US Politics

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.

**tneva82**

Trump: "We set tariffs to EU"
EU: "We'll set up counter tarifs"
Trump: "Don't you dare do that or we'll put in more tarifs!"

Really? Trump thought EU wouldn't respond in kind?

**d-usa**

It’s very easy to win trade wars.

**Da Boss**

The EU and Mexico are targetting specific things in Trump voting states. I think this is quite a just way to go about it. You voted for a trade war? You got it.

**Peregrine**

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
But if he's up there in that great battlefield in the sky, he must be wondering why he fething bothered when you have people coming out with concentrated horsegak about the President being able to pardon himself...

To be fair, it's not an issue that is any meaningful threat to the US system. A president can pardon himself, but will almost certainly be impeached for such a blatant abuse of power. It would be a final act of desperation by a president who is already on their way out, avoiding prison time in exchange for ensuring that their removal from office becomes guaranteed. And the system will go on even if an ex-president is not in prison like they should be.

**Kilkrazy**

Da Boss wrote:
Disciple of Fate wrote:
So the new US ambassador to Germany has turned out to be a creep. Paraphrasing, he said looking at the German political landscape he has a lot of work to do. Did he just offhandedly let slip he is going to work on regime change in Germany in favor of Trump style populism?

For those interested, it was in a Breitbart interview, which I'm not going to give clicks to by linking it.

They have really picked some amazing diplomats for this admin. Christ. I hope no one in Berlin gives this goober the time of day after this comment. How dare he.

That's because Trump's method for filling the necessary posts apparently based on a Venn diagram in which he looks for the overlap between "one of us," "jobs for the boys," and "warm bodies". Relevant xperience" and "Training" aren't included. To back this up, Trump has gutted the State Department which might have been able to support candidates of such quality and reduce some of the worst harm they might do.

The best that can be said for this situation is that Trump's strategy for filling federal judge positions is actually even more limited.

However none of it matters because the Republican "non-swamp" currently will vote through a brain-dead axe-murderer who raped, killed and ate a choirboy (but not in that precise order) as long as he wears a red tie.

**d-usa**

As long as you didn’t sign a “never Trump” letter, you’re good to go really.

**skyth**

Peregrine wrote:
A president can pardon himself, but will almost certainly be impeached for such a blatant abuse of power.

I wouldn't be so sure of that in the current climate.

**A Town Called Malus**

skyth wrote:
Peregrine wrote:
A president can pardon himself, but will almost certainly be impeached for such a blatant abuse of power.

I wouldn't be so sure of that in the current climate.

Mmmm, I'd imagine that if he were to do so, we'd have many posts in the thread about how it's fine for him to do that as he isn't specifically disallowed from doing it and only the legally defined, written rules matter when it comes to successful governance of a country.

**Disciple of Fate**

A Town Called Malus wrote:
skyth wrote:
Peregrine wrote:
A president can pardon himself, but will almost certainly be impeached for such a blatant abuse of power.

I wouldn't be so sure of that in the current climate.

Mmmm, I'd imagine that if he were to do so, we'd have many posts in the thread about how it's fine for him to do that as he isn't specifically disallowed from doing it and only the legally defined, written rules matter when it comes to successful governance of a country.

**Kilkrazy**

It's only Trump and Giuliani saying he can pardon himself. They're both notorious self-serving liars so it almost certainly isn't true and merely adds more strength to the suspision that Trump is guilty.

However I do think it's another piece of news chaff and people would be well advised not to spend a lot of time opposing it and instead keep asking Trump a lot of hard questions.

**Disciple of Fate**

Kilkrazy wrote:
Da Boss wrote:
Disciple of Fate wrote:
So the new US ambassador to Germany has turned out to be a creep. Paraphrasing, he said looking at the German political landscape he has a lot of work to do. Did he just offhandedly let slip he is going to work on regime change in Germany in favor of Trump style populism?

For those interested, it was in a Breitbart interview, which I'm not going to give clicks to by linking it.

They have really picked some amazing diplomats for this admin. Christ. I hope no one in Berlin gives this goober the time of day after this comment. How dare he.

That's because Trump's method for filling the necessary posts apparently based on a Venn diagram in which he looks for the overlap between "one of us," "jobs for the boys," and "warm bodies". Relevant xperience" and "Training" aren't included. To back this up, Trump has gutted the State Department which might have been able to support candidates of such quality and reduce some of the worst harm they might do.

The best that can be said for this situation is that Trump's strategy for filling federal judge positions is actually even more limited.

However none of it matters because the Republican "non-swamp" currently will vote through a brain-dead axe-murderer who raped, killed and ate a choirboy (but not in that precise order) as long as he wears a red tie.

The man used to be a Fox News pundit/commentator I believe, so that tells you something. Trump might have even got him off TV. And yes, the Germans have already been offended by the guy. At least he is a step below the ambassador Trump send to my country, who is just as mental if not worse.

The US is the place where we used to dump our crazy people, you're not allowed to send them back to us America! No takesies backsies!

Edit: the BBC caught up, here is the character in question http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-44352779

**d-usa**

A Town Called Malus wrote:
skyth wrote:
Peregrine wrote:
A president can pardon himself, but will almost certainly be impeached for such a blatant abuse of power.

I wouldn't be so sure of that in the current climate.

Mmmm, I'd imagine that if he were to do so, we'd have many posts in the thread about how it's fine for him to do that as he isn't specifically disallowed from doing it and only the legally defined, written rules matter when it comes to successful governance of a country.

Basically this:

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Meanwhile: refusing service to gays is now legal and constitutional

Because you can legally separate yourself from your business to protect yourself from everybody else, but that doesn’t mean that everybody else is protected from you.

**Disciple of Fate**

Its a pretty bizarre outcome for the wedding cake case. They seemed to have weaseled their way out of making a bigger statement, but so far it implies that you can discriminate against gay people, so how long will it take before a case about buying or renting a house is going to pop up using this as a defense.

**Kilkrazy**

If this Grenell bloke is particulary objectionable the German government can refuse to accept his papers and send him home.

That's a pretty hardarse line to take, though, so probably they will just try to put up with him.

**skyth**

Disciple of Fate wrote:
Its a pretty bizarre outcome for the wedding cake case. They seemed to have weaseled their way out of making a bigger statement, but so far it implies that you can discriminate against gay people, so how long will it take before a case about buying or renting a house is going to pop up using this as a defense.

Surprised there wasn't any comment about them outing the couple's personal information and encouraging people to go after them...

**d-usa**

Identity politics are always a risky bet, but it could fire up the democratic base and erode GOP support from moderates in the midterms.

Trump isn’t entitled to any SCOTUS picks after the midterms if the Democrats take the Senate (as unlikely as that is). Mitch has made it clear that the voters get to pick for vacancies with a new POTUS. So there is an urgency with liberal judges getting up there in age.

We could also see a push for a new civil rights bill or amendment, which would likely be vetoed anyway, but could be a driver to bring out votes for democrats.

**Disciple of Fate**

Kilkrazy wrote:
If this Grenell bloke is particulary objectionable the German government can refuse to accept his papers and send him home.

That's a pretty hardarse line to take, though, so probably they will just try to put up with him.

Its not like his replacement is going to be better...

**Kilkrazy**

Well, some might say that even Trump will eventually run out of incompetent though loyal yes-men to put into important situations in government service.

**Disciple of Fate**

Kilkrazy wrote:
Well, some might say that even Trump will eventually run out of incompetent though loyal yes-men to put into important situations in government service.

You say that, but wach Trump channel his inner Oprah at his next rally going "you get a job and you get a job and you get a job!"

**tneva82**

Kilkrazy wrote:
Well, some might say that even Trump will eventually run out of incompetent though loyal yes-men to put into important situations in government service.

Even if trump ran for max time and assigned person a day time would probably run out first alas :/

**Inquisitor Lord Bane**

Disciple of Fate wrote:
Kilkrazy wrote:
Well, some might say that even Trump will eventually run out of incompetent though loyal yes-men to put into important situations in government service.

You say that, but wach Trump channel his inner Oprah at his next rally going "you get a job and you get a job and you get a job!"

He did promise to create jobs. At 4.9% unemployment (2016 figure), he would have to boot out and then hire 6 people per hour. At this rate, that is looking more and more like reality...

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Forgot to add, that was for a 4 year term.

**Disciple of Fate**

Inquisitor Lord Bane wrote:
Disciple of Fate wrote:
Kilkrazy wrote:
Well, some might say that even Trump will eventually run out of incompetent though loyal yes-men to put into important situations in government service.

You say that, but wach Trump channel his inner Oprah at his next rally going "you get a job and you get a job and you get a job!"

He did promise to create jobs. At 4.9% unemployment (2016 figure), he would have to boot out and then hire 6 people per hour. At this rate, that is looking more and more like reality...

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Forgot to add, that was for a 4 year term.

Hell, he might accidently end up with someone with a sliver of competence.

**Prestor Jon**

d-usa wrote:
Identity politics are always a risky bet, but it could fire up the democratic base and erode GOP support from moderates in the midterms.

Trump isn’t entitled to any SCOTUS picks after the midterms if the Democrats take the Senate (as unlikely as that is). Mitch has made it clear that the voters get to pick for vacancies with a new POTUS. So there is an urgency with liberal judges getting up there in age.

We could also see a push for a new civil rights bill or amendment, which would likely be vetoed anyway, but could be a driver to bring out votes for democrats.

Clinton nominated Breyer and Obama nominated Kagan and they both sided with the majority in this case. Kennedy sided with the majority as well and he wrote the opinion in pretty much every important SCOTUS gay rights decision. I think this case had more to do with setting limits as to what states can do in the name of anti discrimination than with the idea that the GOP stacked SCOTUS with homophobic justices.

**Easy E**

Disciple of Fate wrote:
Its a pretty bizarre outcome for the wedding cake case. They seemed to have weaseled their way out of making a bigger statement, but so far it implies that you can discriminate against gay people, so how long will it take before a case about buying or renting a house is going to pop up using this as a defense.

I am not surprised. The issue was so nuclear hot in the culture wars I am surprised the Supreme Court even took it on.

That being said, I am a bit disappointed but now state-by-state each legislature will need to either add or not add sexual orientation into their protected classes laws. This will clearly delineate where there is discrimintation based on sexual orientation and where there is not. I think you all know where that leads.

Here is a highlight of what the court has said....

Kennedy was also perturbed by the fact that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission allowed bakers to refuse to bake cakes with anti-gay images and text. This “disparate consideration,” he wrote, further illustrates the commission’s “hostility to religion.”

As Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg notes in her dissent—joined only by Justice Sonia Sotomayor—this comparison is quite odd, since Charlie Craig and Dave Mullins did not request any text on their cake. Ginsburg thoroughly debunks this strange line of reasoning, highlighting the fact that Phillips turned away Craig and Mullins because of their identity, not any particular message. Justices Elena Kagan and Stephen Breyer make a similar point in their concurrence. On the other end of the ideological spectrum, Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch signaled their belief that Phillips probably does have a free-speech right to reject gay customers. This sharp split will have to simmer until the court takes a similar case.

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/06/the-supreme-courts-decision-in-masterpiece-cakeshop-is-a-kennedy-compromise.html

**skyth**

The hostility was from the Colorado Human Rights commission, not the plaintiffs. And the result was due to that. Thus this is a narrow ruling and not applicable to other things.

Orientation was already among the protected classes in Colorado from what I understand so what states have as protected classes is null and void.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
This is a quote I found explaining the situation:

“For those either horrified by or celebrating the Supreme Court’s decision overruling the Colorado findings that a Christian baker could not refuse to make a wedding cake for a gay couple....”I don’t think it means what you think it means.” It’s actually a very narrow decision. One of the frustrating things about law for non-lawyers is that appellate courts only review the process and the grounds relied upon for the lower court decision, not ‘what would be a right and fair outcome overall.’

In this case, the Supreme Court’s decision is essentially that the Baker’s claim didn’t get a fair HEARING (not to be confused with a fair OUTCOME). The issue everyone wants to know about is essentially left for some future case to decide. So take a breath everyone.”

Still doesn't mean certain people think that this court case means that they have the right to make you follow their religious beliefs.

**Kilkrazy**

What is it with fancy bakers and gay cakes? A similar case is coming to the Supreme Court in the UK.

In a spirit of multiculturalism and sharing, here is a British comic strip about a pair of unsuccessful though persistent bakers.

**d-usa**

Prestor Jon wrote:
d-usa wrote:
Identity politics are always a risky bet, but it could fire up the democratic base and erode GOP support from moderates in the midterms.

Trump isn’t entitled to any SCOTUS picks after the midterms if the Democrats take the Senate (as unlikely as that is). Mitch has made it clear that the voters get to pick for vacancies with a new POTUS. So there is an urgency with liberal judges getting up there in age.

We could also see a push for a new civil rights bill or amendment, which would likely be vetoed anyway, but could be a driver to bring out votes for democrats.

Clinton nominated Breyer and Obama nominated Kagan and they both sided with the majority in this case. Kennedy sided with the majority as well and he wrote the opinion in pretty much every important SCOTUS gay rights decision. I think this case had more to do with setting limits as to what states can do in the name of anti discrimination than with the idea that the GOP stacked SCOTUS with homophobic justices.

It was a very narrow ruling, and could have been more broad. It could add more weight to the need to maintain the current balances rather than tilt it 6-3 or more of Trump gets confirmed nominations after the midterms.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
https://www.npr.org/2018/06/04/616818561/epa-chiefs-latest-ethics-issue-used-mattress-from-a-trump-hotel

.......okay then.

**Co'tor Shas**

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/06/04/ex-navy-sailor-pardoned-by-trump-says-hes-suing-comey-and-obama.amp.html

A lawsuit of Trumpian proportions.

**Steelmage99**

Co'tor Shas wrote:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/06/04/ex-navy-sailor-pardoned-by-trump-says-hes-suing-comey-and-obama.amp.html

A lawsuit of Trumpian proportions.

".....But her emails!"

Sigh.

**Ustrello**

Co'tor Shas wrote:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/06/04/ex-navy-sailor-pardoned-by-trump-says-hes-suing-comey-and-obama.amp.html

A lawsuit of Trumpian proportions.

Question for our resident legal eagles. Could one of the other submariners sue Saucier for possibly endangering there lives because of him taking those pictures?