Article one regularly refers to other members of government beyond Congress. Article one also, when it wants to make it clear its referring to Congress, uses the specific languge of "The Senators and Representatives", such as:
"The Senators and Representatives shall receive a compensation for their services"
But if you're wanting for a simple explanation for why the emoluments clause is in Article 1, I would try to satiate you by pointing out that it's likely because Congress is the body that would be able to DO SOMETHING about an emoluments violation, therefore its in the jurisdiction of the body focused on in Article 1.
"Mr masnick, in order for a lie to be effective, a victim cannot realize plot. Please make better next time. There is no Muslim ban. Syria is not predominantly Muslim, and Saudi Arabia with 100% state religion did not even made a cut to list compiled by Obama administration."
Hey, genius, this isn't as difficult as you're trying to make it out to be. For this to be a Muslim ban, it need not ban EVERY Muslim. If the ban is selectively attempting to ban Muslims, even Muslims from a select group of countries, it's still an attempt to specifically ban Muslims.
Which is what this did. The countries banned are predominantly Muslim, and there are preferences carved out once the ban is lifted for non-Muslims. And, since you're a special kind of idiot, Syria IS not just predominantly Muslim, but it's OVERWHELMINGLY Muslim. They don't do census data any more since 1960 because the country can't be bothered to do basic civil services, nevermind actually conduct a fucking census, but at last count it was north of 90% Muslim. Unless you can cite something credible that shows a drastic change from that number, you clearly have no idea what the fuck you're talking about....
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Isn't this the same executive order....
How does this conflict with what I said? Refugee status will be impacted by a religious test, per the text. If you're Christian, you're at the front of the line. If you're Muslim, or Atheist, get to the back.
"I was hoping you would appreciate a different perspective on your writing. I'm starting to think I've offended you somehow. My apologies if that's the case, that was not my intention. "
Meh, I hardly ever manage to take offence at anything, and certainly not that easily, so don't think that.
"The introduction of a series of seemingly irrelevant remarks at the beginning of the story, again however true they may be, set a tone that was reading very hostile to me. Especially when you read later in the story that this issue isn't new or partisan. That the U.S. has a long standing history of arresting journalists."
They. Are. Not. Irrelevant. The point is that the continuation of this treatment of journalists is not only likely to continue under President Trump for the very reasons I stated in the opening, but IT'S GOING TO GET WORSE for those reasons. That was the entire point of how I framed this.
"Intentions aside; The story "read" like Trump was the cause, or at least a major contributor to all this, when really it's been a problem since long before Trump."
If a significant number of people really are reading it that way, despite me, you know, pointing that out exactly within the post itself, then I'll accept responsibility for it. I truly didn't think I had to be so explicit in spelling this stuff out, but perhaps I overestimated some who are reading this post....
"To be fair, this might just be a problem with me. Kinda fed up with bad examples of "Trump so bad!" He's bad enough w/o blaming him for other people's crap..."
I completely understand this sentiment. I too wish those opposed to President Trump would be honest in their criticism, and too often they are not. Nobody who reads what I write is under the misconception that I'm a fanboy of the President, but I try to be fair about it. Hence a paragraph dedicated to President Obama, where I have to say is the only paragraph that I got truly snarky....
"Then you go on to say he's taking aim at the First Amendment."
.....and I linked to our own post about him doing exactly that. That isn't bashing, it's referencing our previous accurate post.
"Then you state he's basically declaring war on the press."
From President Trump's own speech at the CIA the other day: "As you know, I have a running war with the media. They are among the most dishonest human beings on Earth." How is it bashing to accurately paraphrase his own words, exactly?
"Then you go on to say that on his first day as President, the police arrest 8 journalists covering a protest at his inauguration."
Well, to be fair, the only reason I wrote that SIX journalists were arrested, not eight, is because it, you know.....happened.
"However true any of those things are, and aside from the last sentence, did any of those things have anything to do with what the DC police did? In my honest opinion, the first paragraph read like you were winding up a flaming fastball aimed right for Trumps head."
Excuse me, but the President is the chief of the enforcement wing of the government at the federal level. He may not directly write policy for local and state law enforcement, but are you really suggesting that they do not take their cue or influence from THE PRESIDENT? Posture by a president makes a difference and, as he has framed the media as an enemy, you're suggesting that this sentiment and framing won't filter to the local level?
"TL; DR: My real problem is the article conflates "OMG Trump!" with business as usual, giving the implication that this is some *new* troubling sign of the decline of free speech rights."
Do me a favor, honestly, and let me know what you think. Read the whole thing again with the knowledge that the way I was actually TRYING to position the post was that this is a continuation of a practice during the inauguration of someone whose stated aims and public statements suggest that this will become an even DEEPER problem than already exists. In other words, the argument I was making was that past administrations' bad actions have opened the door to someone who might make past abuses look like child's play (this, again, is based on Trump's statements about the press generally).
I'm honestly interested if you think it reads differently the second time around. I typically try to avoid being so explicit in the framing of a post, trusting that I'm getting my message across, but that doesn't mean I'm always, or even usually, successful....
I rather enjoy this line of thinking. Under this idea, the media ought not report on wars, murders, etc. They've reported on those things for, like, ever, and they still occur, so apparently it isn't making any difference and they should stop....
Wait a tic....exactly how is commissioning an investigation into the potential influencing of an election by a foreign state hypocritical? Spycraft is a reality of the world. I don't for a moment argue that we didn't do the things you suggest, but how in the world is trying to discover what happened on our end hypocritical? In your estimation, we should just cover our eyes and pretend something might not have happened?
I will say that if you're lucky enough to find a few curators that fit your interests, they can really be a boon to searching out new and interesting titles. The problem, as I stated in the post, is that the curator program has the same problem as game releases on Steam: glut.
According to the linked article, it appears the concept of a "fashion santa" was already in the works at the mall when the model approached them. They only hired someone else when the original model refused to cease claiming he was the only one who had any rights to the "character".
"I had to go to the Kotaku article, find the name and search for it. Pretty crappy of Tim to run a story about the game, but only include mention of which game he's talking about in a quote from the "real" article."
Actually, I completely agree with you. It's usually not as much an issue in posts like this, except for three things that conspired to make this a bigger problem in this post:
1. I didn't include the name of the dev or game in the title post, which was kind of dumb
2. I only included the name of the game in the pull quote, which, having not included it in the title was kind of dumb
3. Because the name of the game is a single word, because the pull quotes are italicized (which is how I usually identify game titles in my post, by italics), and because the first letter of the game title is one which can be confused with another lower case letter, the title in the pull quote is SUPER easy to miss, which it was kind of dumb for me not to realize
In other words, mea culpa for being kind of dumb kind of often when it comes to calling out the title in this post. Sorry, guys.