You seem to be confusing "wanting to get rid of communists" with "wanting their countries to be poor and dangerous".

And than you look at the US doing this crap for far, far longer. Bug-planting by law-enforcement has a long, long tradition in the US. The difference is that in Germany, so far, this was completely illegal for law enforcement. Whether this will stand in Berlin remains to be seen, but I doubt it.

There will be for sure a review by the Bundesverfassungsgericht. So far, the surveillance-fascists always lost.

Do you have trouble with reading comprehension? I specifically answered to "How many countries have banks the size of Credit Suisse?", nothing else. And, as it turns out, that insinuation was complete and utter nonsense.

You are just an asshole trying to move goalposts when your bullshit gets called out. How repulsive.

Why should I follow your cheap manipulation strategy? After I have pointed out your 2nd core argument is bullshit and manipulative, you want me to ignore that one?

You are a complete asshole, nothing else.

USA: 4,453,908 Muslims. Funny. Incidentally, Germany has more Muslims per capita than Switzerland.

And what does LGBTQ rights have to do with whether "Islam has always been an integral part of the Swiss experience"? Are you mentally challenged?

All I see here is that you are full of shit.

The supremacy clause applies to LAWS. Congress declined to enact such a law.

Yes, it belongs to Congress, not the President. Executive orders are literally orders given by the President to the executive branch of the federal government.

So the effectiveness of an executive order is very questionable in this case. If a state passes a law, what's the executive order going to do? Send the Army to invade? What could go wrong?

US Solicitor General John Sauer disagrees.

In the oral arguments for Trump v Slaughter, on Monday, Sauer said this isn't true when Justice Kagan pushed him on it. She said that the Founders clearly intended to have a separation of powers, to which he basically said "Yeah, but with the caveat that they created the 'unitary executive'", by which he seemed to mean that they intended the president to be able to do pretty much anything.

Kagan responded with a nuanced argument about how we have long allowed Congress to delegate limited legislative and judicial functions to the executive branch in the way we allow Congress to delegate the power to create and evaluate federal rules to executive-branch agencies, but that that strategy rests on a "deal" that both limits the scope of said rulemaking and evaluative functions and isolates them to the designated agency. She said that breaking that isolation by allowing the president detailed control over those functions abrogated and invalidated the deal, unconstitutionally concentrating power in ways that were clearly not intended by the Founders.

Sauer disagreed. I'll stop describing the discussion here and invite you to listen to it. The discussion is both fascinating and very accessible, and the linked clip is less than seven minutes long.

The court seems poised to take Sauer's view, which I think is clearly wrong. If they do, it's going to come back and bite conservatives hard when we get an active liberal president, as we inevitably will someday if the Trump administration fails to end democracy in the US.

What's very sad is that we already went through all of this and learned these lessons 150 years ago. After 100 years of experience with a thoroughly-politicized executive branch, we passed the Pentleton Civil Service Reform act in 1883 specifically to insulate most civil servants from presidential interference. Various other laws have subsequently been passed to create protections for federal workers and to establish high-level positions that are explicitly protected from the president. SCOTUS seems bent on overturning all of that and returning us to the pre-Pendleton era.

Those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it, and it's looking we're gonna repeat a lot of bad history before we re-learn those 19th-century lessons.

If it was reasonable I presume companies wouldn't be complaining because it would be as cheap as or cheaper than setting up their own payment system.

Not necessarily even that. Some friends tried to break into the movie business in London but pretty much everywhere required them to work for months as unpaid interns to have a chance of a paid job. Middle-class kids living with their parents could afford to do that, but poor kids couldn't afford to live in London that long without an income, and probably not even on the income they'd get from their first paid job if they held out that long.

It's another way that poor kids are kept out of certain lines of work.

China is a serious country. The West is (mostly) not.

The economics is largely irrelevant. China could be in just as bad a state as the West if they put people in universities based on sex or skin colour rather than merit, taught them that people can change sex just by saying so, and continually told them that China was evil and Chinese people should just disappear and be replaced by Indians and Africans.

> in many parts of the country schools are literally falling apart while good teachers leave the profession because they cannot afford to live on a teaching salary

Meanwhile, if you look at education outcomes against spending over the last few decades, outcomes in the US have become worse and worse as spending has risen.

People get their AI to listen to the podcast and summarize it for them.

Yes. And when the "think of the children" lie has run its course, they will just continue with one of the other horsemen: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

These are malicious people, plain and simple. They want everybody monitored and dislike anybody having freedoms. And they will stop short of nothing to get there.

It is a lot of historic reputation. But I actually know 3 (!) Swiss numbered account systems personally (don't ask). They used to be anonymous a long time ago. They are not these days. The identity of the account holders has to be verified carefully in each case and has to be given to the government. The reputation of the Swiss banks refers to a situation that does not exist anymore and has not existed for quite a while.