And you are just peachy with Kim's totalitarian dictatorship and how his people suffer because he "wont' play nice" with others?
I don't get the liberal mind sometimes. First it's all "#saveourgirls" twitter campaigns because we "care" about the kidnapping of young women half a world away, but when you look at the likes of the Kim dynasty it's all the USA's fault for being the aggressor? It's like you have selective memory and double standards to uphold. Historically the USA was NOT the aggressor in Korea. Yea maybe we where the interloper, but we where supporting our allies from the advancing Russian and Chinese tide and had mutual defense agreements AND the blessing of the UN for our involvement. It was the North that started all this and the North that continues to be aggressive, going so far as to capture the Pueblo on the open seas and stage a number of infiltrations into South Korea over the years. We've not done any of that kind of stuff. Yea, we remain in force on the DMZ border and watch, but we are not shelling their islands or shooting at their ships in international waters.
So I think you are skewing history, taking out the parts that don't support your pet theory. You are doing the very thing you accuse others of doing with your revisionist history and soft peddling the oppression of the North Korean People in the deceptively named DRPK which is a "democracy" with but one name on the ballot and a republic where a dictator makes the decisions.
After reading about this, I suppose that might work. However, if the law the defunded ACORN wasn't upheld as a bill of attainder, this won't be..
Kaspersky isn't having any property confiscated nor are they being punished for some wrong doing. They are only being deprived of FUTURE revenue though sales of products to one specific customer. If ACRON lost it's federal funding though a law that made it illegal and that's not a bill of attainder, then this isn't either.
I suppose they may make it though the initial case if they chose their venue well, but they will lose on appeal.
I just looked and they sure cherry pick Obama's lies yet went full on parse every jot and tittle for Trump. They omitted my favorite four Obama lies completely so for my money they are surely biased... But this is the NYT, paragon of the corrupt media bias, so I'm not surprised.
NYT, politifact and Washington post articles? Nope.. You won't accept my Fox News reference for similar reasons...
How about picking your favorite lie and let's discuss it...
1. What did he actually say? (Including the context of the statement)
2. What is the truth of the matter and is this actually provable?
3. Has anybody corrected the statement, Trump or someone in his administration?
Remember, a LIE is when you are leading someone to believe something you KNOW is false. It's about what you know to be true and what your intent is.
So "If you like your plan, you can keep your plan" was a lie, as was "It will save a family of 4 $2,400/year", and "your taxes will not go up to pay for this" because Obama KNEW these where not true, but said them any way to sell the public something. Also "Bengasi was a riot over a video" was a lie told by the administration told to protect votes, full knowing the truth was entirely different, but nobody would be able to prove it until after the election.
So.. Just so you are not surprised.. If you do happen to find something to complain about here, I'm going to jump into a "are you sure this isn't a double standard" argument... Still care to play this game?
A wise debater doesn't go on the attack using an argument that can be used on his position. Two wrongs don't make a right and claiming that your side's wrong is somehow more right than the other isn't a winning strategy,
I get that it's your OPINION that Trump's faults have more weight, but I do not agree that your opinion is correct or that your struggle to justify the continued bashing of our president is valid.
EVERYBODY needs to grow up and stop with the petty partisan snipping. It takes two, and if the press chose to take the high road, ignore the provocations and refuse to report on them, this would all come to an abrupt halt and Trump would stop responding and all this would go away.
But, as it stands, the press won't stop it's unfair treatment of Trump... I'm left to ask why? Is it because they cannot help themselves? Maybe, but I think it's more because it makes ratings which sells advertising which makes the huge media companies money.
So Trump is fighting for his reputation, and the Media is making money bashing him.... Who's more justified?
So I assume that you have been actually looking into Trump's Anti "Iraq war" stance during the campaign and just choosing to dismiss *everything* he said because it flies in the face of your closely held personal (or dare I say partisan political) views about who Trump is. To you, he was obviously lying, yet there is no real fact that you can point to on this specific point about Trump's stance on foreign wars.
Far be it from me to burst your bubble with a bit of truth about Trump.. Enjoy your delusions, just know they are not to your credit.
I seem to recall that Sadam was fine until he either invaded another country to take their oil (Gulf War #1) OR chose to be uncooperative about harboring extremists within his country and then started talking about having chemical weapons... Sadam's issue was he was threatening those around him. Hindsight is 20/20 so looking back the Iraq war might have been unnecessary and the given reasons to starting it might have been less than accurate, but we cannot know what "would have been" had another course been selected. We can guess though, that the rise of ISIS would have been quicker and sooner.
DPRK's issue is one of being a responsible world player, they don't want to play nice. They are threatening the US and it's allies in the region and if they'd just drop the pretense we would work with them like we have before. The problem is the Kim's know that they are no borrowed time, once their people know the truth, Kim will be history in short order. Kim's only recourse is to keep up appearances with his people by putting up a house of cards and hoping nobody calls his bluff.
As if he's never been misquoted or inaccurately covered by the press. They've never reported "fake news" (tm) about him? Oh but they have....
You and the press may not like his style, but that doesn't make it right to just make stuff up or for using anonymous sources which you haven't verified to vilify a guy you don't like. The press has NOT remained impartial here. Sure, Trump pushes their buttons and makes them angry on purpose, but that doesn't give them license to toss their journalistic standards and "get even" with Trump like they obviously choose to do. Journalists should NEVER react to this kind of thing, should never let their personal bias rule their reporting, but they have.
I'm not excusing Trump's part of this, but it takes two and the press seems to be all to willing, right or wrong, to take on Trump by any means at their disposal, including stooping to immoral and unethical journalistic practices, lying about Trump and either inventing stories or using unreliable sources without accountability. They have given over to profits over truth and getting even over objectivity.
You know, I've heard this claim that Trump blatantly lies all the time quite a bit. However, I've never really had anybody defend that position with actual quotes, taken in context about some topic that's actually material to the governing of the country. Also, many of Trump's supposed "lies" turned out to actually be true, like that "Tapped my wires" tweet which was widely condemned as a lie but was pretty much true looking back on what we know now.
I get that he's abrasive and spouts off stuff of questionable sources at times, but I don't see him as the kind that just lies to hear himself speak, or lies for political advantage like some from the other side of the isle have in the past.
Obama was pretty in your face about his lies about Obamacare, told for political advantage. His campaign also foisted a huge "it was a protest about a video" in Benghazi lie quite effectively during his second run. I dare say, these examples are worse than anything Trump has said.
The war drums with NK have been steadily beating for two decades and only now you notice? Doesn't anybody pay attention anymore? We've been in an escalating verbal and sanctions conflict with NK since the cease fire was signed. More recently NK has been testing parts of weapon systems designed to deliver nuclear bombs to the mainland of the USA while continuing to threaten to do it.
It's been pretty clear to those paying attention that NK was a problem that was only getting worse over time... I've heard the drums, why haven't you?
Weddings where high value targets are? I suppose, but only when legitimate targets are believed to be present. We don't just bomb any wedding we see out there, just because we like doing that.
Hospitals? Not usually and in the one case I am aware of, the location of this hospital wasn't known nor was it properly marked and it was being used by forces which would be legitimate targets in any other location.
Collateral damage is part of waging war and in urban settings it is most regrettable that it happens more often. If the combatants choose to fight in urban environments, that's where the conflict will be. However, if the goal is to prevail in the conflict, sometimes you have to pick the lessor of evils and risk collateral damage. The USA does it's best to prevent civilian damage, but if the other side picks the location we must fight, what choice do we have?
Look, the issue with NK has been brewing for decades. Their rhetoric has been consistent both internally and externally for decades. They have claimed the US was the aggressor (we where not) and that they won the war (they didn't, it was a stalemate because China put troops into the war). They have since claimed that they will eventually restart the war and this time drive the USA away.
Until recently, all this was just saber rattling and everybody knew it. NK had a huge standing army and conventional arms coming out their ears which was basically defensive, but everybody knew they had little offensive ability. However, over the last few years this has changed. NK has nuclear weapons and obviously has tested a number of successful devices, the last few may have been boosted (fusion) devices. They are currently testing ICBM delivery systems and have demonstrated the capability to reach the USA mainland a number of times. If they don't already have the ability to toss a nuclear device on an ICBM and hit us, they are obviously close.
So, we have to now take them seriously. It's like a crazy guy on the street who is obviously unarmed yelling at the cops that he's going to shoot and kill them verses a guy who has a gun doing the same thing. One get's arrested, the other get's shot.
Trump understands all this and where I don't think he wants war (see is campaign stump speeches about the Iraq war for more information) he seems to understand that kicking the NK can further down the road is folly. Right now he's trying UN sanctions (though the press doesn't talk about this) and working with China and Russia with varying success to make sure the sanctions have teeth. If NK doesn't bend, eventually the military option *might* be used, but it's obviously not the president's first choice.
So I don't think you are being fair with Trump here. If he was as you say, this whole thing would be over, most of Korea would be a smoking crater and a bunch of people would have died already. If he was just looking for an excuse, Kim has given him multiple chances since he took office. Yet, here we sit, watching the new UN sanctions take hold instead of being in a shooting war.
>in this day in age Citing the White House is like Citing a You Tube comment.
Considering Trump spewed Birther conspiracies prior to being POTUS and more or less his first official act in office was to have Spicer deliver bald-faced lies about crowd sizes... yeah.
I'm continually surprised that the press even bothers to attend White House press briefings, since there's nothing newsworthy about reporting the lies any longer (which is sad in and of itself). Any real reporting would require sources from outside that room.
They cannot help themselves... They are cats and Trump is running the red laser pointer around the press room and from his Twitter account.
Besides.. Actual REPORTING requires that you do investigative WORK and it's easier to get ratings other ways...
With a president with record low approval ratings.
And why do you suppose his ratings are so bad?
Where I'm not going to claim that Trump hasn't contributed to his approval ratings, I am going to point out that a lot of this is a product of a lot of negative press coverage, much of which doesn't seem to be warranted when you look back on it.
Makes perfect sense, after it was recently reported the fearless leader was accumulating the crypto-currency...
On the other hand, demonizing a political opponent is a sensible Machiavellian move.
There's nothing sensible about poking the North Korean bear.
That depends on why you are poking at it. If it's getting out of it's cage because the door is unlocked, it might be a good idea to poke a bit until the door can get locked.
In the case of poking at DPRK, it must be understood that this bear is actively perusing weapons of mass destruction and the means to use them on the US mainland. Their propaganda is clearly threatening the USA and it's allies. They have, or will soon have the means to attack the USA mainland and are saying they will.
So the problem here is that nobody can guarantee that DPRK won't do what they are threatening. We used to be able to just laugh it off because we KNEW they didn't have the means. Now they apparently have developed the means and continue to threaten to use it.
What would you do? It's one thing for some obviously unarmed guy on the street to yell at law enforcement that he's going to shoot and kill them but quite another when an armed guy does the same thing. One gets arrested, the other gets shot.
But I don't have a right to force the government to buy my product if they don't find my product suited for it's purpose or if it carries unacceptable risks.
The reasons for Kaspersky Labs removal from consideration is pretty clear. They remain a subsidiary of a Russian company and carry an unacceptable amount of risk of being exploited by foreign intelligence services. Given the pervasive nature of the product and where it would likely be installed, the concern is a valid one, thus the prohibition is valid.
I don't think Kaspersky Labs has a case here in the USA.
I don't think the fires are an important factor here. There are not enough homes because the government and physical reality have prevented them from being built, not because a few thousand upper class houses burned down.
Face it, LA is totally built, completely beyond reasonable limits and available water supplies. Government rules prevent affordable housing to be built due to zoning and occupancy regulations. The large metropolitan areas of California are generally all the same story, we have no more water, we can build no more housing on new land because there isn't any land or zoning laws prevent building on new land or upgrading existing housing for higher occupancy.
Sure the fires don't help, if you are a millionaire living in an upper class neighborhood near the places that burn, but this is temporary and very limited given the total number of homes, even with the current set of fires, These houses are largely insured and will be quickly rebuilt so the effect on supply will be pretty sort lived.
The problem with housing costs is a local and state government creation, where supply has been severely limited by regulations. Some necessary regulations, some not so necessary ones.
Congress only dictated that the government may not purchase this company's products. They didn't ban the company from doing business or take any of their property away, only made it illegal for the federal government to purchase this companies products. Sucks that it's their biggest customer, but if congress doesn't have the right to decide where the money the budget gets spent, what rights does congress have here?
IF congress had banned the company from doing business or actually taken their property without compensation they might have a case, but they didn't do any of that.
The ONLY possible case that *might* be made here is that Congress destroyed their reputation with this, but that's not "due process" but defamation. I seriously doubt that they can prove this because in the USA defamation is *really* hard to prove.
Never said nobody would do it, only that it was a bad business decision. I'm not surprised if folks driving for Uber make bad business decisions. It's not like driving for Uber is some kind of dream business or attracts the best and brightest.
This bill will be referred to committee and never emerge to see the light of day. I'm guessing it will never come up for discussion by committee either. Shame on you Senator, you know this already, but you don't care.
Ah yes, grandstanding for political appearances.. Go Chucky!
Slashdot Mirror
Great, we can have localized global warming then....
Yea no problem, just reflect more sunshine into the atmosphere...
LOL.. Schumer is blowing blue smoke for the sake of appearances and whipping up his base... This will never make it out of committee.
And you are just peachy with Kim's totalitarian dictatorship and how his people suffer because he "wont' play nice" with others?
I don't get the liberal mind sometimes. First it's all "#saveourgirls" twitter campaigns because we "care" about the kidnapping of young women half a world away, but when you look at the likes of the Kim dynasty it's all the USA's fault for being the aggressor? It's like you have selective memory and double standards to uphold. Historically the USA was NOT the aggressor in Korea. Yea maybe we where the interloper, but we where supporting our allies from the advancing Russian and Chinese tide and had mutual defense agreements AND the blessing of the UN for our involvement. It was the North that started all this and the North that continues to be aggressive, going so far as to capture the Pueblo on the open seas and stage a number of infiltrations into South Korea over the years. We've not done any of that kind of stuff. Yea, we remain in force on the DMZ border and watch, but we are not shelling their islands or shooting at their ships in international waters.
So I think you are skewing history, taking out the parts that don't support your pet theory. You are doing the very thing you accuse others of doing with your revisionist history and soft peddling the oppression of the North Korean People in the deceptively named DRPK which is a "democracy" with but one name on the ballot and a republic where a dictator makes the decisions.
After reading about this, I suppose that might work. However, if the law the defunded ACORN wasn't upheld as a bill of attainder, this won't be..
Kaspersky isn't having any property confiscated nor are they being punished for some wrong doing. They are only being deprived of FUTURE revenue though sales of products to one specific customer. If ACRON lost it's federal funding though a law that made it illegal and that's not a bill of attainder, then this isn't either.
I suppose they may make it though the initial case if they chose their venue well, but they will lose on appeal.
I just looked and they sure cherry pick Obama's lies yet went full on parse every jot and tittle for Trump. They omitted my favorite four Obama lies completely so for my money they are surely biased... But this is the NYT, paragon of the corrupt media bias, so I'm not surprised.
NYT, politifact and Washington post articles? Nope.. You won't accept my Fox News reference for similar reasons...
How about picking your favorite lie and let's discuss it...
1. What did he actually say? (Including the context of the statement)
2. What is the truth of the matter and is this actually provable?
3. Has anybody corrected the statement, Trump or someone in his administration?
Remember, a LIE is when you are leading someone to believe something you KNOW is false. It's about what you know to be true and what your intent is.
So "If you like your plan, you can keep your plan" was a lie, as was "It will save a family of 4 $2,400/year", and "your taxes will not go up to pay for this" because Obama KNEW these where not true, but said them any way to sell the public something. Also "Bengasi was a riot over a video" was a lie told by the administration told to protect votes, full knowing the truth was entirely different, but nobody would be able to prove it until after the election.
So.. Just so you are not surprised.. If you do happen to find something to complain about here, I'm going to jump into a "are you sure this isn't a double standard" argument... Still care to play this game?
A wise debater doesn't go on the attack using an argument that can be used on his position. Two wrongs don't make a right and claiming that your side's wrong is somehow more right than the other isn't a winning strategy,
I get that it's your OPINION that Trump's faults have more weight, but I do not agree that your opinion is correct or that your struggle to justify the continued bashing of our president is valid.
EVERYBODY needs to grow up and stop with the petty partisan snipping. It takes two, and if the press chose to take the high road, ignore the provocations and refuse to report on them, this would all come to an abrupt halt and Trump would stop responding and all this would go away.
But, as it stands, the press won't stop it's unfair treatment of Trump... I'm left to ask why? Is it because they cannot help themselves? Maybe, but I think it's more because it makes ratings which sells advertising which makes the huge media companies money.
So Trump is fighting for his reputation, and the Media is making money bashing him.... Who's more justified?
Ah.. Sorry there to trigger you..
So I assume that you have been actually looking into Trump's Anti "Iraq war" stance during the campaign and just choosing to dismiss *everything* he said because it flies in the face of your closely held personal (or dare I say partisan political) views about who Trump is. To you, he was obviously lying, yet there is no real fact that you can point to on this specific point about Trump's stance on foreign wars.
Far be it from me to burst your bubble with a bit of truth about Trump.. Enjoy your delusions, just know they are not to your credit.
Thank You!
I seem to recall that Sadam was fine until he either invaded another country to take their oil (Gulf War #1) OR chose to be uncooperative about harboring extremists within his country and then started talking about having chemical weapons... Sadam's issue was he was threatening those around him. Hindsight is 20/20 so looking back the Iraq war might have been unnecessary and the given reasons to starting it might have been less than accurate, but we cannot know what "would have been" had another course been selected. We can guess though, that the rise of ISIS would have been quicker and sooner.
DPRK's issue is one of being a responsible world player, they don't want to play nice. They are threatening the US and it's allies in the region and if they'd just drop the pretense we would work with them like we have before. The problem is the Kim's know that they are no borrowed time, once their people know the truth, Kim will be history in short order. Kim's only recourse is to keep up appearances with his people by putting up a house of cards and hoping nobody calls his bluff.
As if he's never been misquoted or inaccurately covered by the press. They've never reported "fake news" (tm) about him? Oh but they have....
You and the press may not like his style, but that doesn't make it right to just make stuff up or for using anonymous sources which you haven't verified to vilify a guy you don't like. The press has NOT remained impartial here. Sure, Trump pushes their buttons and makes them angry on purpose, but that doesn't give them license to toss their journalistic standards and "get even" with Trump like they obviously choose to do. Journalists should NEVER react to this kind of thing, should never let their personal bias rule their reporting, but they have.
I'm not excusing Trump's part of this, but it takes two and the press seems to be all to willing, right or wrong, to take on Trump by any means at their disposal, including stooping to immoral and unethical journalistic practices, lying about Trump and either inventing stories or using unreliable sources without accountability. They have given over to profits over truth and getting even over objectivity.
Both sides have issues here...Not just Trump.
You know, I've heard this claim that Trump blatantly lies all the time quite a bit. However, I've never really had anybody defend that position with actual quotes, taken in context about some topic that's actually material to the governing of the country. Also, many of Trump's supposed "lies" turned out to actually be true, like that "Tapped my wires" tweet which was widely condemned as a lie but was pretty much true looking back on what we know now.
I get that he's abrasive and spouts off stuff of questionable sources at times, but I don't see him as the kind that just lies to hear himself speak, or lies for political advantage like some from the other side of the isle have in the past.
Obama was pretty in your face about his lies about Obamacare, told for political advantage. His campaign also foisted a huge "it was a protest about a video" in Benghazi lie quite effectively during his second run. I dare say, these examples are worse than anything Trump has said.
Where have you been the last decade...
The war drums with NK have been steadily beating for two decades and only now you notice? Doesn't anybody pay attention anymore? We've been in an escalating verbal and sanctions conflict with NK since the cease fire was signed. More recently NK has been testing parts of weapon systems designed to deliver nuclear bombs to the mainland of the USA while continuing to threaten to do it.
It's been pretty clear to those paying attention that NK was a problem that was only getting worse over time... I've heard the drums, why haven't you?
Weddings where high value targets are? I suppose, but only when legitimate targets are believed to be present. We don't just bomb any wedding we see out there, just because we like doing that.
Hospitals? Not usually and in the one case I am aware of, the location of this hospital wasn't known nor was it properly marked and it was being used by forces which would be legitimate targets in any other location.
Collateral damage is part of waging war and in urban settings it is most regrettable that it happens more often. If the combatants choose to fight in urban environments, that's where the conflict will be. However, if the goal is to prevail in the conflict, sometimes you have to pick the lessor of evils and risk collateral damage. The USA does it's best to prevent civilian damage, but if the other side picks the location we must fight, what choice do we have?
Shesh.. So you understand Trump then?
Look, the issue with NK has been brewing for decades. Their rhetoric has been consistent both internally and externally for decades. They have claimed the US was the aggressor (we where not) and that they won the war (they didn't, it was a stalemate because China put troops into the war). They have since claimed that they will eventually restart the war and this time drive the USA away.
Until recently, all this was just saber rattling and everybody knew it. NK had a huge standing army and conventional arms coming out their ears which was basically defensive, but everybody knew they had little offensive ability. However, over the last few years this has changed. NK has nuclear weapons and obviously has tested a number of successful devices, the last few may have been boosted (fusion) devices. They are currently testing ICBM delivery systems and have demonstrated the capability to reach the USA mainland a number of times. If they don't already have the ability to toss a nuclear device on an ICBM and hit us, they are obviously close.
So, we have to now take them seriously. It's like a crazy guy on the street who is obviously unarmed yelling at the cops that he's going to shoot and kill them verses a guy who has a gun doing the same thing. One get's arrested, the other get's shot.
Trump understands all this and where I don't think he wants war (see is campaign stump speeches about the Iraq war for more information) he seems to understand that kicking the NK can further down the road is folly. Right now he's trying UN sanctions (though the press doesn't talk about this) and working with China and Russia with varying success to make sure the sanctions have teeth. If NK doesn't bend, eventually the military option *might* be used, but it's obviously not the president's first choice.
So I don't think you are being fair with Trump here. If he was as you say, this whole thing would be over, most of Korea would be a smoking crater and a bunch of people would have died already. If he was just looking for an excuse, Kim has given him multiple chances since he took office. Yet, here we sit, watching the new UN sanctions take hold instead of being in a shooting war.
Everybody abandoned the cease fire agreement decades ago. Both sides have officially said it doesn't apply anymore.
>in this day in age Citing the White House is like Citing a You Tube comment.
Considering Trump spewed Birther conspiracies prior to being POTUS and more or less his first official act in office was to have Spicer deliver bald-faced lies about crowd sizes... yeah.
I'm continually surprised that the press even bothers to attend White House press briefings, since there's nothing newsworthy about reporting the lies any longer (which is sad in and of itself). Any real reporting would require sources from outside that room.
They cannot help themselves... They are cats and Trump is running the red laser pointer around the press room and from his Twitter account.
Besides.. Actual REPORTING requires that you do investigative WORK and it's easier to get ratings other ways...
With a president with record low approval ratings.
And why do you suppose his ratings are so bad?
Where I'm not going to claim that Trump hasn't contributed to his approval ratings, I am going to point out that a lot of this is a product of a lot of negative press coverage, much of which doesn't seem to be warranted when you look back on it.
Makes perfect sense, after it was recently reported the fearless leader was accumulating the crypto-currency...
On the other hand, demonizing a political opponent is a sensible Machiavellian move.
There's nothing sensible about poking the North Korean bear.
That depends on why you are poking at it. If it's getting out of it's cage because the door is unlocked, it might be a good idea to poke a bit until the door can get locked.
In the case of poking at DPRK, it must be understood that this bear is actively perusing weapons of mass destruction and the means to use them on the US mainland. Their propaganda is clearly threatening the USA and it's allies. They have, or will soon have the means to attack the USA mainland and are saying they will.
So the problem here is that nobody can guarantee that DPRK won't do what they are threatening. We used to be able to just laugh it off because we KNEW they didn't have the means. Now they apparently have developed the means and continue to threaten to use it.
What would you do? It's one thing for some obviously unarmed guy on the street to yell at law enforcement that he's going to shoot and kill them but quite another when an armed guy does the same thing. One gets arrested, the other gets shot.
But I don't have a right to force the government to buy my product if they don't find my product suited for it's purpose or if it carries unacceptable risks.
The reasons for Kaspersky Labs removal from consideration is pretty clear. They remain a subsidiary of a Russian company and carry an unacceptable amount of risk of being exploited by foreign intelligence services. Given the pervasive nature of the product and where it would likely be installed, the concern is a valid one, thus the prohibition is valid.
I don't think Kaspersky Labs has a case here in the USA.
I don't think the fires are an important factor here. There are not enough homes because the government and physical reality have prevented them from being built, not because a few thousand upper class houses burned down.
Face it, LA is totally built, completely beyond reasonable limits and available water supplies. Government rules prevent affordable housing to be built due to zoning and occupancy regulations. The large metropolitan areas of California are generally all the same story, we have no more water, we can build no more housing on new land because there isn't any land or zoning laws prevent building on new land or upgrading existing housing for higher occupancy.
Sure the fires don't help, if you are a millionaire living in an upper class neighborhood near the places that burn, but this is temporary and very limited given the total number of homes, even with the current set of fires, These houses are largely insured and will be quickly rebuilt so the effect on supply will be pretty sort lived.
The problem with housing costs is a local and state government creation, where supply has been severely limited by regulations. Some necessary regulations, some not so necessary ones.
Congress only dictated that the government may not purchase this company's products. They didn't ban the company from doing business or take any of their property away, only made it illegal for the federal government to purchase this companies products. Sucks that it's their biggest customer, but if congress doesn't have the right to decide where the money the budget gets spent, what rights does congress have here?
IF congress had banned the company from doing business or actually taken their property without compensation they might have a case, but they didn't do any of that.
The ONLY possible case that *might* be made here is that Congress destroyed their reputation with this, but that's not "due process" but defamation. I seriously doubt that they can prove this because in the USA defamation is *really* hard to prove.
Never said nobody would do it, only that it was a bad business decision. I'm not surprised if folks driving for Uber make bad business decisions. It's not like driving for Uber is some kind of dream business or attracts the best and brightest.
This bill will be referred to committee and never emerge to see the light of day. I'm guessing it will never come up for discussion by committee either. Shame on you Senator, you know this already, but you don't care.
Ah yes, grandstanding for political appearances.. Go Chucky!
Man, that sarcasm I tried must not be very obvious...