sessions: Well, that’s true. That’s true. And like any CEO, where the law firm —sometimes the lawyers have to tell the CEO, ‘Mr. CEO, you can’t do that, don’t do that. You’ll get us sued. It’s going to be in violation of the law. You’ll regret it. Please.’ No matter how headstrong they might be, do you feel like that’s the duty of the Attorney General’s office?
Trump's AG pick openly says that the AG has an obligation to say "no, this isn't legal" instead of just rubber-stamping whatever the president orders, and he's still acceptable. Obama's AG pick says the same, and she's a traitor who should have resigned if she didn't want to follow the president's orders.
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
Just Tony wrote: The better solution is finding other uses for the coal in the mines.
Like what? Wishful thinking doesn't magically make coal useful for other things.
Might be inconvenient for some, and downright unacceptable to those that think coal is the Antichrist, but it beats throwing money the government doesn't have at the problem.
Better that than throwing money the government doesn't have at building a border wall that won't work.
Just Tony wrote: The better solution is finding other uses for the coal in the mines.
Like what? Wishful thinking doesn't magically make coal useful for other things.
Might be inconvenient for some, and downright unacceptable to those that think coal is the Antichrist, but it beats throwing money the government doesn't have at the problem.
Better that than throwing money the government doesn't have at building a border wall that won't work.
The only thing I can think of is re-opening out rare earth metal mines, as those are ever increasing in usage (with technology). Still have the problem of automation though, and I'm not sure they could compete with China, but it's something to look into I guess.
sebster wrote:
NinthMusketeer wrote: We need to make colleges accountable for the employment of their students post-grad. It's a tricky problem and I don't know how to best approach it, but if we did that then US education would be in a much better place.
There are standards in place, authored by Senator Warren and passed in to law. Current education tsar* Betsy DeVos has been ambivalent about whether she'll enforce them.
*Are we still using that term, or was only a thing for Obama administrations?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Just Tony wrote: The better solution is finding other uses for the coal in the mines.
First up, the problem with coal mine employment isn't declining production but new techniques that require less labour. Coal mine employment collapsed in the 70s with open cut mining, the decline in production is very recent.
Secondly, your argument here is much like saying at the beginning of the 20th century that the answer is to find other uses for horses and carts. This is not how it works, this is not how it could ever work. New technologies replace old technologies. Employment is found by shifting displaced labour from the old industries with products that aren't viable, to the new industries with products that have economic value.
This isn't a nice thing for people facing change, but it's been reality since some English nobles came up with the idea of enclosing their crop fields. And while things can be done to make change easier (retraining, government supported investment in affected areas), any effort to deny the overall change is likely to achieve nothing, or if it works only only achieve stagnation.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Prestor Jon wrote: What is the proper role and function of the Dept of Education? Or the Dept of Energy? Or the Dept of Homeland Security? The Dept of Ed has only been operating since 1980, The Dept of Energy began operating in 1977, Homeland security started in 2002, HUD was formed in 1965. The majority of the cabinet departments are relatively new creations in US history, they're not mentioned in the constitution, their mission and proper function changes with every new president. What is the benchmark you're using to determine the efficacy and proper usage of these departments? Policies under Obama were different than under Clinton which were different than during the Reagan administration etc.
Departments shift focus with new presidents, but they don’t completely change role. To use a business analogy that I know conservatives are so fond of, Facebook has only been in business since 2004, but that’s long enough to develop expertise and processes within their niche. It would be considered utterly bonkers if Facebook came out tomorrow and announced they were stopping the social network thing and they were now a soft drink company. Even if they have a really great idea for a softdrink, they have no expertise in that, and would now be needed to dump all the expertise they have developed in social media.
The same is true of government agencies. You can’t just decide they should be something different from one day to the next. The people in the agency have set roles and set expertise that pushes them in a different direction. Strategic management is about working with the organisation as it is, guiding it to a new strategic direction while respecting the expertise and ability that already exists. And while that means you are unlikely to make a huge difference in the four years of your government, if the idea is a good one then the new government will be likely to just quietly accept the direction you put in place, and even if they don’t the public servants in the agency itself will be likely to continue that direction by themselves.
This, like everything so far in the Trump administration, is falling down not on ideology, but on the understanding of what government is and how it works.
Just a few. Some of those strike me as uses that we could see easily ramping up with, especially with increases in infrastructure. However, all some people see when they look at coal is that it emits carbon dioxide. Kind of like every living thing on the planet. And CO2 isn't even the most eggregious greenhouse gas, if you swing with the Climate Change crowd.
As far as changes in industry, the precious metals mines are a great example of how we could employ displaced miners. "Don't have work at this mine? This company is coming in to dig up another resource in the area or within a reasonable commute." which makes a hell of a lot more sense than, AND is much more responsible than, footing subsistance and education costs onto an already strained US budget. I wonder if the Dems or Repubs would be opposed to cutting Congressional/federal pay in proportion to the entitlements handed out.
whembly wrote: So what is it that you believe is hypocrisy?
I think it should be pretty obvious from the quote:
Sessions: Well, that’s true. That’s true. And like any CEO, where the law firm —sometimes the lawyers have to tell the CEO, ‘Mr. CEO, you can’t do that, don’t do that. You’ll get us sued. It’s going to be in violation of the law. You’ll regret it. Please.’ No matter how headstrong they might be, do you feel like that’s the duty of the Attorney General’s office?
Trump's AG pick openly says that the AG has an obligation to say "no, this isn't legal" instead of just rubber-stamping whatever the president orders, and he's still acceptable. Obama's AG pick says the same, and she's a traitor who should have resigned if she didn't want to follow the president's orders.
Here's the problem... she didn't say "no, this isn't legal".
She said "I'm not convinced...". This was pure political grandstanding.
Having that "I'm not convinced" mindset, she should've reached out to her peers and WH to seek clarification. Failing that, she should've resigned.
Just a few. Some of those strike me as uses that we could see easily ramping up with, especially with increases in infrastructure.
Yes, of course there are uses for coal, but that wasn't the question. What are the new uses for coal that will bring the demand back? You can't just arbitrarily "ramp up" things like using coal in water filters without significantly increased demand for the final product. Unless you propose subsidizing the manufacturing of useless products just for the sake of using up as much coal as possible?
However, all some people see when they look at coal is that it emits carbon dioxide. Kind of like every living thing on the planet. And CO2 isn't even the most eggregious greenhouse gas, if you swing with the Climate Change crowd.
Are you serious? You can't possibly be saying this sincerely...
As far as changes in industry, the precious metals mines are a great example of how we could employ displaced miners. "Don't have work at this mine? This company is coming in to dig up another resource in the area or within a reasonable commute."
This assumes that an appropriate resource exists nearby, that sufficient demand for it exists to open a new mine, and that it can all be done profitably enough to justify doing so. Given that businesses tend to want to make money there probably aren't all that many unexploited resources waiting for that labor, if they were really such a great profit opportunity then the mining would be happening already. So you're still throwing in obscene amounts of government money, just in the form of subsidies to mining companies to encourage them to run unprofitable business and "create jobs".
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
You're listing uses of coal that are already established, as a means of saying what we should be doing with coal instead. Most of those uses have been in since before the war. The idea that you can suddenly restore the demand for coal by talking about stuff that it is already used makes no sense on any level.
Some of those strike me as uses that we could see easily ramping up with, especially with increases in infrastructure.
Maybe you should have backed Obama's $500b infrastructure bill. Or do these kinds of benefits only exist when there's a Republican in the whitehouse?
As far as changes in industry, the precious metals mines are a great example of how we could employ displaced miners. "Don't have work at this mine? This company is coming in to dig up another resource in the area or within a reasonable commute." which makes a hell of a lot more sense than, AND is much more responsible than, footing subsistance and education costs onto an already strained US budget.
Huh, if you remove the weird fixation on mining, and consider that people displaced by a declining mine production can go in other forms of work... then you end up with Clinton's clean energy plan for Pennsylvania.
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
whembly wrote: Having that "I'm not convinced" mindset, she should've reached out to her peers and WH to seek clarification.
Oh FFS, "I'm not convinced" is the polite way of saying "WTF is wrong with you, why are you doing something so stupid?" when you don't want to give someone justification to fire you for your language alone.
Failing that, she should've resigned.
Ah yes, resignation is of course appropriate when it's the Other Team's AG disagreeing with Your Team's president. When it's the other way around disagreement is entirely appropriate.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/02/01 04:16:01
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
whembly wrote: Having that "I'm not convinced" mindset, she should've reached out to her peers and WH to seek clarification.
Oh FFS, "I'm not convinced" is the polite way of saying "WTF is wrong with you, why are you doing something so stupid?" when you don't want to give someone justification to fire you for your language alone.
Failing that, she should've resigned.
Ah yes, resignation is of course appropriate when it's the Other Team's AG disagreeing with Your Team's president. When it's the other way around disagreement is entirely appropriate.
Then please show me specifically the hypocrisy. No one has yet pointed out a law/regulation that would've rendered that EO illegal.
whembly wrote: Then please show me specifically the hypocrisy. No one has yet pointed out a law/regulation that would've rendered that EO illegal.
No, you don't get to move the goalposts like that.
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
whembly wrote: Then please show me specifically the hypocrisy. No one has yet pointed out a law/regulation that would've rendered that EO illegal.
No, you don't get to move the goalposts like that.
I'm not moving the goal post.... as you can't provide the legal justification for her grandstanding.
That's because she NEVER PROVIDED one.
That acting AG's job is to defend the executive's legal order, full stop. Otherwise, if you can't, then you shouldn't be in such position in the first place.
The hypocrisy thing was Session's question to her confirmation as what role the AG should be in advising the President. So far, no one has explain the 'hypocrisy' part.
We can argue whether or not it was a good idea... that's fine. But, it totally wrong and unprofessional for her to "not enforce" a legal directive from the President.
It has been simultaneously struck down in around 6 courts or something like that, citing due process laws (specifically in relation to visas). Maybe she just, you know, accepted the rulings?
Homosexuality is the #1 cause of gay marriage.
kronk wrote: Every pizza is a personal sized pizza if you try hard enough and believe in yourself.
sebster wrote: Yes, indeed. What a terrible piece of cultural imperialism it is for me to say that a country shouldn't murder its own citizens
BaronIveagh wrote: Basically they went from a carrot and stick to a smaller carrot and flanged mace.
whembly wrote: I'm not moving the goal post.... as you can't provide the legal justification for her grandstanding.
I am not an AG. Nor am I a lawyer at all. But what we have here is a case of a lawyer saying, in polite terms, "WTF IS THIS " and questioning the legality of the order. Unless you're going to argue that she knew there's no case and was lying about everything she said then this clearly fits within the bounds of what Your Team's AG pick said is justified.
That acting AG's job is to defend the executive's legal order, full stop.
Not according to Your Team's AG pick. "Defend it unless you think the legal reasoning is flawed and the correct advice is 'don't do this'" is not "defend it, full stop".
So far, no one has explain the 'hypocrisy' part.
The hypocrisy is that Your Team's AG pick said that the AG's job is sometimes to say "no" instead of obeying the president's orders, but as soon as Their Team's AG says "no" to Your Team's president it's borderline treason and they should resign their job if they won't obey orders.
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
With regards to coal, coal really only has one use, repurposing a material just for its own sake to maintain inefficient employment just ends up being corporate welfare in the long run. Coal just isn't profitable is the fundamental issue. Regulations won't change that, Natural Gas is strangling Coal, and that's just the market doing its thing.
Now, there's something to be said for it being difficult to retrain older workers. That's absolutely a situation in which there's a role for government to step in not only with training but actual jobs programs. Got a bunch of older coal miners? Well, they have experience working underground, with heavy equipment, with respirators, with all sorts of safety regulations, and other such things. Retrain them and put them to work on infrastructure projects, tunnels, things like that. Have a jobs program that transports them to various infrastructure sites on special projects or pay/help pay for relocation to such areas. Have a government program to find them work with local utilities in laying underground wire and pipes and act as a ready-made employment agency with paths to full employment in place. Stuff like that. Society gets new infrastructure, workers get new jobs, old industries aren't kept on expensive life support that enriches only their owners, political tension is decreased, and everyone wins.
Basic old school civic public works 101.
IRON WITHIN, IRON WITHOUT.
New Heavy Gear Log! Also...Grey Knights! The correct pronunciation is Imperial Guard and Stormtroopers, "Astra Militarum" and "Tempestus Scions" are something you'll find at Hogwarts.
whembly wrote: I'm not moving the goal post.... as you can't provide the legal justification for her grandstanding.
That's because she NEVER PROVIDED one.
If she had gone in to the nitty gritty of explaining how the president's EO was incorrect, then you and the rest of the ever faithful conservatives would have attacked her for using her position to challenge the president. The only difference is you would have been right in that instance, because it would be wholly inappropriate to use the position of AG to actively make the case against a president's EO. That is not the purpose of the role, and Yates was entirely correct in ethics to refuse to enforce the order and leave the reasons why to be debated by politicians and pundits.
That acting AG's job is to defend the executive's legal order, full stop.
You've now invented a position where the AG should inform the president that a law is illegal, but then if the president decides to go ahead with the law anyway the AG should defend it.
This is fairly obviously ridiculous.
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: If say, 12-18 months down the line I was wrong, feel free to call me out on it.
Then again, it might be too late by then, and I might be battling a mutant horde for control of the world's last tin opener.
There's no need and indeed it's wrong to wait before calling politicians for bad decisions.
Politics make good decisions, you praise them for that. They make bad decision, you give them hell for it. It's as simple as that. Waiting serves no purpose and doing good does not excuse bad. President does 99 good decisions and 1 decision you give praise for the 99 and give him hell for the 1. And you do it _right away_. You don't wait for either. You give them it right away.
It really is as simple as that. Bad decision doesn't change into good decision just because you wait.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
crimsondave wrote: "Winning the election doesn't mean one "won" the debates, and in fact one can become president with only about a quarter of the popular vote and potentially fewer than one in fifteen americans casting a vote for that candidate. Winning the election is a much different thing, as most votes are effectively pointless and only a relatively small handful of voted in a small number of places actually have a decisive impact."
A quarter? One in fifteen?
Clinton: 48.2%
Trump: 46.1%
He was pointing out how one doesn't need to win debates to be president. And pointing out possible scenario. I'm going to drive it even further. You really don't need more than couple DOZEN voters vs opponents 100M+ if vote distribution is right. Okay that's not realistically happening but shows you don't need to be most popular nor win debates(which Trump lost) to be president.
Trump's result in voter difference was particularly bad. Usually losing candinates don't lose popular vote as much as he did.
And as it is even Trump voters generally don't seem to agree with his policies seeing approval ratings for his decisions tend to be around 30-40%...
Relapse wrote: The people who counted were persuaded by his stirring oratory, though, putting him in office. I call that a win.
Let's not pretend that Trump actually did anything to earn his votes. Trump won because ~60 million people will reflexively vote for anyone with an R next to their name, no matter how obviously terrible.
Yeah. He could have promised to launch nuclear attack on the first day and there would be millions who would STILL have voted him. Only election where such promise could have backfired would have been primaries.
Though to be fair same goes for dems. Huge swathes of them will vote for whoever happens to have D next to their name.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/02/01 06:45:40
" and questioning the legality of the order. Unless you're going to argue that she knew there's no case and was lying about everything she said then this clearly fits within the bounds of what Your Team's 
