|
RevKrule posted:I just don't understand this. If the bill is just a reproduction of the federal law, why pass it anyway? Don't local laws just inherit the laws above them if there's nothing set? Actually, it does kind of make sense. The federal law can be later changed to be even more liberal-friendly; if the state has their own law, it helps them lock things into place to slow down later advancement. Possibly delay things several years when it comes to it down the road.
|
#
¿
Apr 1, 2015 17:29
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 13:19 |
|
|
To veer away from the thrilling saga of Beanghazi: Thanks to people staring to declare, my workplace is filling up again with politics talk - the fun of being the liberal in an industry full of right wingers - and something came up in a discussion about ISIS that I veered away from for personal safety (I like being employed). But it has been bugging me since: it's a drat common talking point about Israel being the US' greatest and most loyal ally in the Middle East, but I'm stumped as to what they've actually done to earn that title. Near as I can tell we don't and haven't used their facilities/territory (aside from apparently the 6th Fleet occasionally docking at Haifa) for staging or operating, and they haven't actually given us support in any of the like four wars and dozens of police actions/anti-terror strikes we've done in the region lately. About all I can find is that they buy a lot of our weapons and we 'share intelligence' - which doesn't really strike me as particularly earning the supposed closeness of the relationship. (Particularly since even a cursory search pulls up a number of intelligence-related incidents to put the whole sharing thing into poor light.) They're not a stablizing influence in the region; they don't seem to actually HELP us in our regional actions; and the intelligence relationship appears rocky. What am I missing, aside from the $3 bilion annual in foreign aid being a thinly veiled MIC payout? Oh, and them not being Brown People.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 20, 2015 17:49
|
|
|
Okay, so it is basically Brown People, got it. The way it gets talked about it seemed like there was some big benefit that I was missing.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 20, 2015 18:05
|
|
|
Job Truniht posted:Anyone who at any point voted for the Iraq War should be barred from being POTU. She became Secretary of State to boost her foreign policy record, but there's nothing indicative that she did any of a better job than Kerry did, nor come off as being nothing but more hawkish. The alternatives will have us bombing Iran within a month of taking office, full stop. This is not the time for whining about someone not being perfect.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 21, 2015 18:56
|
|
|
Zwabu posted:I think it's a promising sign. The cynic in me can't help but think maybe it's just a tactical move to prevent any challenger from the left from building up any steam before they even get started. Why would she be afraid of that? At this point she doesn't have any kind of a legitimate threat. There's not even a whole lot for her to try and head off - O'Malley might try running to her left, but he's got nowhere near the support or charisma to be a serious problem unless Hillary massively fucks up. There's little to nothing for her to gain by pandering.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 23, 2015 04:56
|
|