USA Politics

Pretty much every single reasonable review of the Comey testimony suggests it was damaging to Trump without being devastating. I never saw any reasonable reports suggesting Trump himself was being investigated. Quite frankly, I don't think Donald Trump is smart enough to collaborate with the Russians.
 
Mosh said:
Can the US be trusted to hold its end in a deal that is supposed to last well beyond the current government makeup? [...] a conversation about weakening the executive branch would be a start.
Click to expand...

The short answer to the first question is, "Probably not, at least not if there's a significant part of the US population that doesn't think the deal is good for US interests." That was supposed to be the purpose of getting treaties ratified, so that the US only entered long-term deals where there was broad consensus that the US wanted those deals -- not just a slim majority negotiating a deal that a large minority didn't want and would probably undo in a few years when political winds shifted, as they do periodically, and that minority became the majority.

Example from 45 years ago: when the US pulled out of the Vietnam war, it agreed to keep South Vietnam supplied with military equipment to continue fighting off the North, which was still bent on conquering the South. That deal was negotiated by Republican president Nixon. A year or so later, the Democratic-majority Congress eliminated most of the military aid to South Vietnam in the 1975 budget it passed, and when the North launched its final offensive in 1975, South Vietnam was overrun in a couple of months.
 
The problem is that other countries are starting to notice that a) the US aren't a reliable global partner anymore, and b) the economic impact of the US on the world is not the same as it used to be. A lot of Americans are about to learn the hard way what that means for them.
 
Sanity prevails.



The Supreme Court struck down part of a federal law that denies trademark protection of terms that disparage living or dead.

The ruling could benefit the NFL's Washington Redskins, whose trademark was canceled based on the same law in a separate proceeding.

"Holding that the registration of a trademark converts the mark into government speech would constitute a huge and dangerous extension of the government-speech doctrine, for other systems of government registration (such as copyright) could easily be characterized in the same way," Justice Samuel Alito wrote in the majority opinion.

"The commercial market is well stocked with merchandise that disparages prominent figures and groups, and the line between commercial and non-commercial speech is not always clear, as this case illustrates," Alito added. "If affixing the commercial label permits the suppression of any speech that may lead to political or social 'volatility,' free speech would be endangered."

The case at hand involves Simon Tam, an Asian-American musician and political activist who named his rock band "The Slants" in an attempt to take back a term that once directed as an insult. He sought to register the name with the trademark office.

The request was denied on the ground that it is disparaging to "persons of Asian descent."

But it has wider impact.

"The case also has obvious implications for the similar dispute involving the Washington Redskins, who had their trademark canceled under the same statute and theory that the justices invalidated today," said Steve Vladeck, CNN legal analyst and professor at the University of Texas School of law. "It should now follow that their trademark also should not have been invalidated."

The Washington Redskins Attorney Lisa Blatt said the team was "thrilled" with the decision.

"The Team is thrilled with today's unanimous decision as it resolves the Redskins' long-standing dispute with the government," she told CNN in a statement. "The Supreme Court vindicated the Team's position that the First Amendment blocks the government from denying or canceling a trademark registration based on the government's opinion."
 
What was the ruling, 5-4 for striking down?

Overall, I agree with it not being illegal. I also agree that the name of the Washington team is probably really offensive to some people, and they should certainly consider changing it.
 
For good or ill, the Trump "CNN is fake news" meme just grew new legs:
P.S. Interesting (to me anyway) side note, John Bonifield is my cousin.
 
Some lady is suing United for letting her child overheat on the runway. I was in this situation once, summer, desert, noon, plane on the runway, AC off, toilets off, seatbelts on, and melt on 55C while they get the taxi or jetway. It's outrageous

P.S. 'Russian narrative' is bullshit but so is Donald J. Trump. What you see here is the bane of US politics, it's liberal camp creating narratives, inflating mice into elephants and straight up lying to the public, just to diss Trump who is an incompetent lying idiot himself, and an easy target even without shenanigans. Just look at how EU politicians are handling him, they don't need constructs and lies to roast him.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Trump, Moon summit faces ‘no good options’ on North Korea
North Korea is a small country, but the Kim Jong Un regime is expected to loom large at the first summit between U.S. President Donald Trump and South Korean President Moon Jae-in.

Trump and Moon, who will meet for the first time Thursday, face the same challenge: a belligerent Pyongyang that has refused, for the most part, to comply with international calls for denuclearization.

The two leaders have also been the targets of North Korea bluster. Pyongyang recently claimed Trump’s immigration policy is a U.S. version of Nazism, and accused Moon of following an “imperialist” ally.

But despite Moon’s statements stressing commonalities with Trump’s approach to North Korea, others are not so sure whether the two men, an American billionaire real estate developer, and a South Korean human rights lawyer, would see eye to eye at the crucial summit.

Marcus Noland, an expert on North Korea at the Peterson Institute for International Economics in Washington, D.C., told UPI in a phone interview the United States and South Korea are on a “potentially dangerous trajectory at this point” because of different approaches to North Korea.

“The problem we face now is just at the moment where there is some evidence both the United States and China are starting to increase pressure on North Korea, the Moon government comes along and is signaling with various degrees of enthusiasm from day to day a more forward-leaning engagement policy,” Noland said, adding pressure with a side of diplomacy is an approach the United States and South Korea should share.

China is a key player, but a South Korean lifeline to Pyongyang could upset the balance of cooperation on sanctions, the analyst added.

“It’s important to remember Beijing will not take a harder line on North Korea than Seoul does,” Noland said. “So if Seoul goes in there and starts this kind of engagement, whatever kind of cooperation we’ve been getting out of China over the last six months is going to dry up.”
Click to expand...
 
Travis The Dragon said:
evil, corrupt, biased left wing liberal news networks.
Click to expand...

As opposed to the good-hearted, honest fair and balanced, independent right wing conservative news networks?

You have very low understanding for the separation of powers, an important aspect of democracy. The President's job is not to decide which media outlets are credible and not, and definitely not to fight the ones he does not like. If he thinks something said by a news outlet constitutes libel, he is free to take them to court. He sure likes to threaten people with that.

You of all people on here should be worried when the president seems to want total control of what the media say about him, seeing as you are worried that freedoms will be taken away from you. Here's a clue: If Obama can do it, Trump can too.
 
The sentence I hear most from well-meaning, conservative friends since President Trump’s election is this: “We suffered 8 years under Barack Obama.”

Fair enough. Let’s take a look.
Click to expand...
*impressive list of achievements follows* See:
https://tericarter.wordpress.com/2017/07/10/8-years-of-suffering-under-obama/
President Obama was not perfect, as no man and no president is, and you can certainly disagree with his political ideologies. But to say we suffered?

If that’s the argument, if this is how we suffered for 8 years under Barack Obama, I have one wish: may we be so fortunate as to suffer 8 more exactly like it.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top