• Cyburbia is a friendly big tent, where we share our experiences and thoughts about urban planning practice, the built environment, planning adjacent topics, and anything else that comes to mind. No ads, no spam, and it's free. It's easy to join!

NEVERENDING ♾️ The NEVERENDING Political Discussion Thread

Planit said:
Are we killing drug smugglers in boats, then pardoning their bosses?

Is that the new policy/executive order?
Click to expand...

It is a very anti-marxist approach though - kill the laborers that created the value for the person bribing for requesting a pardon.
 
I think Pew's News Media Tracker tool is fascinating.


www.pewresearch.org

News Media Tracker

Pew Research Center’s News Media Tracker shows data on Americans’ awareness of, use of and trust in 30 major news sources to map out part of the U.S. media ecosystem.
www.pewresearch.org www.pewresearch.org
 
1765229716713.png
 
On the one hand, I'm glad he didn't tell us he was declaring war on Venezuela.
On the other hand, I wish he told us he was declaring war on Venezuela.

TL/dr: That was no Gettysburg Address.
 
Unfortunately, his 18-minute dribble is going to turn into 18 hours of over analysis to tell us nothing new - just like what he said.
 
build a ballroom as a memorial to him
rename 2 cultural institutions as memorials to him
name a future battleship fleet as a memorial to him


ya know, it's amazing he wants his name on everything except in his buddy's records & emails
 
Planit said:
build a ballroom as a memorial to him
rename 2 cultural institutions as memorials to him
name a future battleship fleet as a memorial to him


ya know, it's amazing he wants his name on everything except in his buddy's records & emails
Click to expand...

Prediction... the next president of a different party will wipe his name off anything federally related. Personally, I am ok with that.
 
MD Planner said:
Or just die.


Oops. Did I say that out loud?
Click to expand...
They still need to do something amazing if they want their name on things. Think of how many dead presidents out there do not have their name on things because they didn't do anything amazing. They might have been a good president, but just didn't do anything. Winning the FIFA Peace Prize is not amazing.
 
DVD said:
The presidents name shouldn't be on anything. Dead presidents I'm okay with. Living ones need to do something amazing first and then die.
Click to expand...
With any luck, he'll be eligible to have his name on stuff soon. It should still be removed.
 
I am not sure how I feel about the situation with Venezuela. I keep going back and forth on it because it appeared that Maduro needed to be removed, but I am not sold on how we went about doing it. I hear people commenting about Muammar Gaddafi, but I am not sure it is the same thing.
 
michaelskis said:
I am not sure how I feel about the situation with Venezuela. I keep going back and forth on it because it appeared that Maduro needed to be removed, but I am not sold on how we went about doing it. I hear people commenting about Muammar Gaddafi, but I am not sure it is the same thing.
Click to expand...
I am not 100% sure, but I believe that even in the Gaddafi case, Congress was aware and had given approval to make a strike - as required under Article 1 Section 8. The best comparable may be the military extradition of Noriega from Panama under Bush I, because Congress did not authorize that maneuver. The problem with that comparable is that it is still considered by most to have been an illegal exercise of the use of military force. I don't know a bunch about this stuff, but this is what I'm hearing if it's helpful at all.
 
Seems that we did what we always do. Remove a bad dude from a foreign country amid a vague take on US law. The world laments our actions out loud, while likely being generally ok with a bad dude being removed and having the USA do this behind closed doors. The corporate overlords that really run the world are happy with higher oil profits, their media divisions happy with people tuning in and clocking online with new ratings driving ad buys. New leader put into a nation with a long transition ahead. The news cycle spins up new distraction.

...so it goes...
 
zman said:
Seems that we did what we always do. Remove a bad dude from a foreign country amid a vague take on US law. The world laments our actions out loud, while likely being generally ok with a bad dude being removed and having the USA do this behind closed doors. The corporate overlords that really run the world are happy with higher oil profits, their media divisions happy with people tuning in and clocking online with new ratings driving ad buys. New leader put into a nation with a long transition ahead. The news cycle spins up new distraction.

...so it goes...
Click to expand...

Geeze... you make it sound like a global aristocracy and not just a US aristocracy.
 
Planit said:
I'm so confused. Didn't he just pardon the jailed former president of Honduras, who's done the exact same drug-trafficking thing?

Wait, never mind. They don't have yuge oil reserves in Honduras.
Click to expand...


It's all about the oil. tRump told oil companies about the invasion, but not congress!?!?!?!?!?!

www.rawstory.com

Trump shocks as he reveals who he first told of attack: 'Can’t tell you how insane'

President Donald Trump is facing renewed calls for impeachment over his unprecedented attack on Venezuela and failure to notify Congress in advance, but while aboard Air Force One Sunday night he made a startling admission about which group he did inform ahead of the operation.Trump admitted...
www.rawstory.com www.rawstory.com
 
A lot like Joseph Conrad's "Nostromo", (...short for Nostro Huomo, our guy...)

All about pillaging by foreigners in a setting much like Venezuela.
 
Wife and I were talking about the Venezuela thing yesterday because one of her patients is from there. The patient said the horrific conditions in the country were what made them leave and for the first time in a while, they are considering returning home.

So, yea... I am not 100% sold on the legality of how we did it, but the more I learn about how he ran the country and the effects it had on the US, the more I think that we are a better world without him running Venezuela.
 
kjel said:
In case you were wondering how quickly HUD is devolving…

Facebook

www.facebook.com www.facebook.com
Click to expand...
We got funds yesterday, so that was nice. We usually get them around Oct 1, but I guess late is better than nothing. Most of our funding goes to the local food bank and utility assistance. We don't get much. So far its been a warm winter so it probably works out.
 
bureaucrat#3 said:
We got funds yesterday, so that was nice. We usually get them around Oct 1, but I guess late is better than nothing. Most of our funding goes to the local food bank and utility assistance. We don't get much. So far its been a warm winter so it probably works out.
Click to expand...
We got our agreements a few weeks ago too. I am surprised because the AG's office sent them back with a statement that said we would not comply with Executive Orders that violate federal laws and regulations or state laws.

I manage the state's HOME and HTF allocations :)
 
I don't know what agreement the US has with Denmark but they really need to just kick out the US if they can. Trump needs to drop the "we need Greenland" rhetoric. Other countries can backfill or Denmark can increase their military. They are a NATO ally and we do have a military presence.
 
SlaveToTheGrind said:
I don't know what agreement the US has with Denmark but they really need to just kick out the US if they can. Trump needs to drop the "we need Greenland" rhetoric. Other countries can backfill or Denmark can increase their military. They are a NATO ally and we do have a military presence.
Click to expand...
Sometime soon, Trump will unilaterally declare Greenland a US Protectorate and just slowly absorb it into America de facto. What can Denmark or NATO do about it, really?

Denmark's rule over Greenland has not been exemplary at all times. But, as my signature reads "Greenland is for Greenlanders" and they, alone, should be deciding their future. Trump's scumbagginess just keeps getting stinkier and stinkier.
 
Several ICE agents had their rooms canceled at a Hilton Hotel in Minnesota after the discovered the agents worked for ICE.

What are your thoughts on this? Should a business be able to deny service to people who they disagree with?
 
michaelskis said:
Several ICE agents had their rooms canceled at a Hilton Hotel in Minnesota after the discovered the agents worked for ICE.

What are your thoughts on this? Should a business be able to deny service to people who they disagree with?
Click to expand...
Complicated. I don't like the idea of people being judged solely on their status or occupation, BUT, ICE has made a pretty dirty, messy bed with how they've operated this year. That makes me wonder how much cancellations like that may have had to do with not wanting to invite trouble. Cleaning and other service staff at hotels - at least a lot of them - are dominated by immigrants. Maybe management is just thinking it's a bad idea, or even cruel, to put your staff around ICE agents when they have kind of established a pattern of detaining, harassing, and then getting their info straight later. I know that's what would be on my mind in that situation.

The problem is that the question is the wrong question I guess. This administration and a bunch of the agencies working for it do not demonstrate any respect for norms, rules, rights, or just basic decency and decorum. Right or wrong, I don't think they ought to expect anything but reciprocity. Not going to be pretty. The hotel's strategy is probably like unto that of ICE, i.e.: maybe we're wrong. Take us to court, bitches. Meanwhile, sleep in your unmarked vehicle out on the streets, tough guys. Peace out.
 
ursus said:
Complicated. I don't like the idea of people being judged solely on their status or occupation, BUT, ICE has made a pretty dirty, messy bed with how they've operated this year. That makes me wonder how much cancellations like that may have had to do with not wanting to invite trouble. Cleaning and other service staff at hotels - at least a lot of them - are dominated by immigrants. Maybe management is just thinking it's a bad idea, or even cruel, to put your staff around ICE agents when they have kind of established a pattern of detaining, harassing, and then getting their info straight later. I know that's what would be on my mind in that situation.

The problem is that the question is the wrong question I guess. This administration and a bunch of the agencies working for it do not demonstrate any respect for norms, rules, rights, or just basic decency and decorum. Right or wrong, I don't think they ought to expect anything but reciprocity. Not going to be pretty. The hotel's strategy is probably like unto that of ICE, i.e.: maybe we're wrong. Take us to court, bitches. Meanwhile, sleep in your unmarked vehicle out on the streets, tough guys. Peace out.
Click to expand...
I guess the question is where is the threshold of where it is acceptable and where it is not, and to make it more complicated, who gets to decide that line? Can restaurants deny service to ICE if they are there to eat?

What about FBI or IRS? What about National Guard troops? What about just groups that you don't agree with? Looking back to the Colorado Baker case, it is a fine line of what is and is not acceptable.

For a hotel, I think it is more sensitive because of the possibility of who is working to clean and maintain the property. Even if they are here legally, does this put them at jeopardy?

mendelman said:
Yes. See: Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission
Click to expand...
That was my first thought until I read through it and the premise was the action was as part of something that was in opposition to that persons religious beliefs. I don't know if this gets to that level though.
 
michaelskis said:
For a hotel, I think it is more sensitive because of the possibility of who is working to clean and maintain the property. Even if they are here legally, does this put them at jeopardy?
Click to expand...
It think you're right, and it is definitely a fine line. I guess that my point is just that in any other moment I would be likely to answer with a moral rather than legal point of view and say businesses shouldn't refuse service based solely on agreeing with some groups political or other affiliations. In this moment of American history I feel not so sure.

The Colorado case (thanks for linking, @mendelman ) didn't fully resolve the question because of the demonstrated partiality of the Commission against the bakery's religious objections. Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Religion are not rights being violated by the hotel in this example, and they're the only ones dealt with in the Supreme Court case as I read that article.

If the hotel is refusing service for some other reason - e.g. the likelihood of trouble between staff and the agents, or altercations with other patrons because of perceptions about ICE generally - then I think they are probably on good ground to have concerns and refuse the service, both morally and legally. If I ran a restaurant and the Black Panthers had reserved a party room, I might think twice about seating three tables full of the Aryan brotherhood and it might not have anything to do with how I felt about either group's politics. I just don't want my restaurant burned down.
 
michaelskis said:
I guess the question is where is the threshold of where it is acceptable and where it is not, and to make it more complicated, who gets to decide that line? Can restaurants deny service to ICE if they are there to eat?

What about FBI or IRS? What about National Guard troops? What about just groups that you don't agree with? Looking back to the Colorado Baker case, it is a fine line of what is and is not acceptable.

For a hotel, I think it is more sensitive because of the possibility of who is working to clean and maintain the property. Even if they are here legally, does this put them at jeopardy?


That was my first thought until I read through it and the premise was the action was as part of something that was in opposition to that persons religious beliefs. I don't know if this gets to that level though.
Click to expand...
Free speech is free speech. Disagreement is disagreement. The 3rd constitutional amendment limits the governments quartering in private property.
 
michaelskis said:
Several ICE agents had their rooms canceled at a Hilton Hotel in Minnesota after the discovered the agents worked for ICE.

What are your thoughts on this? Should a business be able to deny service to people who they disagree with?
Click to expand...
Yes but they can't say why.
 
Back
Top