ButtersA glass of some milksRegistered Userregular
Even the Bush administration openly scoffed at "international law" as a concept. Republicans only care about violations of UN resolutions when it's someone else.
Remember, conservationism consists of exactly one proposition: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.
Even the Bush administration openly scoffed at "international law" as a concept. Republicans only care about violations of UN resolutions when it's someone else.
To be fair, so do Democrats. It's not like any of the wars Obama started were any more legal. (Also, nobody cares about resolutions because they are non-binding. We're talking about a convention, a binding treaty signed by the US.)
Anyway, the issue is not really international law, which can be ignored by the US without repercussion*, but the implementation of the convention in US law. For all treaties the US just creates a law that says "we will abide by this treaty, like this", and then policy is created based on that law. The question is whether Trump is violating that law.
*and aside from that can simply be exited if it's a treaty and has no weight outside of that. It's all still sovereign nations just making an agreement.
Even the Bush administration openly scoffed at "international law" as a concept. Republicans only care about violations of UN resolutions when it's someone else.
To be fair, so do Democrats. It's not like any of the wars Obama started were any more legal. (Also, nobody cares about resolutions because they are non-binding. We're talking about a convention, a binding treaty signed by the US.)
Anyway, the issue is not really international law, which can be ignored by the US without repercussion*, but the implementation of the convention in US law. For all treaties the US just creates a law that says "we will abide by this treaty, like this", and then policy is created based on that law. The question is whether Trump is violating that law.
*and aside from that can simply be exited if it's a treaty and has no weight outside of that. It's all still sovereign nations just making an agreement.
As one of your trading partners, I can assure you that Democrats are a lot better about this shit then Republicans.
+6
Options
JuliusCaptain of Serenityon my shipRegistered Userregular
Yeah this is what I was expecting. I think it is clear that the Trump administration is violating established federal law. The INA included the language of the treaty, and the new rules are too broad to be legal.
Of course, they haven't been packing the courts for nothing. :?
They're holding the vote now to condemn the presidents tweets as racist. It's been pretty much down party lines with 1 republican voting with the Democrats so far
I don't even understand the vote really. It condemns the presidents statements, but actually does nothing. Seems it's just political theatre. It's nice seeing some Republicans voting with democrats though.
Also, I hope this is the appropriate thread for this discussion.
I don't even understand the vote really. It condemns the presidents statements, but actually does nothing. Seems it's just political theatre. It's nice seeing some Republicans voting with democrats though.
Also, I hope this is the appropriate thread for this discussion.
Votes like this are pretty much theater. But it’s a formal statement that they condemn his statements. This way when the time comes for attack ads you have an actual vote to point to where Republicans we’re fine with Trump being a racist.
Not that they weren’t before, it’s just official now.
They're holding the vote now to condemn the presidents tweets as racist. It's been pretty much down party lines with 1 republican voting with the Democrats so far
Unfortunately, the simple act of calling for the vote caused Nancy Pelosi to violate the rules of the House.
The first 20 or so minutes of All Things Considered tonight were about that vote and the tweets thing in general, and man somebody must have just had enough, because there was no dancing around anything. No "racially charged" or "what some consider" or whatever. Just flat out calling his tweets and general action racist multiple times.
It boggles my mind that the GOP still pulls this kind of shit, then are BAFFLED when their female GOP constituents in Congress strangely disappear. Oh, you HAD congresswomen within the GOP, then you latched onto the most bigoted public speaker alive as your leader. Now only the most craven, greedy women stick by you, or the ones already broken that 'know their place'.
Quiotu on
0
Options
Metzger MeisterIt Gets Worsebefore it gets any better.Registered Userregular
I think this incident is different because of the targets of the racism primarily, being high profile popular public figures and all, but I think it's also just the ugliness of the "go back to your own country" style statement. It is so blatantly, nakedly disgusting and racist that it is probably considered lazy screenwriting to have a racist say that on your script. And there's no denying it with any kind of conviction beyond "nothing we do is racist because racism ended with the 13th amendment" types.
+9
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
One is Collins, presumably. She is really worried about her next election.
I look forward to the day when Joni Ernst and Deb Fischer are given the boot in this area. I notice how deathly silent they've become under Trump's presidency... almost like they want people to forget they're there hoisting Trump's policies up like a feminine Uncle Tom.
One is Collins, presumably. She is really worried about her next election.
I look forward to the day when Joni Ernst and Deb Fischer are given the boot in this area. I notice how deathly silent they've become under Trump's presidency... almost like they want people to forget they're there hoisting Trump's policies up like a feminine Uncle Tom.
One is Collins, presumably. She is really worried about her next election.
Wrong side of Congress.
+5
Options
MeeqeLord of the pants most fancySomeplace amazingRegistered Userregular
After the birther nonsense that Trump stirred up its hard to believe that anyone didn't see exactly this coming. Its like beating that drum was how Trump clawed his face into political relevancy in the first place or something. The GOP can't claim they didn't know he was like this, they're just embarassed that one of their former PR flacks took over the party and is saying the quiet parts loud.
+5
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
edited July 2019
Dammit, my fingers were faster than my brain! I knew that.
That entire page is basically, "You may not criticize the President." It's creepy.
I'm incredibly over this government and the niceties the parties agree to play by, but then the one side is in constant violation of it and doesn't really give a shit while the other is willing to abandon policy because of it. "Hey man you hurt my feelings," "Oh shit we better let them cage people to apologize."
That entire page is basically, "You may not criticize the President." It's creepy.
Probably a hold over from Parliament. You can disagree with a person's views, but not question their character - kind of holds now as them being representatives of the people.
As a member of the opposition, you have to publicly accept that the opposition is operating in good faith otherwise the whole system breaks down and people start shooting again.
Outside of the system of government you can call him all you want, but within - you can't call him a racist or liar, but you can publicly put into record how the facts are not what he says and he should have known this very obvious thing.
And the fact that he didn't know this, shows him to be completely incapable and unfit for office, and thus impeachment. You can't question his character, hence "I'm sure as honourable gentleman as the President must be - he clearly would have apologised after being made aware of the fact that the people he insulted here US citizens and even 3 of the 4 were born here. That he doubled down after being made aware of this fact shows that he must have severe memory issues that render him unfit to be President"
The reporter Conway asked to tell her their ethnicity? Andrew Feinberg, who is Jewish.
maybe not the optics you were looking for, Conway.
EDIT: intended to critique the GOP attempting to use "Anti-Semitism" as a bludgeon against a muslim member of congress, and then literally asking a Jewish dude what his ethnicity is when he's pressing them on Trump's racist-ass "go back" tweets
Lanz on
+6
Options
No-QuarterNothing To FearBut Fear ItselfRegistered Userregular
Christ but she is a fucking hideous person.
+57
Options
lonelyahavaCall me Ahava ~~She/Her~~Move to New ZealandRegistered Userregular
I watched that video earlier.
That is...
I agree with almost everything in that Silberman tweet. Only the people doing these things don't use the Rosary. So that's not particularly useful.
Somewhere Sartre is rolling in his grave at enough RPMs to power the whole of France and thinking to himself "How did I never consider the Anti-Semite would pretend to be friend to the Jewish People until the ruse had outgrown its usefulness to them."
Lanz on
+3
Options
Metzger MeisterIt Gets Worsebefore it gets any better.Registered Userregular
These motherfuckers all have the ugliest souls, I swear. Just rotten like an old stump.
Posts
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
Oh no for sure I don't think he gives a shit. I'm just saying that it is illegal so the question is what will happen.
Reporter from Buzzfeed
Anyway, the issue is not really international law, which can be ignored by the US without repercussion*, but the implementation of the convention in US law. For all treaties the US just creates a law that says "we will abide by this treaty, like this", and then policy is created based on that law. The question is whether Trump is violating that law.
*and aside from that can simply be exited if it's a treaty and has no weight outside of that. It's all still sovereign nations just making an agreement.
As one of your trading partners, I can assure you that Democrats are a lot better about this shit then Republicans.
Yeah this is what I was expecting. I think it is clear that the Trump administration is violating established federal law. The INA included the language of the treaty, and the new rules are too broad to be legal.
Of course, they haven't been packing the courts for nothing. :?
Also, I hope this is the appropriate thread for this discussion.
That veneer of plausible deniability does, though.
It won't matter to them until they start losing elections.
Meaning enough people have to care about the GOP's non-action and complacency to vote against them.
Votes like this are pretty much theater. But it’s a formal statement that they condemn his statements. This way when the time comes for attack ads you have an actual vote to point to where Republicans we’re fine with Trump being a racist.
Not that they weren’t before, it’s just official now.
Unfortunately, the simple act of calling for the vote caused Nancy Pelosi to violate the rules of the House.
I'm noticing an odd pattern with the dates those rules were added. Man, "The President doesn't care about black people..." takes me back.
And the GOP are crowing about it, like you do. Rules for thee, not me.
twitch.tv/Taramoor
@TaramoorPlays
Taramoor on Youtube
pleasepaypreacher.net
Another 'nevertheless, she persisted' for the Democrats to latch onto.
It’s even better cause what she spoke about was the President being racist. A two for one deal!
Battlenet ID: MildC#11186 - If I'm in the game, send me an invite at anytime and I'll play.
Good. She should be.
I look forward to the day when Joni Ernst and Deb Fischer are given the boot in this area. I notice how deathly silent they've become under Trump's presidency... almost like they want people to forget they're there hoisting Trump's policies up like a feminine Uncle Tom.
Collins is a senator, this is in the house.
pleasepaypreacher.net
As an Iowa resident, I want Ernst gone so badly.
Wrong side of Congress.
Probably a hold over from Parliament. You can disagree with a person's views, but not question their character - kind of holds now as them being representatives of the people.
As a member of the opposition, you have to publicly accept that the opposition is operating in good faith otherwise the whole system breaks down and people start shooting again.
Outside of the system of government you can call him all you want, but within - you can't call him a racist or liar, but you can publicly put into record how the facts are not what he says and he should have known this very obvious thing.
And the fact that he didn't know this, shows him to be completely incapable and unfit for office, and thus impeachment. You can't question his character, hence "I'm sure as honourable gentleman as the President must be - he clearly would have apologised after being made aware of the fact that the people he insulted here US citizens and even 3 of the 4 were born here. That he doubled down after being made aware of this fact shows that he must have severe memory issues that render him unfit to be President"
Silberman is an author who writes on Neurodiversity
NBC News is NBC News
The reporter Conway asked to tell her their ethnicity? Andrew Feinberg, who is Jewish.
maybe not the optics you were looking for, Conway.
EDIT: intended to critique the GOP attempting to use "Anti-Semitism" as a bludgeon against a muslim member of congress, and then literally asking a Jewish dude what his ethnicity is when he's pressing them on Trump's racist-ass "go back" tweets
That is...
I agree with almost everything in that Silberman tweet. Only the people doing these things don't use the Rosary. So that's not particularly useful.
Democrats Abroad! || Vote From Abroad
Like based on what we know about Conway’s personal life it seems like it’s all an act for her, too