Stuff that doesn't really fit in either "Examples of" thread....

printer

Well-Known Member
Advocacy group sues Idaho over ‘abortion travel ban’
A gender and LGBTQ rights advocacy group has filed a lawsuit challenging Idaho’s “abortion travel ban” on the basis that the law is overly vague and unconstitutional, becoming the first organization to file such a legal challenge.

The progressive group Legal Voice filed its lawsuit against Idaho Attorney General Raúl Labrador (R), arguing the abortion travel ban harms “Idahoans’ reproductive health and their options for reproductive health care.”

Signed into law in April, the ban prohibits what is referred to as “abortion trafficking,” which it defines as an adult procuring an abortion for a minor who is not their child, whether it’s by providing abortifacient drugs or transporting them to obtain an abortion.

Those who are found guilty of violating this law face between two and five years in prison. The Idaho state government enacted some of the strictest restrictions on abortion after the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, banning abortions at all stages of pregnancy apart from some exceptions for rape, incest and cases where the mother’s life is threatened.

In its suit, Legal Voice blasted the law as “draconian” and infringing on multiple rights.

“The statute is unconstitutional. It is poorly written. It is vague and unclear in the conduct it
prohibits,” the suit stated.

“It infringes on First Amendment rights to speak about abortion and to associate and to engage in expressive conduct, including providing monies and transportation (and other support) for pregnant minors traveling within and outside of Idaho to access out-of-state legal abortion care,” it continued.

Republican lawmakers in Idaho have characterized the bill as a parental rights bill and not a ban on interstate travel. Regardless of how the bill is worded, the plaintiffs argue that the net outcome is still an interstate travel ban in effect and was the intent of the those who supported the legislation.

“This right to travel is not only a right to travel interstate but a recognized right to travel intrastate, sometime referred to as the right to movement,” the suit stated, further citing previous rulings that had found the Constitution “protects the right of a citizen of one State to enter and to leave another State.”

The organization further argued that a ban on interstate travel to seek care is particularly harmful due to Idaho’s physician shortage. Data from the state government suggests that Idaho’s number of physicians per capita is significantly lower than the national average.

In Idaho, minors must obtain the permission of their parents before obtaining an abortion, and Legal Voice argued “not all minors have a strong, trusting, or stable relationship with a parent or guardian.”


The plaintiffs are asking that the abortion travel ban be declared a violation of the First Amendment, an infringement on the right to interstate travel and that Labrador be blocked from enforcing the law.
 

Roger A. Shrubber

Well-Known Member
Senators reintroduce bill to prevent US president from leaving NATO
A bipartisan pair of senators reintroduced a bill Wednesday that would prohibit any U.S. president from withdrawing from NATO without Senate approval or an act of Congress.

“NATO serves as an essential military alliance that protects shared national interests and enhances America’s international presence,” said Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) in a statement released as NATO leaders, including President Biden, meet in Europe. “Any decision to leave the alliance should be rigorously debated and considered by the U.S. Congress with the input of the American people.”

Rubio reintroduced the bill alongside Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.); the two serve together on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and are longtime advocates of the alliance.

The bill has been reintroduced in multiple sessions of Congress, including when concerns rose over former President Trump’s reported threats to withdraw from the alliance.

The bill’s reintroduction comes on the last day of a NATO summit in Lithuania, where conversations regarding Ukraine joining the group have been a hot topic.

“[Russian President Vladimir] Putin’s brutal war in Ukraine and Finland’s accession and Sweden’s pending accession into NATO all underscore the same thing: NATO is stronger than ever,” Kaine said. “I’m proud to introduce this bipartisan bill to reaffirm the United States’ commitment to NATO and ensure any U.S. president can’t unilaterally decide to leave the alliance without congressional approval.”

If the president tries to leave NATO without Senate approval or an act of Congress, the bill would prohibit funding to do so and allow congressional legal counsel to challenge any administration’s attempt in court.
The bill has eight Democratic co-sponsors.
i sincerely hope this passes, and is NEVER needed.
 

Roger A. Shrubber

Well-Known Member
Advocacy group sues Idaho over ‘abortion travel ban’
A gender and LGBTQ rights advocacy group has filed a lawsuit challenging Idaho’s “abortion travel ban” on the basis that the law is overly vague and unconstitutional, becoming the first organization to file such a legal challenge.

The progressive group Legal Voice filed its lawsuit against Idaho Attorney General Raúl Labrador (R), arguing the abortion travel ban harms “Idahoans’ reproductive health and their options for reproductive health care.”

Signed into law in April, the ban prohibits what is referred to as “abortion trafficking,” which it defines as an adult procuring an abortion for a minor who is not their child, whether it’s by providing abortifacient drugs or transporting them to obtain an abortion.

Those who are found guilty of violating this law face between two and five years in prison. The Idaho state government enacted some of the strictest restrictions on abortion after the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, banning abortions at all stages of pregnancy apart from some exceptions for rape, incest and cases where the mother’s life is threatened.

In its suit, Legal Voice blasted the law as “draconian” and infringing on multiple rights.

“The statute is unconstitutional. It is poorly written. It is vague and unclear in the conduct it
prohibits,” the suit stated.

“It infringes on First Amendment rights to speak about abortion and to associate and to engage in expressive conduct, including providing monies and transportation (and other support) for pregnant minors traveling within and outside of Idaho to access out-of-state legal abortion care,” it continued.

Republican lawmakers in Idaho have characterized the bill as a parental rights bill and not a ban on interstate travel. Regardless of how the bill is worded, the plaintiffs argue that the net outcome is still an interstate travel ban in effect and was the intent of the those who supported the legislation.

“This right to travel is not only a right to travel interstate but a recognized right to travel intrastate, sometime referred to as the right to movement,” the suit stated, further citing previous rulings that had found the Constitution “protects the right of a citizen of one State to enter and to leave another State.”

The organization further argued that a ban on interstate travel to seek care is particularly harmful due to Idaho’s physician shortage. Data from the state government suggests that Idaho’s number of physicians per capita is significantly lower than the national average.

In Idaho, minors must obtain the permission of their parents before obtaining an abortion, and Legal Voice argued “not all minors have a strong, trusting, or stable relationship with a parent or guardian.”


The plaintiffs are asking that the abortion travel ban be declared a violation of the First Amendment, an infringement on the right to interstate travel and that Labrador be blocked from enforcing the law.
Are they going to have checkpoints at the borders with jack-booted proud boys asking everyone for their papers? This is bullshit out of a 1950s WW2 movie. People, pregnant or not, can travel freely within the borders of this country for whatever reasons they want, and fuck these people for trying to turn it into nazi occupied Europe in 1942.
 

Roger A. Shrubber

Well-Known Member
https://www.newsweek.com/joe-biden-wandering-around-king-charles-meeting-1812102

Why do i have to see shit like this every time Biden goes anywhere? It keeps the fucking yokel magats hooting, and it always turns out to be three seconds of nothing...So why do they keep reporting this insulting propaganda? Because the outlets that report this shit aren't news outlets, they're either propaganda organs, money grubbing parasites, or both...They quote the fucking heritage foundation for fuck's sake.
 

cannabineer

Ursus marijanus
https://www.newsweek.com/joe-biden-wandering-around-king-charles-meeting-1812102

Why do i have to see shit like this every time Biden goes anywhere? It keeps the fucking yokel magats hooting, and it always turns out to be three seconds of nothing...So why do they keep reporting this insulting propaganda? Because the outlets that report this shit aren't news outlets, they're either propaganda organs, money grubbing parasites, or both...They quote the fucking heritage foundation for fuck's sake.
Newsweek has lately been quoting other far-right sources without labeling them. It’s not always, but I’ve seen them slide that nonsense through more than once.
 

Lucky Luke

Well-Known Member
How long did China hold the territory before the split?
The Republic of China still exists. In fact they pretended to rule China for over 40 years after they fled to the island.
According to China and the Republic of China there is only one China. So if China paid the ROC debt would that mean China is once again unified?
 

printer

Well-Known Member
The Republic of China still exists. In fact they pretended to rule China for over 40 years after they fled to the island.
According to China and the Republic of China there is only one China. So if China paid the ROC debt would that mean China is once again unified?
As I asked, how long was the island a part of China before the split?
 

Lucky Luke

Well-Known Member
As I asked, how long was the island a part of China before the split?
IDK. How long do you want to go back? 13th century seems to be Wikis answer about how long the islands have had Chinese. Split is a strange word for it. Republic of China and China both agree that there is only one China.

According to government figures, over 95% of Taiwan's population of 23.4 million consists of Han Chinese, while 2.3% are Austronesian Taiwanese indigenous peoples. The Han are often divided into three subgroups: the Hoklo, the Hakka, and waishengren (or "mainlanders").

You didn't answer my question.
 
Last edited:

Roger A. Shrubber

Well-Known Member
IDK. How long do you want to go back? 13th century seems to be Wikis answer about how long the islands have had Chinese. Split is a strange word for it. Republic of China and China both agree that there is only one China.

According to government figures, over 95% of Taiwan's population of 23.4 million consists of Han Chinese, while 2.3% are Austronesian Taiwanese indigenous peoples. The Han are often divided into three subgroups: the Hoklo, the Hakka, and waishengren (or "mainlanders").

You didn't answer my question.
you didn't answer his question, either...
Your question was "Did you want the Republic of China to pay or China? If China paid it for the ROC would then One China be true? "
Exactly what does that second sentence mean? I thought you guys still spoke something approaching english?

These seems to be the pertinent points...
"Under well-established international law, the “successor government” doctrine holds that the current government of China, led by the Chinese Communist Party, is responsible for repayment of the defaulted bonds."

"Lest anyone wonder about the age of these bonds, it is irrelevant. What matters is that this is a sovereign obligation. As recently as 2010, the German government made its last payment for reparations from World War I. In 2015 Great Britain made payments on bonds issuances that dated from the 18th century."

"The Biden administration and the U.S. Congress have a unique opportunity to enforce the well-established international rule that governments must honor their debts. Like the U.K. did in 1987, the U.S. must view the repayment of China’s sovereign debt as essential to its national security interests. In doing so, the U.S. government should undertake one or both of two actions currently being discussed by members of Congress.
The first would be to acquire the Chinese bonds held by the ABF and utilize them to offset (partially or in whole) the $850 billion-plus of U.S. Treasurys owned by China (reducing up to $95 million in daily interest paid to China). This would lower the national debt and put the U.S. in a better financial position globally.
The second would be to pass legislation that requires China to abide by international norms and rules of finance, trade and commerce. This would include abiding by the transparency rules of capital markets and exchanges and ending its practices of exclusionary settlement, discriminatory payments, selective default, and rejection of the successor government doctrine of settled international law. If China fails to meet those obligations, it would be barred, together with its state-controlled entities, from access to all U.S. dollar-denominated bond markets and exchanges.
This, again, is just common sense and would be the very thing the Chinese government would do if the situation were reversed."

There seems to be very little question that the Chinese owe the money, the only real question is whether or not it is in our best interest to demand payment. I personally see no advantage in letting them get away with ignoring a trillion dollar debt. I fully endorse the second government option, buying the bonds from the private holders, and just returning them to China as payment for any debt we have with them. They can decide what to do with them from there. They would make pretty toilet paper, i bet.
 

cannabineer

Ursus marijanus
IDK. How long do you want to go back? 13th century seems to be Wikis answer about how long the islands have had Chinese. Split is a strange word for it. Republic of China and China both agree that there is only one China.

According to government figures, over 95% of Taiwan's population of 23.4 million consists of Han Chinese, while 2.3% are Austronesian Taiwanese indigenous peoples. The Han are often divided into three subgroups: the Hoklo, the Hakka, and waishengren (or "mainlanders").

You didn't answer my question.
to the red: that is not the criterion. It does not speak to political union with the mainland, which by the same Wiki article began in 1683, possibly 1661. This lasted until Japanese conquest in 1895. Since then, Taiwan has not been governed by/with the mainland.
 
Last edited:

Lucky Luke

Well-Known Member
you didn't answer his question, either...
Your question was "Did you want the Republic of China to pay or China? If China paid it for the ROC would then One China be true? "
Exactly what does that second sentence mean? I thought you guys still spoke something approaching english?
I don't care if China pays for the republic of Chinas debt or not or nobody pays it. Its obviously not been a concern for policy makers so not sure why its being brought up now. A bit of Anti China sentiment left over from the Trump days maybe? From his China trade war days.
Not sure what's confusing about the last sentence.

Its the ROC's debt. So if China pays the ROCs debt does that mean one China is a reality? Could solve the issue and fairly cheaply to boot. Remember the ROC and China believe in One China.
 
Last edited:

printer

Well-Known Member
The Republic of China still exists. In fact they pretended to rule China for over 40 years after they fled to the island.
According to China and the Republic of China there is only one China. So if China paid the ROC debt would that mean China is once again unified?
As I asked previously, how long has China owned Taiwan before the split?
 

Lucky Luke

Well-Known Member
As I asked previously, how long has China owned Taiwan before the split?
The ROC government began exercising jurisdiction over Taiwan in 1945. Relocated there in 1949 Is that close enough to "ownership"?

If China paid the debt of the Republic of China would that mean China is one again? or at least on the right path to being one again?
Debts are usually not paid for people who are disliked. Its normally family or perhaps good friends.
 
Last edited:

Roger A. Shrubber

Well-Known Member
https://apnews.com/article/poll-democracy-partisanship-trump-biden-trust-221f2b4f6cf9805f766c9a8395b9539d

People want the government to pay more attention to what they want...The major problem is that most people want ridiculously stupid, idiotic shit.
They asked an 81 year old retired baker his opinion..“The government today is all for the people who have nothing — a lot of them are capable of working but get help,” said Derito, a white political independent who leans Republican and voted for Trump. “They just want to give these people everything.” ...wow, how surprising, an old magat who hates immigrants. Wonder what his other opinions are like?
a 68 year old retired retired data collection worker, what the fuck ever that is, had this to say.
Sandra Wyatt, a 68-year-old Democrat in Cincinnati, blames Trump for what she sees as an erosion in democracy. “When he got in there, it was like, man, you’re trying to take us back to the day, before all the rights and privileges everybody fought for,” said Wyatt, who is Black, adding that she’s voted previously for Republicans as well. She sees those bad dynamics as lingering after Trump’s presidency. “We always knew there was racism but now they’re emboldened enough to go around and shoot people because of the color of their skin,” Wyatt said.
They who? Are there suddenly a lot more cases of racially motivated shootings? I haven't noticed an uptick at all, seems about the same as it';s ever been to me.
The point being, while most democrats are nicer people than republicans, it doesn't make them any smarter or more well informed. Most people are happily ignorant, and their views and opinions are equally stupid, just in different ways.
 
Top