Funny events in anti-woke world

[tstorm823]

Obviously, when making comparisons, there are reasonable limits. Contextually, for instance, a very reasonable boundary here is the Presidential Records Act, 1981.

The Presidential Records Act is to prevent the destruction of presidential records, not to prevent the retention of them.

 

[Silvanus]

The Presidential Records Act is to prevent the destruction of presidential records, not to prevent the retention of them.

"(g)(1) Upon the conclusion of a President’s term of office, or if a President serves consecutive terms upon the conclusion of the last term, the Archivist of the United States shall assume responsibility for the custody, control, and preservation of, and access to, the Presidential records of that President. The Archivist shall have an affirmative duty to make such records available to the public as rapidly and completely as possible consistent with the provisions of this chapter.

(2) The Archivist shall deposit all such Presidential records in a Presidential archival depository or another archival facility operated by the United States.".

Presidential Records (44 U.S.C. Chapter 22)

(44 U.S.C. Chapter 22) § 2201. Definitions § 2202. Ownership of Presidential records § 2203. Management and custody of Presidential records § 2204. Restrictions on access to Presidential records § 2205. Exceptions to restricted access § 2206. Regulations § 2207. Vice-Presidential records § Note...

www.archives.gov

 

[Seanchaidh]

"(g)(1) Upon the conclusion of a President’s term of office, or if a President serves consecutive terms upon the conclusion of the last term, the Archivist of the United States shall assume responsibility for the custody, control, and preservation of, and access to, the Presidential records of that President. The Archivist shall have an affirmative duty to make such records available to the public as rapidly and completely as possible consistent with the provisions of this chapter.

(2) The Archivist shall deposit all such Presidential records in a Presidential archival depository or another archival facility operated by the United States.".

Presidential Records (44 U.S.C. Chapter 22)

(44 U.S.C. Chapter 22) § 2201. Definitions § 2202. Ownership of Presidential records § 2203. Management and custody of Presidential records § 2204. Restrictions on access to Presidential records § 2205. Exceptions to restricted access § 2206. Regulations § 2207. Vice-Presidential records § Note...

www.archives.gov

this language doesn't seem to impose any duties on anyone but the Archivist of the United States.

 

[Silvanus]

this language doesn't seem to impose any duties on anyone but the Archivist of the United States.

Duties that are rendered impossible if the records are spirited away.

Though this is a little beside the point, as the point of posting that was to show how the Act doesn't merely concern the destruction of those records, but also how and where and by whom they should be kept. Making it a valid point of reference if we're considering historical precedents on those questions.

 

[Seanchaidh]

Duties that are rendered impossible if the records are spirited away.

Though this is a little beside the point, as the point of posting that was to show how the Act doesn't merely concern the destruction of those records, but also how and where and by whom they should be kept. Making it a valid point of reference if we're considering historical precedents on those questions.

OK. What is the redress for spiriting those records away? US law typically specifies what is supposed to happen when the language of a law is not followed, although not always in the same document-- e.g. federal statutes concerning penalties for officials who violate someone's Constitutional rights. When such penalties are not specified, the redress is typically "start following the law now" (and then a court order to do so might specify a penalty if it is not followed).

 

[Gergar12]

What do you think is more important for the EU ? China not expanding to its neighbours or Russia being stopped in Ukraine and the US not taking territory from Denmark or Panama ?

If the US stops opposing Russia and let's the EU do it alone while taking land from EU countries and stealing ressource deposits while also trying to take and monopolize important shipping routes, the EU is better off allying itself to China than the US. China is really good positioned to harm Russia and even has its own claims in Siberia. It is also roughly as valuable as far as trade goes as the US. However it has no designs on any EU territories. It also doesn't threaten tariffs and is instead very keenly aware that it needs global trade to work.

Going with China would also also allow the EU another attempt to let the EURO replace the Dollar as world reserve currency.


So if the US leaves the partnership with the EU, the EU will look elsewhere. And it is pretty obvious, where. The US involving itself in Ukraine is basically part of the price of preventing that. You might not like paying that price but i am very sure, the US really wants and needs the influence in the EU it gets for providing protections. That has always been why it does it.

Also
Rubbish. They tried. Russia didn't want to, clinging to past glory and importance. Also the US did its best to sabotage such a resolution, not wanting a powerful Eaurasian power that doesn't need it anymore.


No. Russia exists. North Korea exists. Israel exists. Afghanistan exists. I could probably write half a page about worse countries. But the thing is i could also write half a page about better countries. And when it comes to much much headaches a country can produce, the US is certainly in the top 3, just because of its power and how wide reaching its influence, how credible its threats are.





But how about doing your geopolitical musings in another thread ? You might actually get more discussion out of it.

China looks out for Chinese interests first. Sure the EU could join BRICs, and make the euro the world reserve currency. But then EU exports would be more expensive, and the EU auto sector and other export sectors would be harder hit by Chinese and even American exports. Which means the EU becomes a bank without much industry. The EU didn't do a very good job at trying to add Russia into the EU, their citizens are the ones that should have spearheaded it by having positive opinions of both, then their leaders. They should have forgiven Russia for the USSR. They couldn't even get Russia into NATO.

That brings me to my point about India. India used to be the world's richest country/power. Then the British who valued the military conquerored them. Now they are somewhat rumped state. They can only try to get Tibet, Bangladesh, and Pakistan. Even that is hard with China close by. Don't be rich without being strong. The EU should be racing towards a better military not just because of Russia, or the US, but because that's what rational nations do even in "normal times". Just don't let your generals send human waves like in WW1.

Instead, we get an EU that is divided between closer ties with Russia, being far-right, and being a federal liberal nationalistic Europe.

And of course, it's in Europe's best interest to stop Russia right now in Ukraine and to stop the US from taking Greenland, but at least in Greenland, they won't succeed forever given European population/demographic decline and the US population growth/demographic rise. And Russia is taking land village by village right now in Ukraine.

 

[BrawlMan]

Seems Musk is trying to say the LA fires were as bad as they are because the fire department had black people working there.
View attachment 12639

Cowardly fucker. How about you help those firefighters themselves, if you think you can do a much better job, Musk?


Something more positive here.

 

[PsychedelicDiamond]

Cowardly fucker. How about you help those firefighters themselves, if you think you can do a much better job, Musk?

At least he hasn't accused them of being pedophiles yet.

 

[Cicada 5]

Live Looter ‘The First Descendant’ Has Lost 96% Of Its Playerbase In Six Months

The First Descendant has lost a huge amount of its playerbase which is not what a live looter shooter wants to see.

www.forbes.com

 

[Cicada 5]

At least he hasn't accused them of being pedophiles yet.

Give him time.

 

[BrawlMan]

At least he hasn't accused them of being pedophiles yet.

He'll do it at some point and that's why he can get stabbed in a dick. There are inmate firefighters that have more humanity than him/his biatch cronies and are trying to do better people.

Live Looter ‘The First Descendant’ Has Lost 96% Of Its Playerbase In Six Months

The First Descendant has lost a huge amount of its playerbase which is not what a live looter shooter wants to see.

www.forbes.com

I really don't see why this one is on here. Other than the minor mention of that culture war nobody cares about on this game now.

 

[PsychedelicDiamond]

Give him time.

Yeah, there's a reason I wrote "yet".

 

[Cicada 5]

Yeah, there's a reason I wrote "yet".

Sorry. Missed that.

 

[Chimpzy]

https://www.fiercehealthcare.com/payers/supreme-court-hear-aca-preventive-coverage-suit

Supreme Court to hear ACA preventive coverage suit

The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear a lawsuit that will determine whether preventive services will remain fully covered by group health plans under the Affordable Care Act (ACA). Arguments will commence this spring, and a decision (PDF) is expected by July.

Texas-based employer Braidwood Management argued before the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals the ACA's preventive services provision is unconstitutional. Initially, Braidwood Management did not want to cover pre-exposure prophylaxis drugs for HIV, saying it violates its rights under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

That court opted to uphold a lower court’s decision finding coverage through the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) unconstitutional—because the task force is not elected or “politically accountable” yet decide which services are covered—but it overturned a nationwide injunction, mandating plans cover preventive services with cost-sharing until otherwise determined. If the preventive services provision is eliminated, access to disease screenings, mental health appointments and certain prescription drugs would no longer be covered.

The government petitioned the Fifth Circuit’s ruling, hoping the Supreme Court would not find the USPSTF unconstitutional in determining coverage requirements through the ACA. “Under the court’s severability doctrine, it would seem they would uphold the role of the task force,” said Epstein Becker Green healthcare attorney Richard Hughes IV in an email shared with Fierce Healthcare. “But SCOTUS is not predictable and the trend toward curtailing the role of experts and the administrative state could win the day.”

Overturning of the Chevron deference in June is a flagship example of the nation’s top legal arbiters seemingly siding against federal agencies, and Republicans are hoping a series of recent decisions foreshadow future favorable rulings. “Another likely factor that will impact the case's outcome is whether the government maintains its position in support of the USPSTF following the upcoming change in administration,” added Hughes. It’s possible the federal government will not remain in favor of the preventive services coverage requirement now that President-elect Donald Trump, a longtime opponent of the ACA, is retaking the White House.

Supreme Court justices will not determine whether the Department of Health and Human Services appropriately set guidelines for the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) and the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), though that issue was sent back to a lower court in June. Plaintiffs claimed the ACIP and the HRSA were not delegated the authority to set guidelines.

Venteur, an individual coverage health reimbursement arrangement (ICHRA) administrator, suggests there is opportunity for ICHRAs to “reimagine how preventive services are covered” if the Supreme Court rules against the government, the company said in a LinkedIn post. Skeptics of the ACA preventive services provision say these services are not truly free and ultimately lead to higher premiums for all Americans. “Your auto insurance doesn’t pay for oil changes," said Stacy Mays, founder and CEO of healthcare advisory firm Copeland Road Health Ventures. “Prevention is positive, but it doesn't fit the definition of insurance.”

In October, the Biden administration proposed a rule requiring health plans to cover over-the-counter contraceptives for free, without cost sharing. The rule has not been finalized. Another proposed rule, which would have made it more difficult for health plans to claim a religious or moral exemption with regards to contraception, was rescinded by HHS in late December.

Alright, let's go. 6-3. Fight me.

 

[Trunkage]

https://www.fiercehealthcare.com/payers/supreme-court-hear-aca-preventive-coverage-suit

Alright, let's go. 6-3. Fight me.

Seriously, US Christians can go fuck themselves

 

[Bedinsis]

If the EU were smart, they would try to get Russia to join them permanently, but they aren’t. Their leaders are undynamic and won’t do it over historical animosity.

First of all, if the country of Russia refuses to be a democracy why on earth would we like them to be part of dictating how we live our lives?
Second of all, the historical animosity might have been considered misplaced if Russia didn't went and invaded their neighbour! If anything the diplomacy post invasion has shown their dynamism in abandoning pro-Russian policies, despite there being economic incentives to continue business as usual.

 

[Silvanus]

OK. What is the redress for spiriting those records away? US law typically specifies what is supposed to happen when the language of a law is not followed, although not always in the same document-- e.g. federal statutes concerning penalties for officials who violate someone's Constitutional rights. When such penalties are not specified, the redress is typically "start following the law now" (and then a court order to do so might specify a penalty if it is not followed).

There's no penalty specified in the 78 Act, so it would be reasonable to look at other laws that penalise mishandling of official documents. Penalties include a fine and/or up to 3 years in prison. But of course, those are for people significantly less rich than Trump.

Also: before 1981, Presidential records were considered the personal property of the President by default, so Tstorm's attempt to draw an equivalence with Eisenhower is irrelevant.

 

[Gergar12]

First of all, if the country of Russia refuses to be a democracy why on earth would we like them to be part of dictating how we live our lives?
Second of all, the historical animosity might have been considered misplaced if Russia didn't went and invaded their neighbour! If anything the diplomacy post invasion has shown their dynamism in abandoning pro-Russian policies, despite there being economic incentives to continue business as usual.

I meant eventually.