What happens the day after a Biden win? Does Trump get arrested by every state AG? Do they take turns? Does the Mueller report kick in since he said Trump could be charged if he wasn't in office
The Mueller report only kicks in in the sense that Mueller made explicitly clear in his otherwise muted and hesitant appearance before Congress: anyone in doubt that Trump could be charged with criminal obstruction - like any other schmo - when he leaves office should be disabused by what Mueller stated. It was one of the few simple "yes" answers in his testimony:
The question really will come down to whether Trump would be charged. In legal matters, America tends to be kind to its ex-presidents and not trouble them with their little indiscretions after they leave. Trump may be given the same respectful treatment, despite having easily cleared the bar for obstruction of justice while in office. It is somewhat doubtful that he will actually be pursued for this later on, or for anything else he has done as president.
Potentially, criminal acts committed while president - tax and personal enrichment come to mind - might be far more of a legal headache. He's obviously a criminal and a scam artist, but I'll believe it when it happens. The best people can really expect at this point is that he is ejected by the electorate, a one-term humiliation that he as more than earned.
1 ( +1 / -0 )
Sometimes I wish I could transport myself to a UK supermarket for 15 minutes everyday.
You could. By living in Britain.
There's something distinctly odd about choosing to settle in Japan, as many commenters on this site have done, and spending years complaining about prices or the range of food available. If Japan is especially expensive, if follows that many other countries must be a lot cheaper. And as there are so many cheaper countries, then choices abound for people who don't want to pay Japan prices for their food. You only get one life.
The same applies to veganism. There are some vegan-friendly countries, but Japan, China, and Korea most certainly are not. And they're not ever going to be, either, so why bother. India is far better, but vegetarianism/veganism is based in religion and strongly associated with caste issues. It's now tied up with politics, religious enmity, and nationalism as well.
Personally, if I was vegan I doubt that I'd want to live in Japan much more than a year, because it's a highly restrictive diet that isn't understood at all, and isn't well accommodated in this country. There are too many compromises to make, so living here, as with many other Asian countries, would come with an early "best before" date.
-2 ( +1 / -3 )
Fantastic news. Brexit Britain will make great trade deals without the EU interfering and increase our economy and interdependence with the rest of the world.
The EU has multiple trade agreements that contain a comprehensive most-favoured nation clause. That includes recent agreements with Canada, South Korea, Vietnam, and Japan. Under the clause, both parties agree not to give more favourable treatment in any future trade agreement they enter into with a third country, or if they do, to apply similar terms to the existing EU agreement.
What that means for Britain is that it cannot secure better treatment from Japan than the EU is getting. And that applies to the other agreements that the EU has been signing in recent years. It also cuts both ways - the EU cannot give Britain better terms than it is giving Japan, without offering Japan the same.
Additionally, the CPTPP has a most favoured nation clause, so add a few more countries to the list of places that Britain won't be outcompeting. All Britain can do is negotiate with such countries in the hope (but not certainty) of getting the same terms that are in the existing agreements.
-3 ( +0 / -3 )
I'm indifferent to whether you consider it trickery to have the weakness of the question about joining explained to you. You started by applying it to the United States and Japan, two countries that are not and never would be eligible for EU membership. You asked again in reference to "a third country", as if any country, and who gives a damn which continent it's in, could be in the running, which is obviously not the case.
If we consider countries that actually are eligible and may join in the future, there are at present about 5 candidates. Each has its own circumstances which may affect how the vote goes, and I don't have enough knowledge of them to speak on behalf of Albanians or Croatians, or an interest in doing so.
This is all by way of pointing out that what you said is a simple question, isn't. No matter how directly you address it to me. The UK, which is leaving, was a member of the EU long ago, and the Common Market before that. Considering whether I today, if British, would vote to join is about as pointless as considering whether a Scottish person or a Welsh person would vote to join the United Kingdom: a purely hypothetical situation that requires pretending that history had taken a different course. All to find out what my vote would be in a vote that isn't going to be held. I suspect that your real point is that you think my answer should be no. While my real point is that I think the question is close to meaningless, for the reasons, among others, that I have already made clear above.
0 ( +0 / -0 )
It's as if they lived here and had a stake in what happened.
I see it as the opposite: it's as if they had their ideas supplied to them by the hard-right/libertarian/"critical thinking" online cesspool. They're wholly ignorant about countries like NZ, but they're attracted to chancers like Farage, Hanson, Le Pen, Salvini and other wack-jobs like flies to a turd.
3 ( +4 / -1 )
Yes, I am intrigued, mostly in respect I was being nosey. apology's I am working on that flaw.
It doesn't bother me at all, my point really is that I couldn't answer that question without explaining my nationality.
The closest I could come to giving an answer anyway is that each country is different. There are very few candidates for future EU membership, Turkey was hoping to join about 10 or 15 years ago, but I'm not sure about its status now as it's been through a political upheaval since then. And there was a lot of reluctance on the EU side anyway, along with some things that, until such time as they are fixed, outright disqualified Turkey.
Other potential states are all European, I think at the moment all candidates are Balkan states, mostly former Yugoslavian, and I wouldn't know about public sentiment in any of them.
Your question as it applies to me can be considered this way: if I was Irish, I'd be from a country where that is already settled, they're a member of the EU and they're not itching to leave. If I was British, I'd be from a country that has already voted to leave. If I was Australian, no one would dream of asking my country to join, and we would not be asking to do so. Etc. The question doesn't really get us anywhere, and any answer I give wouldn't tell us anything about the viability of the EU, or its credibility now and in the future. Or whether other countries are going to vote to leave or join.
0 ( +0 / -0 )
And yet, those Anti-Americans are endorsing Biden because they know given what we know now with his China connections want a President that’s compliant and capitulates.
Trump has spent four years grovelling to Russia, so that smear won't fly.
14 ( +17 / -3 )
Amazing. A single party parliament. And it will only take 2 weeks to find out what the actual results of the election will be.
Well you haven't exactly grasped the term you quoted, have you? It was "single-party government", which is no cause for amazement. The New Zealand parliament remains multiparty, with Labour holding 64 out of 120 seats, which is also unamazing in a democracy, just a shift from the coalition governments that have been the norm since parliamentary reform in 1996.
As others have mentioned, the rightwing comments from Americans are interesting, as the idea that these people have any interest in a minuscule, remote, and perennially unimportant nation like New Zealand is farfetched. The animosity expressed by them towards Ardern is way out of proportion to who she is, what she represents, and any impact her government could ever have.
6 ( +6 / -0 )
A Country/State has to apply to become a member. So lets assume for a moment that the Country has a formal democratic process to ask the people.
My question, wipeout, is simple, if you are a member of a third country do you believe your people would be prepared to join?
No, that's not a simple question. First, a country either has to be invited to join, or has to campaign to be invited to join. So far, and this doesn't look likely to change soon, the only countries considered eligible for membership are European, or in the case of Turkey (which for a variety of reasons on the EU side, remains disqualified), partially European. Cyprus is a somewhat minor geographical exception.
It is therefore pointless to consider your question seriously in terms of the first two countries you offered as examples, the United States and Japan. It is also pointless to consider it in terms of what you call "a third country" as if any country might be eligible: as it currently stands, the list of potential future states is a very short one, and is confined to countries that are indisputably European. In addition, no country can join without the unanimous agreement of the member states.
Ultimately your latest question to me boils down to, you're fishing for my nationality. It's not something I have made a secret of in JT, but I bring it up only when I choose (never on demand) and probably not with great frequency, because I tend to mention it when it may have - in my view - some useful bearing on the comment I am making. Most of the time it's not that important. But anyone who has been commenting here a few years probably knows it.
3 ( +4 / -1 )
Can you seriously imagine either the US or Japan politically joining such a Union?
I can't imagine them being invited, and I can't see the point of either inviting them or of them joining. That's a no all round then, which has nothing to do with Britain's membership of the EU, or whether the EU itself is a good idea.
And yet to democratically vote to leave, is an act akin to xenophobia?
Obviously not. But this vote was based on a poorly handled referendum and a Vote Leave campaign that both exploited and encouraged xenophobia. The pressure to have a referendum in the first place came after a long tabloid-dominated press campaign that was itself deeply rooted in xenophobia.
So Brexit has been and remains xenophobic. The consequences will be shared by all, however, and the xenophobes can continue to blame the EU, immigrants, and ethnic minorities for the next 50 years. And they will, because Brexit was never about doing something positive or moving forward, it was about acting on resentment. The resentment isn't going to disappear.
7 ( +10 / -3 )
Our bodies are designed to protect us against normal exposure of dirt, bacteria, and viruses via normal pathways.
Our bodies aren't designed, they're a product of essentially blind evolutionary processes. And the notion of "normal" exposure is meaningless. Historically, people's environments and living conditions have varied enormously, though in terms of avoidance of viral and bacterial exposure - no country or city was clean until the 20th century, and most not even then. And there was simply no understanding at all of the connection between microorganisms and disease until the 1860s, with general acceptance coming even later.
The body has some defences against disease, and they are far from perfect. They are sufficient to keep human and animal populations from going extinct: but what that means in terms of your survival in the face of infectious disease, no matter how robust you believe your immune system to be, is that you are insignificant.
An individual, of any age, has no guarantee of fighting off infection. Hepatitis A is something you would be likely to survive, but it would make you very ill for weeks, and is easy both to catch and to pass on. Is your body really fighting it off if you are bedridden with hepatitis symptoms? What is "normal" exposure to the hepatitis A virus? Or hepatitis B, which people carry for decades, sometimes from birth, and which produces high rates of liver cancer in susceptible populations?
There are diseases that kill fast, like smallpox and cholera, and diseases that kill slowly, like tuberculosis. In both cases, the body fails to provide sufficient protection. And it fails against diseases that have been with humans for millennia. It fails against new diseases. It fails against diseases that pass in conventional and predictable ways (your "normal pathways" in other words, such as the fecal-oral route or insect bites.
On the level of the individual, medicine, treatment, and vaccination can save you, but the body itself often can't.
1 ( +1 / -0 )
This is why the people love President Trump and go to his rallies.
The people who go to his rallies go to his rallies.
Meanwhile, how is he doing with the American people? Well let's put it this way. His approval rating since taking office is averaged at exactly 40%. This is by far the lowest of any president since approval ratings were introduced in the late 1930s. The next lowest president was at 45%, and most of them had to sustain that over two terms.
To look at some other indicators: his highest approval was 49%. No other president has failed to break 50. In fact, no other president has failed to break 60%, and only Obama and Nixon failed to break 70%.
Obama's lowest approval rating in his 8 years as president was 40%. Yep, that's where Trump's popularity is at. His normal is Obama's lowest.
Quite obviously, this president is not uniquely loved by "the people".
9 ( +10 / -1 )
No, it is very relevant, Biden never said anything on conceding peacefully should he loss, so yes, it is a big concern.
Biden also never said anything on not conceding peacefully should he loss, so it's not a big concern.
3 ( +4 / -1 )
So again, this is bad as well as scary and they should be locked up, but Whitmer brought sadly a lot of this on herself and the people are tired.
2 ( +3 / -1 )
I think what was going to happen to the governor was bad and these people should be in prison, but doing what she is doing and not allowing people to go back to work because it helps advances the Democrat cause, she could care less, she has everything she needs, not to mention the power of her position she wields and then this happens, it's wrong, but when I first heard the story, I was not THAT surprised, the woman is not liked and you're getting a small taste of it and if Dems think they can continue to lock down people they don't like for conservatives or people that won't vote for them, more of these incidents are bound to happen, no question about it.
So many words to explain away conspiracy to murder. The pivotal "but" in that first sentence is doing a lot of work there.
6 ( +7 / -1 )
Indeed, and I believe antibodies from the people who recovered from SARS-CoV (17 years ago) can too. Whatever happened to that "pandemic", no vaccines and it just went away.
The first thing that happened is that no-one, no-one, called it a pandemic. You're going to have to look the word up.
And it never "just went away". There were containment measures that were very strict in some cases, for example the mandatory evacuation of the Amoy Gardens housing estate: 12,000 residents moved to an isolated location in Hong Kong to spend a couple of weeks in quarantine. That was one of the things that helped damp down the outbreak in Hong Kong.
So what really happened is that a disease that was a genuine international threat was controlled quite quickly in the locations where it had begun to spread beyond China (primarily Vietnam, Hong Kong, Taiwan, Singapore, Canada). Fortunately, in global terms that was only a few locations, and the disease was brought under control. Part of that is owing to its lower infectivity, which meant that control measures could have a much more dramatic impact. Contact tracing and quarantining turned out to be a very good way to prevent spread, quickly leading to a major drop in the number of active cases, eventually to zero.
Of course, this just opened the door for idiots who hadn't been put to any inconvenience at all to claim that the whole thing was hype, just as they have done for every subsequent epidemic, and just as, based on what we've seen with COVID, we know that they will do in any future pandemic. Idiots will be idiots, and being know-it-alls is their particular privilege.
1 ( +3 / -2 )
In principle, that is a good idea. But you might never learn about the crippling effects. There are powerful forces trying to stiffle any negative publicity. Few people are aware of the negative effects of other vaccines.
Yes. Similarly, few people are aware that, as you recently told us on JT, vaccines are "directly injected into the blood". Are you finally ready to publicly correct yourself?
Seems like the right thing to do before you "educate" us about any other vaccine-related issue. After all, it's so basic that a person who doesn't understand this isn't really in a position to understand anything about vaccines at all.
2 ( +6 / -4 )
The EU are bullies. The Brits just aren’t that into you anymore. Getting over your hurt feelings and be mature about.
They're sufficiently into the EU to be asking for trade on the same terms as before.
As a non-member, without offering concessions (such as freedom of movement), they can't possibly get that, under any circumstances, and for them to pretend that they can is delusional. Hence the descent to threatening a no-deal exit, which would be damaging to both sides, but will be particularly damaging to Britain. Specifically, to British people, British trade, British jobs, and the British economy. Which is kind of an odd thing for a country to unilaterally do to its own people.
Your jibe may seem to you to sum the situation up nicely, but Britain has made a treaty with the EU, and in line with centuries of practice, is required to honour it. That's the actual issue, not the irrelevant point you make about "hurt feelings". To break the terms of a treaty is a disastrous new direction for Britain, and will permanently damage its reputation. This is particularly unnecessary considering that the treaty in question has Johnson's own name on it, and was something he described in his characteristically infantile hyperbole as "a fantastic moment".
You suggestion that the EU are "bullies" when what they're doing is challenging Britain for breaking a legally binding agreement is laughable. Britain signed the agreement, and it was Johnson who signed it.
0 ( +3 / -3 )
Good. Flu vaccinations should be free too.
They certainly should. 3000 yen or so per person is sufficiently high to deter some people outright and make others put it off "till later". If reducing the spread of influenza is a national goal, and it should be, an easily available vaccine that you don't have to pay for is the way to go.
It should also be mandatory for most professions: there are very few that should be let off the hook on that, because most people come into contact with many others at their workplace, and not just their coworkers but members of the public as well.
3 ( +8 / -5 )
Posted in: I suffered psychological anguish from TEPCO and I'm also angry with the central government. To me, that is the truth. The facility has asked us to speak the truth so it is not in a position to say ‘Don’t say such things.’ I will quit as a guide if expressing my feelings is considered being critical. See in context
If I were Tepco and under such stupid fire and accusations I would immediately close down everything.
Close down? They don't have that choice. All their nuclear reactors are already out of service. And TEPCO is now 56% owned by the government of Japan, because the government put in a vast amount of money to prevent TEPCO's collapse. That's right, it's been nationalized.
And here's the situation: Daiichi was destroyed - 3 reactors gone within a day or two of the earthquake, the others beyond saving. Daini is to be decommissioned, ending forever TEPCO nuclear power generation in Fukushima Prefecture. Kashiwazaki-Kariwa in Niigata Prefecture is generating nothing, and has been shut down for even longer than Daiichi and Daini, due to an earthquake in 2008. There was a limited and short-lived restart, killed off by the 2011 earthquake. The plant is now known to be sitting on fault lines, and the rules aren't as "flexible" as they were pre-2011. So the future of Kashiwazaki-Kariwa is in doubt too: and if that goes, it's the end of nuclear power for TEPCO.
TEPCO continues to generate power from non-nuclear sources, but if it were to relinquish those plants there would be little problem finding takers for them.
As for the cold, dark, and return to candlelight you fantasize about, after March 2011, Japan got through an extended period with no nuclear reactors generating power, and after the first few critical months of adjustment - in particular the first summer - was able to meet electrical demand without any problem. Nuclear power in Japan is a shadow of what it was, and it never generated more than 30% to start with. It will never return to that peak. Yet we still have with all the air conditioning, heating, and LED lighting we need.
2 ( +2 / -0 )
And since the CDC now also admits that 96% of the Corona deaths had 2 or more co-morbidities, what we are looking is essentially a picture where people who would have died anyway are now counted as Corona deaths.
If the standard of "had comorbidity so would have died anyway so this disease was not the cause" was applied to other diseases, the happy result would be a huge drop in cancer fatalities, as well as fatalities from most of the other major diseases affecting the population.
Which is why that standard isn't applied, and why it is both meaningless and useless. This whole thing arose because some people with an ulterior motive seem to have been unaware of what information is entered on death certificates, and what it actually signifies.
6 ( +7 / -1 )
Stop allowing distorted pronunciation in the classroom PERIOD!
One person's idea of distorted pronunciation may be different from another's. The native English speakers who are teaching in Japan aren't all from the same country, so there's a lot of variation in accent, and it goes even further than that, as American and British speakers don't even stress the same syllables a lot of the time.
Most people who learn another language, even to a very high level, have imperfect pronunciation to some degree. So it's not necessarily reasonable to expect children in school to have good pronunciation of English, even after a few years of learning: they have very little actual exposure to the language, and many have never really needed it to genuinely communicate with an English speaker. A couple of insincere "conversations" with an ALT don't count.
Also, it's noticeable that in some countries where English is closer to a native language, and is the mother tongue for at least some of the population, the quality of pronunciation is very variable. Examples in Asia would be the Philippines, India, Pakistan, and the other subcontinent countries, Malaysia, Singapore, Hong Kong. A form like Singlish is ultimately a variant of English, but if you were to apply strict pronunciation standards, you could say that some Singaporean speakers have terrible pronunciation. It's even worse in Hong Kong, even though people were, officially at least, taught in English at school. The Chinese tonal languages, especially those of the south, don't do English many favours, and speakers of those languages have to work hard to break what comes naturally to them. Not everyone succeeds, by any means.
-5 ( +5 / -10 )
The circumstances were completely different in 2016 - a lame duck president whose term was about to expire and whose party was unlikely to win the next presidential election.
That was absolutely not the case in February 2016, the Democratic nominee had a good chance to win the election, and the race remained close throughout. Trump actually won against the polls (which were not in his favour), and still lost the popular vote by 3 million votes. So the information available between February and November, when the Republicans were refusing to even consider the Obama Supreme Court nominee, was that the Democrats were on course to win. Even with that information, they would not accept an Obama nominee.
Now, with an election in about 50 days, Trump is very likely to be dumped by the electorate. If it was inappropriate then for the possibility of an incoming Republican president to miss out on the chance of putting forward his nominee - and that is precisely what the Republicans were arguing, on the grounds that it must reflect the voice of the people - then according to their "rule", it is equally inappropriate now, with the possibility of a Democrat being elected president in 50 days and then assuming office in four months' time.
As they made this the issue in the last election-year vacancy, when there were 11 months on the clock, they are obliged to uphold that principle. They did force the rest of the nation to observe it.
0 ( +1 / -1 )
The Biden Rule. How soon we forget.
The Biden rule, based on what he said in 2016 was the opposite: that a President had a constitutional duty to nominate a candidate, even before the election. How soon you forget.
And what the Republicans argued then was that it must wait until after the election. As they prevailed, they have set the precedent and the new rule has been sold to the American people, and directly in their name. To requote my earlier McConnell quote: "Either way, our view is this: Give the people a voice in the filling of this vacancy".
It is up to the Republicans to show consistency in this and push it back to after the election. The so-called Biden rule was ignored in 2016, and that is the new reality that was forced on the country by the Republicans.
Are you saying you want to introduce the Biden rule now?
1 ( +2 / -1 )
Amazing that liberals think people have short memories.
The other way round.
In Obama's last year, when there was a vacancy on the Supreme Court, the Republicans dreamed up a "rule", previously unknown, unheard of, and certainly unmentioned by Republicans, that a president should not be allowed to make the selection in an election year. He stated it like this: "The American people may well elect a president who decides to nominate Judge Garland for Senate consideration. The next president may also nominate someone very different. Either way, our view is this: Give the people a voice in the filling of this vacancy."
The US is currently just six weeks away from an election in which the incumbent could be slung out by the electorate, in which Democrats may take the Senate. The President is trailing in the polls, as he has been throughout the race.
So the short memories are on the Republican side, where their rule, which they concocted from nothing and then imposed on the nation, is now to be abandoned immediately before an election. It lasted just four years, one change of president in their favour, and has been dumped the first time an opportunity to keep to it.
And in your head, that demonstration of mendacious amnesia can be presented as: it's everyone else who has short memories.
0 ( +2 / -2 )
I admire famous people who risk the thrashing of their reputation to voice common sense opinions that the media and elites will ridicule.
People have been admiring Van Morrison for his music while deriding him as a miserable git for about 50 years now. So there is zero risk to his reputation, which he established a long time ago and which can be summed up by the word "churlish". It doesn't go unnoticed, or unmentioned.
3 ( +5 / -2 )
Fact is, Trump followed the advice of Fauci and Birx. What else would you demand him to do?
The point where he eventually deviated is that he correctly recognizes that you can not shut down the economy forever.
Er no, he deviated whenever and wherever he felt like it, and continues to do so. Here's some Fauci advice, and it's plain and simple: "I'll say it yet again. You should not congregate in crowds"
That's been something he has repeated many times in the last six months. Now here's Trump deviating from the advice by encouraging people to gather in crowds:
Those people now go back to spread the disease among others, in the home, in the workplace. Where they set off further outbreaks, those businesses/schools/offices/factories/stores often have to close or send people home. People die. Healthcare workers get infected. The economy takes a hit.
Insisting on not wearing masks, and ignoring state and national guidelines and rules, is the height of arrogance, the height of entitlement, and the height of stupidity. And it has nothing to do with bringing the economy back to normal, it just perpetuates the COVID problem that America is refusing to take seriously enough to overcome.
3 ( +3 / -0 )
Half a day of battery for the watch? lol.
Apple states 18 hours, which they cunningly describe as "all day battery life", a slightly devious way of acknowledging that it may well not last a full 24 hours while sort of implying the opposite.
"Our goal for battery life is 18 hours after an overnight charge, factoring in things like checking the time, receiving notifications, using apps, and doing a 60-minute workout. And because everyone will use Apple Watch differently, we tested several other metrics as well."
And actually, they really state "up to 18 hours", a slightly devious way of admitting that it may not last even that long. So while you sneer that someone says it goes for half a day, Apple say the device - with this kind of performance, let's not call it a watch - is sorta capable of 18 hours. Under other use cases listed on that page, they think it gets 14, 11, etc. Note that 14 is just over half a day, and 11 is less than half a day.
So there's the reason that when you see Apple Watches on people's wrists, the display tends to be off. It's an awkward "in-between" device that doesn't reach the feature level of a smartphone and can't come close to the performance level of a wristwatch. It's practically designed to crap out when you need it, which is why no one with anything serious to do would rely on a smartwatch. They use real watches.
0 ( +0 / -0 )
By the way, your link is not that useful: first, these choice of nationality stories are often presented sketchily, and are inaccurately reported (due to widespread lack of understanding) even when they are from Japanese sources like Kyodo. Second, you've reinterpreted what they actually did say, which wasn't flatly wrong, as something they didn't say, which was.
The story more or less correctly states that she "decided to choose Japanese over American nationality": you decided that means she "applied to become a Japanese citizen". It doesn't.
0 ( +1 / -1 )
No. You are Japanese if you hold a Japanese passport / become a citizen.
Passports are irrelevant, and and are only going to confuse you even further. Try not to think about them. They're simply travel documents/proof of nationality.
Osaka's most likely status as someone born in Japan to a Japanese and a foreign national is that her birth was registered (as required by Japanese law) within two weeks. At that point, she is officially entered in the records as a Japanese national, like any other Japanese newborn. As the child of a foreign parent, she had additional rights to another nationality, something with which Japan doesn't specifically concern itself and over which it has no legal authority or influence.
2 ( +3 / -1 )
Posted in: Japan often feels like a country that rushed to embrace an exciting high-tech future decades ago, and then abruptly stopped when boom turned to bust in the 1990s, leaving islands of older technologies like stranded relics.