Widgets Magazine
Page 5 of 63 FirstFirst 1234567891055 ... LastLast
Results 101 to 125 of 1552
  1. #101

    Default Re: Trump's nominees and appointees

    Quote Originally Posted by Sancho View Post
    Maybe you arent following. Just because something works out poorly for an individual or group, it does not mean that individual or group was discriminated against or oppressed, regardless of what the law says. The law used to say "Seperate but equal", didnt it?
    I follow you. I'm just saying that discrimination itself is a legal term, and regardless as to whether someone was intentionally discriminated against, under certain circumstances where there is a disparate impact, those people may still be prosecuted for discrimination.

    Also, the law did used to say that, but luckily for the country, the law evolves and that is not the law anymore. One day, the law may remove disparate impact discrimination from the law, but that has not yet happened; in fact, the trend with the Supreme Court (even as conservative as it has been of late) has been to expand that concept.

  2. #102

    Default Re: Trump's nominees and appointees

    Oh know... Trump nominated Perdue for Ag Secretary. Someone with a huge agricultural background, and has a vet degree... I wonder what folks will come up with to try to disqualify this nominee?

  3. #103

    Default Re: Trump's nominees and appointees

    Quote Originally Posted by TexanOkie View Post
    I follow you. I'm just saying that discrimination itself is a legal term, and regardless as to whether someone was intentionally discriminated against, under certain circumstances where there is a disparate impact, those people may still be prosecuted for discrimination.

    Also, the law did used to say that, but luckily for the country, the law evolves and that is not the law anymore. One day, the law may remove disparate impact discrimination from the law, but that has not yet happened; in fact, the trend with the Supreme Court (even as conservative as it has been of late) has been to expand that concept.
    In legal context it is, not in the conversational context here. A law can be passed and applied today that says you are a douchenugget, but it doesnt make it so in any other context.

    The JP Morgan case does not show that minorities are discriminated against or oppressed in reality, it merely shows they have disparate outcomes. Just because certain legal entities have a warped philosophical view of "equality" (I.E. equality of outcome vs equality of law), it doesnt change reality. For there to be oppression there has to be an oppressor. If you think JP Morgan had a policy that said "charge blacks more" you are dreaming.

  4. #104

    Default Re: Trump's nominees and appointees

    Quote Originally Posted by jerrywall View Post
    Oh know... Trump nominated Perdue for Ag Secretary. Someone with a huge agricultural background, and has a vet degree... I wonder what folks will come up with to try to disqualify this nominee?
    His only knock I can find being talked about is he used federal money to help big ag conglomerates and chemical companies instead of small farmers. Not really a big issue.

  5. #105

    Default Re: Trump's nominees and appointees

    Quote Originally Posted by Sancho View Post
    In legal context it is, not in the conversational context here. A law can be passed and applied today that says you are a douchenugget, but it doesnt make it so in any other context.

    The JP Morgan case does not show that minorities are discriminated against or oppressed in reality, it merely shows they have disparate outcomes. Just because certain legal entities have a warped philosophical view of "equality" (I.E. equality of outcome vs equality of law), it doesnt change reality. For there to be oppression there has to be an oppressor. If you think JP Morgan had a policy that said "charge blacks more" you are dreaming.
    They may not have intended to do so, but they nevertheless did do so. They're settling the case for several reasons, and while I'm sure one is due to their calculated cost of defending themselves against the complaint, another appears to be because they don't have any documentation to support the higher rates given minorities. If they could support those different rates based on any neutral criteria, they would likely have a stronger defense.

  6. Default Re: Trump's nominees and appointees

    Rick Perry, unqualified and unfit to head the DoE.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/...b092a6cae559d6

  7. #107

    Default Re: Trump's nominees and appointees

    Quote Originally Posted by TheTravellers View Post
    Rick Perry, unqualified and unfit to head the DoE.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/...b092a6cae559d6
    Totally thought HuffPo would be on board with Perry...

    1. I thought this was already debunked.

    2. Obama's sec picks were the first to scientist since, well, I don't know. Virtually every one to serve this position has been a politician or lawyer (both mostly). I guess Bodman was a chemical engineer.

    3.
    He has iffy, potentially dangerous, views on nuclear.
    Did they really write that? Seriously

    4. I think HuffPo is conflating Climate Change with extreme taxation schemes to fix it.

    5. So what...energy sec? This is surprising? and is always a week attack. ALL politicians favor business in their state. He's from Texas. You do the math.

    6. Giving him too much credit may be a stretch I agree, however it doesn't stop HuffPo from using it is a critique (somehow) to make him unfit.

    7. Ummm... did I mention he's a politician. We seem to have a problem with this, or haven't you heard?

    8. I'm sure his position has evolved now that he is charged with running said department. I wouldn't worry about him shutting it down now.

    Stop reading HuffPo.

    For being as well read as you say, all you post is HuffPo and Slate (or Salon I can't remember right now).

  8. #108

    Default Re: Trump's nominees and appointees

    Quote Originally Posted by TheTravellers View Post
    Rick Perry, unqualified and unfit to head the DoE.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/...b092a6cae559d6
    Quote Originally Posted by Eric View Post
    Totally thought HuffPo would be on board with Perry...

    1. I thought this was already debunked.

    2. Obama's sec picks were the first to scientist since, well, I don't know. Virtually every one to serve this position has been a politician or lawyer (both mostly). I guess Bodman was a chemical engineer.

    3. Did they really write that? Seriously

    4. I think HuffPo is conflating Climate Change with extreme taxation schemes to fix it.

    5. So what...energy sec? This is surprising? and is always a week attack. ALL politicians favor business in their state. He's from Texas. You do the math.

    6. Giving him too much credit may be a stretch I agree, however it doesn't stop HuffPo from using it is a critique (somehow) to make him unfit.

    7. Ummm... did I mention he's a politician. We seem to have a problem with this, or haven't you heard?

    8. I'm sure his position has evolved now that he is charged with running said department. I wouldn't worry about him shutting it down now.

    Stop reading HuffPo.

    For being as well read as you say, all you post is HuffPo and Slate (or Salon I can't remember right now).
    While I am not fan of Rick Perry (I did not vote for him for Texas governor when I lived there), and with all of the major concerns with Perry running the Energy Department, I find it somewhat funny that, of all of Trump's controversial nominees, Perry seems to be handling his confirmation hearing the best (at least, when compared with expectations going in).

  9. Default Re: Trump's nominees and appointees

    Quote Originally Posted by Eric View Post
    Totally thought HuffPo would be on board with Perry...

    1. I thought this was already debunked.

    2. Obama's sec picks were the first to scientist since, well, I don't know. Virtually every one to serve this position has been a politician or lawyer (both mostly). I guess Bodman was a chemical engineer.

    3. Did they really write that? Seriously

    4. I think HuffPo is conflating Climate Change with extreme taxation schemes to fix it.

    5. So what...energy sec? This is surprising? and is always a week attack. ALL politicians favor business in their state. He's from Texas. You do the math.

    6. Giving him too much credit may be a stretch I agree, however it doesn't stop HuffPo from using it is a critique (somehow) to make him unfit.

    7. Ummm... did I mention he's a politician. We seem to have a problem with this, or haven't you heard?

    8. I'm sure his position has evolved now that he is charged with running said department. I wouldn't worry about him shutting it down now.

    Stop reading HuffPo.

    For being as well read as you say, all you post is HuffPo and Slate (or Salon I can't remember right now).
    1 - Headline might be incorrect, but Perry actually said this: "The other one is the Department of Energy. They’ve never created one bit of energy the best I can tell."

    Does that sound like someone who knows what they do? Now he does, I'll bet, after being briefed by Trumpians.

    2 - The article says this: As Perry supporters have noted, being a scientist is not a prerequisite for the job of energy secretary. However, as theoretical physicist Lawrence Krauss explained in a piece for The New York Times last month, the person who takes up the mantle “should be someone who is at least familiar with the strategic issues associated with both nuclear power and nuclear weapons,” and who has “at least a modicum of policy experience with some of the vast array of fundamental science supported by the agency.”

    Does Perry sound like he meets Krauss's expectations?

    3 - Do you just read the headlines on the points or the whole point? He's very naive about the role nuclear weapons play in the world and Iran's part in it.

    4 - What extreme taxation are you talking about?

    5 - So you see no problem with conflicts of interest between the DoE's policies about climate change and his "drill baby drill" policies in TX?

    6 - Yes, somewhat weak, but their point was that he'd most likely not give much credence or support to non-fossil-fuel things, so still worrisome, but shouldn't really be in there (when reading the article, I did think "why is this that big of a deal?").

    7 - I suspect the problem people have with this is that he'd bring cronyism for all his fossil-fuel buddies into the DoE.

    8 - Well, yeah, he's not going to put himself out of a job, but that doesn't mean he's fully in line with what the DoE does and should do.

  10. #110

    Default Re: Trump's nominees and appointees

    Quote Originally Posted by Eric View Post
    Totally thought HuffPo would be on board with Perry...

    Stop reading HuffPo.
    Right because its fake news!
    This probably is as well.
    Mr. Perry gladly accepted, believing he was taking on a role as a global ambassador for the American oil and gas industry that he had long championed in his home state.
    Really? Pantex assembles and dismantles nuclear weapons in Texas and the former Governor doesn't know that's under the DOE's purview?

    But, fake news. Confirm him. This cabinet is gonna be good for laughs especially when stuff starts blowing up.

  11. #111

    Default Re: Trump's nominees and appointees

    What does a trump cheerleader's uniform look like?

    Oh yeah:

    Most fun president ever.
    Best president for comedy ever.
    Seriously, I refuse to get mad. He won and now the jokes come.

    Its inspiring. See, I made a rhyme and that's art!

  12. #112

    Default Re: Trump's nominees and appointees

    Quote Originally Posted by TheTravellers View Post
    1 - Headline might be incorrect, but Perry actually said this: "The other one is the Department of Energy. They’ve never created one bit of energy the best I can tell."

    Does that sound like someone who knows what they do? Now he does, I'll bet, after being briefed by Trumpians.
    Technically the quote is true. I'm sure he was using it to make a point. I could pull quote a zillion things that could show how anyone is stupid (57 states anyone).

    Quote Originally Posted by TheTravellers View Post
    2 - The article says this: As Perry supporters have noted, being a scientist is not a prerequisite for the job of energy secretary. However, as theoretical physicist Lawrence Krauss explained in a piece for The New York Times last month, the person who takes up the mantle “should be someone who is at least familiar with the strategic issues associated with both nuclear power and nuclear weapons,” and who has “at least a modicum of policy experience with some of the vast array of fundamental science supported by the agency.”

    Does Perry sound like he meets Krauss's expectations?
    So do I agree with someone whom you have arbitrary decided is the arbiter of what is best for this selection. You act like he is going to be sitting in a bubble by himself pulling the levers of power. Come on.

    Quote Originally Posted by TheTravellers View Post
    3 - Do you just read the headlines on the points or the whole point? He's very naive about the role nuclear weapons play in the world and Iran's part in it.
    No I read it all, and it was equally perplexing. The guy was the governor of Texas, I'm sure he can figure this stuff out. You all act like these are a bunch of dunces out there doing this stuff when in reality they are likely light years smarter than all of us.

    Quote Originally Posted by TheTravellers View Post
    4 - What extreme taxation are you talking about?
    Generally speaking, my view of politicians favoring global warming policies is that it is incredibly convenient way to boost the cash level in the federal coughers. Generally speaking, most people I know don't deny that the climate does things, they just deny the political view on what the solution is.

    Quote Originally Posted by TheTravellers View Post
    5 - So you see no problem with conflicts of interest between the DoE's policies about climate change and his "drill baby drill" policies in TX?
    Not what I said but thanks for playing. I'm just making the point that it is hardly a trait that would "disqualify" (to use your language) someone from holding this position.

    Quote Originally Posted by TheTravellers View Post
    7 - I suspect the problem people have with this is that he'd bring cronyism for all his fossil-fuel buddies into the DoE.
    I think it is a problem as well, but not one that we are going to solve with any pick virtually any president would make.

    Quote Originally Posted by TheTravellers View Post
    8 - Well, yeah, he's not going to put himself out of a job, but that doesn't mean he's fully in line with what the DoE does and should do.
    Do people in government all have to "buy in" to be in these positions. A healthy dose of skepticism is a trait I would love to see in all politicians.

  13. #113

    Default Re: Trump's nominees and appointees

    Quote Originally Posted by Eric View Post



    Do people in government all have to "buy in" to be in these positions. A healthy dose of skepticism is a trait I would love to see in all politicians.
    How refreshing would it be for a head of one of these useless bureaucracies to stand up and admit that his entire department is not needed?

  14. #114

    Default Re: Trump's nominees and appointees

    Quote Originally Posted by Sancho View Post
    How refreshing would it be for a head of one of these useless bureaucracies to stand up and admit that his entire department is not needed?
    You're right, lets leave nuclear weapons to the states.

  15. #115

    Default Re: Trump's nominees and appointees

    Quote Originally Posted by Chadanth View Post
    You're right, lets leave nuclear weapons to the states.
    Im right about something I never said? Reading comprehension much?

  16. #116

    Default Re: Trump's nominees and appointees

    Quote Originally Posted by Sancho View Post
    Im right about something I never said? Reading comprehension much?
    Sarcasm much?

  17. #117

    Default Re: Trump's nominees and appointees

    Quote Originally Posted by Sancho View Post
    Keywords: Alleged, settled

    Disparate results do not mean mean discrimination or oppression.
    Key words: From 2010 to 2014, the agency’s Civil Rights Division obtained more than $1.4 billion in relief under fair housing laws, according to an August report.

    $1.4 billion. That is a lot of scratch for a non-issue.


    Hey look, more systemic racism:

    http://www.al.com/news/birmingham/in...labama_mu.html

  18. #118

    Default Re: Trump's nominees and appointees

    Quote Originally Posted by TexanOkie View Post
    They may not have intended to do so, but they nevertheless did do so. They're settling the case for several reasons, and while I'm sure one is due to their calculated cost of defending themselves against the complaint, another appears to be because they don't have any documentation to support the higher rates given minorities. If they could support those different rates based on any neutral criteria, they would likely have a stronger defense.
    If you believe that concept is logically valid then you must also admit that abortion, the minimum wage, and any climate change legislation that raises the cost of energy are discriminatory under the law and must be abolished.

  19. Default Re: Trump's nominees and appointees

    Sums it all up, with the exception of Tom Price's situation, which isn't as serious or conflicted as they think. Haven't checked into some of the rest of his cabinet yet, but will eventually, so not sure if what's in here is totally correct for them (I agree with the assessments of Perry, and Tillerson, though).

    The Trump Cabinet: Strangest Show On Earth

  20. #120

    Default Re: Trump's nominees and appointees

    Former head of Hate Group to be Trump's chief of staff of the Border Patrol

    https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/...administration

    Julie Kirchner, the former executive director of the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), has been named chief of staff at U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), the largest federal law enforcement agency of the United States Department of Homeland Security (DHS).

    Kirchner worked at America’s most influential anti-immigrant organization for almost ten years before leaving in 2015 to become an immigration advisor to the Trump campaign.

    The appointment, reported by multiple sources, suggests that President Trump intends to follow through with his promises to anti-immigrant advocates. Throughout his campaign, Trump worked closely with nativist leaders and has appointed individuals such as U.S. Sen. Jeff Sessions (Attorney General) and Mike Pompeo (Director of the Central Intelligence Agency) who maintain cozy relationships with America’s anti-immigrant movement.

    After Trump’s election, and certainly throughout his campaign, nativists have rejoiced with their newfound intimacy with the White House, and Kirchner’s appointment is only the latest of extremists groups suddenly enjoying a direct line to federal power.

    Since its founding in 1979, FAIR has push an agenda centered on a complete moratorium on all immigration to the United States and defined by vicious attacks on non-white immigrants. Its founder was white nationalist John Tanton, an avowed eugenicist who created the modern anti-immigrant movement in the United States.

    "I've come to the point of view that for European-American society and culture to persist requires a European-American majority, and a clear one at that,” Tanton wrote in 1993.

    Dan Stein, FAIR’s longtime president, has complained that today’s immigrants are engaged in “competitive breeding” to diminish the America’s white majority and campaigned to repeal a 1965 immigration law that ended racial quotas that restricted immigration to Europeans. He also served as editorial adviser for The Social Contract, a nativist hate journal Tanton publishes.

    In an interview with Tucker Carlson in 1997, Stein stated, “Should we be subsidizing people with low IQs to have as many children as possible, and not subsidizing those with high ones?"

    Kirchner was working at FAIR while Tanton served on FAIR’s board before the group quietly moved him to an advisory board position following a 2011 expose published by The New York Times that detailed Tanton’s racist views and associations.

    Tanton, who suffers from Parkinson’s disease, currently remains on FAIR’s advisory board.

  21. #121

    Default Re: Trump's nominees and appointees

    Quote Originally Posted by TexanOkie View Post
    They may not have intended to do so, but they nevertheless did do so. They're settling the case for several reasons, and while I'm sure one is due to their calculated cost of defending themselves against the complaint, another appears to be because they don't have any documentation to support the higher rates given minorities. If they could support those different rates based on any neutral criteria, they would likely have a stronger defense.
    I challenge you to come up with a single law or policy that I cant demonstrate affects one arbitrarily conjured group or another disparately.

    What you (and this misapplication of law) are suggesting is that equality under the law is discrimination.

    Do you want to talk about how ObamaCare discriminates against blacks? I do.

    Do you want to talk about why laws against murder and assault are discriminatory against blacks?

    Do you want to talk about how your same logic dictates that freedom itself is discriminatory against blacks?

  22. #122

    Default Re: Trump's nominees and appointees

    Quote Originally Posted by jerrywall View Post
    Oh know... Trump nominated Perdue for Ag Secretary. Someone with a huge agricultural background, and has a vet degree... I wonder what folks will come up with to try to disqualify this nominee?
    How did this concern end up panning out? Do you believe there will be significant opposition to this nominee in the same vein as Sessions or Pruitt?

  23. #123

    Default Re: Trump's nominees and appointees

    Quote Originally Posted by Sancho View Post
    I challenge you to come up with a single law or policy that I cant demonstrate affects one arbitrarily conjured group or another disparately.

    What you (and this misapplication of law) are suggesting is that equality under the law is discrimination.

    Do you want to talk about how ObamaCare discriminates against blacks? I do.

    Do you want to talk about why laws against murder and assault are discriminatory against blacks?

    Do you want to talk about how your same logic dictates that freedom itself is discriminatory against blacks?
    Are you saying that the impact to minority groups should not be a factor when drawing up laws?

  24. #124

    Default Re: Trump's nominees and appointees

    Quote Originally Posted by Cid View Post
    Are you saying that the impact to minority groups should not be a factor when drawing up laws?
    I am saying that if just because some arbitrarily drawn up group or another has disparate results it does not = discrimination.

    But also, more or less, yes to your question. If there is a valid reason that a driver's license must be obtained to drive on a public road for instance, then it makes no difference if one arbitrary minority or another is affected disparately by that law so long as each individual is treated the same under the law. If a law doesnt discriminate against any individual black person, for example, then it can not be discriminatory against blacks as a whole.

  25. Default Re: Trump's nominees and appointees

    Quote Originally Posted by Cid View Post
    How did this concern end up panning out? Do you believe there will be significant opposition to this nominee in the same vein as Sessions or Pruitt?
    Apparently he held prayers for rain (like Fallin, so it's a strike against him, IMO, but just a little one), and during his first term as governor of GA, a legislator gave him a $100,000 tax break on some property he purchased and he signed the bill without revealing a conflict of interest (good 'ol boy network at work, strike against him, IMO), he's a climate change denier (strike against him, IMO), and people suspect he'll put the interests of big ag ahead of small family farms (strike against him, IMO). But that's all BAU for this administration and Republicans in general, so he'll sail through. He's not quite as extreme and/or unqualified as some of the other nominees for the other agencies/depts, though.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Why I am still a Trump supporter..
    By SoonerQueen in forum Politics
    Replies: 333
    Last Post: 01-17-2019, 01:52 PM
  2. Donald Trump
    By Outhunder in forum Politics
    Replies: 205
    Last Post: 10-01-2015, 12:08 PM
  3. 2015 ULI Impact Award nominees
    By Pete in forum General Real Estate Topics
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 01-16-2015, 06:33 AM
  4. 2015 R&R Hall of Fame nominees
    By kelroy55 in forum Arts & Entertainment
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 10-16-2014, 04:13 PM
  5. Political Appointees as Ambassadors
    By ThomPaine in forum Politics
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 02-09-2014, 02:26 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO