what is the market share of adwords things (my understanding this is mostly going to be people offering services) that is impacted by AMP? An ecommerce site won't support AMP so won't be affected, and are news sites and blogs going to be using adwords to advertise their news and blog offerings that much?
E: (and then does it even matter if you're ads are still shown on your AMPed site so you get paid per hit?)
Why? In this case, the majority of these employees are likely not in tech roles, but in various parts of the fulfillment pipeline. That makes them more similar to FedEx or Walmart.
>It's not a tangent. Ms. Yates apparently feels the president does not have the legal authority to make orders of this nature when President Trump is in office, but that he does have the authority when President Obama is in office.
There's a very simple answer to this:
She did not believe that the Obama EO was unconstitutional, whereas she believed that this one was. Then, everything makes sense. You can rant about how "there's no credible argument", but I'm inclined to believe an Attourney General over someone on an internet forum with regards to the law.
So tell me this: what should she have done if she believed the EO, as applied, would be unconstitutional?
Edit: also the judiciary is moving swiftly, in the past two days, the EO has been practically gutted in the courts.
So tell me this: what should she have done if she believed the EO, as applied, would be unconstitutional?
You ask a reasonable hypothetical, but I don't think it matches the circumstances here. If Yates felt that she could not in good faith enforce the order because it was unconstitutional, I think she would have been very clear about this in her memo: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/01/30/us/document-L...
Instead, while not ruling out unconstitutionality, she pointed to the "broader" responsibility she feels the leader of the Department of Justice should have. I thought she said quite clearly (for a lawyer) that although she was uncertain whether the order was legal, her refusal was because she judged the order to be unjust and unwise. Personally, I greatly respect her differentiation between "constitutional" and "right".
The supreme court agrees that affirmative action is constitutional (within certain bounds), see the recent Fisher v. UT case, or Bakke for the original example.
I'm not saying it's not constitutional, just that it is unrelated to civil liberties and should probably be outside their purview if they're to be a politically neutral organization.
>Last year, the vetting process somehow managed to grant visas to 9500 terror linked individuals, all of whom are missing. When the visas were revoked, there was no way to locate them. (Source: House oversight committee hearings & Mainstream media ~ 2015 / 2016)
No, since 2001, 9500 "terror linked individuals" were given visas. Unfortunately, I can't find any explanation of what "terror linked" means in this context. Each year, the US grants approximately 8-9 million visas. So, in 15 years, across over 100 million issued visas, approximately 10,000 may have been given to individuals who were "terror linked", where that could mean "confirmed terrorist", or it could mean "their uncle once went to a market that we believe is a known terrorist hotspot". Again, there's no explanation, anywhere, of what "terror linked individual" means in this context.
That's interesting. I totally see this as a valid argument (and I don't disagree that this might be politically motivated on the judge's part). However, it seems to me that
>any clear conviction that the law was unconstitutional
is the wrong way of going about it. I would think you'd want to be pretty darn sure that the actions you were carrying out were constitutional before doing them. That is, I'd much rather people not enforce a law that might be unconstitutional, but isn't, than enforce a law that is unconstitutional. Err on the side of caution.
Ambivalence and apathy are two very different things. Ambivalence is having mixed or contradictory ideas about something. Apathy is disinterest or lack of concern. For a lot of difficult issues, it's reasonable to be ambivalent. Sometimes it's hard not to be able to see multiple sides of an issue and understand the appeal of more than one.
If (and that is a potentially big if) Trump continues the Obama admin plan of responding to all petitions that have >100K signatures, it will be interesting to see what the response to 'hey you should let this young female student who was already here back in, since she poses no danger to the US'.
That is, I'd expect that a Christian in the middle east would be more likely to have citizenship or family in a western nation than your average Syrian.
Now it could be, but 'they are being specifically targeted' doesn't immediately imply to me that 'they should be a disproportionately high number of refugees'.
That story mentions Bishops and priests who are very likely to not be Syrian Citizens, and instead be capable of just flying back to their home countries.
That is, I'd expect that a Christian in the middle east would be more likely to have citizenship or family in a western nation than your average Syrian.
Why would you assume that? These are Syrian Christians who have lived their for centuries. They are no different than other Syrians other than their religious beliefs.
>That story mentions Bishops and priests who are very likely to not be Syrian Citizens, and instead be capable of just flying back to their home countries.
I'm by no means saying that every Christian will be more capable of leaving, or not be a citizen. But if 30% of Christians are citizens elsewhere, and only 3% of Muslims, then you have 70% of 10% of the poopulation as potential Christian refugees, and 97% of 90% of the population as Muslim refugees, which would make 7.4% of asylum seekers Christian, as opposed to 10% of the population.
Don't you mean so you get paid for a click even if the user never visited your website?